It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Mother calls 911 to save suicidal daughter. Cop arrives, shoots daughter dead.

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 05:52 PM

Originally posted by spacebot
Sure sure, like you can't tune on a TV station showing you spectacular police chases, some of them are even better than Hollywood stunts. I mean the way a police driver can use his car to ram another heavier vehicle off the road.
But this is FUN!

Shooting at legs or arms ISN'T!

Thats the mentality I'm so sorry to say.

The manuver your talking about is legal..its called a PIT (precision intervention technique). It is legal to use in chases when the suspect puts the public at risk...remember the suspect is the one who makes the DECISION to run and risk other peoples lives. And no its not fun, your assumption is wrong......

And to even hint that shooting someone in the arms and legs is like playing a video game is just stupid. I never want to have to pull the trigger on my weapon...but sometimes there is no choice...but again from the safety of your home you wouldn't understand.

So finally...NO thats NOT the mentality of the majority....

posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 05:56 PM

Originally posted by ItsFrickenAndrew

Two things...your assumption that ALL police departments issue tasers to ALL of their officers is false. There are TONS of departments that do not issue tasers...and some who do ONLY issue them to supervisors...NOT first responders. So make sure the officer was even given the tools to use before you scream taser....then if he does use the taser don't be so quick to bash him for shocking her either....

Also, you don't rely on a taser in ALL situations like this...because sometimes they taser isn't effective. Then what, your dead..and the suspect gets to continue their destruction....

And he shot her in the chest not the head...stop making up the story as you go.

posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 05:59 PM
Ya def. used way to much force, a razor has about a 2 inch reach why didn't he just club her? Like everone has said this could have been easily avoided; as always we should think before we put guns in the hands of a man who may be a little nervous in certain situations.

posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 06:05 PM

Originally posted by Sanity Lost
Are we now living in a time in which cries for help are resolved with the death of those in need?
Why didn't the officer use non-deadly force in place of gunfire?
Did the officer wear any protective gear? Could he not have tackle the woman to the ground, minimizing any injuries that may occur?
What type of training did they receive in dealing with those with mental disorders?
(visit the link for the full news article)

Video pertaining to the shooting
Many thanks, Nailer, for the video link.

[edit on 23-3-2008 by Sanity Lost]

ill give you a gun and then come at you with a strait edge, and well see if you keep your beliefs.

im not sticking up for a police state or anything but a straitedge is deadly force.

there is on old saying just like a dumb so and so to bring a knife to a gun fight, i happen to know someone that killed an attacker who was armed with a gun with a knife.

if you approached me with a straitedge and i had a gun and i told you to stop and you didnt i would blast you no questions asked.

posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 06:24 PM
The Department of State is seeking police officers of any rank who are eager to accept a challenging and rigorous assignment to serve for one year with the United States Mission as a International Police Trainer or Advisor to the Ministry of the Interior in Afghanistan.
Compensation Package up to $118,408 per year.

I don't want to comment about this yet, I would like ATS members to click the link under the graphic.

Take a look at the different postions being posted, where, what they are paying, benefits; get educated and then I would like to hear thoughts and perspectives.

Yes, this is another form of

posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 06:58 PM

Originally posted by jprophet420

if you approached me with a straitedge and i had a gun and i told you to stop and you didnt i would blast you no questions asked.

Fair enough.


but if the situation was pretensed by the fact that you knew this women was suicidal, and you were called in to help diffuse the situation. In that context, would you aim for the head, chest, or other vital areas? Not the shoulder? Not the leg? This is close quarters, and the leg is a bigger target afterall. I am trying to be objective and I am genuinely interested how you feel about that?

Obviously if she was wielding a straightedge, and you already tried to verbally diffuse her, you are justified to use the firearm. But why not the leg? Again, in the context of being a police officer with training.

**This won't have much bearing I am sure, but I would like to add that if I had a baton, I could have used that to diffuse the situation even while she had the knife. I am not sure what kind of training cops get with their baton? Maybe not enough? Baton would have been enough for me in this situation. I have aided in baton training for police officers before, but that was in the Sacramento, CA areas.

