Autopsy: Woman died from shot fired by deputy

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

If you had a bullet in you and were bleeding to death (she died very shortly after) and could black out or just plain die anytime and you are driving, rather than get yourself to a hospital as fast as possible, you would pull over and wait for help?

It was almost a 3 hour incident, from her being shot to her being found dead. During that time, she could have turned herself in, and her medical conditoion would have taken priority over all others.

She didnt do this now did she?

I would never have placed myself into the position of running over a cop and then attempting to flee from them. This is her fault, no one elses, and I fail to understand why you want to blame everyone but the suspect.

She created the situation, not the cops.

Her actions resulted in the outcome, not the cops.

If you cant see this and cant understand that concept, then there really is no point continuing this further.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Where was she found dead? Because I'm thinking she spent most of that three hours being dead in the hospital parking lot.

She didnt do this now did she?

Kinda hard to, being dead and all. Love that cop personality though. This is why you guys are so popular with the public I think.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
Again. You aren't grasping this.
I am not defending the woman's actions! I am admonishing the cops for shooting before he even knew what was happening.

Let me see if I can further clarify this for you.

It's NOT a cops job to judge a persons guilt or innocence at the scene, that's the job of a court.

It IS a cops job to enforce the laws on the books and follow the commands of the court (ie. Serve a warrant).

If a cop is handed a warrant and told to bring someone in, even if they are ultimately innocent, the cop HAS to serve that warrant and bring the person in by whatever means is required to do so, within the scope of their departments procedures.

It's also a cops job to bring in suspects they believe to have broken a law to stand before a court and be judged as guilty or innocent.

Once an officer has enough reason to justify in their mind that a crime has or is about to be committed, they can detain or arrest you, and you have no recourse other then go before the court and prove your Innocence.

If you decide to resist that officer, it will not change anything other then to make the officer more certain of your guilt, and escalate the situation to higher levels of violence until they have you in custody.

Many people seem to believe that being arrested is the same as being found guilty, they feel that the police are the ones passing judgment on them, and they feel that the scene is the place to negotiate their innocence. IT'S NOT, that is what courts are for.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

I'll use your logic then. The woman was a felon, she didn't care to put her passenger in danger. Therefore it is the cops responsibility to protect that citizen. This you cannot deny with any argument. Every hostage situation has proven this.

No its not actually... Its a priority concern, but protecting the public as a whole comes first. Police are not required to protect an individual, as hard as that concpet is going to be for you to swallow. We are required to protect society as a whole.

Actually by her having an innocent person with her and refusing to allow that person egress from the situation, actually justifies the use oif deadly force as well, even if she didnt hit the cop to begin with. So again her actions would result in a deadly force encounter, and encounter SHE created by taking action instead of stopping.

You can give me any number of contrived scenarios you want, but the result is going to be the same. The person who broke the law is the first person who will be able to stop and end any encounter with the police.

reply to post by defcon5


Ok. But the cop wasn't serving this woman a warrant. He just got close to her car, she sped off, accidentally running over his foot, and he shot and killed her. That's it. That's what happened in a matter of instances. The entire story.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Yeah, the result is always just ridiculous. Shooting at a car and hitting a woman driving, potentially missing or causing an accident isn't really protecting the public. It also endangered the passenger and killed the driver. The right thing to have done would to have called it in. Anyone with common sense can see that.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
Where was she found dead? Because I'm thinking she spent most of that three hours being dead in the hospital parking lot.

3 hours.. She could have just sopped at the begining prior to being shot, or immediately after being shot. The reason she got shot was because of her actions. Not a hard concept to understadn for most.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
Kinda hard to, being dead and all. Love that cop personality though. This is way you guys are so popular with the public I think.

LOL.. we dont go out trying to be popular with the public, since this job is not a popularity contest. However after having a few back and forths with you and some others I am in favor of increasing local education budgets so people can not only learn about how laws work, but can also understand the concept of personal accountability, because apprently your parents are teaching that anymore.

