Nancy Knoble (courtesy Hennepin County Sheriff's Department)

“One Friday evening last May, Adly Ohalley and his wife, Worood Abumayaleh, went to pick up their teenage son at a friend’s house in Brooklyn Park, north of downtown Minneapolis,” mpr.org reports. “He drove; she sat in the passenger seat, wearing a cream-colored headscarf. As they had done many nights before, they parked in front of the house and waited for their boy to come out.” Enter a self-described soccer mom . . .

“And suddenly a lady came with a rifle,” Abumayaleh said. “Knocking very very hard. And she said, ‘Open the window or I’ll kill you. Open the window.’ And I was scared, I couldn’t even call 911 or do anything. I just froze, my brain froze … [I] just said, ‘Maybe she’s going to kill us now.'”

Ohalley said he opened his wife’s window.

“She asked us, ‘What are you doing here?’ I told her that we are picking up our son from this house. She said, ‘What house?’ I said, ‘This house,'” Ohalley told her.

But the woman didn’t believe them. “So she came around with her rifle, point[ed] it at me, and said, ‘Get out of the car, and move in front of me to the house to prove that your son’s in there,'” Ohalley said. “So she put the gun on my back.”

Ohalley paused and choked up, remembering the terror he felt at the time.

“By the time we got halfway to the garage, my son came out, so I told my son not to do any acts, because she has a rifle,” said Ohalley.

Hennepin County court documents state that Nancy Kay Knoble put the weapon behind her back when the son came out. She asked the boy if he knew the adults. When he identified them as his parents, the 48-year-old woman apologized, according to the court documents, and told the family she was only carrying a pellet gun.

The cops were not impressed. After a discussion down at the station, Ms. Knoble pleaded guilty to making terroristic threats.

A few days ago, Hennepin County District Court Judge William Koch sentenced Ms. Knoble to 45 days in jail with eligibility for electronic monitoring after 15 days. During the subsequent three-year probation Judge Koch required Knoble to participate in a “cultural awareness program” to “learn more about the Islamic faith.” (And surrender her firearms.)

I can’t find any indication that Ms. Knoble’s decision to hold Adly Ohalley and Worood Abumayaleh at gunpoint was based solely on their apparent religious affiliation. Perhaps it was. Even so, would Ms. Knoble have received the same sentence if she’d interrupted a couple of hoodie-wearing black teenagers in a car? Not jail part, the “sensitivity training” bit.

I gotta say it: racial profiling may not be the most useful tool for security but it’s a useful tool, despite the PC backlash against it. Did a neighbor suspect the San Bernardino terrorists of nefarious activities and held back out of political correctness? Regardless of this case, is political correct policing putting us all at risk?

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

101 COMMENTS

    • I suspect you are right, which might also explain the paranoid behavior.

      Sounds to me like the judge let her off a little easy (ignoring the social engineering part of this sentence).

      Obligatory IANAL; Pointing a firearm at someone like this is assault and battery, plain and simple and punishment for this should be severe (going of course on the very limited information presented here). This terroristic threat charge? WTH? She did far more than just threaten, and why does terrorism have to be inserted into this event?

      • I think the legal definition of terrorism and it’s popular meaning are not quite the same. These laws have been on the books since long before Palestinians starting high-jacking airplanes. It was her intent to terrorize her victims, hence the terrorism charge. In the popular definition, the purpose of terrorism is to terrorize people all over the country who were nowhere near the random act of violence, not just the victims themselves.

        Still, she could have got assault with a deadly weapon since the fact that it was only a BB gun only matters if it were clear to the victims that it wasn’t a real gun. Should be a felony. She got off easy.

        • I’m not a lawyer, but I know that the charge of ‘terrorism’ is used frequently in cases like this. So like I said, I don’t think the legal definition is the same as the definition you’re thinking of.

        • If the people in the car were terrified, which they apparently were, then she committed a terrorist act.

        • ‘3. Displaying or brandishing a replica firearm or BB gun in a threatening manner.’

          Ding-ding-ding – I think we have a winner!

