Autopsy: Woman died from shot fired by deputy

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
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.

Dont try to say its my reading comprehension. I am trying to gather the facts presented,not take your word as Gospel. Your defending someone who didnt care about her life,the officers life,or anyones life,for that matter.For Gods sake,she was driving a stolen car,with people in it,and decided it was easier to just run away from possible jail time,due to her being a felon. God forbid she killed an innocent victim in all this,I suppose you would still defend her anyways. Thats the only view I see as moronic.

reply to post by Xcathdra


You guys only think it's ok because she turned out to be a criminal. The cop shot before he ever knew that.
That's insane, that you guys are that way. If a cop ever kills someone dear to you because the shot their gun off before getting a full grip on the situation I hope you remember this.

reply to post by sonnny1


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. It's only ok to you because she turned out to be a criminal after the fact. If she hadn't been you guys wouldn't even dare touch this thread

Originally posted by snarfbot
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?

Because holding someone / agency accountible would require the person to be knowledgable about how the law works and is applied in these situations. When someone goes off about police actions, yet takes absolutely no time or effort to learn about it first, is intentioanlly targeting the police based on personal beleifs, and not actual law.

To hold police accountible, shouldnt one take the time to learn the law so as to make a valid argument that should be so well done that a judge or jury would accept the argument? Anything less than that effort is not holding the polkice responsible, they are blaming them based on perosnal issues.

There is a difference.

Should we go back and blame the designers, construction crews, prep crews, maintenance personell or shuttle crew members for the 2 shuttles that exploded? If you want to hold NASA accountible would you not learn the facts, who is repsonsible for what and who is covered under what before opening your mouth?

As far as challenging authority, I am absolutely for that. All I do is remind people there is a time and place for everything.

Originally posted by snarfbot
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.

Yes, because the viciem decided to run, which changed her status from victim to suspect by the way. It is irrelevant if the people in the car are known or not. The action the driver took was taken as an offenseive threat.

What could she have done differently that would have resulted in the cops not shooting at her?

Comply with their commands to stop - Its that easy

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

and has been pointed it s possible the cops didnt know who was in the car. However, as ive stated before, its irrelevant based on the totality of circumstances.

Originally posted by snarfbot
thats a point that you keep ignoring.

Its not, ive brought up the suspects actions, as well as spoken about irrelevency of knowing who you are dealing with in some encounters. People chose to ignore it because it undermines the I hate cops argument.

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

Its even more difficult for some people to defend the police because they hate authority so much, they just will find whatever they can to grab onto and scream evil cop over and over and over and over.

If people think cops are stupid, then by all means, take the time and learn the law, and make your argument incourt, where it belongs. Absent that even the worst cops still have a leg up on people in these threads who are making the argument against them.

There is a difference arguing your opinion and how you think it should work and actually arguing a point that is present and codified and reinforced by the courts.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
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 cop killed someone for running over his foot. thats wrong, period the end.

accusing people of hating cops isn't helping your cause either.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

You guys only think it's ok because she turned out to be a criminal. The cop shot before he ever knew that.
That's insane, that you guys are that way. If a cop ever kills someone dear to you because the shot their gun off before getting a full grip on the situation I hope you remember this.

Again no -

The actions of the officer are justified based on the actions of the driver. As I have stated numerous times, that you and other apprently are ignoring, its irrelevant if the officer knows a person or not in a deadly force encounter. If anything, if the officer knows the person and has a pror history with that person, the officer can then escalate force much quicker based on that fact (if the person is known to be violent / armed / etc).


As I said - Parking lot, very low speed limit, unifomred officers coming towards you, so close in fact they ar right next to the car, and the driver decides to ignore their orders, driving over a deputies foot, which is a deadly force encounter whether you want to acknowledge it as one or not.

You are fixiated on the officers response, and are completely ignoring the suspects actions that resulted in the officer response.

The lady would be alive had she not broken the law and hit a cop.

Simple as that. Although I find it refreshing that many people are still on the boat of blaming anyone and everyone for someones elses actions.

You want the cops to be held accountibale based on their personal actions, yet want us to excuse the suspects actions?


Are you smoking the smae drug as the suspect?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Are you smoking the smae drug as the suspect?

accusing people of taking drugs also doesnt help your cause.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


These are cases that I believe are Police officers abusing their authority.

