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: 7
9
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by deepred

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 ?
Considering the circumstances, yes I would. Maybe that's why I'm not a cop. I fit the criteria though.




posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


Well if they are lucky, their necks will break. Otherwise it can take hours for them to actually run out of air if they remain conscious after the initial shock... But, yeah good point



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


Yes, people want democracy yet sometimes fail to want it to be carried out correctly. Not like every mass-murderer shouldn't be shot in the street given the chance... but this comes back to the original point of the officer only knowing of what she did--TO HIS FOOT hahaha



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


Sold drugs? So some hippie guys I know that have never been in trouble in their lives, never hurt anyone or committed any other kind of crime should be executed if they had sold pot to someone?

How about we just decriminalize so we don't have to waste tax money putting people in jail for small drug offenses?
edit on 17-9-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   
The poor widdle innocent officer couldn't have shot her tires so she couldn't escape? Instead he fires blindly into the car, endangering anyone else in the area. Too many Police today have a trigger finger and look for any excuse to use their weapons. I have never been in trouble with the law, but I have seen firsthand the Police's aggressive nature over things that could have been handled a lot differently had they not instigated and escalated a situation just so they can play big, bad, mean Mr. Officer of the law.

I too have had my foot run over by a large car, and it doesn't hurt as bad as one thinks that it would, and I did not even need to go to a Doctor. I did it to try to stop a friend who shouldn't have been driving and I thought it would stop him from going. He thought I would pull out my foot at the last minute so he went anyways. Of course Officer Angelic had to go to the hospital and make a huge deal out of it in order to try to justify killing someone.

Next time you are out by your vehicles, stand by your car, and put your foot next to the tire (with the engine off). You will find that unless you have incredibly huge clown feet, you would have to stick your foot pretty far in, in order to have your foot run over. Try it and you will see for yourself. You will then understand that there is the possibility that the officer stuck his foot under the tire on purpose just so he would have a reason to shoot his gun. It is a possibility. Again, why didn't he just shoot out her tires to avoid killing her???
edit on 9/17/2011 by Inconceivable because: spelling

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



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blanca Rose
A woman died from a shot fired by a deputy. Imagine that. No never mind the vehicle was stolen, she had a warrant, and ran over the guys foot.

Realistically, what would you have done, had you been the deputy? He had every right to shoot her.

One more dumb criminal off the face of the earth, sucking up good oxygen.

Hats off to the deputy, in my opinion.


Every person with a warant deserves to be murdered - you are a cop aren't you.

CJ



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Your post is telling in many ways - yes, god forbid,bump me and I am trained to kill you. Thank god you are protecting us.

CJ



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Your post is telling in many ways - yes, god forbid,bump me and I am trained to kill you. Thank god you are protecting us.

CJ


With the way this thred is going im not quite sure how to take your post - sarcastiically or seriously. My posts touch on the indepth issues that revolve around these situations that the public is generally not familiar with. Having an untrained civilian speak as an expert on how law enforcement should work would be like having an untrained civilian represent a person in court.

Its possible in both scenarios, however the end result is generally not a desired one.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


The way I'm seeing it the end result in this situation is pretty undesirable.. and it was with a "trained" officer, not a civilian. So maybe your opinion isn't as in line as you think.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
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.


Thats the issue - its not a technicality, it is how it is. If you arent understanding that point I dont know how else to make it. Your argument is predicated on the officers actions, while completely ignoring the fact the officer reacted due to the actions of the person of intrest.

Im not saying the cop will get away with it. What I am saying is based on law and Surpeme Court rulings, from the article, it appears the officers actions were justified. As you may hvae noticed, several investigations are underway -

* - Sheriffs Department because its who the deputies work for.
* - City police since it occured within their jurisdiction
* - State Police / Highway patrol as the investigating lead for independant reasons.

Once done, all reports go to the Prosecuting Attorneys office for review, and if needed, charges against the deputies.

In a shooting where a civilian is involved (civlian shoots someone) its a criminal investigation and nothing more.