        • Full disclosure, I used to have a friend (kind of lost touch years ago) who was the recipient of a ‘terrorism’ charge in Iowa. He ran into some dude at a convenience store who he apparently beat up once in high school. Said dude threatened to kill him and walked back to his truck where he uncased a pump 12ga. shotgun and started walking toward my friend. My friend happened to have a single shot shotgun in his truck since he was going to go pheasant hunting later so he threw a round of birdshot in and after a few seconds of deliberation deemed that if he let the dude get any closer he was going to have to kill him. So he shot him square in the chest. Damn near killed him.

          My friend lucked out on two counts. First, of the seven witnesses, one heard the dude threaten to kill my friend. And two, turned out that the dude had beat up and mugged an old lady a week before. So they agreed to drop the charges if he plead guilty to ‘discharging a firearm within the city limits’.

      • Just to clear up: “battery”, at common law and in its codified progeny, means someone actually got hit with something; “assault” generally means someone was threatened with getting hit with something, either verbally or by a physical attempt. The old example was, if someone swings his fist at you, that’s an assault; if the fist actually connects with you, that’s a battery. Also–as others have noted, the “terror” or “terroristic” language often appended to criminal statutes dealing with threats significantly antedates the World Trade Center attack; in some cases, the only political “terrorism” it refers to was KKK-type activities, post-Civil War. And yes, IAAL (altho currently on inactive status).

        • The last I’d heard, simply pointing a firearm at someone was considered “Assault”.
          But I’m not an attorney, don’t stay at Holiday Inn Express, and live in a redneck state, so perhaps I’m uninformed.

        • I don’t see where I said anything different. Pointing a gun at someone is a threatening action, you are threatening to hit someone with a projectile. Just like I described. My main point, which you may have missed, was that “assault” is separate from “battery”. Oh, and again, the technical terms and definitions are going to vary by jurisdiction.

      • Saw a Muslim parked in the taxi lane at the Vegas airport during SHOT. Was about to report it but just before I could make the call, two special ops-looking guys jumped in the back seat and the car took off. Luckily, the car was yellow and had a phone number on the trunk. Cops should have no trouble finding it with my excellent description, assuming the SEALs didn’t take care of it.

        Head on a swivel boys. Head on a swivel.

  2. If you suspect folks of being up to no good you call the cops and let them sort it. These people weren’t showing weapons or committing an active crime.

    She’s lucky she didn’t get shot for her stupid. Or wind up like George Zimmerman.

    • Any bets on whether this incident prompts either of the parents to buy a gun and start carrying? Wouldn’t be too hard, it’s not like they live in California.

      • If they weren’t barred by immigration status it would seem the logical thing to do. Tool up to protect yourself and loved ones.

        • Federal and Minnesota firearms laws, including concealed carry, are the same for legal resident aliens as for US citizens.

      • These kinds of ethnic conflicts will continue to increase because we are being forced to endure the influx of individuals from cultures that are unwilling to assimilate into our society. The woman was wearing a headscarf. While that is not illegal, it shows that they are never going to assimilate, but rather continue to hang on to their stone age cultist doctrine.
        Many Americans are offended to see these people dressed in burkas and other kinds of oppressive garb that is symbolic of the cruel treatment of women in the savage Muslim world.
        Does anyone ever stop to wonder why it is so difficult for White South Africans who are being brutally attacked and murdered in their homes by gangs of blacks to emigrate into the United States?
        Why is there no sympathy for them to come to the United States? Yet we are expected to welcome unlimited numbers of Africans from Somalia, Muslims from Syria and anyone else who is not White.
        Muslims will never assimilate into our culture, but rather intend on turning America in a Muslim country ruled by Sharia law. Americans who take the side of Muslims are complicit in our demise.

        • I’m pretty sure freedom of religion is all-American, Dr. Dawkins. If wearing a headscarf means you’re anti-American what about other religions’ expressions that can be considered to be discriminatory towards women by a non-believer? That’s pretty much all of them.