[edit on 073131p://23u06 by Lucid Lunacy]

posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 07:08 PM
I watched the video on this.. And let me say, this is one sad story. Horrid!
No matter what side you stand on this is a scary story!

However there is a lesson to be learned here.

If you have an issue in your house hold. #1- Dont call the cops. They are not trained to handle this kind of stuff.

#2.- Dont call the cops, work it out.. Unless you have no other choice, and I mean absolutely no other choice, dont call 911!!!

#3- I urge everyone who ever has family problems, work it out.. Dont call the cops.. If you need medical care, drive them to the hospital yourself.

When you put matters into other peoples hands, its just that out of your hands, and in the hands of others..

Sad.. on both sides.. Sad for the families.. And sad for the cop who did this. No matter what everyone thinks, he has to live with the fact he murdered a woman.
Will he get away with it? Who knows..
But I do know DONT CALL THE COPS! work it out.. Gezzz..

posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 07:35 PM
reply to post by Solarskye

I have seen this video. If someone told you there were armed bandits roving the highway you took to and from work, what would you do?

I don't blame the guy for being pissed although he is lucky the cop didn't shoot him or escalate the situation. My bet, the cop knew he was feeding on the guy and gave him leeway.

The stop was about Money/Fines, meeting a quota, not public safety, if it were the cop would have gotten a lot further doing some goodwill and PR by just writing the guy a warning. He robbed the guy with a gun.

posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 09:16 PM
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

LL maybe you did not see my post on pg 4. Are you going to enter a home with your baton drawn not knowing what is on the other side of the door. Perhaps a baton could have been used, but as you enter and someone is charging you with life threatening activity, are you going to holster your weapon and pull your baton? Is there time for that..Was there time for that?

We are second guessing this officers decision, based on what? Because people don't like cops. You and I were not there, but the officer is guilty by this forum, siting how officers are and their training. The people here do not know about police training, l can tell by their lack of examination. Answer you really believe an officer shot that woman for no reason. He just wanted to see if he could get away with it and risk his job, lawsuits and prison.....that officer believed he was justified, or he would not have done it. No officer wants to just kill someone...Think about it.

By the way try my exercise on page 4 and then second guess the officer.

posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 09:37 PM
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

LL glad to see you defend APC my problem with his not libetarian ideas are this:

If you want to privatize police you know corporate America is going to seize that contract, do you think they have our liberty on their mind more than constitutional law does. You already know the awnser to that.

You say you dont know what dictatorship has to do with libertarianism NEITHER DO I. That is why I don't need APC's (NO OFFENSE APC) utopian idea replacing constitutional law as his idea for protecting my freedom. Any man that would circumvent the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as his or her idea to privatize any thing for the good of the US people and their tax dollars is misguided and confused...or a dictator....I need neither one of those controlling my destiny.

I like the way you tried to put the spin on my post but, if you did not understand it, now i have explained it. If you want to twist it up some more we will know you don't have truth on your mind here.

[edit on 23-3-2008 by birchtree]

posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 09:55 PM
You know I would just like to say one other thing about privatizing anything. It is never cheaper. So the saving tax dollars thing... that is not going to work.

As an example look at the pay for someone in black water to a raw recruit in the Army.

Another thing about using the private sector, they are there for that money...not belief.... Ask any soldier sailor airmen police officer fireman emt why they are there if any of them say for the good money they are lying. They are there because of their belief in Country or wanting to make a difference. People in it for money that have no belief in what they are doing, tend not to want to put themselves in danger, and mercs have often said I am not getting pay to stand around and die. Where as people that believe in what they are doing will stay and fight for what they believe in.
(As a footnote to this I wish George Washington was standing on stage next to George Carlin when he said freedoms are just imagined and made up, So I could see Carlin get his old bitter A-- get kicked)

I will be the first to say if this cop is guilty then he is guilty but lets let a jury of his peers decide. If the Prosecutor thinks this guy violated the law they are not going to protect him. I will tell you this i would not want to be judged by this forum, half of you are more bloodthirsty then you make this cop out to be.

posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 10:20 PM

Originally posted by birchtree
I will tell you this i would not want to be judged by this forum, half of you are more bloodthirsty then you make this cop out to be.

