It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

What happens when you see an unmarked car on your property and some guy snooping around

page: 10
25
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Three_moons
Of course the "highly visible, which deters crime" part is curiously worded since we're referring to an unmarked car at night.


Absolutely.

Using the cops logic just a 16 year old in an El Camino in a private lot in the middle of the night should also deter crime.

It creeps me out to read that this has never come up before and is encouraged. Makes me uneasy that they are walking around private lots trying doors.

Everyday I read about a cop stealing from a private business. They broke up a whole "cop ring" of thieves in CT not too long ago.

The abuse and violation of the trust we are supposed to have in them is far worse than the crimes committed and often their punishment should they ever be punished is far less than that which would come to the non-officer committing the same crime.




posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by psyko45
 


Originally posted by psyko45
 
I skimmed until everything started becoming the same old crap

Yeah, I hear you there. It would be nice to have a fresh set of eyes and another perspective on the situation.



reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 

Your stance regarding this, or these issues in general, seems to be pretty apparent. In light of your previous post and your opinions in general, I'm curious for your view regarding this statement I made in a previous post.


Originally posted by Three_moons
Maybe it's the different places and circumstances we reside in but I don't think many near me would mind the police checking up on their businesses.


Also, if you have a few spare minutes I'd appreciate your thoughts on this thread. Actually, anyone's views from this thread would be appreciated here. LaRouche supporter assaulted by Alaska State Fair Security



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Three_moons
 


Regarding the guy in Alaska if it's private property and you've been asked to leave and you wont leave somebody is going to drag you out if not shoot you for invading/trespassing. Unfortunately too many people just throw their arms up in the air and wait for 'cops' to do it for them. Why? I dont know. Fear, liability, learned helplessness, some combination of those or something else entirely.

I have no doubt some wouldnt mind police checking up on their businesses. But just because Joe doesnt mind a cop checking on his fish shack doesnt mean Beth is going to be happy about cops checking on her greenhouse.

If it's not yours dont touch it. Cops shouldnt be going around touching things that arent theirs. Nobody should. You certainly can't touch something that isnt yours, get yelled at by the owner then shoot the owner. That's generally armed robbery or violent trespass.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


"What happens when you see an unmarked car on your property and some guy snooping around?"

Answer: You call the cops.

What you don't do: Go outside and check it out yourself.

Come on folks, why are these type of things still happening? Aren't the Police there for a reason?

I mean, didn't we just have a thread not so long ago about the 80 year old man shot and killed one of two car thieves?

I hate to say this, but sometimes this country can be so red neck.

You should only be taking action, if you or your family's life is in immediate danger from death. That's the only time you should be defending yourself, by any means necessary, even killing the person causing the threat.

If the Criminal did not pose an immediate threat to either your life or your families', then you should always call the Cops and let them handle the situation.

Just because somebody is potentially jacking your #, it doesn't give you the right to walk outside with your 12 gauge.

In my own opinion, these type of people need to be locked up immediately. There is a reason why insurance company covers home burglary. You just buy insurance on what you currently own, and when # gets stolen, you can almost get back more than 100% of what you originally lost through the insurance claim.

My co-worker live in a bad neighborhood, his condo gets broken in at least like once or twice a year. He was forced to purchased insurance. After he was insured, surely again there was another robbery at his home. He lost his Wii and about 5 to 8 Wii games. He filed a claim with his insurance company, got a $1000.00 for stolen properties.

He got $1000.00 for a $199.00 machine with a few $40 games. I think he actually made some money from being robbed.

If it was me, I would gladly pay a small insurance premium and cover what I currently own. If I get jacked, I get more money in return than what I would of lost.

It's a lot better off than going off in the middle of the night, trying to shoot down the Criminal by myself. Hey, things may not turn out the way you like. If the Criminal is armed with a gun, you never know who's going to walk away from that fight. Also, even if somehow you're lucky enough to shoot them dead, I'm pretty sure you'll get a 1st degree murder sentence if you cannot prove in court that the robber posed an immediate threat to your life.

Just my own 2 cents.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 05:10 AM
link   
Some new information's been released regarding the shooting. Here's a few excerpts to pique your interest


Brian Hirzel said he ordered Pastor Wayne Scott Creach to drop his gun multiple times, struck the 74-year-old man in the leg with a police baton and fired only after the property owner began to draw the gun out of his waistband. The autopsy following the shooting showed no corresponding mark on Creach’s leg from a baton strike, McGovern said.

Hirzel told investigators that he didn’t know the business owner lived next door to the Plant Farm...[and]... that he told Creach four to six times that he was an officer and that Creach needed to “drop the weapon.” “Mr. Creach answered a few times, saying he didn’t have to...

Kirkpatrick said she hopes the case will be handed over to the Spokane County Prosecutor’s Office by early next week.
Creach drawing gun when shot, police say



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Three_moons
 


Thank you for keeping this thread current!

I am disturbed that the killer is allowed a vacation. According to the killers own confession it doesn't appear that any of his orders had the authority of law. It seems to be clear, at this point, that this is murder. He assaulted the elderly pastor and then murdered him. We will see if justice is served or subverted.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Three_moons
 


I wonder, how does one exactly "drop" their weapon without removing it from their waistband?



