Autopsy: Woman died from shot fired by deputy

reply to post by Xcathdra


Where was the order to stop? I don't think there was one. They just approached the car and it sped off. The person wasn't under arrest, she wasn't known to be a felon at the time. Since she wasn't under arrest, she honestly had the right to speed off, her mistake was accidentally running over the cops foot (it wasn't intentional, let's use common sense) and she died for it.

Argue all you want. The facts are on my side on this one.
Stop adding "facts" to the story that you want there so you can try to justify it. I'm only using what is in the story. The only way you can justify it is by adding stuff that isn't mentioned and didn't happen.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
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.

Or during her escape she kills pedestrians, since shes already demonstrated she has no concern for other people.

Or she causes an accident resulting in the death of other innocent people by causing an accident / running them off the road?

As I asked you eaelier, that you have ignored, have you ever dealt with an individual who says tehy arent going back to jail? There life is overwith, and they know it. They opt to go down fighting, and since they are done, they dont care who they take down wwith them, whether it be law enforcement, EMS / Fire, or kids in a crossguard on their way to school.

People like that have 1 option -

Surrender immediately without conditions -

If they dont chose that, then we will choose it for them, and public safety is a consideration in taking deadly force action, as was done in this case.

How about she demonstrated the ability that she does not care about the public at large, since she not only hit a cop with her car, she sped away in the process.. To me she is a threat to the public, and demonstrated such. That threat has to be stopped, either by her own choice or police intervention.

In this case, the cops made the choice for her.

The cop acted appropriately.... The suspect acted in a manner than justified the officers actions.

Yeah... The suspect is stupid...

Do you just hate all cops and automatically take the side of any and all criminals? You still have yet to discuss her actions and her law violations. Is it acceptable to you for people to break the law if it invovles contact with law enforcement?

Are Law Enforcement the only people in your world that is held accountible?

reply to post by sonnny1


Again. Not a known felon (to the officers there). Both you and Xcath are adding stuff to the story (which i'm assuming neither of you actually read) in an attempt to justify this.

reply to post by Xcathdra


No evidence that this woman was one of those people.
Stick with the story. I am.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


I think what you are saying is just falling on deaf ears. Cops will always protect other cops no matter what the scenario, and this obviously won't change anytime soon. Their case is clearly "guilty until proven innocent". It's just the same circular argument over and over.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Where was the order to stop? I don't think there was one. They just approached the car and it sped off. The person wasn't under arrest, she wasn't known to be a felon at the time. Since she wasn't under arrest, she honestly had the right to speed off, her mistake was accidentally running over the cops foot (it wasn't intentional, let's use common sense) and she died for it.

Argue all you want. The facts are on my side on this one.
Stop adding "facts" to the story that you want there so you can try to justify it. I'm only using what is in the story. The only way you can justify it is by adding stuff that isn't mentioned and didn't happen.

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

Thank you for proving my point - You are using hindsight 20/20 to make your decision. The cops dont have that benefiet because they were busy living the scenario you are discussing.

The police went to make contact with the car - which is apparent because they approached it. The people in the car decided they dont want contact, which depending on situation, is not something they have a choice on, espcially when being approached by police. Its an investigative detention and is therefore not voluntary contact, which means they DID NOT have a right to speed away.

The people in the car knew what they were doing.. No amount of misinterpetation from you is going to change that fact.

Make it easy for us will you....

You hate any and all cops, and not matter what they do, you always will.

Its easier for you to acknowledge that than continue down a rediculous path of defending a felon who knew fuill well what was going on and what was going to happen.

If you dont think so, then you are extremely naive and ignorant about the intelligence level of criminals, especially career criminals, and their perception when it comes to law enforcement contact.

They have a tendancy to know the law just as well as cops do.

You should take a point from that and learn the law before arguing it.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
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)

Yeah but see, the problem with legalizing drugs is people will sell it to kids to ge tthem hooked so they can keep getting money. just because your friend wouldnt sell drugs to some kids does not mean that other people will not because other people already do, legalizing it would solve nothing and probably make it worse.

Easier to just round em up, and start the good 'ol fashioned hangings, and publicize it while making it mandatory to watch the video feeds so these crinimals get the clear message that if you commit these crimes, you will be caught, tried and hanged within the week. We are way too lenient on these people. You want to see the crime rate plummet? Start executing these people, i promise you they will either straighten up or be hanged and either way, the crime rate drops. It sounds brutal but it beats having some rapist or murderer get out of jail and 3 days later kill or rape somoene else again and shatter someone else's life.

