19 Year Old Woman Shot to Death in Rural Northern Kentucky

a reply to: fotsyfots

May as well shut down all the courts tomorrow morning. No need for them when you condone death squads !! Here's a thought, if wanting to negate danger to people down the road why not immobilise the car !? I guess that wouldn't reward this maggot with his prize of blood & brains & a notch on his gun belt.!!

You do realize that there were other people all around, on the side of the road and in the road, right? When was the last time you tried to "immobilize" a moving vehicle whilst avoiding getting crushed to death between your own car and the one who has just turned left so sharply that you were forced to hop on the hood to escape bodily injury or death? I don't think you guys are really reading the entire story here. Or for that matter, actually watching the video.

She was looking right at him. He wanted her to stop because he could plainly see that she was impaired in some way. She knew she was busted, knew a second DUI would result in jail time, she was driving on a PROVISIONAL license because of her prior DUI arrest the year before. Also a violation that results in jail time. She was screwed, and she knew it. And she made the choice to flee.

As far as your assertion that he could have "immobilized" this 2000 lb vehicle. How would you want him to do that? Shoot the tires out? This is not an action film, ok? In order to pull something like that off, you have to be able to aim and fire pretty precisely to pop a tire with a bullet. One tire is not going to do it, either...in fact, that could cause the car to skid around, already unstable because there is a freaked out, panicking drunk operating it....that's a good way to kill not only her, but everyone in her car (yes, she was endangering others too, right from the start), and whomever happened to be unlucky enough to be in her path. You see, when officers go through training they learn little tidbits like that...along with how we don't wildly shoot our weapon trying to be cool and take out tires on a moving vehicle because chances are, the shots will miss and hit those pesky innocent bystanders everywhere. And there were a lot of people being stopped and detained that night, by a lot of police.

And if the cop had not continued to put himself in harm's way...you know, doing his job, protecting the aforementioned bystanders and other motorists from the aforementioned fleeing drunk operating a motor vehicle, he would not have been forced to jump on the hood when she tried to take him out, and she would have gone tooling on drunkenly down the road and been free to run over as many pedestrians as she liked (because obviously she did not care who got hurt) and wreck into as many other motorists as she liked also. Which would have also gotten him no brownie points because the resulting deaths would have been his fault for NOT stopping her.

She tried to flee, she was breaking multiple laws and she was a clear and present danger to everyone in her path. This was not a "death squad". This was a cop who this woman deliberately tried to run over after being warned multiple times to stop, who had every reason to fear not only for his own life but for the lives of anyone else in this woman's path. So he shot her through the windshield because that was the only way he knew for sure she would stop. Him jumping on the hood of her car, blocking her view of the road didn't stop her. The other people who were yelling at her to stop didn't stop her. The thought that she was endangering the lives of other people didn't stop her. So a bullet was the only option left at that point. It is entirely possible that he kept pulling the trigger out of sheer panic or shock...unless she was Wonderwoman, one should have been sufficient to break the windshield and the second one should have gotten her, but it's not like he had all the time in the world to ponder it either, so who knows?

She did this to herself, bottom line. She was willing to put herself, the passengers in her car, and everyone else on the road in danger to flee because she didn't want to go to jail. He took the casualty count down to one, which was far more than what she was willing to do. It's sad, it really is. But she made poor choices, that resulted in her death. She wasn't some helpless victim. She was willing to kill other people to run away from the consequences of her own illegal actions. And somehow, the cop is the bad guy? Sorry, but no. Not in this case.

a reply to: tigertatzen

Sorry how do you tell if someone sitting down that they are impaired at that distance? You dont. The cop should a done like most do and get her plate and call ahead. you cannot outrun a radio. And then the moron jumps onto the car when he could had just shot the wheels if he had to scratch the urge to shoot something. Sorry this Cop is screwed if the witnesses hold because the incident ended off camera. H e has no proof to back up the entire incident but the start where he approachd the vehicle.

See some people always give the benfit of doubt to the Police. Those of us who know better know that police are people just like you and me and will lie to save their butts.

a reply to: cvsctats

I believe the viewpoint should be that the shooting was not justifies, unless the tox screen comes back positive. Even then, the right to do process has been completely skipped for Samantha.

