The trial of former Minneapolis police officer Mohamed Noor for the shooting of Justine Ruszczyk Damond began in earnest today with the start of testimony from her fiance Don Damond. From my perspective, however, the crucial information was revealed in the defense’s opening statement that contained Noor’s justification for the shooting.

Noor’s attorney stated that when their squad car pulled up at the south Minneapolis location, he heard a “bump on the car”, followed by his partner saying “Oh, Jesus!” and then looking toward his gun. That’s the crux of the incident for me. Since it happened, the question for me has been what prompted Noor to shoot. I have lived in the neighborhood where the shooting occurred for most of my life – about 35 years altogether. My house is in a upper-middle class neighborhood about a quarter mile from the scene. 60 years ago, for 9 years, I went to kindergarten and grade school not 3 blocks away from there. I’m sure there’s some crime around, like burglaries and petty vandalism, but no violence. As a matter of fact, our house was burglarized in the 1970’s, but now I couldn’t tell you the last time I heard a police siren, and my house is adjacent to two major thoroughfares and I work at home. So I couldn’t fathom why any police officer patrolling nearby would be at such a high state of alert that he would shoot simply because he was startled by someone banging on the patrol car. There had to be another explaination, and I was anxious to hear what the defense was going to say.

So, apparently, it boils down to an inexperienced officer on night duty being startled by a thump on the car, followed by an excited utterance by his partner. Everything else is trivial. I’m sorry, but that’s just not good enough for me. If I was on this jury, I would be voting to convict Mr. Noor of some level ofmanslaughter.

Police officers have an incredible burden, but as citizens, we are entitled to expect them to have a high degree of justification when they use deadly force. In this case, it’s just not there. A diminutive woman in her pajamas shouldn’t present such a threat that an officer would shoot at her before he could reasonably assess the situation even when they are responding to a report of possible violence in the middle of the night. Officer Noor has never claimed he saw a weapon, nor has he claimed any other reason for feeling threatened other than the fact that his partner reacted in a way that apparently made him think there might be danger.  Thus, in this case, we’re a long way from “a clear and present danger” that would justify shooting.

I don’t come to this opinion in a complete vacuum. I’m an avid fan of LivePD and other cop shows that present real life situations that cops face every day. When I watch those shows, I’m generally impressed by the discretion shown by regular officers in the field. And in most of the cases highlightled by the Black Lives Matter movement over the past few years, I find myself coming down in favor of the cops. In those cases, it’s generally the fact that a cop has a reasonable justification for ordering someone to surrender and the subject simply ignores the directives, which leads to unfortunate consequences. I don’t expect perfection, I just expect a high probability of violence before officers use deadly force. When I watch these programs, most of the time, I’m impressed by the patience of the officers involved. While there are time when I have reservations, I can see where the training takes over and the officers do what they’re told they should do.

In my opinion, Americans have a right to expect that police officers will approach most situations with the same presumption of innocence that the courts provide. While it’s only fair to give cops the same presumption of innocence, as representatives of the public at large, it’s also fair to expect that cops have a reasonable justification for the use of deadly force.