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.

 

Autopsy: Woman died from shot fired by deputy

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 04:25 AM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


I can see where your problem with this lies.
You feel that the cops are dealing out justice based on the crime (ie. killed someone over a minor crime), when that's not a cops job, it’s a courts. A cops job is to enforce the law by whatever means that the perpetrator causes him to have to use within reason. The cops did not approach the car with the intent of shooting anyone, but the actions of the people caused the police to have to shoot them.

They took that course of action, and the end result is the consequences of that action. It’s not the police’s fault they had to defend themselves; it’s their own fault for putting the police in a situation where they felt they had to. For all the officers knew, this person was fleeing because they just committed a major crime, and if they were desperate enough to assault an officer, then they might have been desperate enough to turn around to finish the job.

You can very easily get shot over something as simple as a littering violation, if you act the fool and escalate the situation to that point. The police officers have no idea what your intent is or what you’re capable of doing, they have to respond based on your current actions, not the actions they originally approached you about. If you're desperate, or silly enough to escalate a citation into a death penalty, that’s your own actions, and you are responsible for them.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


edit on 9/17/2011 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 04:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Blanca Rose
 


Ok.. what is the relevance.
Someone tell me, was this cop in danger of being killed? Was this woman turning her car around to run him down? Was she shooting a gun back at him? Or did he just shoot as she was driving off?



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 04:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Blanca Rose
 


No because I don't give a damn about this cop and his flattened shoes. I care that a woman was murdered because the cops foot got smashed.

This person is gone for good. Nothing else for her. People just don't value life like they should anymore.
edit on 17-9-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)


People who are involved in crimes mean less to me than a flattened shoe.

People who committ crimes sure don't have values. This deputy made a judgment call. He chose correctly, as fare as the law and his rights go.

I'm not at all sorry to say I side with the cop on this one. He didn't know what they were capable of next.

Oh, and I am still waiting for you to prove that the cops are the bad guys, with the thousands of man hours worked each day verus criminals. Which side do you suppose you can show proof of, for being more active when it comes to needless deaths?



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 04:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Blanca Rose
 


That just shows you embracing ignorance.
He didn't know what they were capable of next? What if that was nothing? So shooting is the right thing to do if you are unsure? Guilty until proven innocent? What kind of criminal was she? What I read was drug charges. That is nothing. So if it was a young girl that was high and ran because she was afraid of getting in trouble she deserved to die, because you guess she could be capable of doing something worse later.

You guys have no argument. This cop shot first to ask questions later. He was wrong, he deserves jail time.


As for showing cops as the bad guys, I spent less then a minute and got you the links I posted above.
Here watch this movie:

www.youtube.com...

thats the first part, all other parts can be found on youtube.
ever try to report an officer for wrong doing? you can't.
edit on 17-9-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Blanca Rose
 


That just shows you embracing ignorance.
He didn't know what they were capable of next? What if that was nothing? So shooting is the right thing to do if you are unsure? Guilty until proven innocent? What kind of criminal was she? What I read was drug charges. That is nothing. So if it was a young girl that was high and ran because she was afraid of getting in trouble she deserved to die, because you guess she could be capable of doing something worse later.

You guys have no argument. This cop shot first to ask questions later. He was wrong, he deserves jail time.


Oh, and as far as me embracing ignorance.........LOL, just because you have no idea of wha the law is, don't call me ignorant because of your lack. That just makes you look, stupid!

He won't get it. As said again, you are barkin up the wrong tree. Follow the trial, and then come back and tell me how wrong I am in regards to the law.

