A Minneapolis police officer who shot and killed an unarmed Australian woman who approached his squad car minutes after calling 911 was caught up in "a perfect storm" of events but "acted as he was trained," his lawyer says.
Prosecutors countered Mohamed Noor was responsible for "a tragic event of his own making" in 2017 when he shot Justine Damond Ruszczyk, a dual US-Australian citizen who summoned police when she heard a possible rape in the alley behind her home and urged jurors to find Noor guilty.
The case went to the jury almost a month after jury selection began in a catastrophic shooting that prompted anger and disbelief in the US and abroad.
Mohamed Noor is claiming self-defence, reasonable force and defence of others in his bid to beat murder charges and avoid a 40-year jail sentence. Source: AAP
Mr Noor, who was fired after he was charged, faces two counts of murder and one of manslaughter. The jury is sequestered until reaching a verdict.
Mr Noor's lawyer, Thomas Plunkett, launched his closing by banging on his lectern, shouting profanity and yelling, "Pow!"
Mr Plunkett was recreating testimony by Mr Noor he heard a bang right before Ms Damond Ruszczyk approached his car, followed by his partner swearing and struggling to pull out his gun. Mr Noor said he saw Ms Damond Ruszczyk raise her right arm before he fired.
"It's the perfect storm," Mr Plunkett said.
He urged jurors to look at the precise moment of the shooting, without the benefit of hindsight, and consider whether a reasonable officer would do the same thing when confronted by the same factors.
"He acted as a reasonable police officer," Mr Plunkett said.
Earlier, prosecutor Amy Sweasy attacked Mr Noor's credibility and questioned his claim he and partner Matthew Harrity heard a loud noise that startled them just before a woman appeared at Mr Harrity's window.
She noted neither Mr Noor nor Mr Harrity mentioned the bang at the scene, with Mr Harrity first talking about it three days later in an interview with an investigator, and pointed out Ms Damond Ruszczyk's fingerprints were not found on the car.
"There is no conclusive proof she ever touched that car," Ms Sweasy said.
She also took issue with Mr Noor's testimony he saw fear in Mr Harrity's eyes as Ms Damond Ruszczyk appeared at the window, that Mr Harrity said "Oh Jesus!" and that Mr Harrity was struggling to pull his gun when Noor fired.
"Whatever Harrity said or did, it was not a command for the defendant to shoot and kill Ms Ruszczyk," Ms Sweasy said.
Mr Noor faces three counts, including second-degree intentional murder, which is the most serious, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter.
John Ruszczyk (L), the father of Justine Damond Ruszczyk, with his wife Marian Hefferen. Source: AAP
Both Mr Plunkett and Ms Sweasy explained that officers are authorised to use deadly force to protect themselves or someone else from apparent death or great bodily harm. The standard that must be applied is whether a reasonable police officer would use the same level of force in the same situation.
"Regardless of your decision, Mr Noor is going to have to live with the fact that he took an innocent life," Mr Plunkett told the jury.
After closings, Judge Kathryn Quaintance dismissed alternate jurors, leaving a jury of 10 men and two women.
The death of Ms Damond Ruszczyk, 40, a life coach who was engaged to be married a month after the shooting, sparked outrage in both the US and Australia, cost Minneapolis' police chief her job and contributed to the electoral defeat of the city's mayor a few months later.
Mr Noor, 33, is a Somali-American who became a police officer with a mid-career switch from jobs in the business world.
Neither officer had a body camera running when Ms Damond Ruszczyk was shot, something Mr Harrity blamed on what he called a vague policy that didn't require it.
The department toughened the policy after Ms Damond Ruszczyk's death.