Half of us are more bloodthirsty then we are making the cop out to be?

Elaborate. Be specific. Name half of the people your talking about. Back it up.

posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 10:25 PM

Originally posted by birchtree
Answer you really believe an officer shot that woman for no reason.

Everyone has reasons for their actions.

My arguement is that the reasons were wrong. The results bad. Her death; unjustified.

posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 10:37 PM

Originally posted by birchtree
He just wanted to see if he could get away with it and risk his job, lawsuits and prison.....that officer believed he was justified, or he would not have done it. No officer wants to just kill someone...Think about it.

I do think about it. I have been thinking about it. Everytime I read one of these cop-related threads. And there has been alot on ATS. Ive read them all. Only commented in some. Thought about them all.

No I don't think the cops wanted to goto jail. I also believe most cops know that they can 'get away' with alot, and they do. Hence the reason they hate for example

I think they were wrong for the job. Either they had improper or inadequate training, or they were simply psychologically wrong for the job.

They made mistakes. Innocent people died. I call them innocent because they didn't diserve the death penalty for their "crimes". I am speaking about all the cases in question here, all the ones on ATS. In the instance of this thread, I believe the cop could have and should have shot her in the leg, if he felt he had to resort to gunfire.

Maybe many of these cases could be prevented by banning cops from using tasers? Maybe. They are using them alot. They use them before they use submission holds, pepper spray, batons, etc. And it's killing people. The same people they swore to serve and protect.

I heard some police departments are no longer allowed to use certain blood chokes, rear-naked chokes. That's not good. Cops should be allowed to use that technique. I am for that. I am pro cops using proper technique for the situation. Using tasers on someone who is verbally defiant is wrong. Using a gun on someones chest and head simply for submission, is wrong.

The point is. These are bad cops. They need to be fired. Some, jail.

posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 10:43 PM

Originally posted by birchtree

LL glad to see you defend APC my problem with his not libetarian ideas are this:

If I was defending him I would have said alot more.

I am a Libertarian. I was just trying to deny ignorance because, based on your posts, it seemed clear to me you were ignorant on Libertarian philisophy. Of course I didn't elaborate on that, I didn't want to get OT.

posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 10:52 PM

Originally posted by birchtree

Are you going to enter a home with your baton drawn not knowing what is on the other side of the door.

Cops never really know what's on the other side of the door. Just like you never know what's on the other side of the door.

Are you saying all cops do or should enter houses with guns drawn everytime they get a call!? Since they don't know whats on the other side? They should have them drawn if they have clear reason to do so. Otherwise, perhaps the hand resting comfortably on the holster?

In this instance, the cop communicated with her inside the house right? There was some communication prior to her threatening with the knife. If he had the time, and was trained with the baton, he should have used that. If not, he could have, and should have, shot her in a non-vital area. Not in the chest. The leg would have saved her life and made her immobile. If she was immobile it would have solved the issue.

Perhaps a baton could have been used, but as you enter and someone is charging you with life threatening activity, are you going to holster your weapon and pull your baton? Is there time for that..Was there time for that?

What does the article say?

And again, that is only addressing the baton versus gun issue.

What about shooting her in the shoulder or leg???

posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 11:11 PM

The officer opened the unlocked front door and found a woman holding a blade in her right hand. Her left arm was bleeding.

The woman moved toward the officer, still holding the blade, according to the statement. The officer ordered her repeatedly to drop the blade and stop advancing. But the woman would not stop, and the officer opened fire, said Sgt. Lisa Banayat, spokeswoman for the Santa Rosa Police Department.

So it was a razor blade, and not a knife or a sword. That's a really importa nt distinction to be made when defending with a baton. Range is huge here. Anyone with proper baton training could have easily knocked the blade out of her hand and submitted her.

The officer ordered her to "repeatedly" drop the blade and to stop advancing.

What does that tell us? That implies the cop had time. Time to aim for the foot, shoulder, or the leg.

The cop chose to aim for the chest over other areas of the body. The cop decided to kill her.

