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: 7
25
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


That's one heck of a leap of logic. Increasing patrols does not automatically equate with a stakeout. Keep claiming it though if it makes you feel better.




posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 


But parking your unmarked car there to watch the place does constitute a stakeout.


Also: Did we forget the part of the definition of patrol is to move about? Not park your unmarked car and sit there.



[edit on 28-8-2010 by Nutter]



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


You never stop your car for any reason whilst driving unless you've reached your destination? I've stopped my car to answer the phone, stop for gas or a drink, to use a restroom, to check and see if I've forgotten something I need to have with me, etc. There are no less than 10 reasons the cop could have stopped in that particular parking lot and not all of them have to do with conducting a stakeout. Nor does an unmarked car automatically equate with a stakeout.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 


What difference does it make? He shot an innocent man. An elderly church pastor at that. The police even stated that he was there due to increased patrols. For the sake of argument lets say he was there to answer his phone. What exactly does that change?

Do you dare not reason?

[edit on 28-8-2010 by harvib]



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 


Did you forget the cop was ordered to patrol=surveill the area? This constitutes a stakeout. I don't know how much more straight forward it can be.

If he wasn't ordered to patrol the area, then I could see your point. But, it also stands that if he did stop on a man's property to do any of those things without permission, and the man who owns the property has a grievance about it, it constitutes as trespassing.

Take your pick.

Again, I will state. This man's life could have been saved if the police were respectful enough to inform him of their presence on his property. Whether you want to call it a stakeout or patrolling or not.

Why is up to a citizen to find out if someone who is trespassing is a cop and not the other way around? It's called respect. And this officer obviously had non for the citizens he was supposed to protect.



[edit on 28-8-2010 by Nutter]



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter
But it's ok to enter a man's property and then shoot him?


outside, on property, not such a good idea to be shooting a tresspasser.

INSIDE walking in my home presenting a danger or threat, yes, yes , yes,
it's fine if it's justifiable and you can handle doing the job.

"if" he would have called, (and it seems like there were alot of prior calls and complaints correct?)
yes he would have been "not in harms way or shot"
AND
yes if the police called and told him as well, then yes he would have been
"not shot".

but he nor they did either correct?

btw i like the 10,000 points, really took it to the max on that bet.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by HappilyEverAfter
 




outside, on property, not such a good idea to be shooting a tresspasser.

INSIDE walking in my home presenting a danger or threat, yes, yes , yes,
it's fine if it's justifiable and you can handle doing the job.


First off, there is no indication that the property owner shot anyone.

Secondly. It was not your property. And therefore you do not get to choose how someone exercises their rights. There are plenty of people who would say that you shouldn't shoot someone even when they break into your home. And if the intruder happened to be a cop you would be confronted with the exact same arguments that are being presented by the apologist in this thread.

The bottom line is that people, at some point, need to defend each others rights regardless of if they agree how those rights were used. In failing to do so we insure that none of us have rights except for those that the populace has deified and made above the law.



[edit on 28-8-2010 by harvib]



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 





Have a source for that? Or are you just assuming?


Doesn't it make sense that if a police officer plans on using private property to sit and do surveillance that he should, in cases where the property owner lives on site, inform them of this? It's not only courteous, it prevents potential problems if the owner is spooked by people lurking around in a car without any obvious reason for being there.

But if you need a source, as a former cop myself, I can confirm that this would be a normal practice, that is, if the officer has any common sense and wishes to avoid having some property owner pull a gun on him not knowing why he's there on the property.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 





This statement illustrates perfectly why there is a huge conflict of interest in allowing an employer to substitute as the trial process. An employer that may receive backlash by releasing information may be conflicted in withholding such information indefinitely.


My apologies, harvib, because I should have clarified something along with my post you're referring to. First of all, it is common practice that any officer-involved shooting is investigated by outside agencies who were not directly a party to the event. I didn't mean to imply that the police department involved in this specific case would be doing the only investigation or that they would not reveal any kind of details until they could come up with a story that would clear the officer of any liability.

When it comes to officers killing someone in the line of duty, there is a lot of work that has to be done before an official statement can be made to the public. You might think this is just an excuse for the cops to make sure they tie up any loose ends that may make them out to be the bad guys. But you have to consider that the law enforcement profession is one of the few professions where someone can kill another human being and do so legally under certain circumstances.

Departments have to be careful how they react to situations like this, because every word will be scrutinized by the media, the victim's families, and the public. A knee-jerk reaction that hasn't resulted from a careful look at all the facts could put the agencies and the officers at risk for law suits or public outrage that may not be deserved.

This is why officers from outside agencies come in and do the investigation so that it will (presumably) result in an impartial conclusion.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by NightGypsy
 


My question was referring to the repeated claims that there was a stakeout going on when we have nothing to back that claim up. Not whether or not the property owner should be informed that there was one going on. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough on what I was asking for a source on.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 


The difference is that accusations keep getting lobbed with zero evidence and this cop might as well have broken into the man's house and shot him while he was sleeping according to some posters in this thread.