I might agree with you...except I watched the video. She deliberately disobeyed repeated warnings to stop. She was looking directly at the officer. I think someone even broke it down frame by frame and posted it on one of these pages. She was fleeing. She saw that officer, and unless you're willing to concede that she was so drunk that her judgment was affected, which you aren't, then she knowingly and deliberately tried to flee. Which really does nothing for your argument because it indicates premeditation. So really, I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt that she must have been hammered beyond belief and it was the alcohol rather than the alternative, which would have been that she knew she was putting people in grave danger and just didn't give a damn. Which option would you prefer?

I am not, nor have I said that this (or any) shooting is "justified". That is not for me...or you, for that matter...to decide. What I am saying (once again) is that I believe that officer felt that he had no other option. She tried to run him over, and it is blatantly obvious to me for several reasons that this was true. She was a danger to everyone on the road, the people in her car, and of course, to herself. He had to stop her, and he did. That is my opinion, based on the facts that were given and what I saw with my own eyes in that video. She was plastered, panicking because she knew she was in trouble, and the liquid courage flowing through her bloodstream caused her to act in a manner completely inconsistent with ordinary common sense.

Should her BAH/tox screen come back negative, my opinion will then change to her deliberately, knowingly, and without regard for other people's lives, while stone cold sober, choosing to flee from an officer of the law and purposefully putting other innocent people in harm's way, and committing attempted murder of a police officer. Like I said, which one would you prefer? Having your cake and eating it too is simply not an option here. Sorry, but maybe others will learn from her mistakes...driving while intoxicated not being one of them, however. A mistake is only a mistake the first time you make it. After that, it is a choice. I have watched far too many people die right in front of my eyes, victims of drunk drivers, to have any sympathy or respect for people who endanger others' lives just because they want to have a good time. Where was their victims' "due process"?

a reply to: tigertatzen

OK. first. Was she drunk? Have they released the autopsy reports yet or are you assuming? Plenty of people go to a party and do not drink. Officers are not taugth to shoot first especially when there are passengers in the car who could a been hit. You treat that as a hostage situation and call it in.

I dont care one way or the other what you believe or think to be honest. And where was her due process as well? She is guranteed under law a day in court but will now be denied that because of a cop covering his own rear end. I live in a southern town the police are all crooks around these parts.

And also How do you know what the cop was thinking? Are you psychic? The cop wasnt thinking at all apparently because he resorted to DUh your not respecting my authoritai so you die now duuuh.

a reply to: yuppa

I have a lot of LEO's in my family. Good cops, who put their lives on the line for others. Two killed in the line of duty, one run over and dragged more than 100 ft. under the bumper of a drunk driver. So you'll pardon me if I don't take too kindly to your blanket statements regarding law enforcement. Ignorance is a deadly disease and it would be awesome if you'd stop spreading it.

Having said that, I am fully aware that there are also bad cops out there. Testified against a few of them. Wouldn't spit on them if they were set ablaze. See, some people jump to ridiculous conclusions based on absolutely nothing and make silly accusations that they apparently conjure up within the hot air of their tiny little minds, about other people and what they do or do not believe or think. Also known as ignorance. I actually speak out loudly and often against actual police brutality. This is not one of those cases. Try a little research before you go making stupid assumptions about people's stances on issues. Oh, and about people and their personal moral code as well. I don't lie. Not to save mine or anyone else's butt. I put lying right up there with cheating, stealing, bullying, etc. That's a good way to rack up Karmic debt. Go assume that nonsense about someone else.

If you'd like to know the finer points of judging impairment in people from distances while seated, Google would probably be a good place to start. It might surprise you to learn that police officers aren't just handed a shiny badge and the keys to the patrol car. They actually have training. You know, in a classroom. And then field training. Some programs are more stringent than others. As soon as he hit her with that flashlight beam, he knew she was impaired. And he was very close to her. I could see it on that awful, grainy video plain as day. You should check it out. Might learn something concrete to replace all of those assumptions you appear to be so fond of making. Blessed Be.

a reply to: tigertatzen

I see that you are convinced that Samantha was intoxicated. Just your cop intuition? Or do you have any evidence to back that up? You have given yourself away as a cop with the following.

You see, when officers go through training they learn little tidbits like that...along with how we don't wildly shoot our weapon trying to be cool and take out tires on a moving vehicle because chances are, the shots will miss and hit those pesky innocent bystanders everywhere.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So what department do you work for? You certainly have the thought processes of a cop. Everyone is guilty of something, therefore they deserve whatever happens to them. Us and them attitude...