        • These kinds of ethnic conflicts will continue to increase because we are being forced to endure the influx of individuals from cultures that are unwilling to assimilate into our society. The woman was wearing a headscarf.

          I have very dear, Sikh friends. They wear turbans, and have other “ethnic” peculiarities that differentiate them from stereotypical American culture. I’ve seen the vitriol spewed at them by stupid, ignorant, bigoted assholes like you. They don’t need to assimilate crap – for you or for anyone else. They need you to educate yourself, and to learn to leave other people alone.

          Because I also know this: they are far better Americans than people like you.

        • @Chip, I’m a big fan of Sikhs. Considering the problems that Sikhs have had with Muslims, it’s insulting and downright criminal that some ignorant people consider them one and the same.

        • “Many Americans are offended to see these people dressed in burkas…”

          Many Americans are idiots.

          But correlation doesn’t prove causation, I suppose. Not that the idiots would understand, anyway.

  3. Calling the police to investigate suspicious activity is one thing, while keeping an eye out until they arrive… What this woman did was completely foolish.. She deserves more than 45 days in jail!

  4. Days before Columbine the neighbors heard sustained breaking glass in the garage of one or the perps. Did they call the parents and say hey I heard some strange noises is everything okay?

    Are we afraid to call our neighbors? Do we not know them so such a call would be okay? Or say hey just checking what’s your business here? You can ask. Do we know our neighbors to check on them in case they become incapacitated?

    I ask people why they are parked in our neighborhood if they seem out of place. I have called 911 as well. Situational awareness.

    Humans are wired to notice distinctions. Own it. If I only do it about “others” then I need to check myself. The driveway sealer, window replacement people are on my no fly list. 🙂

    • I agree. If six weeks in jail doesn’t make her think twice about acting like an idiot next time, then “sensitivity training” sure as hell ain’t going to do it.

    • It could be a bargained sentence – from what I know, in many cases the judges will basically give an option of taking a full sentence by itself, or a reduced one with strings (public service or counseling like this) attached.

    • Im betting that sensitivty class cost her money. It aint some gubment free program, n that charm braclet around her ankle, n the 90s for me was $35 a day, What she did was dumb. She served her time( 45 days isnt s joy ride in county) Im betting shes paying 110 a session, in if she cant make that she violates her parole. I think the sensitivty class is about $$$$

    • If this lady were black would she have gotten such a light sentence? Regardless of her race this lady was Capital S Stupid. She put herself in the pot. Seems as tho the judge didn’t turn th heat up too high.

      • If she were black, the media would excuse it and blame it on White racism, micro-aggressions and White privilege.
        Then she would be invited to the White House.

        • Let me guess. You live in a trailer park and have white power sysmbols tattoed on your neck and face and you’re angry cause the minorities are getting your jobs and your wimmen? Close?

    • I don’t agree with sensitivity training either but IIRC it initially started out as a softer alternative to increased jail time.

      Although considering what this woman did she should be serving much more than 45 days.

  8. If the couple had been armed, and this woman had come up to them as she did, pointing a gun at them and threatening to shoot them, would the couple have been justified in shooting her?

      • Does ordering them out constitute indication of an imminent car-jacking?

        (At least here in Florida, lethal force is a legal response to car-jacking…)

        • I was just basing it on the whole “when they ask you to move, it’s time to act” theory. Like if you’re involved in a gas station holdup, and they order everyone into the back or whatever, that’s usually taken as a sign that shit’s about to get real.

      • IANAL but I do live in the jurisdiction where the incident occurred, and they would have been within their rights to employ lethal force because they had a reasonable fear of an imminent attack that could have led to grave bodily injury or death. That said Minnesota has no castle doctrine or SYG, which is regrettable. If I had been in the car I would have opened fire.

    • Yes. Abso-freaking-lutely.

      I personally don’t agree with the whole headscarf thing. Women who wear it are sending a message that voluntary “submission” to second-class citizenship is OK, and that bothers me.

      But assault based on dress code is never permissible.

      • “I personally don’t agree with the whole headscarf thing. Women who wear it are sending a message that voluntary “submission” to second-class citizenship is OK, and that bothers me.”

