Autopsy: Woman died from shot fired by deputy

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by PhysicsAdept

 

I understand officers have to protect themselves. In this case I believe it was justified. You cant use a vehicle to injure someone.Period.Imagine if she was 3-4 inches closer. This officer could have had his foot crushed,or could have been killed..Why did she decide to flee? If she is that willing to flee,use a vehicle to injure someone,I believe that force being used is warranted. She could have easily stopped and given herself up. Period. She chose to put herself in the predicament of getting killed. I know,it sounds heartless,but I am a big proponent on Officers being held to higher standards,and laws changed to protect the average citizen,from a growing police state. Would this story be different if she hit a child,on her way fleeing? Or she ran into a group of people,as she fled ? Would have it been justified then?

I can not believe anyone would star your asinine response. You just said that it is justifiable to use deadly force on a person who ran over another person's foot. Unbefreakinglieveable. Cops just love the Kool-Aid drinkers like you. Are you capable of indepedent thought, or do you always just follow the party line since that is the easier route?

Just so you are aware, running from police does NOT automatically make a person eligible for assassination. It used to be that police had to be in fear of their life, or protecting someone else's life, in order to use deadly force. I was not aware that the standard had changed. In your world though, a "what if" is good enough to murder someone.

What if she had been a few inches further in and crushed his leg or killed him? She didn't, he killed her.
What if she sped off and killed someone? She didn't, the cop killed her.
What if, what if, what if....what if you had a brain that was capable of rational thought?

"What if's" do not justify homocide, as much as you would like them to, so, sorry.

You are right, a cop should be held to a higher standard, and this would not be justifiable homocide for a regular citizen, so why should it be for a cop?

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

I disagree. At least from what I have read, she ran over his foot driving away, he was in no further danger.
You're a cop (at least have said to be before I believe) so of course you will defend them til the end (you have defended cases where cops were much more clearly in the wrong) and I think that is a big part of what is wrong with cops too.

There are many cases in here dealing with law enforcement actions that Ihave disagreed with and called out. Many members can vouch for that. As far as your comment, care to show me in the Constitution, state, federal and local law where justice is a popularity contest?

As I stated, just because you perceive something as an injustice doesnt make it one. I have gone to lengths to explain why some things are the way they are in law enforcement. I cant force you to read it or beleive it. I would hope, at the very least, that you would at least research it before you continue your all cops are evil and your always right rants.

Using your logic about the vehicle, it would mean if a person is pointing a gun at me, squeezes off a round and wounds me, and then moves the gun and faces it downward, that the threat is overwith. Or if a person runs from the cops that the danger is over.

You and others tend to ignore the fact that the public at large can be placed in danger by someone doing what the lady did in the article. Just because she sped away doesnt mean the danger is past. If anything, since she knew she not only purposley and actively attemtped to evade capture, that she knew she caused an ijnjury to the deputy.

You ever had the chance to deal with a person whose only outlook is "Im not going back to jail"?

While I respect your view, I dont agree with it as it doesnt take into account a lot of issues that were present that you dont acknowledge or understand. While you perceive me as a cop who will always support law enforcement (and you are wrong there as well) and part of the problem, as I stated before your lack of knowledge on the law as well as Supreme Court rulings / how law enforcement operates is also a problem.

How can we expect you to understand how law enforcement operates when you show no intrest in learning how it works? How can we expect you to be knowledgable when your comments show anything but?

You insinuate cops are stupid simply because of the way they do their job and because they dont do that job in the manner you think it should occur in.

I would rather face an armed individual than continually argue with people who base their argument on what they think should occur and not how it aactually works / how the law works.Criminals, for the most part, know when they are breaking the law. People like you not only don't know it, but you escalate the situation by trying to argue your point.

While you think all cops are stupid, you really should take a long look in the mirror before throwing stones next time.

Am I missing something here? is there more information on this other than what is in the OP article ?

Are members really justifying the killing of this human based on a couple hundred words in this article ?

Are members really advocating the murder of any human in jail ?

When did the lives of others become so cheap and meaningless ?

To justify the homicide of this person based on the very little information available is ignorant.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Blanca Rose

 

I think, if it should only be justified for a cop to use deadly force if it would be justified for a civilian. If a civilian could say self defense then so could a cop.

What would happen if someone ran over your foot and you shot them to death? Would they let it fly? Would it be justified? Why doesn't common sense apply when it comes to cops? We all know he wasn't in anymore danger but we can get him off with a technicality.
It's b.s.

You and others fail, again, to understand how law enforcement works. Law Enforcement, unlike civilians, are empowered to act in an agressive manner towards individuals who are not complying wihth the law. By the very nature of our job, we are afforded more abilities to act that would get most civilians in trouble.

Law Enforcement is not required to disengage / back down from an encounter.

Also, while I always find it interesting on how people view cops in threads like this, I would like to know why you insist on blaming the police?