Anytime Law Enforcement takes an action, its because someone else violated the law. The cops didnt force this lady to chose the life she did. They didnt force her to go on the run, and the cops didnt force her to stay out of court, resulting in the arrest warrant. The cops didnt force her to be in the car, nor did the cops force her to run. The cops didnt force her to run oiver one of them, and the cops didnt force her to keep driving afterwords.

They didnt force this lady to run for 3 hours while suffering a gunshot wouldnt.

The cops didnt force any of this.

The dead lady did by her choices.... Its called personal accountability and responsibility.

Its simple - if you dont want tog et shot and killed by the police, then dont run over one of them in a pakring lot and keep driving away in ordert to flee.

Using your logic a person could break into a home, kill a family of 5, and so long as he is walking away from the cops, they cant do anything to end his life.

You are wrong in that regard... you need to get over this mental block you have abouth threats and only be valid if its directed at the police.

reply to post by Xcathdra


if all these things are justifications for deadly force, then it appears the problems are with the laws and not with the police that enforce them.

in the court of public opinion though a potentially accidentally vehicular foot assault, does not deserve a death sentence imo.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by defcon5

 

Ok. But the cop wasn't serving this woman a warrant. He just got close to her car, she sped off, accidentally running over his foot, and he shot and killed her. That's it. That's what happened in a matter of instances. The entire story.

Its called an investigative detention, and as I said earlier, a person doesnt have a right to walk away in those cases. The cops were in unfirm, next to the car, and telling them to stop. The logical thing to do would be to stop and see why the cops are making contact.

Ive seen situations where an officer goes to make a traffic stopo for speeding, and it results in a 2 county pursuit with shoits being fired.

Why?

Because the driver, who was being stopped for speeding, had coc aine in the trunk and thought the cops were tipped off.

Because the cop didnt know what was going on at the time, she he wback off and not pursue the person?

Even if the entire thing was a miscommunication, you still stop when you run a person over.Being in a parking lot, with a cop being that clsoe to the car, you know when you are running over someone, both by touch, since you will feel the car bounce, as well as verbal, when you hear a person scream at the top of their lungs form the pain, and then anyone else watching who is yelling at you to stop.

She knew what she was doing and made her own bed.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Yeah, the result is always just ridiculous. Shooting at a car and hitting a woman driving, potentially missing or causing an accident isn't really protecting the public. It also endangered the passenger and killed the driver. The right thing to have done would to have called it in. Anyone with common sense can see that.

Yep, the result is always just ridiculous.......when it comes to opinions.

The deputies tried to make contact with the Hyundai and the car struck a deputy, causing a foot injury, and the driver took off. A deputy fired as the car fled the scene.Anyone with common sense would have stopped when the Officers tried to make contact....... The right thing to do,was to STOP.Anyone with common sense can see that.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Yeah, the result is always just ridiculous. Shooting at a car and hitting a woman driving, potentially missing or causing an accident isn't really protecting the public. It also endangered the passenger and killed the driver. The right thing to have done would to have called it in. Anyone with common sense can see that.

Uhm no, you dont protect the public by allowing criminals to do whatevert the hell they want under the guise oif public safety.

The correct argument would be to get it across that the criminal is endangering the public by their actions, and people like you must understand that at some point. The cops arent placing the public in danger, the idiots refusing to stop are.

Using your logic will eventually degrade to the point of a person being able to kill people from his moving car, and because of the public safety, cops would be required to jsut let him continue because confronting him or engaging in a pursuit could palce more peole in danger.

The goal is to end the threat as soon as possible.

Either by the suspect own actions, or by the cops actions to end his.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Again. Who said she ran for 3 hours? I would say it's more likely she went directly to the hospital and died in the parking lot. Also.. if that were true about cops only acting in reaction to a violation. Well we both know that's not true. You need only to look at the woodcarver incident or the bart cop or the recent cop that killed a 14 year old.

I hope the investigators test his shoes to see if she really ran his foot over, or if his partner did after the fact to cover his asp.

reply to post by Xcathdra


That's not true either. Pursuits are generally much more dangerous for the public than calling in a suspect. I don't know it's pointless to argue with you. You will never admit wrong doing by a cop.

