Brainwashed Cops Shoot Unarmed Woman Motorist To Death For Rolling Up Her Car Window

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by dubiousone

 

I failed to see any video to confirm this.

I need confirmation.

Otherwise I see no reason to assume the professional was wrong.

Video would answer a lot of questions. I don't know if Culpeper police have video. Montgomery County police do not, they have fought it for years, saying that it "invades their privacy" to record what they do while on duty. Of course officers like Dina Hoffman show why they are really against video. It's also very said that they will release a bunch of information about the woman, some which conflicts with what witnesses saw, but they are protecting the identity of the policeman. I wonder why they are so anxious to try and convict the deceased in the press while protecting one of their own.

source


-Alien

Originally posted by Believer101

Originally posted by Sparky63
IF he had his arm in her window then he was probably assaulting her and she had every right to flee. But I don't believe this cop for a sec. IF there is one thing cops do best it's lie.

edit on 2/13/2012 by Sparky63 because: added comment

1. When a person is not complying with an officer in a vehicle and trying to flee, the police officers attempt to shut off their cars by either reaching through the window or opening the door and grabbing either the keys or stepping on the break pedal.

That right there states what he could have been doing when his arm got caught in the window.

Nothing there states assault. Where did you hear that he was assaulting her? Or did you just make that up because of your bias towards police officers.

i'm trying desperately to understand WHY you keep implying a citizen is obligated to comply with the officer ... any chance you can clarify that stance?

according to the laws of my state, i have no such obligation.
as a matter of experience, i was stopped on my bicycle, asked for ID and refused. after inquiring why the officer wanted to know, he replied that he just wanted to "run it" as he was "bored".
i dismissed his request, suggested he have a good night and reminded him that he didn't know me and he didn't need to either. as i rode away on my bicycle, i expected to be followed and questioned further, however, that did not happen.

i don't know where cops get the "you have to comply" complex, do they teach this at the academy or what?
the truth of the matter is, unless you are actively committing a crime, the PD have no authority to harass any citizen for any reason.

for all we know, this cop may have propositioned the lady and gotten pissed when turned down.
for all we know, she was parked and checking her voice mail, or email or texting someone rather than doing so while driving. she could have been perceived as suspicious but that still doesn't obligate her to comply with any official request.

my guess is she refused to provide her ID and the cop went rambo on her.
if i am committing NO crime, and you attempt to "control" my vehicle in any way, shape or form, you have committed assault, period. if you harm me in the process, you can add battery to the list of charges.
in this case, there is no justification for his actions, any of them.

Originally posted by onfire49
reply to post by Alien Abduct

 

If you can find me whining I'll eat my hat. I'm simply saying I have seen no reasoned explanation on this thread, just mere conjecture. Even the title is just someones belief. We do not know why she was shot, and we have no evidence that shows this cop was some how brainwashed. I have no family that are cops, just merely knew some growing up, believe me or not doesnt matter. However, I just speak from my own experience with being pulled over or interacting with cops. Most times it was great and I have seen nothing that shows brain washing. I for one am glad that the cops will ask people what they are doing when someone says they are acting suspicious. Id rather have someone get all upset and indignant than somebody rob my house or business or worse kill me or a family member. unfortunately things like this happen and I feel bad for the family but there is nothing I can see in this story to support any of the theories here

Well My theory is that the cop was NOT being dragged. Do you need evidence for that? Perhaps as you say "anything that supports any theories presented here"?

I will make a list here below. But first let me make it clear that I am NOT a cop basher/hater. Also, I aim to point out logic, evidence and reason based on what has been provided.

First the cop....

He claims that the woman disobeyed orders and rolled the window up trapping his arm in the vehicle, then attempted to drive off dragging him with her as she did so. He feared for his life and was left with no choice but to shoot and kill her to stop her from further endangering his life. He does not deny that he had fired six rounds into the vehicle (as this is irrefutable).

Possibly what could have happened here was that as he was being dragged his body was fully extended hands over head in a near horizontal position where as the only angle he could hit her was from the back window (left hand stuck in window right hand shooting the gun) In this case it very well could have taken six shots before finally hitting her and killing her dead enough for her to be unable to operate the vehicle.

