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

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
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.

I have one of these for recordings of that nature. Everyone knows that cell phones record stuff these days, but who the hell is going to arrest you for pointing a keychain fob at them? They're not likely to even notice it, and if they do, it takes less than a second to remove the chip and stash it while they're approaching you.

IMO, it's never a bad idea to turn the tables on those who want to record YOU. It's been my experience that if someone want to keep track of ME, then it's a good idea to keep track of THEM, to find out why they want to know that.

After all, what is the line they use on the citizenry? "If you've got nothing to hide, there's nothing to fear..." and that works BOTH ways.

reply to post by nenothtu


Yeah. It seems to me like it would be hard to really get your arm stuck in a window, and you are right, what sense does it make shooting someone who could then put the pedal to the floor and drive you into traffic or through a building because they are injured or dead.

I think most likely this cop went way over the line, but in the very least he is not capable of making rational decisions under pressure and that is a big problem in and of itself.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


My personal gut feeling is that if the witness reports are correct, he needs to be on trial for murder, and if his story is correct, he needs to be on trial for negligent homicide, but in either case he needs to be disarmed and off the streets.

Originally posted by wardk28
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?

The road is 12 feet wide. The person standing in the background is obviously going to look smaller this is basic optics. This is why I pointed out the road on which the bullet shells are laying. This is unmistakable. The shells are where they are look at the road where I pointed out where the lines are. The road is 12 feet wide. Did I mention the road is twelve feet wide?

Anyways I already laid out my scenario of how the cops story might have on some other planet in another dimension played out. I then pointed out logic and reasoning from this planet and applied it to his weak (at best) story and the pieces didn't fit.

The cop is a murderer.


-Alien

reply to post by Glargod


Alot of these "cops" are just looking to legally murder someone. Its like taking someone on Jerry Springer to beat on them a bit.. Its a way of doing it with immunity. Now, that being said, this pig... and I have the upmost respect for actual men and women who serve and protect with no alterior motives... this pig however... deserves a sentence just as any of us would get in a similar situation... Just my two cents

According to an article in the Star Exponet posted today, someone from the school/church where the victim was parked actually called the police to respond to a suspicous vehicle.

So, this begs the question....wouldn't it seem logical for someone from the school/church to be watching when the police actually arrived? Just out of pure curiousity???

I mean, if someone from the church called, wouldn't they want to see what happens when the cops arrive to make sure everything was safe for the school children inside?

So, if it was in fact someone from the school/church that made the call....why are there no witnesses?

Sorry to not provide a link but, if you go to the newspapers website...it's the top story.

Also, in the comments section, it seems like the community is getting aggravated that the paper even ran the story because it really doesn't provide anything of substance and actually makes it appear more suspicious in regards to the victim.

Originally posted by MagesticEsoteric
According to an article in the Star Exponet posted today, someone from the school/church where the victim was parked actually called the police to respond to a suspicous vehicle.

So, this begs the question....wouldn't it seem logical for someone from the school/church to be watching when the police actually arrived? Just out of pure curiousity???

I mean, if someone from the church called, wouldn't they want to see what happens when the cops arrive to make sure everything was safe for the school children inside?

So, if it was in fact someone from the school/church that made the call....why are there no witnesses?

Sorry to not provide a link but, if you go to the newspapers website...it's the top story.

Also, in the comments section, it seems like the community is getting aggravated that the paper even ran the story because it really doesn't provide anything of substance and actually makes it appear more suspicious in regards to the victim.

This is a good point I too asked my self a similar question. Was there really a call? Where is the proof of the call? Perhaps the person who made that call could speak up?

It is too soon right now for most of the evidence to be made public so we will just have to wait until more information is provided, I'm going to follow this one as close as I can.


-Alien

Originally posted by Alien Abduct

Originally posted by MagesticEsoteric
According to an article in the Star Exponet posted today, someone from the school/church where the victim was parked actually called the police to respond to a suspicous vehicle.