The female knew she was wanted...
The female knew she was breaking the law....
The female knew the cops were present....
The female knew the cops were looking for her when contact was made....
The female knew she was resisting when she decided to not comply...
The female knew she could possibly cause the officers injury by trying to flee....

And yet even with all of this, you blame the cops.

Exactly at what point does personal accountability come into play in your world?

Originally posted by deepred
When did the lives of others become so cheap and meaningless ?

When criminals decided they can break the law and behave in any manner they chose, ignoring any danger they present to the public while only being concerned about themselves, and being supporteed in those actions by people who only convey personal responsibility onto law enforcement and no one else.

Originally posted by deepred
To justify the homicide of this person based on the very little information available is ignorant.

No more ignorant than some laying blame at the feet of law enforcement simply because they hate authority.

When did society decide people can break the law and behave in any manner they choose, and only hold law enforcement accountible?

A loss of life is always horrific, whether it be accidental or intentional. However, in almost all cases where force is used, its in direct relation to the other person refusing to comply with commands / orders. A cop doesnt make a perosn rob a bank, nor does a cop force a person to kill someone during that encounter. A cop doesnt force the person to run from the police, nor does a cop force that person to shoot at anyone.

From the moment a person decides to break the law, they are in control of how far something will go. The easiest conclusion would by to not break the law. The easiest conclusion would be for the criminal to comply and surrender.

The criminal has every ability to end an encounter.
When they decide not to, it becomes incumbent on law enforcement to end it.

Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by PhysicsAdept

 

I agree with you. They had no idea she was wanted on a drug charge of some sort and their action was simply to shoot and use leathal force?

It wasn't that many years ago when you had to really justify your use of firearms or lethal force, and it was not something one just does automatically.

These cops seem to me automative. They're almost like those weaponaized drones or AI. Not human.

It's called brainwashing, and it does happen and it does work. There's alot of manchurian cops around the U.S. that for sure. Must be nice having a job where you can murder someone, and get a 2 week paid vacation and then a promotion followed up by a medal. Damn i'm in the wrong business!

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


As opposed to killing a family of 5, being charged, tried and convicted, onlly to be sentenced to life in prison where not only does a criminal not have to work, meals are provided, electricty, water, tv / cable, library, education and a whoe slew of other things than the American Criminal Liberties Union have championed for people who break the law.

Its not a punihsment, jail / prison is a reward....

If you dont like the laws, then change them... People need to quit whining about law enforcement, since they have nothing to do with how laws are created.

Get invovled in government and be heard.... The amount some people whine in these fourms could be put to better use by sending letters to elected officals.

I'm sorry. I hate the police as much as the next guy but if somebody decided to speed away from me and in the process, run over my foot, I'd shoot too. Hell, I'd probably unload my whole mag.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

As opposed to killing a family of 5, being charged, tried and convicted, onlly to be sentenced to life in prison where not only does a criminal not have to work, meals are provided, electricty, water, tv / cable, library, education and a whoe slew of other things than the American Criminal Liberties Union have championed for people who break the law.

Its not a punihsment, jail / prison is a reward....

If you dont like the laws, then change them... People need to quit whining about law enforcement, since they have nothing to do with how laws are created.

Get invovled in government and be heard.... The amount some people whine in these fourms could be put to better use by sending letters to elected officals.

Hey man i agree. What i'm trying to say is that criminals wear badges too. My opinion anyone that has murdered anyone, sold drugs, armed robbery, sex offense, pedophilia etc. should be executed. The U.S. is far too lenient and the reason the crime rate is so high is because its repeat offenders who have made a career out of crime get out of prison/jail and not even 3 days out will go back to a life of crime.

Tax payers have to tote the bill for keeping these deviants alive, and they thrive on societies good graces and while we pay the bill to house them and feed them and give them medical attention and cable tv, and an indoor swimming pool and a basketball gym, they get to live like kings. Poor people living in boxes in major cities are treated worse than these deviants. If frying someone in the chair costs 1 million dollars and is to expensive, go down to ACES and buy a hemp rope that costs maybe 5-10 bucks and hang them. hanging is more humane than electrocuting them anyhow because you break their necks and they go unconcious and thats that.

Originally posted by Chad_Thomas89
I'm sorry. I hate the police as much as the next guy but if somebody decided to speed away from me and in the process, run over my foot, I'd shoot too. Hell, I'd probably unload my whole mag.

You would kill out of anger ?

Thats what this world has turned into...Material things are worth way more than a life these days.....Any and all material things can be replaced, that 1 human life and personality cannot....

reply to post by defcon5


Yeah, but that means she should go to jail, not be judged and executed on the spot.

reply to post by gunshooter


Yeah. I wonder that myself. I mean with all of the stories of cops using excessive and deadly force you have to wonder if your life might be at risk. I mean, I can see a cop getting jumpy and pulling a gun after you tell them that you have a concealed weapon in your car. License or not.

reply to post by PhysicsAdept


I never meant to say he was a bad cop. Just poorly trained, amateurish, and possibly dumb and in my opinion, that is just as dangerous as a bad one.

reply to post by Xcathdra


No I do understand that, to me though that means they should use much more discretion. What they are afforded already means they will get away with it, so they should use much much more discretion and only fire if they think there is absolutely no other option. This cop didn't do that.

