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

Originally posted by whatukno
Fine

it, all cops are just out to kill everyone they can get their hands on and no one will ever be safe as long as there is a single cop on the streets. In fact, no crimes ever get committed except for cops.

Who is taking it to the extreme?

We are talking about one incident. Not all cops.

I swear, these threads are the most pathetic blatant attempt at anti cop propaganda I have ever seen. No attempt at rational thought is ever given to these threads, it's just hate cops and cops are bad and all cops are murderers and blah blah blah hate hate hate. UGG!

Again. we are talking about one incident. The only one speaking of all cops on this thread is you.

I don't know why nobody is stating the (somewhat) obvious. Time of year is approaching harvest for a certain type of plant. This particular region grows a lot of this illegal plant. Unmarked car snooping. Trigger happy because they have been allowed to kill toy poodles in this situation before and get away with it. Odds are, the officer was looking for pot, either for an arrest or to carry out a heist.

All that being said, regardless of whether it would have been wiser for the pastor to call police, the officer had NO EXCUSE in this case for firing. He knew he was lurking in the shadows. He was in the vehicle, which should have provided enough cover to not fire willy-nilly on somebody. If the officer had a search warrant, he should have executed it. If he was on this man's property to ascertain info that would help him get a warrant, that is ILLEGAL behavior by the cop, because he would not have had the warrant to be on the property in the first place. So, the officer was likely (in my mind) at this man's location for a stupid reason, breaking the law as well, lurking in the shadows, etc., etc. If the officer was following orders by doing this type of activity, so what. Didn't fly in Nuremberg, and it should never fly again. I know I am using a bit of hyperbole here, but it boggles my mind how the "alpha" types are really the submissive little bitches who must do as they are told, according to procedure, etc. These little bitches (trust me, no offense ladies) are the only reason tyrants are able to rise. I can't wait till societies perceptions on this type of personality type is more closely aligned with reality so as to reach critical mass.

The only thing I got to say for trespassers is

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/65005c11b67b.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by whatukno


I agree with what you are saying to some extent. It seems unwise to approach a parked car at night with a stranger in it, especially when there is a wave of crome in the area.

However, the implication of this wisdom is that it protects you from CRIMINALS. I fail to see how it is relevant to Police Officers.

If there's an unmarked car with a police officer in it, approaching that car should be totally and completely SAFE.

A police officer in this specific situation, where there are known night prowlers in cars, should surely have been aware that if he was in an unmarked vehicle he could also be considered as a prowler, and should therefore take that into account when a 76 year old man approaches him.

I am not saying the officer is at fault, because I don't know all the details, but I am saying it should be absolutely safe for a 76 year old man to approach a police officer in a car at night.

Wait, this pastor approached an unmarked car in the middle if the night with a gun in his hand and no one can see how that might have been what caused the cop to shoot? Maybe the cop wasn't forthcoming about being a cop so the pastor refused to drop his gun. Maybe the pastor didn't believe he was cop because of the unmarked car and refused to drop it. regardless, the pastor should have called the police station. He reported other cars, why not this one? Two minutes on the phone and he wouldn't have lost his life.

reply to post by wcitizen


How well do you see at night?

How well can you distinguish someone in the shadows? Can you tell their age?

If the man called the cops about the car, the cops would have called the car, and the dispatcher could have told the old man that the car was an unmarked cop car, problem solved, if the man didn't want the cop to be there, he could have then said, "hey, I don't want this cop on my property" and the cop would have to leave.

It still boils down to common sense, but ATS members just hate all cops and so incidents like this pour more fuel on the hate all cops fire. ATS members don't care about common sense when it comes to cops. All they care about is how you can blame cops for every evil that happens.

This is an unfortunate accident, it sucks and the cop probably was at fault but the sane and rational thing would be to look at the situation as a whole instead of immediately blaming the cop just because he's a cop.

And that is what I am sick of, members just going out of their way to blame the police instead of using reason and logic to figure out what really happened.

Hmmm.

It really makes you wonder what the cop was doing. But coincidentally, the only witness is dead.

As an aside, the story is similar to the incident resulting in Bill Cooper's death. Investigating trespassers on his own property, ends up dead in a shoot out.

reply to post by whatukno


I resent your generalisation about all ATS hating cops. That is not only completely untrue, it is also as ridiculous a statement as those you are inventing and putting into people's mouths.

No-one on this thread has said all cops are bad, and I've not seen any hate.

Your argument seems to be that the gentleman should have called the police. Quite a few people have agreed with you.

However, some people are pointing out that even though that may have been the most wise cause of action, there are questions to be asked about how he came to be shot on his own property by a police officer.

There are only two reasons why a police officer is allowed to shoot at a suspect.

1. If his own life is at risk.

2. If someone else's life is at risk.

You are criticising people for questioning/critiquing the policeman's actions without full knowledge of the facts, but you are also defending the policeman's actions without full knowledge of the facts.

Some people are taking the position that the gentleman was innocent until it is proven he was guilty of something which merited him being shot to death.

You are taking the position that until proven otherwise, the policeman is innocent until it is proven he had no motive for killing the gentleman.

You are positing that your position is more reasonable than the other one.

I disagree. IMO both are equally valid positions without knowing more of the details.

reply to post by whatukno


Well, you're blaming the man for not calling the cops. Do you know for sure he didn't do that, or are you working on the assumption that he didn't?

perhaps this man lived in an area that is experiencing cuts in police force.

where i live, we were all given a list of calls police will no longer be responding to, burglery was the first one on the list.