        O.K., *you* may read it like that, more than likely, they *don’t*.

        The same way that a (rational) Western parent would have a big problem with a 13 year-old daughter going out at night wearing a tight very short skirt, a top with a plunging neckline, high heels and makeup, in their culture (for some of them raised conservative), women showing skin in public is considered *extremely* inappropriate, if not near nudity.

        That’s the deal with the headscarf, it’s not submission, it’s the cultural equivalent of you not letting your 13 year-old daughter go out at night un-supervised and dressed like a whore…

        • “Then why don’t men have to cover their hair?”

          *sigh*

          It’s considered a cultural norm for boys-men to be topless.

          Would you have no problem if your 15 year-old daughter walked around in public topless?

          Sheesh.

        • The very phrase “dressed like a whore” implies that when women dress in a certain way, they consent to sex, and therefore anything you do to them “isn’t really rape” because “they deserve it”.

          That is fucked up and wrong on so many levels. It’s exactly what “rape culture” is about.

          And yes, it’s also why headscarf is wrong if worn as a Muslim religious symbol. Because that’s exactly what the rationale for it is in Islam – that men will do “improper sinful things” to women if women are not “appropriately dressed”.

          Even so, wearing one is a personal choice, right or wrong.

        • Except that the headscarf is a very recent phenomena in modern times, and promoted by very oppressive branches of Islam. If you look at photos of Egypt or even Afghanistan in the 60s, you see women going uncovered in public all the time. The headscarf was not the norm for Muslim women in any civilized context for much of the 20th century. Muslim societies that once gave no thought to the headscarf have been intimidated into using it by radical branches of Islam. The headscarf is not a neutral, innocent expression of faith like bonnets among the Amish. The headscarf has been pushed through violence and intimidation.

          ETA: But I’m not sure what the headscarf has to do with the discussion. It’s certainly not a reason to pull a gun on anyone.

        • Ok, in ancient Greece, hair was thought to be part of the genitals, not just pubic hair. Greek physicians thought that semen was secreted from the brain, flowed through the body and was ejected into the woman. Hair was thought to be hollow so a woman’s hair was thought to create suction that drew the semen into the woman’s body where it would coalesce into a fetus.

          This is is thought to be why women would cover their hair during worship in Judaism (at least near the time of Christ) and early Christianity, it was thought to be a sex organ and immodest to display it during worship.

          The head covering in Islam may be based on this reasoning or it may be copied from Judaism and the wider culture without such detailed reasoning.

          Michael S. Heiser does The Naked Bible podcast and the episode on head coverings goes into this as well as citing the scholarly papers that present this reasoning.

          Dr. Heiser is good for anyone who wants to understand what the bible says and what it meant to the people at the time of it’s writing, even if you’re an atheist I think it would be interesting.

          • Not to dispute any of these explanations, but they were probably just trying to explain after the fact why long flowing hair on women is widely considered sexy by men 🙂

      • Such dreas was quite common in America too when my grandmother was young, and women wore hats well into the 50’s as did men

        Many Americans of the more religious side still dress conservatively

      • Only in the most genuinely depraved corner of Idiotica, would dressing like a proper woman, be considered equivalent to being a “second class citizen.”

        In every culture, every religion, every era, on every continent, for millennia; whores, and by association those dressed like them; have been the women considered “second class.” While modest women were first class.

        Is that really so hard to understand?

  9. Does this rough azz methed-up lookin’ “soccer mom” belong on yesterdays neighbors from hell post? Way beyond brandishing-more like assault…yeah I don’t think re-education is the answer.

  10. Somehow in applying law, charging and convicting thoughtcrimes – “terroristic threat” in this case, has become the go to vs. Charging and convicting for actions.taken – assault, brandishing, menacing, maybe unlawful detention.

    What happened to: “Think all the crazy you like. *Do* the crazy and we’ll have a problem?”

    It’s like.somebody wanted paranoid meth-lady as a poster child for those crazy gunny people, folks who look out for their kids, or people who maybe think given terrorists praising their god as they start shooting, other overt symbols of that same religion might be worth a look.

