Another shot dead by Mpls police

[Son of Butch]

Good idea greybeard.
Only 3rd degree murder, so why not 4 months for each year?

Why not year for year?
Because that's not what Minnesota guidelines call for in 3rd degree murder.

He received 12 1/2 years and he will be eligible for parole in 8 yrs 4 months in 2027.

Update: scheduled for release August 30, 2027

She's just as dead if killed by manslaughter too and that sentence is even shorter.

p.s.
Police union lawyers have appealed his case, asking for the sentence to be vacated due to receiving an unfair trial, in their words.

 

[Son of Butch]

I don't give one rat's be nice about his 'bitterness, state of mind upon release, or resentment'.

I do, because time flies and he'll be walking around here in Minnesota soon enough as a free man and he's already proven himself to be lacking in judgment.

 

[farmguy]

For what it's worth I am a Viet Nam veteran. As a soldier you must make split second decisions and with the warfare today and then the enemy often surrounds themselves with civilians. Yet as a soldier as hard as that maybe you do not have the public scrutiny. I agree Mr. Noor made a terrible decision. I also feel that he may not be a good fit for a police officer. Unless you are in that situation I would find it hard to judge. This was in no way planned by Mr. Noor. I feel part of the blame is on the city for rushing Mr. Noor into service because of his ethnicity. Therefore I feel putting him in prison serves no purpose. I read of a study where critics of the police were put through a simulation course used by the police where instant decisions have to made whether to fire to save yourself or another or to wait. The critics failed terribly. I am tired of comments after a shooting where the officer had to make a two second decision. How is he or she to know the age of the suspect, whether the gun was loaded, whether the gun is a replica, whether the individual is mentally ill, ran out of meds, mentally limited, etc. etc. Excuse my rant and I know I cannot say for sure I would have made the right decision. Let's give people a benefit of the doubt. Okay, fire away! farmguy

 

[greybeard]

The law does not (and should not) allow for "errors in judgement" regardless of the ever popular "what a reasonable police officer would do" rationalization.
Dead, is dead no matter what.

No punishment for erroneously taking a life is a very poor deterrent for preventing someone else from doing it.

I too am a Vietnam veteran. It was stressed upon us time and again, the penalties under UCMJ for taking the lives of innocent non-combatants. I have seen police officers (and others) get away with things I would have been in front of a court martial for had I done the same thing in combat. In theory, I could have been found guilty and stood up in front of a firing squad had I killed a non-combatant female while in RVN if it was premeditated...any other level of offense of the same nature could result in prison in Portsmouth up to life without parole under Art 118.

 

[farmguy]

Greybeard I respect your opinion . However when things have been slow for a long time then "bang" fire is coming from a hooch. You return fire into the hooch not at a specific target. How do you know who is all in the hooch, one VC? A family? or what did you do? I assume you would not wait to defend yourself until you somehow determined who was in the hooch. Thank you for your service.

 

[CottageFarm]

Greybeard I respect your opinion . However when things have been slow for a long time then "bang" fire is coming from a hooch. You return fire into the hooch not at a specific target. How do you know who is all in the hooch, one VC? A family? or what did you do? I assume you would not wait to defend yourself until you somehow determined who was in the hooch. Thank you for your service.

Do you find your "hypothetical" above to be truly analogous to the situation with officer Noor??
I find it incredibly alarming that anyone would find it acceptable for LEO in the US to , under routine circumstances, equate the citizenry to an enemy combatant. I appreciate your service, but I find your equivocation to be....unsettling...I will leave it at that.

 

[farmguy]

NO it is not analogous to the officer Noor shooting. If you recall we were discussing Viet Nam. Nor was I equating the "enemy" to citizens. My point was that there was no premeditation or financial gain in the Noor case. Rather it was terrible mistake made in a second. Officer Noor was put on the fast track to be an officer. Obviously Mr. Noor was not a good officer. I assume he was very scared and reacted incorrectly. My point was and is what would be the benefit to society in putting this man in Jail. I believe your "equivocation" was premature before fully reading the posts. thank you. farmguy

 

[Carpenter2n]

So nobody convicted of Manslaughter or 3rd degree homicide should go to jail?

 

[farmguy]

Carpenter2n: A rainy day so on the internet.

1.Third degree murder can be defined as homicide committed with the intention of causing bodily harm, but not necessarily death. It can be a killing that results from indifference or negligence or recklessness. Statutes defining third degree murder vary considerably from state to state.

1.manslaughter - homicide without malice aforethought. homicide - the killing of a human being by another human being. chance-medley - an unpremeditated killing of a human being in self defense.

1.accidental death. noun. : death by accidental means usually sudden and violent also : death occurring as the unforeseen and chance result of an intended act.


In my opinion that must be decided on a case by case basis. For example did you knowingly drive drunk that resulted in a death? Were you texting while driving knowing the dangers? Were you defending yourself from an attack? Did you initiate a fight and an unplanned death occurred? Did you knowingly sell a defective item or make a repair that resulted in death? So no not every case should result in no punishment. That is why we have judges and juries.

 

[Carpenter2n]

you said
"My point was and is what would be the benefit to society in putting this man in Jail"


I was trying to determine whether you feel everyone convicted of manslaughter and 3rd degree murder should not be punished? ( jail is punishment. period.) You apparently feel some should and some shouldn't, regardless of a judge and jury having done their job. Why do you feel this specific man should not be punished for the crime for which he was convicted?

The general reason it benefits society to put people in jail after they have been convicted of a crime to uphold the law.

 

[greybeard]

For example did he knowingly pull the trigger of a gun that resulted in a death? =yes
Were you a member of a police force, knowing the dangers?=Yes
Were you defending yourself from an attack?=No
Did you initiate a fight and an unplanned death occurred? =Yes

Those, are the facts of the case.

