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.

 

Officer shot, killed by fellow police in Calif.

page: 2
15
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 01:59 AM
link   
Gee for once cops seem to have done the good thing.

Hopefully this is the beginning of a trend. Arresting the corrupt cops and if they resist, a bullet in the head, just like they do to the average guys.

Equal under the law, LEARN THAT COPS, because apparently, you never heard of it in your cops classes.




posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by nightstalker78
reply to post by insaan
 


Depends on the state,usually it's 16 or 17.I find it curious though that they didn't give the age of the officer they were attempting to arrest.What I don't get is why the hell would you try to arrest him while he's on duty?Makes no sense.Unless it was pretty serious then I can see them doing that.
edit on 29-1-2012 by nightstalker78 because: (no reason given)


It says "sexual misconduct", I'm not quiet sure what that means? Does it mean rape? Sexual Molestation? Sexual Abuse? Sex with underage female?

This sounds like a setup, it seems they wanted the officer dead for some reason. Maybe some more digging will help find something deeper.

Let's not forget one thing which is important in this case, if the American police wants to kill someone, or torture someone, they almost always do it using the terms "stop resisting", so I'm reluctant to believe the "stop resisting" story line.

I have read a report of a man being tortured to death in front of everyone under the term "stop resisting", the images released to media after the torture was horrific the least, and heart breaking to the family because his dad was also part of the police force.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by mileysubet

Originally posted by nightstalker78
reply to post by insaan
 


Depends on the state,usually it's 16 or 17.I find it curious though that they didn't give the age of the officer they were attempting to arrest.What I don't get is why the hell would you try to arrest him while he's on duty?Makes no sense.Unless it was pretty serious then I can see them doing that.
edit on 29-1-2012 by nightstalker78 because: (no reason given)


You are correct about the legal age of concent, but it only applies if the other person is under 18, if the other person is 18 or older it is considered statutory rape. That is what this LEO is facing.


Yes,if there's a certain age difference that's what it's considered.But again,I'm curious as to how old this officer was.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stryc9nine

Originally posted by liejunkie01

Originally posted by nightstalker78
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


Wrong.
www.ageofconsent.us...


I was recalling off of memory from several years ago...........

I noticed in your nice little chart that it says California is 18.......

The girl in the article was 17.......

There are to many discrepencies in the damn age laws.........to be safe it should always be 18 and consent..........


i dated a girl that was 17 when i was 18. does this make me a sex offender?


In my opinion: No, but if the female was to press charges of any sort then yes you would be. The parents could do so as well (press charges), even if neither of the above happened and the state DA decided to press charges without the parents or girls say so, you could be Charged with statutory rape.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by insaan
 


Sexual misconduct could mean a lot things.It could be a simple as slapping her on the ass you know?I'm going to do some more research on this before I comment further.There's got to be more to it.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by nightstalker78

Originally posted by mileysubet

Originally posted by nightstalker78
reply to post by insaan
 


Depends on the state,usually it's 16 or 17.I find it curious though that they didn't give the age of the officer they were attempting to arrest.What I don't get is why the hell would you try to arrest him while he's on duty?Makes no sense.Unless it was pretty serious then I can see them doing that.
edit on 29-1-2012 by nightstalker78 because: (no reason given)
.

As far as I aware there is no age difference limitations, an "adult" (18 years of age) in the USA having sexual relationship with a minor is against the law, and if the DA chooses to press charges the state will do so.

You are correct about the legal age of concent, but it only applies if the other person is under 18, if the other person is 18 or older it is considered statutory rape. That is what this LEO is facing.


Yes,if there's a certain age difference that's what it's considered.But again,I'm curious as to how old this officer was.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 02:50 AM
link   
Sexual misconduct could be anything. See this link for more info.

But this brings so many questions to the surface. Please read my entire text before you start hopping up and down and frothing at the mouth.

Why do we need an age of consent? Japan doesn't have one. It's a lot lower in Europe than in America. It just shouldn't be. Why do we need it? Because our basic morality is nonexistent. Some children are very sexual indeed and that is simply by nature. Anyone who says otherwise simply has not observed them. Americans have a very distorted view of children and childhood. Americans have a very distorted view of sexuality. These things really need to be addressed fundamentally and with a lot of tolerance and compassion. This tight-fisted, anal, knee-jerk response to anything to do with children or sexuality has to stop. You create your own criminals.

Why do people worship youth in the first place? Why is it so appealing? What exactly is so appealing there? When I look at young people, I see immaturity, a shallow world view, ill-preparedness, a lot of room for growth, hopefully some curiosity, very often a great deal of arrogance, and a smattering of potential. lol I do NOT see some astounding sexual attraction nor consummate beauty. My view of youth is not distorted. When I see older people trying to emulate youth, to hold onto it at all costs, spending all their time trying to preserve it rather than reveling in their own maturity and development, I wonder what it is they see that I don't.