He was correct in the situation. You are wrong. Hard to swallow, I know, since you think that this was not warranted. It is what it is. There was no young girl involved in this, that just ran. If there was and she drove a car over a deputy's foot, good chance she would have been shot. How would a cop know, after having his foot run over that she just did it because she was high?
edit on 17-9-2011 by Blanca Rose because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 04:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Blanca Rose
 


Well what reason could she have done it that justified a shooting? If there was a vital organ in the foot maybe?
Doesn't matter who she was, he didnt know there was a warrant for her. He just knew she ran over his foot, that is all he had to make the decision to shoot her. So yeah, I think shooting her was a pretty big decision. He know nothing of the situation.. why would shooting be the answer.
He was in the wrong.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 04:58 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.



Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
Someone tell me, was this cop in danger of being killed?

Cops are ALWAYS in danger of being killed. There are people out there who will shoot them over nothing at all simply because they hate cops. People who they have to arrest stand an even higher chance of getting aggressively agitated, and can be just as dangerous as any other criminal out there.

That is on the forefront of every officer out there’s mind, every day.


Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
Was this woman turning her car around to run him down?
Was she shooting a gun back at him?

If they are desperate enough to not only flee, but to hit an officer while doing so, then you have no idea what else they may be capable of.

Yes, they had a very good reason to believe that they would finish off the job, if for no other reason then to delay the police response and remove any witnesses. There is one motive right there.


Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
He didn't know what they were capable of next?

They showed that they were capable of endangering an officer to flee, which is a good sign as to what else “they were capable of doing”.


Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
What if that was nothing?

It was already PAST nothing once they hit a cop.


Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
So shooting is the right thing to do if you are unsure?

They were sure that they had committed attempted vehicular homicide on a police officer.


Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
Guilty until proven innocent?

They were guilty.


Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
What kind of criminal was she?

Apparently …
A convicted drug criminal…
An escaped felon…
A car thief…
A fleeing felon…
Someone who was resisting arrest…
Committed aggravated battery on a law enforcement officer with a deadly weapon.
And attempted murder.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



edit on 9/17/2011 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 05:02 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


How is shooting someone after they ran over your foot and continued on past you in a different direction defending yourself though? If they through it in reverse maybe. If they said I'm going to run over you, maybe.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 05:02 AM
link   
dbl
edit on 17-9-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


The way I read it, the cop had no idea she was wanted. Also she ran over his foot as she was fleeing which leads me to believe he was standing by the car. It wasn't as if he was in front of the car and they just got his foot as they were coming at him from a distance.

I understand what you guys are saying, that doesn't change the fact that this woman died needlessly.
As did all the others I posted about. If this death wasn't questionable it wouldn't even be posted here.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 05:08 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


I guess that is the age we live in now. Touching another person is attempted murder because theoretically, somewhere in the multiverse this cop could have died. If we used common sense though, we know this isnt attempted murder.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 05:18 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.



Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
How is shooting someone after they ran over your foot and continued on past you in a different direction defending yourself though? If they through it in reverse maybe. If they said I'm going to run over you, maybe.

We’re talking stuff that happens in split seconds here. We have no idea if they felt that they would turn back around, or even shoot at them. Until there is a full investigation it’s not possible to tell what happened exactly, but for whatever reason the officers felt they had reason to shoot.

Its not like cops go out everyday looking to shoot someone. All the ones I have known have either never had to shoot, or have felt like crap after having to be involved in a shoot.

Since the majority go out of their way to never have to use their side arm, you can bet that when they do they feel its for a good reason. We just don’t know all the details yet, but we will find out soon enough. If I had to venture a guess though: one officer was in front of the vehicle when they pulled out, and got his foot hit as they attempted to run him over while he was leaping out of the way. That is agg batt with a deadly weapon.

Either way, when officers approach your vehicle, and you can clearly see they are officers, you put it in park, not try and flee.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 05:28 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.



Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
Touching another person is attempted murder because theoretically, somewhere in the multiverse this cop could have died.

Not how it works...
How it does work is that if you touch an officer in an aggressive/resistive manner, especially when they are attempting to stop you, its call “Battery on a Law Enforcement Officer”.

If you do the same thing with any object (a ring, a stick, a car door, etc.), then it becomes “Aggravated Battery”.