What do you have to say about your hero killer cop having scoffed 5 grams of heroin while training his K-9 mongrel? Did Fraser eat the heroin? Is it just a coincidence that this killer cop has a high number of narcotics arrests after the 5 grams of heroin were 'lost" by him? He should be charged with capital murder!

a reply to: Mikeultra

No need Being a cop you prolly have to take a test to see if you will rat on other ones. The famous blue wall of silence is well and alive in america it seems. No point in even trying to argue. The guy could be seen by 1000 witnesses and would still get the benefit of the doubt these days


Also my father was A military policeman at fort Knox. SO i know some of what goes on.

originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
As a police officer I will say that there are times when shooting into a vehicle is justified. However, it is very rare.

From the short video I watched in relation to this incident I feel that deadly force was not justified.



Sad story.

Good Post and was about to post similar thoughts.
It was a rural area as well where they could easily find out who the girl was.
It seems this officer missed many steps in between and went straight to lethal force.

a reply to: yuppa

This is the last time I am going to say this, ok? I am weary of continuing to say the same exact thing over and over. Why do you even reply to something if you don't bother to read what it is you're replying to?

Everything that I have said regarding the circumstances surrounding this incident is my OPINION. I am not "assuming" anything here. I am basing my opinion on what facts are actually available at the present time, the officer's report, and the video footage. And in my opinion, this woman was at a party, drinking underage and then left said party intoxicated and operating a motor vehicle. The reason this is my personal opinion is that she had a prior arrest for doing the exact same thing already, and she was blatantly and obviously directly disobeying a direct order to stop her car from a uniformed police officer who had reason to believe that she was drunk. She displayed reckless disregard and erratic behavior that is consistent with alcohol intoxication. The other officers had already detained other people who were planning on driving their vehicles while intoxicated, and were also breaking the law by drinking underage, the same as she was. The blindingly obvious difference here is that they did not try to flee.

And once again, my opinion is actually in her favor as it stands right now. Right now, I am blaming alcohol on her actions, effectively saying that she was not in control of herself due to intoxication. If I base my opinion instead on what you are saying...that she was completely sober, that suggests that her actions were even more of an indication of wrongdoing, because it would mean that she knowingly, deliberately, ON PURPOSE disobeyed the officers, attempted premeditated, willful murder of a police officer and with complete disregard for other lives, deliberately and willfully put the passengers in her car and the pedestrians all around her directly in danger. Which makes her a very bad person indeed, and our prisons are full of criminals like that.

Either she was hammered drunk and did stupid things she ordinarily would not have done, or she was stone cold sober and did it on purpose. I am currently giving her the benefit of the doubt. If you want to assert her innocence, it is best then to believe that she really was drunk, rather than the alternative.

DUh your not respecting my authoritai so you die now duuuh.

Very classy. And so mature, too. I'm sure everyone is impressed and astounded by your singular wit. I know what the cop was thinking, Sparky, because I read his report. Whatever psychic powers I do or do not possess are completely irrelevant to this topic. If you'd take some time out of quoting tired and overused cartoon references and read it yourself, you might learn something.

When the test results are released we will all find out for certain whether or not she was sober, lucid and had malicious criminal intent or she was drunk, mentally impaired and acting irrationally and recklessly due to the level of alcohol in her bloodstream. But until that happens, I am generously giving her the benefit of the doubt and believing that she really was just an unfortunate casualty of alcohol abuse and poor life choices, rather than a stone cold criminal with murderous intent.

a reply to: Mikeultra

I see that you are convinced that Samantha was intoxicated. Just your cop intuition? Or do you have any evidence to back that up? You have given yourself away as a cop with the following.

Nope, not a cop. !5 year veteran of Emergency medicine and now an Esthetician. ER nursing though does mean that you work with a lot of law enforcement, and unfortunately see a lot of drunk drivers and their victims as well. And I have a lot of LEO's in my family, as I previously mentioned in great detail. But I would never be a police officer. I know too many bad ones and in general, do not care for them much at all. I would also never work in a field that requires me to carry a gun. Besides, I am hearing impaired, lol...I doubt I'd make a very good candidate for the police academy, but that did make me chuckle a bit.

I am not "convinced" of anything. The only thing that will convince me will be BAH/tox results, when and if they are publicly released. For the time being, I am of the opinion that she was drunk and fleeing from the law.

You certainly have the thought processes of a cop. Everyone is guilty of something, therefore they deserve whatever happens to them. Us and them attitude...

