‘Could have been avoided’: Mohamed Noor’s defence in Justine Damond trial slammed in court

Mohamed Noor’s claim that he shot dead Australian woman Justine Ruszczyk Damond because he feared for his life has been slammed in court.

Killer cop Mohamed Noor’s defence that he shot unarmed Australian life coach Justine Ruszczyk Damond because her approaching his squad car made him fear for his life has been slammed in court.

As prosecutors entered the final phase of their case on Wednesday, local time, they asked two veteran police officers if Noor’s decision to fire at Ms Damond without any warning could be justified.

They both answered with an emphatic no. Not only did her killing in July 2017, defy police training, even the use of a taser or pepper spray would have been unwarranted.

“The use of force was objectionable, unreasonable and violated police policies,” Minnesota Lieutenant Derrick Hacker told prosecutor Patrick Lofton.

Damond sole shooting witness ‘not credible’

What killer cop’s partner saw before Justine’s death

What’s next for Justine’s killer cop amid stuff-up claims

‘Unreasonable’. Former Minneapolis police officer Mohamed Noor is standing trial. Picture: Angus Mordant for News Corp Australia

‘Could have been avoided’. Australian life coach Justine Ruszczyk Damond was shot dead by Mohamed Noor.

“No reasonable officer would have perceived a threat by somebody coming up to their squad (car).

“This whole situation could have been avoided.”

Former Baltimore and Charlottesville police chief Timothy Longo slammed Noor.

“If officers are not trained to handle situations like this, then we ought to be training citizens not to approach police cars,” Mr Longo said.

“And that defies logic.”

Prosecutors have called more than 50 witnesses before the jury and Judge Kathryn Quaintance in the murder and manslaughter trial of Noor, who was responding to a 911 call Ms Damond made when he killed her shortly before midnight on a summer Saturday night.

Mohamed Noor, centre, with his lawyers. Picture: AP

The evidence from Lt Hacker, a serving Minnesota officer who was paid $A42,000 as a prosecution “use of force” expert for his time assessing the case and for testifying, was challenged by Noor’s attorneys.

They argued that he was not a credible expert because he had never experienced an officer involved shooting and the only time he had fired his service revolver was to kill an “aggressive” pit bull dog.

Noor has pleaded not guilty and his defence argues that he shot Ms Damond, 40, because he feared he was in a “classic ambush” situation after she slapped the squad car being driven by his partner Matthew Harrity.

Justine’s fiance Don Damond previously gave evidence in the trial. Picture: Angus Mordant for News Corp Australia

Prosecutors dispute Ms Damond touched the squad car and the court has heard conflicting evidence of when this claim was first made and who raised it.

But Lt Hacker said even if there had been a loud noise, Noor’s reaction was wrong and talked through the correct response.

“You need to identify the target. Who is it? Is it a male, is it a female?” he said.

“If an officer cannot see that, then the officer is not allowed to use deadly force.”

Lt Hacker said there was no justification for causing the death of Ms Damond, who was barefoot and wearing pajamas. He said she “did nothing wrong”.

“The most reasonable force in this situation would have been no force at all,” Lt Hacker said.

“The slap or even the barking dog or whatever is irrelevant.

“The fact is that Ms Ruszczyk essentially approached the squad and she was shot.

“Police are approached daily. This happens routinely.”

Noor has never explained his actions and it is not yet clear if he will testify at his trial, which is in its fourth week. The prosecution is expected to rest its case in coming days.

Originally published as ‘Could have been avoided’: Mohamed Noor’s defence in Justine Damond trial slammed in court