Certain objects, such as cars, bricks, knives, or even sometimes spit (folks with HIV and Hepatitis, which is common with drug users, have been known to try and infect police via spit), run that up to aggravated battery with a “deadly weapon” or “to cause great bodily harm”, and possibly even “attempted homicide”. Some of this varies from state to state of course.

It does not matter how, why, or where you touched them, only that you did touch them.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 05:29 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 

Aggravated battery.. if she meant to. Cars aren't that maneuverable though, if she hit ran over his foot and he was beside the car he wouldn't be in any continued danger. Given his position she would have to do some major maneuvers to get in position to do further damage to him. He shot her as she was exiting and she hit the median in front of her. She was going straight ahead.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 05:42 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


There have been folks out there who have tried rolling up their windows on an officers hand to drag them besides their car, then get out and say it was an accident. The point is that, they cause their own problem by trying to flee when a uniformed officer told them to stop.

When a cop tells you to stop, its not a request, it’s a lawful order. This has been upheld by court after court. When you refuse to stop (flee and resist) and you hurt and officer in the process, your actions now fall under being a fleeing felon, even if accidental.

If there were not laws like this, then the police would constantly be getting hurt or killed, and of course all the preps would be screaming it was accidental.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



edit on 9/17/2011 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blanca Rose
Shoot first, ask questions later!


I can no longer tell when you are being serious.

If you are serious, please tell me.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


There have been folks out there who have tried rolling up their windows on an officers hand to drag them besides their car, then get out and say it was an accident. The point is that, they cause their own problem by trying to flee when a uniformed officer told them to stop.

When a cop tells you to stop, its not a request, it’s a lawful order. This has been upheld by court after court. When you refuse to stop (flee and resist) and you hurt and officer in the process, your actions now fall under being a fleeing felon, even if accidental.

If there were not laws like this, then the police would constantly be getting hurt or killed, and of course all the preps would be screaming it was accidental.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



edit on 9/17/2011 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)


personally there should not be any laws like this, The cops are the ones who want to wear the uniform, and take the chance, and be the HERO! and then start pushing their boundarys.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Well to sum up the rather large amount of good input on this thread, there appears to be two sides.

One side says the cop acted in complete suggestion of the law and protected the well-being of other citizens that could have been injured, including the officer.

The other side says that the officer didn't know that any of the people in the car were guilty of anything, except for of course running over a foot. This means that the officer shot a rather innocent appearing person over the sake of the officer's foot, which is wrong.

Regardless of which side anyone seems to be on (I think I know where I stand), I think we can all agree that there are good cops and there are bad cops, just as there are always good people and bad people in any given location at one time. Yes, it seems like it should be more likely to find good people in a police-type setting, but that may not always be the case. To say that this cop was a bad cop? I personally would disagree. I don't agree with his actions, but on the other hand see that technically he had the right to do what he did, and honestly he likely could have done worse. This being said, I think I take the side that suggests that the cop's actions were not in the best interests of the criminal, but maybe his actions were in the best interests of the public. For this reason alone, I think that, though I am sorry there had to be a death involved, I blame the system in which we've come to learn and not the actual officer.


Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this thread. Usually I try to reply to nearly everyone but I had not realized that during my sleep I had accumulated over two new pages of responses. I assure everyone that I read every reply and gave stars out where I thought to be fit. If anything else should be added to the discussion, feel free to bring it up, though I think nearly every aspect that I personally can think of, has been satisfied.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   
After being" coerced" by RCMP to cop a plea(some would call it torture.)
I have no use for "law enfocement people" of any stripe.
The majority of modern police forces train their men and women far too close to a military stance.
There should be far higher education,unarmed combat skills,and sociology and psychology taught to these people.
Actually these are the wrong people to be police in the first place, and the psyche prifile for officers needs to be changed.
Till that happens well keep getting these bully boys and ex military goons for cops.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join