Mohamed Noor, Officer who fatally shot Justine Damond charged with murder

Agreed about the biblical length of the OP

And I just KNEW someone would make this about skin colour instead of the underlying question

 

WND, the WingNutDaily.

 

He's only in court because he's a "black" guy who killed a white woman. If he had been white and killed a black woman he would have gotten a promotion.

 

Not really there would have been demonstrations.

 

Criminal culture.

We have ****ed priorities.

Look at these idiot children marching through the streets demanding people's rights be taken away.

The number of those same aged kids that dies to texting while driving every year dwarfs school shootings by a factor of nearly 10,000.

Wheres the marches to ban cell phones and cars?

Where the professional protest organizations rallying these idiot sheep towards causes like "hey put the ****ing phone down when you're driving you dumbass tide pod eating ********".

Yea, priorities bowerbird.

Some people whip themselves into a hate driven bigot frenzy to go out and trample people's rights, others adopt a culture of violence that says "laws don't apply to me".

And the rest of us, well, we're just sitting here wishing these degenerates would wise the **** up and stop being such total losers.

 

But conservatives aren't suggesting changing the tire. They're suggesting we abandon using tires.

 

Here's more:

 

There is zero indication that Affirmative Action caused the incident. What about all of the mistakes made by people in all professions daily who are not women or minorities. What will you blame those mistakes on ...

 

Roundup and indict more colored and black cops to divert attention from the fact that most killings by police are white cops against unarmed blacks.

 

Exactly ...

 

Actually, I think the results are in the pudding that a person was shot with intention to kill who was neither a threat to police, nor did the person have any weapons or anything on them. We can very safely say that if AA weren't the curse on America that it is, this young lady probably lives.

 

Nice non sequitur. Whether you agree with Affirmative Action or not, mistakes are made on the job daily by people of all races. There is no proof that Affirmative Action is the reason.

 

Do you think someone who shot and killed a victim, without their cop cam on is 'competent' enough to be an officer? Yes or no? As far as I'm concerned, the answer is clearly no. AA is a racist policy to "combat" racism, and the real victim isn't even Whites but Asians!

 

Doesn't that happen repeatedly? I seem to have seen a number of stories where people were shot without cams being on during the shooting and the shooter wasn't a member of a group that would be hired due to AA. That alone is enough to scoff at the attempts to make AA responsible.

 

Doesn't matter. Thats the main flaw with AA. Theres not enough black or female coders supposedly? To which anyone in the industry answers, there are as many working black and/or female coders as there are QUALIFIED to do the jobs. You can't magically create them out of thin air. Just like there are very few white RBs or DBs in the NFL. There are as many working as there are qualified, which are relatively few in the grand scheme. Care to guess why there are so few male elementary school teachers? Maybe its because males aren't as interested in that job compared to females? Or if we take the Liberal approach, men are actually discriminated against, because there must be something WRONG with a male who wants to be around young children all day...right...huh....yeah...nudge, nudge. There must be another motive isn't there...right? Like Priests around young boys? So why would any logical man set himself up to be leered and looked at, with parents in the back of their mind wondering the wrong things.

Quotas are for simple minded, PC politicians, who don't want to deal with the real world or are to afraid to tell the truth and instead choose to pander to make themselves feel good or are simply afraid of protests and baseless lawsuits.

AA sadly doesn't only put women and minorities to the front of the line when similarly qualified. They sometimes TAKE jobs from those who are MORE qualified to hit quotas and that is the PURE definition of discrimination. The numbers don't add up and you can't use PC math, sorry.

 

Affirmative Action prevents qualified minorities from being kept out of the workforce through discrimination. Nothing in the link describing Minneapolis's A.A. hiring policies says anything about lowering standards. The only way you come to the conclusion that minorities are only getting hired because of lose standards is to think minorities could never meet the qualifications.

 

Seems quite obvious from the stories that they felt a need for, and made a push to get more Blacks, even scooping up this business major and hurrying him through training...


Spin it however you like. Seems their want was for a quality that should be unrelated to the job. When you add things besides qualifications to your hiring preferences, you take your eye off the important and you might get results like we saw here.

 

You haven't demonstrated at all that they lowered qualifications in order to hire minorities. So far all we have is your opinion that hiring minorities requires lowering qualifications and that says more about you than the merits of A.A..

 

The OP gave you all you need. The push was on for Black Somalis. They found one with a degree in...ummm...business...and fast tracked him?

Sure, keep playing that game. It's not fooling anyone.

Race is coming first in their search, which in itself is lowering the standards. They should only be seeking fully qualified recruits, and not worrying about color.

 

Again, nothing in the two links you just posted says anything about lowering standards. The second one talks about how underrepresented the black and Hispanic population is in the police force and how hard it is to recruit people from those communities but one officer is quoted as saying it could partially be due to a lack of effort in outreach. No one says anything about how the few recruits they do get are unqualified. I'm wondering why you keep assuming minorities = unqualified.

 

Im wondering why you keep trying to ignore that their big goal was not to get more qualified applicants...but more Diversity. This obviously puts a superficial characteristic at the top of the list of qualifications, and IS a lowering of the standard.

As I said before, it isn't fooling anyone.

 

You have no evidence they lowered standards in order to hire a diverse workforce. Diversity doesn't mean unqualified. You don't have to lower standards in order to hire minorities. Further more the second article you posted almost contradicts your claim. It mentions how they're not going to be able to reach their diversity hiring goals which suggests they're not just pulling people off the streets to fill these positions.

 

Why would they be concerned about reaching...or having Diversity hiring goals at all? You cannot have this want or concern, and not believe they are pushing this to the top of their list of importance.
By putting such a non characteristic at the top, they are lowering the standard from one of strict qualifications to color. Then of course there is the fast tracking on top of this.

Why do you believe this man was fully qualified?

 

Why wouldn't they? Having a police force that's representative of the community they're policing is a good thing. You could look at it like a micro representation of the whole federal vs local government debate I know you all like to relate to. No one wants some outsider from Washington coming in and telling them how to live their lives. When communities are policed by people who live outside it it can be likened to the federal government riding into town imposing its will. It fosters an us vs them mentality on both sides, where hiring people from the community can strengthen ties to that community.

You have not established that they put hiring diverse candidates over qualified ones. You continue to deny the possibility of these hires being both diverse and qualified.

Because he was hired and I have no evidence he was unqualified. And I'm not defending what this officer did. He shot an unarmed civilian and I hope he goes to prison that's separate from my disagreement with your racially biased supposition. Personally, I think a lot of these incidents have to do with the way we train our officers and what we expect from them as civil servants. I don't think the most important thing is for an officer to make it home at night. I think the most important thing is we do. That's the job. If police officers have to wait a few seconds or minutes before shooting a civilian or suspect dead in order to be sure that person is an actual threat then so be it. How can it be any other way if the constitution grants that we are innocent until proven otherwise in a court of law? When an officer kills an unarmed let alone innocent civilian that should at the very least be negligent homicide. And I suspect that is the case here. I think this officer fired out of fear because we teach our officers to be afraid of any little thing or movement. But that's just my personal opinion, and I'm honest enough to admit so.

 

Of course he will be convicted, amazing how that doesn't happen when the skin complexion changes.