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 



I am disturbed that the killer is allowed a vacation. According to the killers own confession it doesn't appear that any of his orders had the authority of law. It seems to be clear, at this point, that this is murder. He assaulted the elderly pastor and then murdered him. We will see if justice is served or subverted.


While it does look as if the officer was indeed in the wrong here, this is why there was an investigation done, now once the prosecutors get a hold of the case, they probably will arrest the officer and bring him up on charges.

I know, you probably wanted this guy to already have gotten the gallows, but real justice takes time and this is how it's done right. Especially when a cop is involved. You know this guy has both his union rep and a lawyer already protecting his ass. It's not like they could have dragged him out behind the building and put a bullet in his head like you want.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


That is a great point! I was assuming he was removing it to defend or discourage the continued felony assault that was being committed by the killer. However, maybe he was just try to appease his attacker.

Either way, according to the killers own confession, the victims actions were all lawful.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Edit to remove points already addressed now that I have had time to read the thread.


edit on by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 





I know, you probably wanted this guy to already have gotten the gallows, but real justice takes time and this is how it's done right.


It is clear you do not lack the comprehension to understand what I want. "Real justice" does not allow a killer to take a vacation. I will say it for the 20th time, all I want is equality. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

You have made several claims about "how things work" or about law enforcements rights or a property owners obligations without any source. I challenged you a few pages ago to show the source of such authority and you failed to do so. Similarly I will challenge you to provide a source of what "real justice" normally entails.



It's not like they could have dragged him out behind the building and put a bullet in his head like you want.


No they certainly could not. That would be inequality and a subversion of justice. If you did have sufficient comprehension you would understand why I would be against such an action.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


You should read the whole thread. Alot of your points have already have been discussed. In addition some of your assumptions are false according to the killers own confession.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 


I have already shown what goes into an investigation, obviously you failed to read it.

Also, it doesn't seem as if this officer has been on that good of a vacation, he went through at least one interrogation if not several.

What also slowed this down probably was the Police Union, and his Lawyer. You know he had a lawyer, and you know that whoever his lawyer is probably made the investigators cross every T and dot every I, which probably slowed the investigation down considerably.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 


You are correct.

After reading the whole thread it appears that the officer efed up and I am not sure his story holds much water. It's possible he panicked.

Even assuming the officers story is correct...

He told the man to drop his gun. The man didn't, but put it in his waistband behind him.

The man did back away from the car when the officer asked him to.

The officer asked him to get down on the ground. The man refused.

At this point the officer had already called for back-up, has his weapon drawn on the "suspect" and can reasonably wait for re-enforcements while continuing to question the man to determine who he is.

Instead he approaches and strikes the man in the leg with his baton to try and force him to the ground.

If his intent was to nuetralize the threat I would think standard protocol would call for a baton strike to the shoulder of whatever hand the man had previously held the gun in. This would temporarily disable the "draw arm" and the officer could in theorey easily wrestle a 70 something year old man to the pavement.

That said...WHY mess with it? The cop had a weapon drawn and back-up on the way. The man had his weapon in his back waistband and was talking...

The courts will work this out and I don't think to the Cops advantage.

Also...the property owner should have called the police first.

Just my 2 cents.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 




I have already shown what goes into an investigation, obviously you failed to read it.


You posted some fictional story regarding a murder investigation where the killer was unknown. This is not the case here. This is not equal treatment. A killer is not allowed to take a vacation under normal circumstances. A killer is would generally be in custody at this point. Here are some recent examples of what normally happens.

In this case the police even believe there is evidence that the killing was done in self defense. The killing took place on Monday sept 6 and the killer was arrested and arraigned on sept 7.

Million-dollar bond set in Anita Court shooting

A $1 million cash bond was set Tuesday for Eric Dawon Jamison, the man charged with second-degree murder after Monday’s feud over a woman... Jamison, charged on five additional counts, was arraigned Tuesday afternoon with a preliminary hearing set for Oct. 12.


From an updated article:
UPDATE: Investigation into Monday's fatal shooting continues

Columbia Police Department spokeswoman Jessie Haden... “The (victim) went in brandishing a gun. From the information investigators got at the scene, he was shot in self-defense,” Haden said.


Another case:
Everett man says he killed woman in self-defense

An Everett man accused of nearly decapitating a woman and leaving her body in a sleeping bag near Paine Field says the killing was self defense.


From a related article regarding the same case:
Man claims self-defense in killing

Naudon is charged with second-degree murder for the May 1 slaying...Naudon was arrested May 5 in California after police learned he'd fled to the San Francisco Bay area. In text messages to his friends, Naudon allegedly wrote that he'd done something terrible that would send him to prison for the rest of his life, Hiltner wrote..


He was arrested once it was discovered that he was the likely killer. The police don't allow a vacation while they continue to investigate the killing. They do not let him remain outside of custody while they determine if a killing was self defense.