If the same scenario above happened but the hands switched roles (the right hand was stuck and the left hand had fired the weapon) then the bullets would have come from the driver window.

Both of the above scenarios would have the bullet shells strung down the road in the path the cops body was being dragged.


The eye witness...........

The eye witness states that the cop warned the old woman to not drive off else he would shoot her. In the video interview the eye witness positions his hands in a demonstration of where he witnessed the cops hands to be and stated that both the officers hands were OUTSIDE the vehicle.

The witness claims that the officer did not get dragged by the car and that he fired a shot initially as the car began to move then stepped over a bit (probably getting into a good firing position for aiming purposes) and fired five more shots as the car drove off.

The evidence..........



1. If you look at the photo above you can see that the road lane has a dash marking and a solid lane line visible. Road lanes are typically 12 feet wide so, using this information as a guide we can see that the bullets are all within about a 10 foot parameter (and not all in a straight line)

A. If the cop was being dragged the bullet shells would undoubtedly be strung out a lot farther than 10 feet.

B. If the cop was being dragged the bullet shells would have been strung out in a more or less straight line down the path he took whilst being dragged.


2. The eye witness testimony (which is considered evidence) corroborates with the physical evidence as in the cop stayed in the area and did not get dragged down the road and fired all six rounds from his general area.


So far I have yet to see any evidence that the cop was being dragged however there IS evidence that he was NOT being dragged.

If indeed the cops arm was trapped in the vehicle and he feared for his life and he shot the woman to stop his life from being endangered further then I would say that although it is an extreme measure it would be justifiable. But all he needed to do was to break the glass to free his arm and it doesn't seem like he needed to fire 6 rounds to break the glass.

Think about it. He was firing the rounds not to free his arm but to kill the driver to stop the vehicle...that's the sick part.

All evidence thus far suggests that he was NOT being dragged and so therefore there was NO justification for deadly force.

Maybe other things/evidence will turn up and change my mind but as of right now this is how I see it.


-Alien

Originally posted by Believer101
reply to post by yourignoranceisbliss

 

Considering vehicles are considered deadly weapons to a majority of police officers, she was not unarmed. What would win, a 2000 lb car or a gun?

in this case, clearly the car was no match for the gun.
did that get by you somehow?

and since when do cops have any authority to harass a non-threatening citizen?
acting on "perception" is equal to acting on the "hallucination" so often employed ... "gun, gun" ... whether it exists or not.

if cops are authorized to act on "perceptions" then so are we ... and, if that happens and cops are "perceived" as a perpetual threat, how does that help anyone?

you weave an awfully wide web of deceit when you accept or practice "everyone is a potential threat" ... especially considering we are animals who exist at the top of the food chain ... we are a born "threat" ... no point exploiting it.

Originally posted by nocollegeonsunday
Trapping somebodies arm in a car window and dragging them along is ATTEMPTED MURDER, cop or not. The officer was completely right to take the action that he did.

Negative. Prudent people don't let their arms get trapped in car windows. Even if his story is legit, he needs to go, to find another line of work. He's not prudent enough to be carrying a gun in public, and on my dime, no less.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by wazorshawp

 

Not really. What do you think is suspicious about it?

How would he remove his weapon from the holster and fire with accuracy while having his arm trapped in the window and being dragged? It is just not likely.

Buchele says the officer was not dragged and that he shot her before she drove away. He says he didn't have his arm caught because the officer's left hand was on the door handle and right hand was holding a weapon.

edit on 13-2-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

No, that's VERY likely. How accurate does one have to be with a gun when less that arm's length away? That's not a precision shooting sniper shot there - it's point blank. Here's a potential problem with it, though - but only potential. In the US, drivers sit on the left side of a car, Either his right arm was trapped, OR he was having to run backwards. Most people are right-handed. If he was, too, his shooting hand is the one trapped in the window... Not a problem really for the shooting itself, but DRAWING the weapon would have been an exercise in contortion.

Unless it were already drawn...