He killed an unarmed woman for no good reason.
He deserves life in prison. He got off light.

 

[greybeard]

you said
"My point was and is what would be the benefit to society in putting this man in Jail"


I was trying to determine whether you feel everyone convicted of manslaughter and 3rd degree murder should not be punished? ( jail is punishment. period.) You apparently feel some should and some shouldn't, regardless of a judge and jury having done their job. Why do you feel this specific man should not be punished for the crime for which he was convicted?

I'd like to hear the answers to those 2 questions myself, and I'd like to hear the justification for the answers.

IMO, the benefit to society is that a long sentence would make others think twice before just pulling the trigger.

 

[farmguy]

I was not on the jury or in the court room, nor were you. I expressed my opinion. The judge and jury decided and that is the situation today. I expressed my thoughts and why the grilling? I am sorry my opinions do not agree with yours. I feel this man was put into a situation that he was not prepared for. I guess I do not understand how first the leap was made that I equated combat and police work. Then by my questioning if jail time would benefit society in this case I am being asked if any one convicted of Manslaughter or third degree murder should be punished. I do not understand the assumptions being expressed.

 

[Carpenter2n]

We are simply trying to understand why you feel he is entitled to escape punishment.
Why do you feel it would NOT benefit society to punish him for his crime.
Lots of people do things that have unintended consequences, including the drunk driver. Most drunk drivers don't INTEND to kill someone, yet we certainly demand they be punished if they do.

You did make an analogy to Vietnam combat to make your point earlier.

 

[farmguy]

We will have to agree to disagree here. My reference to Viet Nam was when Greybeard talked about being punished in the military when a civilian was killed. I was simple being very honest about warfare and civilian casualties. The drunk driver you referenced made decisions to drink and too excess. He or she also made a decision to drive. These decisions were made over a relatively long period of time. The Noor decision was made in a second or two. Yes I respect the juries decision. But I also know the cost of incarcerating an individual and I also know that violent criminals are released on parole because of overcrowding. Due to limited facilities who goes in and who doesn't?

 

[Carpenter2n]

Self edited

 

[greybeard]

All offenders are to be treated equally under the law. That, is the law according to the constitution..the same constitution that backs our laws that police officers take an oath to defend.
The split second decision thing doesn't fly with me. Police officers are prone to remind us they put their lives on the line for US, the public. An ethical conflict? If they are putting more emphasis on the value of their own lives over the public's, then they are doing exactly opposite what they claim to be doing and there is no conflict..None of us get to have it both ways.
To Protect and to Serve.
It appears in at least this case, the officer was intent on protecting himself and serving his own self interest over the interest of the unarmed & innocent civilian.

 

[Carpenter2n]

Must not be raining.

 

[Son of Butch]

The law does not (and should not) allow for errors in judgment....
Dead is dead no matter what.
He killed an unarmed woman for no good reason.
All offenders are to be treated equally under the law.
He deserves life in prison. He got off light.

IMO that must be decided on a case by case basis.
That is why we have judges and juries.

Some believe circumstances matter, others see no difference or need for 1st degree, 2nd degree or 3rd degree charges. Dead is dead and any found guilty of any of them deserve life in prison. (period)
I guess that sums it up.

 

[greybeard]

This guy got off extremely light too.
2 years, reduced rank to e-1 and a dishonorable discharge.
https://www.witn.com/home/headlines/Camp-Lejeune-Main-Gate-Marine-Sentry-Dies-From-Gunshot-Wound-254449021.html

A Camp Lejeune Marine who admitted to shooting a fellow Marine at the main gate will spend at least the next two years in the brig.

Lance Corporal Brandon Little pleaded guilty Tuesday to involuntary manslaughter with culpable negligence, in return for the government dropping two other charges.

It was April 8th of this year when base officials said 21-year-old Lance Corporal Mark Boterf was shot and killed while on duty at the main gate.

The two Marines were performing sentry duty at the gate, and Little told the judge his M4 rifle accidentally went off as he was removing it, striking Boterf in the chest.

Government prosecutors asked Little be sentenced to five years in the brig, and kicked out of the Marine Corps.

The man's lawyers sought no confinement, instead asking Col. Debra McConnell to sentence Little to a lifetime of guilt, regret and torment.

Col McConnell sentenced Little to three years, but due to a pre-trial agreement, the Marine will only serve two years, while the last year will be suspended if he behaves himself in the brig.

Little will be reduced to private, and then given a dishonorable discharge when he is released from the brig.


Previous Story
A Marine accused of fatally shooting a fellow Marine at the main gate of Camp Lejeune will hear more about the sentencing in his case on Wednesday.

Lance Corporal Brandon Little was charged with dereliction of duty, negligent homicide, and involuntary manslaughter in the shooting.

Little waived his right to an Article 32 hearing, which is similar to a civilian grand jury, and pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter with culpable negligence.

He pleaded not guilty to negligent homicide and dereliction of duty. The government withdrew those other two charges and the guilty plea was accepted.

It was April 8th of this year when base officials said 21-year-old Lance Corporal Mark Boterf was shot and killed while on duty at the main gate.

On the stand, Little said he was working temporary duty at the main gate, and when traffic slacked off he would play with the M4's safety, switching it on and off.

Little said at the end of the shift, he went back to the guard shack to dismantle the weapon, and did not notice the rifle had racked itself back as he was taking it off. The Marine said it became caught on his walkie talkie, which was around his neck. Little testified that the safety was off and the weapon fired, hitting Boterf in the chest.

That last paragraph, is not what he later said actually happened.
He admitted intentionally racking the charging handle himself instead of properly clearing the weapon, and dropping the magazine and kept his finger on the trigger the whole time.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/08/marine-killed-camp-lejeune-plea/16907645/