This next case is probably the most similar. Both men were armed. One approached a strange vehicle. And someone ended up dead while the surviving killer is claiming self defense. According to your beliefs the killer should still be free. However he was arrested immediatly and will have to present his self defense claim during the jury trail. As normally happens when the only surviving witness is the killer.

Judge grants bond for man charged with shooting neighbor

Lunsford said in court that Crawford drove to the property on Aug. 10 and Shifflett walked over to him with a firearm. Believing that Crawford was about to reach for a gun, Lunsford said in court, Shifflett hit Crawford on the face with a flashlight. Authorities believe Crawford then fired a shot, which hit Shifflett in the ear.

Crawford was then shot and killed, authorities have said.


“This case has a good argument for self-defense,” Hallahan said in court.

The prosecutor acknowledged in court that the case may be an issue of self-defense.



Shifflett, 48, faces a first-degree murder charge and related firearms charges in connection with the Aug. 10 incident on Buck Mountain Ford Lane in which he and neighbor Gifford Trix “Trixie” Crawford, 68, exchanged fire during an encounter that Shifflett’s lawyer described as self defense.


From a related article stating that the killer was arrested immediately:
County man charged in deadly driveway duel

Shifflett was arrested immediately upon being released from the University of Virginia Medical Center,


As you should now be able to see, what is happening in the case being discussed in this thread is not normal. The killer is being given preferential treatment, plain and simple.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 


AHA! From one of your own articles!


He was cooperative when police arrived. Police expect to arrest the suspect, according to a news release.


UPDATE: Investigation into Monday's fatal shooting continues

This shows that in this case with the cop, there is no preferential treatment.

It also proves that you just want this cop in jail. You just want this cop to be charged with murder despite any evidence to suggest any other charge.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Police showed up around 11AM on Monday. The article was written at 7:22PM. The suspect was arraigned on Tuesday but would most likely have been detained and interviewed and then immediately arrested on Monday. Not given a vacation. The suspect would most certainly have not been allowed to leave police custody.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 


Are you reading the same report I am? Because from what I am reading it does not say he was arrested, or arraigned at all. It says that he probably will be arrested. That is future tense. Not has been arrested, and unlike the cop, this guy would be able to go back to work until he is arrested. This is part of the investigation. They know at least one guy shot the other.

But you are assuming he was arrested, it doesn't say he was arrested. He definitely was not arraigned, that would require charges being filed.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 03:31 AM
link   
It looks like Deputy Hirzel made a fatal, wrongful and hasty decision. The story still doesn't exactly add up though. It says Hirzel ordered Creach to drop the gun that he was carrying at his side and then that Creach was drawing the gun out of his back waistband? If it was in his back waistband and being drawn how did Hirzel see him carrying it at his side? Creach was carrying a flashlight, a question I brought up from the beginning, which says to me he was making himself known. Hirzel was supposed to be there looking for suspicious activity but didn't recognize Creach until he was 30' away with a flashlight? Doesn't seem he was looking for much activity. I understand they do paperwork in situations like these but it doesn't seem like he was paying attention or prioritizing. If Hirzel struck Creach hard enough for him to buckle I would suspect a mark but I guess since he was shot and killed so soon after that there was no time for a bruise to develop.

I don't totally understand Creach's decision here and I know some will disagree with me. Creach apparently acknowledged that Hirzel was an officer when he was asked to put his gun down but said he didn't have to (refer to my above statement about the questionable placement of his gun). Anyone care to clue me in on what's legally correct here? If Creach knew the guy was an officer why didn't he choose to do so? Regardless, it was also stated that Creach never aimed his weapon at Hirzel so he shouldn't have feared for his life or felt threatened. I wish the gun issues I have would be cleared up although it doesn't really change anything. It definitely looks like Hirzel is guilty.


reply to post by harvib
 

Glad to bring more information here and discuss it.

I wasn't impressed either with the vacation issue which I mentioned last week. It didn't seem fair or equal and the reasons they mentioned seemed more like an excuse. Hopefully the prosecutor brings the case to trial. With all the new information I wouldn't mind being on the jury now.


reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 

There's definitely something screwy going on with where Creach's gun was and when. It doesn't add up the way the information was presented.


reply to post by whatukno
 

His vacation did appear to take precedent over this and appears to have delayed this a bit which is unfair to Creach's family. In case you missed it, it's here.


I just found an article regarding the vacation issue.
Sheriff regrets way vacation decision was made


The interview that revealed those details didn’t come until Friday, after Hirzel returned from Las Vegas, more than a week after the shooting.

“I think we need to look at the mentality of a man who could do that and then go to Las Vegas on top of it,” Creach said. “To me, after something as grave as that, I couldn’t have taken that vacation. I would have thought that will reflect poorly on everybody, including myself. I have just taken from this family and for me to do that would be heartless and cruel.”



edit on 9/9/2010 by Three_moons because: Edited to add new information



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 04:04 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


The article I linked to and excerpted in the post regarding this same case states he was arraigned Tuesday. The following day. He would not have been out of police custody. The police even said it was being treated as a homicide as of the Monday that the shooting occurred.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join