I note that the witnesses story says the cop was right handed.

reply to post by Glargod


If she was trying to drive off, he would have reached in to turn the ignition off. Like I stated before, police don't have the luxury of time in situations like these. The officer's number one objective is to be able to clock out at the end of every shift. We are trained to neutralize the threat, not shoot tires out or any of that other stuff in movies. Life is not scripted. Again once we get all the information and this guy broke the law, then he should be dealt with accordingly. I don't pass judgement because I know exactly what goes through the mind of an officer each time he or she walks up to a vehicle. There is no such thing as a routine traffic stop.

Something else I forgot to mention. Most officers use hollowpoints in their duty weapon. This could account for the multiple shots. Hollow points mushroom out on impact. This is to limit stray bullets from continuing after impact. So if he shot the first may have broken the window but if she floored it after the first shot, his arm is still inside the car. I would think he would continue firing til either freed or the car came to a stop. This would be why he got off 6 shots and not emptied the magazine. When I went through the academy, we trained to double tap. Thats 2 shoots and sight back up. Military vets getting into law enforcement changed the double tap to shoot til neutralized. The reasoning was because criminals have become more heavily armed with assault weapons.

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by Believer101
reply to post by yourignoranceisbliss

 

Considering vehicles are considered deadly weapons to a majority of police officers, she was not unarmed. What would win, a 2000 lb car or a gun?

in this case, clearly the car was no match for the gun.
did that get by you somehow?

and since when do cops have any authority to harass a non-threatening citizen?
acting on "perception" is equal to acting on the "hallucination" so often employed ... "gun, gun" ... whether it exists or not.

if cops are authorized to act on "perceptions" then so are we ... and, if that happens and cops are "perceived" as a perpetual threat, how does that help anyone?

you weave an awfully wide web of deceit when you accept or practice "everyone is a potential threat" ... especially considering we are animals who exist at the top of the food chain ... we are a born "threat" ... no point exploiting it.

It's not "perception". In Canada it would be "reasonable grounds". Link

I don't like to assume, anything, but I would think there is something similar in the States. There was a report was of a suspicious woman in a church parking lot. He was investigating a suspicious report. He was not merely "bored" or "harassing .

Through his investigating, he has every right to approach and question an individual. Especially if a call from a concerned citizen is placed.

Again, how it spiraled into subjecting the individual to 6 rounds, is questionable. But be clear, he has to investigate, when requested. As that is one of the things they are paid for. If you made the call of a suspicious person, I'm sure you would want the police to arrive and find out what is happening. Though, I would be mortified if it led to this kind of outcome.

Originally posted by wardk28
Something else I forgot to mention. Most officers use hollowpoints in their duty weapon. This could account for the multiple shots. Hollow points mushroom out on impact. This is to limit stray bullets from continuing after impact. So if he shot the first may have broken the window but if she floored it after the first shot, his arm is still inside the car. I would think he would continue firing til either freed or the car came to a stop. This would be why he got off 6 shots and not emptied the magazine. When I went through the academy, we trained to double tap. Thats 2 shoots and sight back up. Military vets getting into law enforcement changed the double tap to shoot til neutralized. The reasoning was because criminals have become more heavily armed with assault weapons.

Please, read my post above this. Look at that picture of where the bullet shells are.......

Also, there are now two completely separate witnesses with mirror stories saying that the cop did NOT get dragged, there is also a possible third.

-Alien

reply to post by nenothtu


No it's not very likely, because I am taking into consideration that he is likely doing this left handed. I should have been clearer I guess. Also point blank is one thing, but not when you are being dragged in a direction by the arm, and having to pull yourself sideways. I mean with his arm in the door, he could have shot his own arm right?

The right handed thing, that's what I was getting at earlier. He would have to reach around himself, press down and pull the weapon, then reconfigure it to face the right way in his hand (all one handed) then aim and shoot.

It would be very difficult while being dragged. The witness said he had the gun in his right hand the whole time.
The witness is likely telling the truth and this cop is likely a murderer.

reply to post by Alien Abduct


This cop is a murderer. He used a very poor story because it's the best he has to cover up a murder.