For Law Enforcement, its much more.
* We are investigated for violation of City / State laws
* We are investigated under 42 USC 1983 for Federal Civil Rights violations by the Feds
* We are investigated by Internal Affairs for policy violations.

We can be completely cleared of any and all local / state / and federal charges, and still be terminated and sued for violating departmental policy. If ANY of the above fails for the officer, we are no longer ptotected under civil immunity.

In addition to our 5th amendment rights, we are also required to be read our garrity rights. What are garrity rights you may ask? Because Law Enforcement is based on quasi military command structure, we can be ordered to provide information that may not be in our best interests. For criminal aspects, any information we are ordered to give cannot be used against us in court.

However, it can be used against us in the IA review. If we refuse to answer questions from a superior, that can be used against us in an IA investigation as well, and is used against us as it implies officers are hiding relevant information.

As you can see its not as simple as you are trying to make it out to be, and law enforcement functions are covered under laws that DO NOT apply to civilians. Thats what im trying to get across to you and others who like to paint using large brushes in broad strokes.

At no point in your poosts have you even touched on her actions, aside from stating it was not enough for the cop to take the action he did.What are you basing your point of view on? Please explain to me how you are arriving at your conclusion, and please do so using law to support it.

If you are unable to use the law, thats fine, just give me a detailed explanation as to why.

Thanks.


edit on 17-9-2011 by Xcathdra because: Spelling and what not....



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


The way I'm seeing it the end result in this situation is pretty undesirable.. and it was with a "trained" officer, not a civilian. So maybe your opinion isn't as in line as you think.


Of course the end result is undesirable.. Ive already stated as much.. It doesnt change the fact though that at ANY point, the female could have complied, instead of escalating the situation, and performing an action that resulted in the end of her life.

Her death is because of her actions, not because of the deputies.

I am not sure why you are ignoring that point.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by sonnny1
 


How is it justified? That's ridiculous? The car ran over his foot, yeah, but it was already on its way. It wasn't turning around to run him down, he just shot out of anger. He killed someone because they accidentally ran over his foot trying to escape.

Not justified.


And you base your "Opinion" on what facts ? Lets see,known felon in car,officers recognize. Check. Known felon hits officer with car. Check. Officer fires on Felon. Check. Felon proceeds to lead officers on high speed chase,putting more people at risk.Check. Felon leaves passenger in hospital parking structure,preventing the passenger from getting life saving response. Check. I am presenting the facts Vic. Not emotional response.


If I did have an emotional response,it would be,what a piece of trash this Vargas is. How could she put so many peoples life in danger.How could she just leave a poor innocent victim to die in a stolen car.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Inconceivable
The poor widdle innocent officer couldn't have shot her tires so she couldn't escape?

As I explained pages back, police do not shoot out tires, that's TV cop cowboy crap.

There are two reasons for this. First, it blows out the tires, which makes the driver lose control of the car, thereby endangering bystanders. This is why they use Tac-Strips, which are designed to slowly deflate the tire when its in an area where it does not pose a threat to other innocent people.

Secondly, a tire is surrounded by metal and the concrete that it is riding on. You have a rim in the center along with a break assembly, then outside the tire you have a frame. The car itself is sitting on a asphalt or concrete roadway. All these things can cause a bullet to ricochet and hit someone who is completely uninvolved. If that happens, then that person, or their family, is going to turn around and sue the department for not following their procedures that you shoot center mass at a target rather then shoot at their vehicles tires, AND THEY'LL WIN!



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I'm not ignoring the reaction of the cop due to the actions of the person of interest. I'm acknowledging the OVER reaction of the cop due to the actions of the person of interest. You are the one having trouble here. Is it really impossible for a cop to admit when another cop has done wrong?

You actually believe this woman losing her life was alright in this situation and that blows my mind.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I'm not ignoring the reaction of the cop due to the actions of the person of interest. I'm acknowledging the OVER reaction of the cop due to the actions of the person of interest. You are the one having trouble here. Is it really impossible for a cop to admit when another cop has done wrong?

You actually believe this woman losing her life was alright in this situation and that blows my mind.