Theres so many cases where people get out of jail or prison and thats exactly what happens, they go right back to what they did before just like a dog returning to its own vomit. I know becaus ei was a correctional officer in my low 20's and i saw it happen many times. I knew a 19 year old kid that had 500 years in jail with no parole because he couldn't stop robbing people's homes. I knew a man who had 150 years because he hooked up some wires to an electrical socket and wired it to the bed frame of his brothers bed and electrocuted him to death because he was pissed at his brother. Why should we pay for people who get locked up because they can't behave in society? They have a choice to act right or not, just because you grow up in an abusive home gives you no right to turn to a life of crime. I was abused almost every day from the time i was 3 years old till the day i turned 17 and ran away and i've never done worse than get speeding tickets.

Originally posted by Wookiep
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

 

I think what you are saying is just falling on deaf ears. Cops will always protect other cops no matter what the scenario, and this obviously won't change anytime soon. Their case is clearly "guilty until proven innocent". It's just the same circular argument over and over.

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

Really? Guilty to proven innocent? Which party are you referring to?

Are you arguing the cops assumed the lady in the car was guilty and not innocent?
Are you arguing the officers are guilty for taking action?

How can I not call you and others a hypocrite when you are making the argument the cops considered the lady guilty till proven innocent while in the smae breath making an argument the cops are guilty till proiven innocent for their actions?

Or does it only apply to people who arent cops?

By the way, if you guys knew and understood how teh law would work you would know full well law enforcement has nothing to do with determining a persons guilt or innocence - thats up to the judicial system, which we do not work for.

Also, to touch on one other comment made - Cops dont have to know who a person is in order to use force, including deadly force. Based on that mindset Cops wouldnt be able to shoot a person who is pointing a gun at them. We are not required to be shot at before we can take action.

Totality of circumstances coupled with what the officer perceived at the EXACT moment the use of force occured.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
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.

I'm not a cop, and I have a pretty good grasp of their “techno babble”, and so should every other civilian out there. Its really not that hard, and most people unknowingly comply with it whenever there is an encounter. In a nutshell, you should be polite, and follow their lawful orders, and if there is a disagreement you take it up in court.

Again, A POLICE OFFICER DOES NOT HAVE TO BE RIGHT IN HIS DECISIONS, HE ONLY HAS TO BELIEVE HE IS RIGHT AT THE TIME, the law supports this. If the officer is wrong, then the law is designed for this fact to come out in court and be dealt with there.

An officer has the right to detain you, and ask you basic questions (without reading your rights), including who you are (in some states demand an ID) and why you're there, frisk you, and hold you for a reasonable amount of time. He has the right to physically force that on you, to whatever level you wish to escalate it too, until you comply. All he has to prove for this, is that he believed he had a reasonable suspicion to justify it.

The reason is that criminals tend to be somewhat less then truthful when confronted, and they tend to be somewhat resistant when they realize they are about to be arrested. Even if the officer is dead wrong at the scene, the law will support him because he is working with imperfect knowledge and having to make a judgment based on the best evidence he has before him to make that decision, often in a split second. Your actions at that point are used by the officer to help gauge his response to you. If you lie, flee, or resist, he is going respond much different to you then if you are polite, truthful, and compliant.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
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)

Deputies attempted to contact a grey Hyundai in the parking lot, but Vargas drove away at some point. As she drove away, she ran over a deputy's foot. That deputy fired a gunshot, and because it was within city limits, officers got involved.

Investigators said it appears Vargas was driving the car, but they are looking for others who may have been in the car with her at the time of the shooting.


So.....It was Vargas who was killed,and it was Vargas behind the wheel. I thought the passenger was killed. None of it changes the fact she put other peoples lives in danger,including her own. If this started at 7:30pm,and ended at 10:40 pm,when they found her car in the structure,Why didnt she pull over RIGHT in the emergency room lobby? She died shortly after they found her. Shes even more responsible for her own death,MHO. Thats hours she could have had someone working on her wounds.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


There are 4 different links to the story,Vic. I had to read them all over again. The Facts are this. She was a Felon,driving a stolen car.She drove over an officers foot.They fired on her. She proceeded to drive into a high speed chase. From 7:30-10:40 she had enough time to get to a hospital,and have her wounds attended to. She chose to flee.She chose to hit an officer. All she had to do was STOP ! She put other peoples lives on the line. Seems like thats the story. Not the innocent victim,or assassinated victim,most here are trying to portray her out to be.

reply to post by Xcathdra


There is nothing in the OP that shows the cops knew this woman was a felon. There was nothing in the OP that showed the woman intended to harm an officer. This is what has been presented to you over and over, yet all you continue to do is dig up "what if" scenarios which represent the police officers point of view, but those are your own personal opinions and speculations, not facts, and not evidence that was presented in the OP.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Saying I prove your point doesn't make it so. How about you just admit you would defend a cop no matter how bad it is and no matter what they have done.