If people throughout the course of their lives were held to a higher code of behavior, with the expectation that we aim higher, not lower, and that relationships are sacred things, we might just rebuild some sanity in our cultures. Contact with others is not casual. We must stop treating each other with disdain and resentment.

That officer had to have violated that girl horrifically to warrant such a response. If not, they did no one any justice with that reaction. Perhaps his behavior was unfortunate, but I feel certain there is a lot more loss in this story than gain. That is a system that will never end with a good result. If the police want to maintain any sort of credibility, there is a lot of heavy training needed in the US. The disease in American culture is pervasive.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 02:57 AM
link   
This is actually in my home city and it's not the only time something similer has happened. Last month two officers where shot while serving a high risk warrent. Initial reports said that the officers were shot by the suspect but later ballistic tests revealed that the officers were victims of friendly fire and the suspect never fired his weapon. The suspect was killed.


santamariatimes.com...

There have been 4 officer involved shootings here since january 2011. 3 have resulted in dead suspects. In april of 2011 Kerry Flood a 52 year old visiting his elderly mother in a mobile home park was fataly shot in his mothers house after arming himself with a brick when the Santa Barbara County Sheriffs Department illegally entered her home. If you live in santa maria or the surrounding area you can expect that if you are stopped by a cop, you will most likely get a gun drawn on you. For a small city of about 100,000 people we have ever-growing gang problem which contributes to a shoot first and ask questions later policy by the police.

I forgot to mention that the shooting took place yesterday morning at a DUI checkpoint around 1:00 AM. The police decided to make the arrest at that time and place based on pressure from the D.A.





edit on 29-1-2012 by iamthelaw614 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 03:54 AM
link   
Being a sex offender and a cop is pretty much death-row in prison, cops know how to use their guns im guessing this was suicide by cop by cop



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stryc9nine

Originally posted by liejunkie01

Originally posted by nightstalker78
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


Wrong.
www.ageofconsent.us...


I was recalling off of memory from several years ago...........

I noticed in your nice little chart that it says California is 18.......

The girl in the article was 17.......

There are to many discrepencies in the damn age laws.........to be safe it should always be 18 and consent..........


i dated a girl that was 17 when i was 18. does this make me a sex offender?


By law, if you diddled her, yes.

Stupid isn't it.. Intent should be a mitigating factor in this, not simply 2 people, horny as all hell, rubbing tummies.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
As more and more outrage of the police state saturates the internet and other public forums, I suspect we are going to see much more of this kind of conflict. Especially between Sheriff's, their deputies, and those LEO's of administrative agencies who have become so smugly comfortable with the illusion that they are somehow comfortably buffered from Constitutional restraint.

As more and more people come to understand that when they've been illegally detained or accosted by a police officer that the standard operating procedure of late - to contact the officers watch commander and file a complaint - is a failed due process of law, the sooner these people will learn that the long established way to ensure justice is by filing a verified complaint with your local Sheriff.

Verified complaints are sworn testimony that a crime was committed signed by the complaintant under penalty of perjury. This sworn testimony forces the Sheriff to act, forces the District Attorney to act, and forces a judge to ensure the accused stand trial. No nonsense, no mystical games of the priest class lawyer sect can protect a rogue police officer from a genuine verified complaint.

Once this understanding reaches a critical mass, this will mark the turning point and herald the necessary end of this outrageous police state.



I had no idea this was the case. That is great information to be aware of and I sure will be relaying it to my friends and family. Is this written online somewhere?



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 04:26 AM
link   
Yeah, this doesn't surprise me in the least. I used to live in Grover Beach, as well as Nipomo CA, I grew up over there. If you wanted to go to a close mall you went to Santa Maria. You never messed with the cops there, They will always shoot first.

Even when it isn't warranted, its just their standard ops. I've also noticed while I lived close to there, that INS was at work as well, between the gangs and illegals. Santa Maria isn't the best place to live, or even travel too, I remember getting my first ticket which was a fix it ticket in Guadalupe CA, had to go to Santa Maria to pay the damn thing. Took that jack ass almost 3 mos to submit it, that a lot of gas money going back and forth to check. Just to pay what 15-20 bucks.

Even so, I still don't like going to SM its not smart, I feel bad for the people who live there. I think they should just fire the whole force and come up with a new plan and people from the ground up. This kind of think isn't new there, and its just going to continue.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 04:43 AM
link   
reply to post by BLKMJK
 





I had no idea this was the case. That is great information to be aware of and I sure will be relaying it to my friends and family. Is this written online somewhere?


Not surprisingly, such information tends to be buried in unrelated crap. Google verified complaint legal definition and you get crap like this. Buried deep within this undefined definition is this:


If the complaint is verified as under penalty of perjury, the answer must be also.