We do not have enough information to know if he was trespassing, doing a stakeout, if the pastor pointed his gun at the cop car, if the cop just shot him for the hell of it, etc. Yet several posters seem to be determined to find something to prove the cop is just a cold blooded killer who broke every law on the book just so he could shoot the pastor.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by NightGypsy
 




First of all, it is common practice that any officer-involved shooting is investigated by outside agencies who were not directly a party to the event.


What agency would that be? And that doesn't appear to be happening in this case.

Spokane police were investigating the incident under a protocol that calls for city police to investigate officer-involved incidents taking place in the Spokane County Sheriff’s Office, which staffs Spokane Valley Police.


And the job of a criminal investigation is to determine if a crime took place and the circumstances surrounding that crime. In this case a man was gunned down where the only surviving witness was the gunman. It doesn't seem to be in dispute that the man in the unmarked car was the killer. I would be interested to see a case of such circumstances where charges were not filed. During the trial process is when such an individual would be able to present the argument of self defense.



But you have to consider that the law enforcement profession is one of the few professions where someone can kill another human being and do so legally under certain circumstances.


NightGypsy, I think it is good that you have joined the conversation because of your law enforcement background. However I believe the above statement to be highly erroneous and a common misconception. I would challenge you to find a law that allows law enforcement to legally kill someone that doesn't apply to the rest of us.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 


Jenna, I am not sure which posters you are referring to but I think you are misunderstanding the general consensus. What people are conveying is frustration that a man who killed another man on his own property is most likely going to be given preferential treatment. He will most likely not have to face a trial like anyone else would. I believe people, correctly, interrupt that as elevating certain employers and their employees to a status that is above the law. For those that understand the implications, this is alarming because it means that the rest of us have no rights or freedoms only privileges. That is in direct opposition to the concept of a free society.

That is why I keep asking you if you would be outraged if a homeless man under the same circumstances was not forced to face trial simply because of an organization he was affiliated with.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by harvib
What people are conveying is frustration that a man who killed another man on his own property is most likely going to be given preferential treatment.


Insisting that the cop was trespassing and/or doing a stakeout when we have nothing to support either claim is quite different from saying he's going to get preferential treatment, wouldn't you say?


He will most likely not have to face a trial like anyone else would. I believe people, correctly, interrupt that as elevating certain employers and their employees to a status that is above the law.


Maybe he will, maybe he won't. We don't have enough information at this point to know whether he should face trial, let alone if he will. Logic will tell you that if you don't have all the information, you shouldn't jump to conclusions.


That is why I keep asking you if you would be outraged if a homeless man under the same circumstances was not forced to face trial simply because of an organization he was affiliated with.


I must have missed it if you asked me. I've seen the question, but I don't recall if it was in a post directed at me. To answer the question, yes I would be. Just as I'll be outraged if this particular cop doesn't get charged if the evidence points to charges needing to be filed. However, I wouldn't automatically jump on "he's getting preferential treatment" wagon without all the facts and prior to an investigation being completed if it was a homeless man just like I won't now.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 


Odd, do you know something that we don't?

How do you know that this officer won't stand trial? It's interesting, so, are you assuming that because he is a cop that he won't stand trial?

Why is that I wonder?

The cop could very well be charged with a crime.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 





Insisting that the cop was trespassing and/or doing a stakeout when we have nothing to support either claim is quite different from saying he's going to get preferential treatment, wouldn't you say?


Unfortunately Jenna there is very substantive evidence that the killer was trespassing. The evidence is that the killer was enough of a nuisance to cause the property owner to get out of bed, grab protection, and proceed outside in the middle of the night.

In all cases whether the property is a business or a residence or both. Causing a nuisance is a trespass of property.



Maybe he will, maybe he won't. We don't have enough information at this point to know whether he should face trial, let alone if he will. Logic will tell you that if you don't have all the information, you shouldn't jump to conclusions.


Jenna, he shot and killed an individual that appears to be an innocent man. We will most likely never have all the information as the only living witness is highly bias. The killing of a man without the ability to determine clearly and substantially that the killing was done in self defense always results in charges being filed (and often times even when there is clear and substantial evidence).



Just as I'll be outraged if this particular cop doesn't get charged if the evidence points to charges needing to be filed.


As, I believe, you should be. However I am not sure what evidence would suffice in charges not being filed. The only things I can think of would be the presence of a warrant or the "officer" claiming that he didn't commit the killing. As stated before the claim of self defense is generally an affirmative defense but doesn't negate charges being filed except in the most obvious of cases.

So I wonder if charges aren't filed and a statement is released, as generally happens, saying the cop has been cleared of any wrong doing. Will you accept that as an indication of the lack of "evidence [that] points to charges needing to be filed"? Or will you ask, like everyone else, what is so substantial and unique that an individual is allowed to kill another human being on his own property and not have to face a trial?



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 





The cop could very well be charged with a crime.


He very well could be.



How do you know that this officer won't stand trial?


I don't know.



It's interesting, so, are you assuming that because he is a cop that he won't stand trial?


There is preferential treatment given to "police". Ever hear of the "blue wall" or the "blue code".