So, this begs the question....wouldn't it seem logical for someone from the school/church to be watching when the police actually arrived? Just out of pure curiousity???

I mean, if someone from the church called, wouldn't they want to see what happens when the cops arrive to make sure everything was safe for the school children inside?

So, if it was in fact someone from the school/church that made the call....why are there no witnesses?

Sorry to not provide a link but, if you go to the newspapers website...it's the top story.

Also, in the comments section, it seems like the community is getting aggravated that the paper even ran the story because it really doesn't provide anything of substance and actually makes it appear more suspicious in regards to the victim.

This is a good point I too asked my self a similar question. Was there really a call? Where is the proof of the call? Perhaps the person who made that call could speak up?

It is too soon right now for most of the evidence to be made public so we will just have to wait until more information is provided, I'm going to follow this one as close as I can.


-Alien

Seems I do recall you posing these same questions earlier in the thread...or it could have been another poster.

It seems to me that if someone sees a suspicious vehicle in the parking lot of a school and they call the police, they would want to monitor the activities once the police arrived. Right? To ensure the safety of the students not to mention just pure curiosity. If this information is accurate....where are the witnesses from the school?

Originally posted by Nucleardiver

Originally posted by RadioactiveRob

Originally posted by Nucleardiver
The actions of this cop would have landed me in front of a UN criminal court if I had acted in this manner and shot an unarmed Afghan civilian while deployed

I'm pretty sure they do all the time, and get away with it, from what I've read here.

en.wikipedia.org...(2001%E2%80%93present)

Please tell me if I'm wrong.

Okaaay.......Well first of all your link doesn't work, it says wikipedia has no articles matching that text and secondly its wikipedia. Next time you want to make an argument please back it up with "verifiable" proof. Also don't try to provide MSM news articles that are full of anti-war bias.

I am also curious as to your actual first hand knowledge of the amount of civilian deaths in Afghan or Iraq. I did 3 deployments in Afghan and 2 in Iraq and I personally only witnessed unarmed civilian casualties 3 times and even then they had weapons caches in their vicinity and there were units taking fire from their location.

It was my experience during my deployments that the civilians in both countries were welcoming and we were friendly to them. I was also in Afghan when a Marine unit was responsible for killing several civilians in a house where weapons and explosives were suspected and found and guess what? 2 of those Marines are now in prison. So I don't know who or where you are getting your info but I would definitely consider finding some new sources if you expect people to think of you as anything but a troll.

This forum is so horribly inclined towards negativity. If you have a disagreement with someone on here you instantly get met with insults and labels, like you said, troll, I disagreed with you therefore I'm just a troll. Ok.

Originally posted by wardk28
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?

Ummm if it was anyone else that shot that old lady they would be SITTING IN JAIL awaiting trial. The cop has not even been charged yet. So, who is the one who is guilty until proven innocent?

Adressing the rest of your post........"First off, that's a lot bigger than 10 ft. The ones in the straight line look closer to 18 to 20 feet..............." **yawns**




-Alien

reply to post by Alien Abduct


You can yawn at the facts if you want to but I prefer to judge people on evidence not because he is a cop. How far do you think that person on the sidewalk ,next to the same road that it happened on, is? The shell casings are in a line, consistent with the officer's story that the vehicle was in motion. as was the officer. Whether or not his arm was caught depends on, again MORE INFORMATION. What injuries did the officer suffer? Are those injuries consistent with being dragged or shattered glass? Look, if the officer is found to be guilty then he needs to go to jail, but until then I choose to Deny Ignorance. As far as the measurements, how did you get them?

And as for the "witness", it looks like he has some history with the court system. Charged with B&E, possession of a controlled substance, FTA-Capias issued, and sentenced to 3 years in prison for a heroin conviction. Someone ran a check on him and posted this in the comment section of the news story. Now if this is true, like with the officer I'll wait for something offical, then this witness may have the same kind of attitude you have towards law enforcement.