The US 10th Circuit Court ruled that cops cannot use minor traffic violations as an excuse to break into homes without a warrant in a case involving a Murray County OK deputy and 2 Sulphur OK cops being sued for allegedly doing just that in addition to beating a man in the head with a baton, pepperspraying a woman and her 14-year-old son, then dragging their other son out of the bathroom at gunpoint all over a minor traffic violation he didn’t stop for. [0] http://(link tracking not allowed)/roN9IT

A Seattle WA police brutality lawsuit alleging a cop with a history of misconduct allegedly beat one man and tasered another then concocted a story about being assaulted even though he had no injuries illustrates the difficulties Seattle has in imposing discipline on cops even when there is a history of misconduct and how it results in more misconduct and legal bills for that city. [3] (link tracking not allowed)/p0DsQS

Philadelphia PA police will be facing planned lawsuits that will allege that the police have a pattern of destroying people’s cell phones and arresting them for videotaping the police in public while the practice of recording police was recently confirmed as being a protected form of constitutionally protected expression in a 1st Circuit Court ruling. [4] (link tracking not allowed)/oa2rKL

New York NY police investigate up to 15 cops who threw councilman & aide to ground & arrested them at parade [1] t.co...

In an update to a report we tracked last week, now 2 Omaha NE cops are suspended while the focus of a videotaped beating incident that only ended when cops told it was being recorded, previously only one officer was the focus for kicking the man but another can be seen repeatedly punching him too. [1] http://(link tracking not allowed)/r7YmIP

2 RCMP mounties in Newfoundland are accused of kicking a woman who broke down kicking and screaming after hearing her son was murdered then calling her a slut before throwing her in the back of a cruiser on assaulting an officer charges. [3] t.co...


LINK

Sorry Vic,but If I see injustice,I have NO problem pointing it out.I also have NO problem telling LEO's that they think they are above the law,and their antics are becoming an epidemic. Unfortunately in this case,I believe they were justified in shooting. Cops are not above the Law.Period. Neither are citizens. If you decide to run from the Law,expect bad consequences.If you decide to assault a LEO,expect dire consequences.If you are too stupid to get medical attention after receiving a gunshot wound,7:30-10:40,you only have yourself to answer to,when it comes to living or dying.

When deputies approached, the car sped off and ran over the foot of one of the deputies. A deputy then fired a single shot at the car, which drove out of the motel parking lot and struck a street median.


Quit making it sound like they shot first,then got hit by the car.

reply to post by Xcathdra


No they aren't.
If she was lining up the car to run him down, I'd agree with you. Accidentally running over his foot while he's at the side, that doesn't fly (last time I checked they don't drive sideways). She was already past him and heading off when he shot. He wasn't in further danger.

Originally posted by snarfbot
the cop killed someone for running over his foot. thats wrong, period the end.

Well know, the person was shot and killed for assaulting an officer and attempting to flee the scene. Again, the difference is your opinon based on actual law. Believe it or not there is a difference.

Originally posted by snarfbot
accusing people of hating cops isn't helping your cause either.

What would you call it then? People are upset because they think the cops over reacted, while they ignore any and all actions the suspect took. They demand the cops be held accountible for their personal actions, yet defend the suspects personal actions and attempt to dismiss them.

They demands cops treat people as innocent until proven guilty while in the same breath demand the cops be held accountible fir perceived illegal action, which would be saying the cops are guilty till proven innocent.

There are enough double standards in this thread for me to amke that accusation, and I stand behind it. Using terms all cops is pretty much a clue btw....

If they "dont hate cops" and only want to hold them accountible, then wouldnt logic dictate you learn how the law works, and how they apply to the police and their actions? If you are truely serious, then you would get the education to know the difference and make logical and legal arguments on oifficer action.

Instead we get rants based on opinion with no supporting facts.

What would you call it?

reply to post by sonnny1


Of course you do. Because other people have already called it for what it is.
There are plenty of cases of cops doing the same exact thing and getting away with it.
I guess it has to be blatant for the police to want to distance themselves enough from it to let the people take the cop to trial. Maybe if this cop would have yelled slut or something while he shot then he'd be up against it.

reply to post by Xcathdra


The person (not suspect) didn't aim for the cop, but the cop certainly was trying to hit her.