[edit on 113131p://23u08 by Lucid Lunacy]

posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 01:40 PM
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

LL you do make a lot of valid points about previous cases in the judicial system. Once again no system is going to be perfect. Yes you are right bad cops, politicians and Government administrators can and do perpetuate fallacy in our system. Point made, but I am not seeing that with this discussion.

Looking back at the article, when the Officer arrived at the scene and found the door unlocked he also heard screams come from inside the residence. At that point I think with the amount of information he or she had about the call, there was more then enough justification for him to enter the residence with his gun drawn. Over 52% of Officers that were killed in the line of duty were killed while arriving at a scene or while a crime was in progress, around 19% of those officers were killed while making approach or entry.....So should an officer have his weapon drawn at every situation NO, but in this case I think with those percentiles in mind and the situation it more than meets the criteria for having his weapon drawn.

Also and again you make the case that the Officer here did something wrong. We don't know that. In fact I am not even sure that is what people are debating here, but that is your assertion. OK, whatever you want to believe. So far I am not seeing any facts supporting this, and as for your mind set to shoot someone in the leg, I would far more agree with you about using the less then lethal option, as the Courts in this land frown upon wounding someone, citing that if it was a life threatening activity it should be returned in kind, an officer wounding someone sets up the city, department and officer for lawsuits. And if it is not life threatening activity you should not be shooting at them.

Once again, if he is found to have acted outside the line of his training, department policy or did this because he is a dirty cop, then yes we should hammer him.

I really do like your comment about the range of weapons and the usage thereof, that does show good examination on your part. Once again there are some things to keep in mind here.

1.What type of space was between the Officer and the Lady

2. What was the layout and distances of the room

3. What was the weapon and how much of it did the officer see ( I have heard about three diff accounts on this so far)

4. How quick was she approaching, How fast were the warnings given and how much communication happened before, during, and after. To whom was all the communication with and to and from who.

5. what was the duration of the incident and the totality of the circumstances involved

6. How did the officer make entry, when did his weapon initially come out.

7. Where were others involved in this incident, did they just hear it, were they in the room, what was their location in the room.

All these things and many others are things we do not even know, but we get on these website where the title of the article really did not even meet the substance of the article, of course a lot of people read what the family member said....who is of course appauled that he lost a family member (by the way he did not witness any of it, and who would not be upset at the loss of a family member.) If I was the family I would certainly be searching for the totality of the circumstances behind the shooting.

Here is another question for you, what was going on with the Psychotic episodes how long had they been going on and what was that history, what meds or lack of meds was the patient on and if these homicidal episodes had been on going why hadnt the family signed the affidavits to have her in a treatment plan in-patient or out.

There are a lot of things to consider here, with information that has not been provided to you me or any one,.... that is why I am not saying give this guy what he deserves, we can all second guess the actions all day, but the fact is, the opposition to this officer are not considering what they dont know prior to making their judgements upon the officer. The examination is quick and without full reference, that is the bloodthirsty notion I was speaking of (why would you ask me to provide you with the proof that exists on this very thread......Look with your eyes grashopper not with your mouth)
As far as you listing me as a foe, respected or not, this is just a discussion and I do not list you or anyone as a foe. If I knew and I could help you I would, regardless of who you are and what you believe. Besides you never know there might be another issue we actually agree on. Like I said, you make some valid points, I just don't think the totality of the circumstances is known enough, based on the article to make a judgemental determination

posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 02:40 PM
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

LL as far as my ignorance to libertarianism. I would question the same thing to you, as in America even though libertarianism have multiple broad based thoughts they are generally focused on limited government and individual freedom and are repulsed by the idea of socialism and communism. Even thoguh I have heard of Libertarian moralists and libertarian consequentialists none subscribe to socialism and believe that such ideas allow the government to ascribe to and hold a control to the individual freedoms, by making demands on the population based on the gifts of the government. Making your title Libertarian Socialist somewhat of a contradiction in terms.
Although overseas Libertarianism has a almost seperate viewpoint from that in America and subscribes to leftist anarchism, when speaking of Libertarianism here in America it ususally causes libertarian alarm when mentioning socialism and anarchy. So before you start accusing someone about what they don't know maybe you should take a closer look at yourself.

posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 03:04 PM
Watch the mother tell the story:


top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in