This is no different than the Marine who was shot...where is it that it is debated the right/wrong of shooting an unarmed citizen? Police are trained, supposedly, to contain a situation, not murder unarmed civilians. If, big if, he got his arm caught in the window that was his mistake. Don't know about any of you but none of my electric windows go up that fast. If she wanted to drive off for whatever reason all he had to do was take her tags and confront her at home. It's getting to easy to justify shooting unarmed civilians. Many years ago my husband and I worked nights. We were a few blocks from work making a night deposit. On my lap were checks spread out I was endorsing. Police came up, accusing, what were we doing there. I said well this is my bank, I have checks on my lap, what is your best guess. He demanded to see my id. I refused saying I was not driving, not committing any crime. He got rather angry and said if I didn't he would haul me in. On what grounds I asked which only made it worse. My husband was pleading with me to just show my id. Eventually I did because it became apparent they meant business. After all was said and done they said we could have been trying to rob the bank and that's why they checked. I guess lots of people try and crawl in the night deposit drawer *rolling eyes*.

Today with the climate as it is I would hand over my id in a flash bc I realize I could be shot dead for pointing out the absurdity of the inquisition. It could have been that simple with the woman...pointing out the absurdity of the inquisition.

This is just nuts...trying to see if the murder was justified...just completely NUTS.

~is still a rose

This is no different than the Marine who was shot...where is it that it is debated the right/wrong of shooting an unarmed citizen? Police are trained, supposedly, to contain a situation, not murder unarmed civilians. If, big if, he got his arm caught in the window that was his mistake. Don't know about any of you but none of my electric windows go up that fast. If she wanted to drive off for whatever reason all he had to do was take her tags and confront her at home. It's getting to easy to justify shooting unarmed civilians. Many years ago my husband and I worked nights. We were a few blocks from work making a night deposit. On my lap were checks spread out I was endorsing. Police came up, accusing, what were we doing there. I said well this is my bank, I have checks on my lap, what is your best guess. He demanded to see my id. I refused saying I was not driving, not committing any crime. He got rather angry and said if I didn't he would haul me in. On what grounds I asked which only made it worse. My husband was pleading with me to just show my id. Eventually I did because it became apparent they meant business. After all was said and done they said we could have been trying to rob the bank and that's why they checked. I guess lots of people try and crawl in the night deposit drawer *rolling eyes*.

Today with the climate as it is I would hand over my id in a flash bc I realize I could be shot dead for pointing out the absurdity of the inquisition. It could have been that simple with the woman...pointing out the absurdity of the inquisition.

This is just nuts...trying to see if the murder was justified...just completely NUTS.

~is still a rose

reply to post by arosebyanyothername


Times are a lot different then they were 40 years ago. A lot of officers died because they were not cautious enough. People have become more hostile and on top of that, become more heavily armed. The officer doesn't know you from anyone else and a situation can go bad to worse in the blink of an eye. It doesn't matter if a citizen is armed or not, the officer doesn't know that. Unless you've have been law enforcement or in combat, its hard to explain whats it feels like to walk up to someone in a vehicle and wonder if they have a gun, what mindset they are in or if they just committed a double homicide. Its kinda like road rage, you flip someone off for cutting you off and that was their breaking point. So they follow you and just start shooting your car up. As for the showing your id, if the officer finds reasonable suspicion, then you can be detained. Being at a bank a night maybe considered reasonable suspicion if there have been a series of burglaries in the areas or if they are looking for a vehicle. Next time when an officer asks for id and you aren't driving, ask if you are being detained and why.

reply to post by Alien Abduct

a tip for you in case you didn't know ... (and no, i'm not doing the math myself) ... in your picture, you have a purple line marked with " ??ft " ... if you'll notice, that marker lands on top of the "diamond marker" in the diamond lane.