A suggestion coupled with the notification was to legally arm yourself (that was from oakland pd).

why so many individuals in this thread are insinuating that one must call the police for any and all instances is beyond me. the only logical conclusion i can come up with is that those certain individuals are from a very different region on this planet, where locals are encouraged to be mindlessly dependent on law enforcement (i.e. england).

reply to post by wcitizen


If the man called the cops, I seriously doubt that this incident would have happened especially because the cop was sent out to the property in the first place, which tells me that the cop was following orders, and not a rogue cop hell bent on killing an old man.

But, let me guess, your assumption is that the cop was sent out to the property to kill the old man?

It's hard to pass judgement on either party when the entire story is unknown.

I'm not defending either party. It could have just been a very unfortunate incident with no one really "wrong".

The cop was in an unmarked car. Maybe that wasn't the best decision but there is nothing illegal about it. They were also asked to step up patrols.

What if the pastor approached the unmarked car, weapon drawn. I'm sure he wasn't out to kill the officer. He probably thought the unmarked was a thief. The officer seeing this I would hope, would have identified himself as an officer. This is just my speculation.

However, what happened from the time the pastor (or officer) was spotted, to the time shots were fired is unknown. Was the officer the only one to shoot? Did the pastor return fire? Was the pastor even armed? Planting a weapon is not beyond police. There is a video where a cop ran over a kid on a bike and very blatantly can be seen planting a weapon on the body.

I personally think it was just an unfortunate case of mistaken identity on both parts. But again, unless we hear the entire story, no one will know.

I expect to see many instances similar to this now that LEO can come onto your property and put GPS tracking devices on your car.

[edit on 27/8/2010 by kosmicjack]

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


It is hard to officiate over something like this via the internet.
There will be several misconceptions, truths, untruths Etc.
The officers investigating will find the truth most likely and they will act or not.
Either way it goes we will possibly never really know.
What can ya do?

In my opinion all "unmarked" cars should be illegal! If the goal of the police force is to PREVENT crime, then an unmarked car makes absolutely no sense!

I once saw a police car backed way up in a wooded driveway and hidden from the road near a school crossing. He was there trying to speedtrap people speeding through a school zone. I stopped and I called the police station, I lodged a complaint, and I went and knocked on his window and asked if he got a bonus if one of the kids gets squished and he makes the arrest!

Who in their right mind would think it was a better idea to hide and catch speeders in a school zone than to sit in plain open sight and prevent speeders?

As for the OP, it would be one thing if the cop was answering a call for suspicious activity, and it sounds like both parties failed to properly identify themselves, but the fault still lies with the trained professional carrying a lethal weapon. Even an amateur gun enthusiast knows that you ALWAYS identify your target, and you never shoot unless you are in fear for your own life. The cop messed up, and he should pay just like any regular citizen would pay if they went on someone's property and "accidentally" killed them. Involuntary Manslaughter at the very least.

I call BS on this one.
Something stinks.

Originally posted by airspoon
While this seems like a horrible and unfortunate incident, the variables are unknown to this thread, thus far.

I agree with spoon, no matter how bad
I wanna jump on the brutality bandwagon,
there just aren't enough details provided
to make that judgment.

reply to post by whatukno

How well can you distinguish someone in the shadows? Can you tell their age?

If the man called the cops about the car,

1. Do you call the cops everytime you hear a bump in the night? In my town they can write a citation for frivolous calls! I think it is prudent, natural and acceptable to first do a basic investigation of your own. Now, this turned out to be a cop, but had it been a real prowler the preacher may have still wound up dead. So obviously the preacher does share some of the blame. He should have proceeded more cautiously.

2. If you cannot distingiush something in the shadows, that NEVER means it is ok to shoot it!?!?!? What if it were some kid hiding from something in the shadows? What if it was another cop? What if it is just a curious homeowner? It is absolutely imperative that your target is identified, warned, and that there is a clear and present mortal danger associated with it.

The police are supposed to protect the innocent and weak. If some kid is getting beat or molested by a caretaker and runs out in the middle of the night and hides in the bushes and a cop sees a dark quivering shadow in a bush, is he supposed to just shoot it? Or is he supposed to investigate and provide some help?

reply to post by getreadyalready


I know, believe me I know, on this site all cops are always evil and guilty before being proven guilty because all cops are guilty no matter what they do they are guilty. I get it, believe me, I understand the ATS anti cop mentality of all cops are guilty of everything horrible in the world.

I get it, can we skip the "all cops are always guilty" lecture?

The old man did not hear a bump in the night, he saw a car that wasn't supposed to be on his property.

So calling the cops would have been absolutely acceptable, (except of course on ATS where everyone is a super bad ass and would have put a thousand rounds between the evil cops eyes before he had a chance to blink)

Had he talked to the cops on the phone, more likely than not, the cop in the car would have radioed his position and the incident would not have happened at all.

But no, not on ATS.

On ATS it's evil cop showing up at work that day bound and determined to make sure that anyone he could would end up in a body bag and I bet to people on ATS he bragged to his other evil serial killer cop buddies how he was going to get him a civilian that night.

Then in his evil diabolical demented state scoped out the old man's house as an easy target and decided to lay in wait for the poor defenseless old man to come out of his house so that he could put some bullets in him.

Then the cop laughed maniacally and called in to make sure that he could start covering up the murder as soon as possible.

Oh I get it, I understand the hate for cops on here really well. Please spare me.

If I saw that I would be suspicious too and go see what the hell was up. I would also have my gun but there are also alot of breakins where I live too.