I just want to point out that we are all law breakers. The average American violates three laws per day, and the busy corporate professional can add another three felony violations to that.

No, No not me... yes you, and you don't know it.

In the early part of 2010 alone, another group of new laws were added to the books and went into effect, 40,600+ new laws went into effect, do you know the new laws ? do you know the old laws ? do you think you know one percent of the laws on the books ? I don't think so.

If you were diligent and read just the NEW laws imposed in 2010 and spent just ten minutes per law reading, you would still be reading.

40,600 (laws) x 10minutes = 406,000 minutes or 6,766 hours or 845 (8hr) days or 2.32 years.

Did you know it can be a felony to call in sick when you are not really sick ?

Did you know it is a felony to claim online to be someone you are not ?

Did you know it is a felony to take a wheel onto wilderness land, yes a wheel, and it does not matter if the wheel is attached to a monster truck or your childs hotwheels toy ?

Did you know that virtually all humans are thieves ? By the age of ten virtually all humans have taken something that did not belong to them.

My point is that we all are law breakers, and to advocate the death of, or extreme treatment of someone, simply because they have broken a law, is asinine and self condemning.

If you truly believe that all law breakers are "bad people" and that "bad people" deserve harsh treatment including death, then you have condemned the whole of humanity, including yourself.

Should there be laws and consequences ? IMO yes.

Does breaking a law, in and of itself, make someone a "bad person" deserving of harsh treatment or death ? IMO no.

Each case needs to be examined without bias, and with all facts presented.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

No I do understand that, to me though that means they should use much more discretion. What they are afforded already means they will get away with it, so they should use much much more discretion and only fire if they think there is absolutely no other option. This cop didn't do that.

The cops did by being present in uniform and making contact with the female in the car. The lady knew what was going on, and she apparently chose to run, which in the end was a poor choice foir her.

Contrary to popular belief, a cop doesnt have to be shot at, in order to shoot. A cop does not have to be faced with a gun, in rder to use theirs.

The officers use of force was established by being present in an offical capacity, and in uniform. That is the first base of use of force - command presence - which includes uniforms, marked patrol vehicles as well as verbal commands.

The very nature of law enforcement is not and will never ben understood by people who dont understand ow it works. Its not black and white, and never will be. Its one huge mass of grey, which is why it relies on legislation covering officer actions and the courts and case law refining those laws.

Not understand the laws on how use of force with law enforcement works, or the criteria established on how that force is reviewed, is a major issue with people on this site. Its not hindsight 20/20. Its incumbent on what the officer perceived at th exact moment the use of force occured. The Supreme Court established that criteria specifically because of the general rush to judgment on use of force and what the officers should have done, as opposed to what they can actually do.

The manner some of you guys review these issues is akin to rolling up on an accident on the highway where 2 cars had a head on collision. The thought process is, since its a highway and divided by a median, one of the drivers, usually the one facing the wrong way, was drunk / high / suffering a medical emergency.,

People tend to not look at other factors (rain / snow / ice / mechanical failure) etc.. They comment based solely on their own perosnal experience. When professionals come to a different conclsuion, those same people get pissed because in their opinion, something else occured and its jsut being covered up to protect XYZ.

I have no issues with people challeneging the police in terms of holding them accountible, when appropriate nad during the correct time and place. However, rushing to judgment based on a personal bias that lacks the finer points of law and case law, it becomes problematic.

It allows people to come to the wrong conclusion, and instead of acknowledging they dont have all the answers, they instead argue its a coverup or the police are hiding something, or some other lame excuse.

If you had an encounter with the police and you were accused, you would want every benefiet of being innocent until proven guilty, and would expect to be treated as such.

Any reason why you and others who demand the law be applied, want to deny those same laws to the police?

reply to post by deepred


Which is why almost 99% of all encounters with the police are dealt with on scene.

It comes down to the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.

If I stop a car for doing 90mph in a 45mph zone, the law says they are in violation. However, its in a rural area and the people are rushing a family member to meet with an ambulance to get them to the hospital.

In that case, so long as no one was injured in the process, the driver gets a simple reminder not to do stufflike that and sent on their way. A ticket could be issued, a a court would most likely throw it out if the PA went forward iwth it.

Its one of the reason officers have a lot of discretion in how we do our jobs.

reply to post by Xcathdra


See, you are taking this technical cop point of view that no one but a cop cares about.
All you are saying to me is "technically he can get away with it because (insert police babble)"
It doesn't make it justified, it doesn't make it necessary, and it certainly doesn't make it right.