However I entered into this debate not to debate whether or not this "officer" would stand trial but to argue the dangers of the general populace allowing or offering preferential treatment to certain professions. I was also offended that the victim in the exercise of his own rights was being demonized when it appears he has committed no wrong doing.






[edit on 28-8-2010 by harvib]



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 



I was also offended that the victim in the exercise of his own rights was being demonized when it appears he has committed no wrong doing.


Well it's obvious that the victim had some sort of hand in this. Otherwise, he would still be alive wouldn't he?. Again, the cop more than likely wasn't out to shoot the departed. Course, he could have gotten a plant that died and that threw him over the edge and he set out for revenge, but that seems unlikely doesn't it?

Course again, this all could have been avoided with one phone call, the dispatcher could have told the man that the mysterious car outside was a cop and to not worry.

Some here think that would make the guy a wuss, or weak, or stupid, but he still would be alive. (Kinda eliminates the stupid theory)

The cop on the other hand, what was he doing in the parking lot to begin with? Well it appears that he was told to go there, which eliminates the revenge idea.

Still doesn't mean he wasn't there just to shoot the old man, could mean that he was there to shoot just anyone that he came across. The fact that the old man had a gun with him is just a happy coincidence then. Unless of course, the cop wasn't out to just kill someone that night, which kinda points to a massive misunderstanding.

Then the theory goes, old man sees mysterious car in his parking lot, as per his normal reaction grabs the gun, goes down into the parking lot to scare off what he thinks is a prowler, he is in the shadows (it's familiar territory for him, so he knows how to sneak up on the car without the occupant noticing that he is there) he gets to the car, startles the officer, an argument ensues, the man is old, he may be hard of hearing, the cop doesn't identify himself adequately, the man probably isn't too clear on who he is either, pulls his gun on the guy that is pointing a gun at him. (At this point the cop probably doesn't know that this is the property owner, and probably thinks it's a bad guy with a gun.) The cop fears for his life, (natural reaction to someone pointing a gun at you) He shoots, the guy goes down and he calls it in. Only latter finding out that he blew away an innocent man of god and flower peddler.

See, in this theory, the cop isn't a bloodthirsty murderer of a flower peddler, but a startled cop and human being reacting to an unknown person with a gun.

So in this scenario does this cop deserve the chair?

[edit on 8/28/2010 by whatukno]



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 




Well it's obvious that the victim had some sort of hand in this. Otherwise, he would still be alive wouldn't he?. ...Course again, this all could have been avoided with one phone call, the dispatcher could have told the man that the mysterious car outside was a cop and to not worry.


Just like a rape victim that if had made different decisions would have resulted in her not getting raped. Should we, in such, cases become apologist for the rapist? Should we demonize the victim? Should the rapist not face trial unless we agree on the appropriatness of how the victim used her rights? This is logic that is in opposition to a free society.

It doesn't matter if you agree with how someone exercises their rights. The law is not there to judge how one uses their rights. It is there to provide remedies for crimes. Killing another human being is always a crime however there are affirmative defenses that may be presented. But it is always a crime.



See, in this theory, the cop isn't a bloodthirsty murderer of flower peddler, but a startled cop and human being reacting to an unknown person with a gun.


That may very well be the case but being "startled" does not mean you do not answer for your wrongful killing. The jury may decide on manslaughter or even not guilty on any and all charges. But this is the responsibility of a jury. Not one's employer.

Anything less is most certainly preferential treatment and an elevation to a status that is above the law. I hope you understand the implications of what that means.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 

Good to hear you emailed Spokane PD. Like I said, I'm not familiar enough with the law regarding after hours property rights of a business, especially one that appears to be on the same property as a private residence. Interested to hear what you find out from them.


I've included a few pictures from Google Earth street view to give some reference of what the scene looked like and possibly answer some questions.

Overview showing approximate location and angle of street view pictures. It's unknown to me which parking lot the cop car was in. The one immediately off the road in pictures 2 and 3 or the one at the end of the road that's shown in picture 4 and circled here or possible somewhere else on the Plant Farms property.



Beginning of the roadside parking lot as driving down E 4th Ave. The red dot is for reference as it relates to the following picture.


Nearing the end of the roadside parking lot. The presumed home of the deceased can be seen just after the utility pole. The blue dot is for reference as it relates to the following picture.


Looking down what appears to be a delivery/employee entrance with a small parking lot at the end as seen in the first picture. Note there's at least one house that appears to share the road/driveway.


reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 

Assuming what you say is true regarding the 10' easement, then the picture I provided which shows no sidewalk at the roadside parking lot would give any car plenty of room to legally be within that distance. Of course, I don't know where the incident took place though.


reply to post by NightGypsy
 


Creach’s wife said she heard three shots, but a neighbor across the street said he heard only one shot, Alan Creach said in his statement to the media.
original source


More information will be released about the shooting next Thursday. Department policy dictates a 48 hour period from the time of the incident before investigators can speak with the officer.

The only new information offered today was that a neighbor of Creach’s called for an extra patrol in the neighborhood Wednesday night.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join