Please answer me this. Do you think it's fine that he shot at the car even though there was a passenger that had no control over the situation and could have been injured or killed? You can't even hold him responsible for that?

reply to post by Xcathdra


He is guilty. He admitted to it. If there was a question about it, he'd be innocent until proven otherwise.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

No they aren't.
If she was lining up the car to run him down, I'd agree with you. Accidentally running over his foot while he's at the side, that doesn't fly (last time I checked they don't drive sideways). She was already past him and heading off when he shot. He wasn't in further danger.

And if the cop watched the person line the car up and start making a run for them, they would NOT be justified in shooting at the person. The Supreme Court says we cannot do that, and if we have an avenue to escape in a situation like that, it should come first.

In this case, the cops were there, next to the car, in uniform, telling them to stop, and they didnt. In the process a cop gets run over. The person in the car didnt stop, and he shot. You are isolating your argument to just the officers, and as I have pointed out ebfore that you ignore, we are not only there to protect ourselves, but 3rd parties as well.

The lady demonstrated she had no respect for law enforcement by ignoring them.
She demonstrated she has no regard for hum life by running one over and not stopping, giving the appearence of it being intentional, which is a felony assault oin law enforcement and puts it into a deadly force encounter.

Its not hard to articulate, that by doing all of these things in view of the public, that her actions were placing the public at large in danger.

You need to quit seeing only what you want, and again, understand the law, ALL OF IT, and how it used in law enforcement. The threat was still present by her not stopping. The threat towards the officers may have been subsided, however the public was in her way. If she shows no regard for law enforcement, she wont show any regard for the public.

As I said, have you ever dealt with a person who is not going to go back to jail?

I would even go so far to state that if the cops didnt shoot, and she ended up killing someone during the escape, you would be in here yealling about how the stupid cops let her kill uinnocent people because they were to cowardly to shoot.

Ill take my experience and training over your opinion any day of the week and twice on sundays.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

He is guilty. He admitted to it. If there was a question about it, he'd be innocent until proven otherwise.

Ah yes.. Hypocrisy for the win....

The term your looking for sherlock is called justifiable homicide, as this was one of those. If the cop diodnt think he was in the right do you think he would be giving an accurate statement? Is there any reason to beleive he didnt get run over? Are both cops just making up facts in order to justify the shoot?

The only person hiding anything in this incident, was the suspect.

reply to post by Xcathdra


He had an avenue to escape, but what I'm really interested in now was my other question.

Is it ok that he shot at the car even though there was an innocent passenger that could have been killed?

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by sonnny1

 

Of course you do. Because other people have already called it for what it is.
There are plenty of cases of cops doing the same exact thing and getting away with it.
I guess it has to be blatant for the police to want to distance themselves enough from it to let the people take the cop to trial. Maybe if this cop would have yelled slut or something while he shot then he'd be up against it.

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

But the Facts are...............She ran him over,then he shot. Be totally different,and I would be in your corner,if it wasnt.

I call it for what it is also. Justified. By law,so far,it was.

The saddest thing is she could have prevented ALL of this. Everyone wants to place the blame on the officer.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Instead we get rants based on opinion with no supporting facts.

What would you call it?

exactly, from the article it isnt clear that the woman deliberately attempted to run over the guy. its just as likely to have been an accident as he was approaching the car. regardless there is no point speculating about it.

so id call it a measured reaction, based on the facts available to us, and according to what ive read so far, there is no justification for the police officers actions, and he should be held accountable for them.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
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.

You're basing that on an incomplete news article, not the actual facts as the police knew them at the time the incident occurred. The news has to piece things together with what facts they are given by the police, which are often given out only as those facts are verified, families notified, and crime scene reports competed and filed. So going off a news article released this early on is not always the best source.

For example, the police obviously approached THAT car because they DID suspect who was driving it, they certainly were not stopping all the random traffic that was in the parking lot.

BTW... If you're in a stolen car with an escaped prisoner, you're NOT innocent.

reply to post by defcon5


Obviously they did? They couldn't be approaching the car to ask whoever was in it if they had seen the person they were there looking for? They weren't looking for the people in the car you know? So there is no obvious about it.