I do based on the information present, as well as her documented behavior during the incident. There was no over reaction, contrary to what you personally think.

Explain how the officers actions were asn over reaction and support that view with relevant law. Absent that, its your opinion, and thats fine. However your opinion is based on lack of knowledge of the law and how law enforcement works, and is leading you down a road of make believe.

To use your own argument, the female OVERREACTED when she decided to speed away from the deputy and striking him in the process with her car.

To sum up the actions of the lady and how she ended up dead -




Is it sad she dies? - Absolutely.

Will I loose sleep over it - Nope.

She had complete and total control of the situation.
She could ahve ended it peacefully....

She decided she didnt want to...

She made the decision that created the encounter that resulted in her death.

Her death is her own fault, not the deputies....

Rule of thumb and one of my favorite lines from Liar Liar -
"Quit breaking the law asss hoollleeeeee"
edit on 17-9-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


Why should I argue my point with you if you don't even read the article (or have no comprehension of what you read if you did read it)? As far as these cops knew this woman had done nothing wrong. It wasn't known to them at the time that she was a felon and wanted. All they knew was that she ran over one of the officers foot. Thats it. Could have been anyone, could have been a complete accident.


According to Schaller, the deputies were at the motel attempting to serve a warrant when a silver Hyundai Accent pulled into the lot. The deputies were unaware that Vargas, a fugitive, was one of the two women in the vehicle, Schaller said.


That is from the article linked to in the OP.
This cop just opened fire, it could have been anyone. Could have been a stoned teen that got scared and drove off. It was not justified.
edit on 17-9-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhysicsAdept
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


Well if they are lucky, their necks will break. Otherwise it can take hours for them to actually run out of air if they remain conscious after the initial shock... But, yeah good point


We've got hanging down to a science. You have to stretch the rope until its taut by attaching heavy bags to it and repeatedly dropping it so it takes the elasticity out of it so that there is no slack. That way when they drop the rope snaps their neck and severs their spinal cord which sends a shockwave to their brains that knocks them out.
edit on 17-9-2011 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


An accident would require no intent.... This is not the case...

They ignored the cops order to stop....
They knew the cops were close to the car....
They still attemtped to get away and in the process know they hit a cop (when you run over somthing like that, you know you hit something, and since the cops were the only ones present, the mindset of curb or something else is not a consideration).

She made her own bed... Im not sure why you are defending her?



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by DragonTattooz


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?


Well Dragon, I will give you the same response I gave to Gogovicmorrow.........

And you base your "Opinion" on what facts ? Lets see,known felon in car,officers recognize. Check. Known felon hits officer with car. Check. Officer fires on Felon. Check. Felon proceeds to lead officers on high speed chase,putting more people at risk.Check. Felon leaves passenger in hospital parking structure,preventing the passenger from getting life saving response. Check. FACTS. Not emotional response.

You talk with words of "assassination",and "kool-aid". Not once do you put the innocent victims in all of this at the forefront.They obviously mean nothing to you. The Passenger that this women had in her car,for example. All the people on the streets,when she decided to give way to a high speed chase. I am waiting to see if the victim actually knew the car was stolen,or if she knew the person she was driving with was a known felon wanted by the Law. Guess what? I WOULDNT be in a car with a known felon. I WOULDNT be in a stolen Car. I also would pick better friends,because I would at least want someone to physically take me to hospital if I was shot,not leave me in the back seat of a stolen car to die !!!!!! Really Dragon,was it that hard for Vargas to walk into the hospital,and drop her friend off? The police got a tip HOURS after the fact,and the passenger DIED shortly after the police arrived.PATHETIC !! No one had to die. Vargas left her to die. FACT!!! That is why Dragon I got those stars. Because I didnt leave a emotional response. I left a factual one.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Shooting at a car that is past you and driving is an over reaction. How about this for an example since you cops all seem to lack foresight.
He shot her as she was driving and then she crashed into the median.
Ok, how about he shot her and she crashed into another car rather than the median and killed a family?

Yeah, that cop is stupid.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join