How would you know anything about my "thought processes"? Have we met? Do you know anything about me as a person? It never ceases to amaze me how perfect strangers seem to think they know the inner workings of other people's minds. You're so far off the mark about me that I actually shared your ridiculous comments with my friends. Highly amusing stuff, seriously. My use of the word "we" was simply sarcastic colloquialism, and if you knew anything about me at all, you would have known that too.

Everyone is guilty of something. Me, you, the Pope....human beings in general. No one is perfect and the world would be very boring if they were. What's your point? There is no "us and them". We are all the same, regardless of station or occupation in life. Do we deserve whatever happens to us? No, I do not believe that at all.

What do you have to say about your hero killer cop having scoffed 5 grams of heroin while training his K-9 mongrel? Did Fraser eat the heroin? Is it just a coincidence that this killer cop has a high number of narcotics arrests after the 5 grams of heroin were 'lost" by him? He should be charged with capital murder!

What are you even talking about? What "mongrel"? K-9 officers are typically full-bred, highly intelligent dogs, so I'm not sure where that is coming from. And what "hero killer cop" are you referring to? The only cop I consider to be a hero is my uncle, and he's been retired for 10 years and has never killed anyone. I don't know anything about heroin...not my poison. I can tell you if someone ate five grams of it, they'd likely be dead or in a coma, so I hope you were just being facetious.

I notice a lot more detail than most people do because I rely on my eyesight to be my "ears". And what I saw in that video is consistent with the woman being intoxicated. I hope she was and not just some horrible person with no regard for anyone but herself, which is what she was if she really was sober.

a reply to: tigertatzen


"Funny how? I mean, I'm funny like a clown? I amuse you? I make you laugh?" Now you have me amused! So you're going to ignore the fact that the trigger happy cop and his K-9 mutt Fraser "lost" 5 grams of heroin? Is it just a coincidence that they make the most narcotics seizures after "losing" the heroin? With all your 1st hand knowledge of cop-world dirty tricks, you must be aware of "throw down weapons" and "throw down contraband". 5 grams of heroin just doesn't get lost by a cop! He stole it to use in arresting people. Here's the evidence in his personnel file!


"Loses" 5 grams of heroin, and he's still rated as acceptable? Boone County, Kentucky has low standards!


Fraser the K-9 mutt. Definitely has some wolf genes in him, therefore he is a mutt. A mean looking half breed.

You're too biased with your family background in being cop friendly, to be impartial. You make excuses for the crimes that these bad cops are doing. I sure wouldn't want to have you on a jury. Convict everyone! Exonerate the cops!

a reply to: Mikeultra

Long Coat German Shepards

Meet K-9 Erik. Erik is a long haired, purebred German Shepherd Dog from the Czech Republic. Czech Shepherds are known for having clear minds and stable temperaments. When not working, Erik is a great companion and is quite social. When working, he is focused and confident. Erik lives with his handler, K-9 Officer Patrick Reardon and his family, which includes two other dogs. Erik is trained in tracking, area searches, evidence tracking and the like. Erik can be used to track someone fleeing from a crime scene, locate missing persons and track evidence that may have been left behind from a burglary.
cohassetworkingdog.org...

just saying

originally posted by: 727Sky
I really hate to say this but unless there is a video the validity of the LEO's statement has less weight than a grain of salt. To many times they are caught justifying their actions by a well made up story when the facts are totally opposite if a video is produced by a witness. All LEOs should be required to wear a video recording device that they cannot turn off or mess with.

Absolutely right. I don't believe a word a cop says anymore. Not one word. They have proven themselves to be habitual liars to justify their own unlawful actions.

Also, let this be a lesson to everyone: Don't call the police. For anything. Get a gun, learn how to use it, and defend yourself if necessary. Don't let the cops do it for you or YOU may end up dead.

a reply to: Mikeultra

I have decided that you must suffer from some sort of paranoid personality disorder. I really hope you get some help for that. Untreated mental illness is very sad indeed.

I have absolutely zero idea what you are talking about regarding heroin and the loss of five grams of it. What could that possibly have to do with a drunk woman getting shot for trying to kill a cop? And not sure in what context you're using the word "funny", but no. I do not find you funny. I find you to be delusional, excessively paranoid, annoyingly cryptic, and apparently unable to understand simple concepts, such as the silliness of attempting to "profile" a person and fit them into whatever category suits your argument, without having ever met or spoken to them before, and without having anything resembling facts to back up the fantasies your apparently deranged mind happens to cook up. What I found amusing was your patently preposterous assertion that I must be a cop. I am still chuckling at that, so I suppose I should thank you for the laugh.