You can spend countless hours online attempting to get better clarification, or you can call your local Sheriff department and ask them how to go about filing a verified complaint. Your local Sheriff may or may not know the answer. If they do not know the answer it is not because that justice department is the wrong agency to contact, only that your local Sheriff has probably never been confronted with a verified complaint. If that is the tragic case, call the next county over and try that Sheriff until you find one who can explain the process to you so if ever need be you can instruct your own Sheriff on how to do his, or her, job.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by CosmicEgg
 





Why do we need an age of consent?

Because there has to be a certain level of understanding of all the consequences.
It's the same reason you can vote at 18 but not drink until you are 21. As you get older you can clearly see the differences in maturity between 18 and 21.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


I would argue that it doesn't come with age, it comes with experience. Children have to learn to listen to their elders. Elders have to be responsible for holding the fabric of society together by proving their knowledge works. We currently have a society full of irresponsible people who look to legislation and legislators to guide them. Now legislators and legislation have proven that they do not and cannot work. We don't need laws. We need people being responsible. This is society's duty, not a job for legislation.

Children can be devious and manipulative just as much as adults. Some are also just as sexual as some adults. Our job is not to hinder anyone from being what they are. We can guide, but legislation is just wrong. Creating criminals is wrong. It serves no one. A 17-year-old is just as emotionally and mentally competent as an 18-year-old. There is virtually no difference. I know 15-year-olds who are more mature than some 28-year-olds I know. You cannot decide maturity levels based on averages or random birthdays. It's time for us to take responsibility for our lives back into our own hands and take it off the books. There are exceptions to everything. It's a matter of self-knowledge and the guidance and assistance of those around us. Our society is grossly deformed right now. We must fix it and return it to its rightful owners: Us.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


And apparently you didnt bother to even read the entire story either.

The officer in question was being arrested for improper contact with a minor.

When officers went to take the officer into custody, who was at the time working a DWI checkpoint, opted instead to resist that arrest, drawing his weapon and firing at one of the officers.

The arresting officers fired back.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by BLKMJK

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
As more and more outrage of the police state saturates the internet and other public forums, I suspect we are going to see much more of this kind of conflict. Especially between Sheriff's, their deputies, and those LEO's of administrative agencies who have become so smugly comfortable with the illusion that they are somehow comfortably buffered from Constitutional restraint.

As more and more people come to understand that when they've been illegally detained or accosted by a police officer that the standard operating procedure of late - to contact the officers watch commander and file a complaint - is a failed due process of law, the sooner these people will learn that the long established way to ensure justice is by filing a verified complaint with your local Sheriff.

Verified complaints are sworn testimony that a crime was committed signed by the complaintant under penalty of perjury. This sworn testimony forces the Sheriff to act, forces the District Attorney to act, and forces a judge to ensure the accused stand trial. No nonsense, no mystical games of the priest class lawyer sect can protect a rogue police officer from a genuine verified complaint.

Once this understanding reaches a critical mass, this will mark the turning point and herald the necessary end of this outrageous police state.



I had no idea this was the case. That is great information to be aware of and I sure will be relaying it to my friends and family. Is this written online somewhere?


Before you buy it hook line and sinker you should be aware...

I have respect JPZ and his position, however his position is not based on current law, legislation or supreme court rulings. This incident revolved around an officer breaking the law, and other officers going to arrest him for that violation. This has nothing to do with people being accosted or the American people getting tired of whatever it is he is blaming today.

The officer being taken into custody new he was caught, and decided to take the easy way out, which was to fight and discharge his weapon at an officer.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 





And apparently you didnt bother to even read the entire story either.


Is it common practice for you to come in and reply to someone's thread like this?

I mean really...............................



For your information. I read the story several times...............




The officer in question was being arrested for improper contact with a minor.


I realize the improper contact part,,,,,,,If you noticed it was brought up several comment ago..........




When officers went to take the officer into custody, who was at the time working a DWI checkpoint, opted instead to resist that arrest, drawing his weapon and firing at one of the officers.



Here is a direct quote in my opening thread.



Cops shooting cops at checkpoints.......who would of thunk it?


So basically you came in here with a chip on your shoulder to basically tell us the information that we already know...........and did it with an attitude.........

Just a quick question.............

Do you have a hard time meeting new friends?



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by nightstalker78
reply to post by insaan
 


Depends on the state,usually it's 16 or 17.I find it curious though that they didn't give the age of the officer they were attempting to arrest.What I don't get is why the hell would you try to arrest him while he's on duty?Makes no sense.Unless it was pretty serious then I can see them doing that.
edit on 29-1-2012 by nightstalker78 because: (no reason given)


Yup...something fishy about this story..

Much more to this than meets the eye.. *sighs*.. This is where I lean heavily on my faith that authority up above knows exactly why things went down the way they did.. and hopefully we will know the truth someday.

They could have waited till he was off duty.. but no they use that many cops for this crime.. while the gang bangers are raping 12 year olds against their will and getting away with it.
edit on 29-1-2012 by gabby2011 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by insaan
 


16, but if one of them is over 18 then the other has to be over 18.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join