    Nah. That would mean Judge terror-plea has an agenda. Can’t be that.

    B T W, wasn’t creating “terrorism” crimes as their own category in aid of busting up large conspiracies behind recurring social disruptions? And addressing the particular heinousness of mass killing to make a point. I don’t recall “bludgeoning meth heads into pleas supporting your agenda” as a rationale for these laws. Nor “people doing stupid stuff thinking they are protecting themselves.”

    Really, unless it is crafted for the P R it creates I’m not sure it’s terrorism.

    Hey, should the prosecutor n Judge be charhed for “terrorism?” Orchestrated force to threaten a populatiom for a political agenda. Seem to fit.

  12. Like I said before, morons should not be entitled to have guns. A sensitivity class will not have any effect on this retard, maybe a long term of several years in jail might by taking her out of general population. As a convicted felon, take away her right to own a firearm or even vote.

    • Great way to disarm 95% of America there, buddy.

      Anyone should have guns. And the government should stay out of it, when decent people use theirs to keep themselves safe from morons.

  14. If I was the judge, I wouldn’t send her to sensitivity training. I’d send her to marksmanship training.

  17. Jesus RF, don’t be a paranoid douche. This psycho lady profiled and wound up breaking the law. This is not PC-policing…quit trying to make it something it ain’t, you just wind up smearing the rest of us gun owners with your stink.

  18. What we as a people HAVE TO REMEMBER is to act legally, tempered with discression with some mercy in the mix as well. Do not act out with a weapon of any kind…ever without just cause.. EVER.

  19. The woman committed a crime. FULLSTOP.

    The couple she assaulted would have been fully justified in using deadly force in self-defense against her. FULLSTOP.

    “Sensitivity training” of any form should not be part of an legal punishment/sentencing, though.

      • Just ship her off to Mogadishu for 3 years of “sensitivity training.” Cheap, and most likely highly effective. We’re outsourcing every other job, so why not the psychobabble ones?

  22. Wow RF, perhaps you are trying for comments but this seems like open and shut in favor of the terrified couple in the car

    The Amish wear headwear and beards, Mormons sometimes dreas funny

    Should they all be assaulted just in case?

  23. Her first mistake was her apparent alcohol/meth issues.

    Her second mistake was not having a the badge required to get away with this.

  24. Wait… are the last paragraphs of this article really trying to defend this women? Like, at all?

    No. Nope. No way.

  25. “Ohalley said he opened his wife’s window” …Nice one dude. Crazy woman with a rifle is yelling at you? “You talk to her dear.”

  28. “racial profiling may not be the most useful tool for security but it’s a useful tool”-
    I’m wondering what racial profiling usefulness we picked up here. You know, other than white people be cra.

    • See, thass rayciss. Not all white people be cra. Just the ones on meth. And the holocaust deniers. And the storm front types. And the progressives. And the Ivy tower college proffs. And……Holy shit! White people be cra.

  30. “racial profiling may not be the most useful tool for security but it’s a useful tool”

    I would say profiling in general is a useful tool yes, but not for the untrained. Not even close. I mean keep yourself safe. But let’s not assault people because “profiling.” Because then you wind up like this lady.

  31. A fabulously first-rate Farago failure to find a freaked out fanatic Frau at fault for farked up fatal force farce. F-word.

    Practicing my alliteration on you.

    • Awww Stan, it’s clear from your reply, you’re merely projecting, and obviously escaped briefly from your cell or special ed class.

      Now bugger off, back your regularly scheduled illiterate cunting, Jew-hating-actual self-admittant twatfest, umkay kiddo? Oh pardon meant: _”umkay, muthafucka??”_ cause that makes you sound tough online or off. Keep sucking it. Suck it good. Do it long enough well? Surely NutNyahoo will make you a real boy, Pinocchio.

      xD

  33. I’ve been seeing lots of “making terroristic threats” charges lately. That’s starting to worry me and I’m not normally very tin foil.

Comments are closed.