He expects us to believe, he got his arm trapped in the car (presumably his right arm) and couldnt get it out (so we could assume to the elbow inside - why that far?) then reached around his own body, pulled his gun from his holster (alot of times cops have locking holsters that you have to press down and then pull up) reconfigured the gun in his hand with only one hand, then pulled himself to face the car against the pulling force and shot this woman several times, missing his own arm (that is supposedly stuck in the window so far he cant get it out and likely holding against the window if he is being pulled), and did this all while being dragged.

Yeah right. Good riddance to another bad cop too bad it cost another innocent life.

If it was his left arm it still puts him in a precarious situation for shooting and puts him shooting from an angle behind and makes him more likely to fall as he would be hindered running if she was dragging him, and more likely to strike his own arm. It would getting the firearm easier, but it would also make making the shots very very difficult this way.

I just really don't believe his story.

reply to post by Alien Abduct


I can. Because they are.

I simply don't trust the mob.

reply to post by Alien Abduct


Assumptive, ignorant, and irrelevant.

reply to post by smurfy


Exactly. It is 100 percent precisely what we should be doing. They arrest people to discourage their recording of events. We should flood them with all citizens recording to discourage them from beating and killing us. I really suggest it for people in G.B. because of having to deal with all the CCTV's.

Originally posted by Demoncreeper

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by Believer101
reply to post by yourignoranceisbliss

 

Considering vehicles are considered deadly weapons to a majority of police officers, she was not unarmed. What would win, a 2000 lb car or a gun?

in this case, clearly the car was no match for the gun.
did that get by you somehow?

and since when do cops have any authority to harass a non-threatening citizen?
acting on "perception" is equal to acting on the "hallucination" so often employed ... "gun, gun" ... whether it exists or not.

if cops are authorized to act on "perceptions" then so are we ... and, if that happens and cops are "perceived" as a perpetual threat, how does that help anyone?

you weave an awfully wide web of deceit when you accept or practice "everyone is a potential threat" ... especially considering we are animals who exist at the top of the food chain ... we are a born "threat" ... no point exploiting it.

It's not "perception". In Canada it would be "reasonable grounds". Link

I don't like to assume, anything, but I would think there is something similar in the States. There was a report was of a suspicious woman in a church parking lot. He was investigating a suspicious report. He was not merely "bored" or "harassing .

Through his investigating, he has every right to approach and question an individual. Especially if a call from a concerned citizen is placed.

Again, how it spiraled into subjecting the individual to 6 rounds, is questionable. But be clear, he has to investigate, when requested. As that is one of the things they are paid for. If you made the call of a suspicious person, I'm sure you would want the police to arrive and find out what is happening. Though, I would be mortified if it led to this kind of outcome.

edit on 13-2-2012 by Demoncreeper because: (no reason given)

any approach to a call is based on perception ... unless it is a crime in progress.
there are no facts to allege a "suspicious" person ... hence, it is perception, nothing else.

when a cop announces "gun, gun" and there isn't one present (other than his own) it is again, perception and nothing else. Reasonable means just that, reasonable evidence, not assumption.

the woman provided NO REASONABLE evidence of anything other than minding her own business.
for the officer to inquire is reasonable, for him to act is not.
for her to refuse his inquiry is LEGAL, reasonable, well within her right and still not demanding any actions on behalf of the officer.

i never claimed this officer was "bored" ... that statement is from a personal experience.

however, by reaching inside her vehicle (if he actually did so) and not acquiescing when she chose to not engage his request, is most certainly harassment, at the least, assault if any non-LEO did it to another.

investigating a suspicious report could have been achieved by mere observation, no personal engagement necessary ... especially since she was not actively participating in any crime.