I am also at a loss to understand why you are posting pictures of a dog and I won't even ask where you got the idea that said dog has "wolf genes". What, pray tell, is a "wolf gene"? Are you impaired? Do you have some obscure proof of his lineage you'd like to share? That is a Shepherd. And sorry, but no, that dog does not look "mean" at all. His ears are up, brow furrowed in curiosity, soft body language, mouth open and relaxed...just a happy dog smiling and panting. Like most K-9 police officers who are off-duty. So, again Captain Thread Drift, what does this fine service animal have to do with the topic of a drunken woman who made poor decisions? I fail to see the relevancy.

You would never "have me on a jury". I am exempt. But if I were able to sit on one, and felt inclined to do so, I would look at the evidence presented, as in this case, and make my vote based on that. And if new evidence were to come to light that caused me to change my opinion, then I would do so. Like I said previously, if you knew anything at all about me, or read any of my posts on other threads regarding police issues, you would know that you are completely incorrect in your "assessment" of my feelings on the subject. In general, I deeply despise law enforcement, and have very valid reasons for doing so. In this case, however, I feel that had that woman not made the bad choices that she did, she would be alive right now and serving whatever sentence she would have received for a repeat DUI. Period. If new evidence comes to light that adds or removes variables that are convincing and plausible, then so be it. But so far they have not, therefore my opinion remains the same, and I am just as entitled to it as you are to yours.

a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit

Don't call the police.

That, I completely and totally agree with. Especially in the city where I reside. Most of the police here are drug dealers or are close friends/family of known dealers, and that is no joke.

a reply to: tigertatzen
Thank you Doctor Tiger... Here's the personnel file of the killer. I outlined in red the part where the 5 grams of heroin were lost by killer and his mutt. Are you color blind? If so just look for the part that's underlined and outlined.

I think it's relative to the execution of Samantha. If he's willing to steal 5 grams of heroin to boost his arrests, then I see him as also having no qualms about shooting innocent motorists.

You see nothing unusual in losing 5 grams of heroin, while also leading the department in narcotics arrests? You truly are a cop lover. Regardless of your denials. I read the killers report of the shooting, and he's obviously tailoring his story to save his hide. I hope he goes to prison for a long time... If I was on the jury, I'd certainly put him away in a dark cell or worse if the law allowed.



Still no toxicology report to back up your wild account of drunk driving? Just attacking the poor deceased young girl.

So the cop's report is FACT. Guess that means that all other person's views that don't agree are non fact.

The only way the cop was going to get run over is if he ran faster then the car and jumped in front of it. He is clearly next to it when it drives off.

a reply to: Mikeultra

i took the liberty to under line a few things in his personal file also.
the one that interest me most is the second screen shot that comes from the same page as yours, the one where some of the public call to commend him and ask that he comes back next year to do the demo again. then in the first one where it is noted that he has no complaints filed against him. you can't be a repeat dirt bag cop with out someone complaining about you. he's been on the job there now what was it four years, so just all of a sudden he goes big time and kills someone. please use logic and quit being ignorant.





show me proof he stole it, not wild accusations he took to be a throw down plant. i want to see a report, that places the heroin in his possession and him throwing it down on some one.


ETA: surly if he would have thrown some down the defendant, or his lawyer would have said something and a investigation and report would have been generated, some allegation of that happening some where, other than your speculation.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie
I showed you his personnel file where it is written that he lost 5 grams of heroin that he was in possession of while training. You're being ignorant if you think 5 grams of heroin are simply "lost" in the course of training. Explain to me how it was lost? Stop defending criminal cops. They're just like everyone else. They're not all so upstanding. The few that are good never speak up about the bad ones. They cover and lie for one another all the time. I guess you're another one with cops in the family, worship them if you must. I choose not to.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

I'll give you an example of how that "lost" 5 grams of heroin could be used. Suppose the killer cop stops someone on the highway and finds some marijuana. The motorist has a nice SUV that the sheriffs department could use on the back roads. So if killer cop throws down a half gram of heroin, he can score an arrest, the department can seize the vehicle, and the pot head can go to prison. Simple as that. You ever hear a judge say, "Who do you expect me to believe, you or the officer?" That's how it goes down. Cops words are golden to a judge, even when they lie.