I don't really have to say anything more. Anyone who cares to read through my last few posts and read the story can see for themselves that you are wrong and that the cop that shot the girl was wrong.

It's just another needless homicide on a long list of cops killing civilians.
I have used only the information available to the public and prove my point fine. You however have had to manipulate the story and add falsehoods in to make even a semblance of a point. So talk to me again, when you can defend on behalf of your fellow man rather than just your fellow cops.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

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?

why is it ignorant to hold law enforcement responsible for their actions, and why does the desire to hold them accountable equate to hatred of authority in general?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Her death is because of her actions, not because of the deputies.

I am not sure why you are ignoring that point.

you are blaming the victim. they were both alive and well and now one of them is dead. death due to gun shot, fired from a deadly weapon by a police officer, into a car who unbeknownst to the murderer happened to be occupied by a fugitive.

you cant justify it by saying, "oh thank god, she was a fugitive. so its okay that i murdered her."

thats a point that you keep ignoring.

its hard to defend police these days, because in too many cases they seem to behave more like violent gang members than law enforcement.

reply to post by sonnny1


Ok.. so it is just your reading comprehension then.
The cops didn't know she was a felon. To them it was just a girl, she could have been taking off for any reason in the world. They hadn't told her to stop, she took off and accidentally ran over the cops foot.

Three sheriff's deputies were at the hotel looking for someone else, who had an outstanding arrest warrant. When deputies tried to make contact with the Hyundai, the car ran over a deputy's foot, then took off. A deputy fired as the car sped away. Deputies pursued the Hyundai but did not catch up with it. Investigators are looking for people who were in the car with Vargas. Initial reports indicated that another woman was in the car.

They didn't know anything about her, and there were others in the car that were innocent that could have been killed. You guys are defending a moron.

Originally posted by Wookiep
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

There is nothing in the OP that shows the cops knew this woman was a felon. There was nothing in the OP that showed the woman intended to harm an officer. This is what has been presented to you over and over, yet all you continue to do is dig up "what if" scenarios which represent the police officers point of view, but those are your own personal opinions and speculations, not facts, and not evidence that was presented in the OP.

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

[/quote

Because that information is irrelevant to the situation at hand. Also, you need to chekc other sources, since it is evident the drivers of the car knew what was going on.

Its one thing for an officer to be hit on a bust street or highway, where speeds are higher..

However, a parking lot? where the spped limit is less than 25mph. Please, even with windows up any loud order would be heard. The people would know who is coming towards the car, and at 25mph if it were an "accident" she should have stopped. Although in a parking lot, knowing people are coiming towards the car, the right thing to do would be to stop, since pedestrians have a right of way. To run over a person, in a parking lot, takes talent since they would need the reactional speed of a drunk 3 toed sloth to hit someone.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Vic,There are so many storys to this. X was right when he said they knew she was a felon,cause that was the information given at the time.

Heres new info on it.

New Information Revealed About Deputy-Involved Shooting
Information previously distributed by the Sheriff's Office about a deputy-involved shooting was incorrect, they now say. It turns out that the Deputy didn't know Christen Vargas was wanted at the time he fired his weapon.

LINK

Does it change anything?

No. If she would have COMPLIED none of this wouldn't have happened. Is it that hard to stop Vic?

I just can't understand you guys defending this idiot cop. I believe it's that you guys just don't care for the woman since she was a criminal. The point I am making is that the cops didn't know who she was, she could have been anyone. The acted irresponsibly.

As I said before, if it had been a stoned teenage girl who got spooked after seeing cops walking up to her car and accidentally ran over the cops foot it would be a whole different story from everyone.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Actually you have not. You have seized on one source that contained preliminary info, and ignored any other source presented that added more info to the story that shows she knew what she was doing.

The cops did nothing wrong in this case. If the PA think otherwise, they will let us know by filing charges, but I dont see it occuring.

Just admit you hate cops. Thats all I have seen your posts revolve around while ignoring the criminal behavior of the suspect.

The onlything you have gotten across is you support and illegal behavior provided it is directed at the cops, and then you blame the cops for taking action.

We would have a lot less homicides in this country if people would drop / stop when ordered to do so iun a deadly force encounter situation.

We can back backwards before law enforcement contact though, and have people NOT break the law, thereby creating the situation and subsequent law enforcement involvement.

As was stated on Liar Liar -

"Quit breaking the law ashole"

reply to post by sonnny1


The information that she wasn't known to be a felon was in the OP's entry. It has been available in this thread form the start and I have stated it many times.