Through his investigating, he has every right to approach and question an individual. Especially if a call from a concerned citizen is placed.

not disputing this one bit, however, she equally retains the right to dismiss his request to participate -- which she obviously tried to do but was killed for it.

you and unknown officer seem to think that it's "mandatory" to respond to any official request, maybe so in Canada but not in the US ... at least not yet anyway.

an investigation of a complaint does not REQUIRE personal interactions with anyone ... why do you assume it does?
what would have been so wrong for him to drive to the parking lot, park in a corner of the lot, remain as an observer for a period of time, assess the "potential suspicion" reported and move along?
why was it necessary to engage a non-threat?

reply to post by FoosM


I have no more details or facts than you do. Questions that some of which are being asked or have been asked with the investigation I hope.

reply to post by Alien Abduct


First off, that's a lot bigger than 10 ft. The ones in the straight line look closer to 18 to 20 feet. In the picture, you see a person standing there and unless he is a little person, he has to be between 5 to 6 ft tall. If he went up and just fired, they wouldn't be in a straight line either. There would be a 5 to 6 foot cluster. The other 2 look like they may have bounced off the top of the car. If his arm was stuck, the angle he may of had his weapon would put the spent casing towards the vehicle. That would also explain the V shape because after the first shot, I'm guessing she laid the pedal to the floor. If the shell hit the car at a higher rate of speed, it could traveled a little bit farther. I would like to see the placement of the shots. Depending on where they landed, this can either confirm my theory or not. This is why I said in my very first post, I will wait for more evidence. Witnesses are good but what if he has the same mind set as most of the people on here? Police are gulty until proven innocent?

reply to post by Believer101


I was postulating.

I remember hearing about special task forces being made up of the more easily manipulated, more "listen to what they're told" officers and military people. I don't have a source, and maybe what i heard was just someone else postulating on the matter. But i think it's completely possible for this to happen.

I wasn't saying that they're looking to hire "dumb" cops, or that cops are dumb. Didn't mean to come off that way.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by nenothtu

 

No it's not very likely, because I am taking into consideration that he is likely doing this left handed. I should have been clearer I guess. Also point blank is one thing, but not when you are being dragged in a direction by the arm, and having to pull yourself sideways. I mean with his arm in the door, he could have shot his own arm right?

The right handed thing, that's what I was getting at earlier. He would have to reach around himself, press down and pull the weapon, then reconfigure it to face the right way in his hand (all one handed) then aim and shoot.

It would be very difficult while being dragged. The witness said he had the gun in his right hand the whole time.
The witness is likely telling the truth and this cop is likely a murderer.

edit on 13-2-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

I may not be the best judge of accurate shooting with the "off" hand, since I'm ambiodextrous. It really perhaps depends on how his equipment belt is set up, but if it were me, and my right hand is trapped, I'm not going to the bother of drawing my gun (mine rides on the right side of my belt out of habit) to free it, I'm going to grab my Asp, which is already on the left of my belt, and doesn't have a particular direction it has to be drawn from, and break the window. It's all about getting free first if your getting dragged along. You can always follow the plates later.

Now, I'm not a cop, but I can guarantee you that if I get dragged along like that while I'm on duty, there will be cops crawling all over the house where that car lives in less than two hours time from the incident. It ought not to take long to sort the driver out from there.

Your absolutely right about the difficulties involved in drawing a pistol with the off hand when the butt is pointed in the wrong direction for that, and doing it all under the pressure of being dragged by a 2000 pound car. I'm going for that Asp extensible baton, because it doesn't matter which way it comes out - it's ready to go, and does a fine job against glass.

Personally, I believe the witness statement as well (it makes a lot more logical sense), but it still needs to be thoroughly investigated and documented, since there is - at least here - a lot of speculation going on in the absence of verified fact. The investigation and documentation provides that verification.

Another option is pepper spray, but I'm not about to blind the driver of a vehicle that's dragging me along without freeing my hand first. Still, if the window is gapped open by my arm being in the way, there is an avenue for introduction of pepper spray.

Through all of that, the main point is that if it were me involved in the situation that the officer claims, my sidearm isn't going to be my FIRST option because it doesn't do much to extract me, and could in fact make my situation DISASTROUS. But it wasn't me, and a woman is dead rather than answering questions in the pokey. I was mostly responding to your observation of accuracy at that distance, but there are a lot of factors beyond that isolated function.

My qualifications: I am NOT a police officer, but I have been police trained, and have trained police. I have about 15 years of experience dealing with precisely this sort of situation, and never, in all that time, allowed my arm to get trapped inside a car window, nor have I ever had to kill a 54 year old woman for dragging me along with her car.