Originally posted by snarfbot
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

if all these things are justifications for deadly force, then it appears the problems are with the laws and not with the police that enforce them.

in the court of public opinion though a potentially accidentally vehicular foot assault, does not deserve a death sentence imo.

edit on 17-9-2011 by snarfbot because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-9-2011 by snarfbot because: (no reason given)

Not at all because the laws are quite clear on the use of deadly force.

Its incumbent on the officer to justify his actions. That justification comes from the totality of circumstances, which is what the officer perceived at the exact moment force was used.

What you and a lot of toher people in threads like this do is nmake your argument based on the news account. What you and them fail to understand is you are seeing an aftermath description, a more complete picture.

What you ignore is the fact the cops dont have that information because its not available to them at the time.

We get the benefiet of a media report that shows us the overall picture, with some details illed in by the media / eyewitnesses accounts and police reports.

We know the other person in the car had nothing to do with the situation. The cops didnt know this at the time.
We know the driver was hit by a bullett. The cops did not know this at the time.
We know about 3 hours passed between being shot and being found. The cops didnt know this untiul the car was located an an autopsy done to verify timeline.

You guys are to quick to condemn based on media reports. You guy signore the fact that not all investigative info can be released to the public since it can contaminate any potential prosecution, of both a suspect or the police.

Hindisght is not always 20/20.....

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Again. Who said she ran for 3 hours? I would say it's more likely she went directly to the hospital and died in the parking lot. Also.. if that were true about cops only acting in reaction to a violation. Well we both know that's not true. You need only to look at the woodcarver incident or the bart cop or the recent cop that killed a 14 year old.

We can look at all of those, and the same holds true. You are basing your opinion off your hatred for law enforcement which is based on your ignorance and lack of understanding about how law enforcemnt and laws work.

Out of curiosity, hgow bad was your contact with law enforcement growing up? And during that time, have you or any of your firends ever been caufght / chared with possession of drugs>?

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
I hope the investigators test his shoes to see if she really ran his foot over, or if his partner did after the fact to cover his asp.

A pefect example of what ive been talking about... Thanks....

/end sarcasm

reply to post by Xcathdra

We know the other person in the car had nothing to do with the situation. The cops didnt know this at the time.

Well of course they did, because the only thing they based the shooting off of was the car speeding away and running over the officers foot. So yeah they had to know that the passenger was at not fault of the only reason they had to shoot.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
Ok. But the cop wasn't serving this woman a warrant. He just got close to her car, she sped off, accidentally running over his foot, and he shot and killed her. That's it. That's what happened in a matter of instances. The entire story.

But he still had reason to believe that a crime had been or was about to be committed, and he has to right to stop her based on that.

The problem here is that you guys seem to believe that the cop was dealing out justice by shooting her based on whatever crime they perceived that she had committed or not.
That's not why they shot her though!!!

They shot her because she escalated the situation to that level of resistance, including endangering the officer and the public.

If she had been stopped for a speeding ticket, and had acted the same way, the same thing would have resulted. This is because the end result was based on her actions during her interaction with the police, not because of the police passing judgment about what it was she had done up to that point.

Does that make sense to you?
I am running out of ways to try and explain this concept.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

That's not true either. Pursuits are generally much more dangerous for the public than calling in a suspect. I don't know it's pointless to argue with you. You will never admit wrong doing by a cop.

Actually, as I stated before when a cop is in the wrong I say so. In this case, I dont beleive he was, and I base this off of my experience and training.

I argue wtih you because you base your argument off your opinion and your evident issues you have towards law enforcement. You go out of your way to defend law violaters by blaming the police, and go out of your way to defend the suspect.

We can end our back and forth right here.... However, keepo an eye on the story so you can see what im talking about, and what you are ignoring, refusing to acknowledge.

Hell if you want I would be more than happy to support my arguments with relevant law and supreme court rulings if you can support your argument with current law and supreme court rulings.

Also, to help you out, you can give me 15 examples of deadly force used by officer across the country, and I will tell you that they are not close to being the same. You need to understand the fact that States fall under their own state law, as well as licensing and training of law enforcement. The bubble we operate in is federal, and is the reason its based on case by case rulings).

Something else you should brush up on if you are going to throw out examples from different states.