In Cali, this is a special lane with standardized markers.
i don't remember the specs but i'm guessing about 6-8ft between the long points.
since it doesn't appear to be greater than the sum of 2 diamond lengths, that marks a total shot zone less than the size of my last living room ... hence, that's some quick shooting in an awfully confined area WHILE attached to a moving vehicle ... riiiiight

so, i've read about 3 different witnesses so far and none of their stories jive with the officer but i'm still wondering, any word from whomever supposedly called in the "suspicious vehicle" report?
at this point, i'm beginning to think that person has a departmental connection.

reply to post by wardk28

The shell casings are in a line, consistent with the officer's story that the vehicle was in motion. as was the officer.

no one claims the vehicle wasn't moving (where'd you get that idea?)
however, the officer claims he pursued her on foot to continue firing.
i see 6 shells on the street, how's that possible if he fired AT the window to release himself?
supposedly, it all began IN the parking lot, not on the street.

"a" witness? i've read about 3 so far and still counting if the caller reports anything.
and besides, what does the history of the witness and the courts have to do with what he saw or reported?
even if he does have a "bad attitude" toward cops, how is that related to what he saw or heard?

you're really reaching for the moon here aren't ya?
presently, with the information available, there is only one guilty party and it's not the victim.

Originally posted by wardk28
reply to post by Alien Abduct

 

You can yawn at the facts if you want to but I prefer to judge people on evidence not because he is a cop.

I'm not yawning at facts (you presented none). I yawned at how your blind defense of this unjustifiable act had become a bore.

Where did I say anything that even came remotely close to a statement that I don't like cops. please...it looks like your pulling a race card only yours is a "because he's a cop" card.

How far do you think that person on the sidewalk ,next to the same road that it happened on, is?

You keep trying to use the person as a good reference point for measurement.


As for where I got my measurements....

Length of the car---Source
Width of road---Source

The shell casings are in a line, consistent with the officer's story that the vehicle was in motion. as was the officer..

Although some of them line up (only some) the pattern and the spread that they are in is NOT consistent with a person that had been dragged down the road as they are in an (approximately) 9-12 ft parameter. Additionally some of the bullet shells are AT A RIGHT ANGLE approximately 8ft from the ones that appear to line up.

If the officer was being dragged as he fired those bullets those shells would have a MUCH MUCH greater spread, away from each other AND from the first shell to the last. This fact is so blatantly obvious that even my ten year old pointed it out.

........ if the officer is found to be guilty then he needs to go to jail.......

Agreed.

And as for the "witness", it looks like he has some history with the court system. Charged with B&E, possession of a controlled substance, FTA-Capias issued, and sentenced to 3 years in prison for a heroin conviction.

This isn't permissible in court, some priests have pasts too right?

Now if this is true, like with the officer I'll wait for something offical, then this witness may have the same kind of attitude you have towards law enforcement.

Now what say you about the other witness?
Greg Andrews. His statement mirrors that of the other witness. Maybe you can run his name too. Let me know what you find?

What type of attitude do you perceive me to have toward police officers? And, would you mind supporting your opinion of my attitude with quotes?


-Alien

Originally posted by Honor93

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.

It wasn't the officer's perception. It was the person who reported it, that perceived enough of a concern, to report it. The officer does not have to sit and "observe" and gauge any threat. He is responding, as though threat has already been perceived by a person he is paid to protect. Therefor, reasonable grounds to investigate.

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.

I don't disagree with most of what you say. I also am not condoning the shooting, and have difficulty understanding how it came to the end the way it did. But the engagement was necessary.
I don't see how you don't think it wasn't. If you perceived a threat, called the police, and watched as they sat in the parking lot and not get out of their vehicle, I'm sure you wouldn't be happy. "What the hell do we pay these people for?" would likely be a common question by most people. Including me.

Obviously, we don't want them to arrive and shoot someone. But, there are too many unknowns, to ourselves assume, she wasn't a threat or didn't do end up doing anything threatening.

By witness accounts, she didn't.
And witnesses are as important as an officers testimony. I agree. My own opinion is, likely, this guy was a straight up a$$hole, probably walked up to the vehicle aggressively and demanded her to comply with whatever command he spoke.

However, my approach would have been: "Day mam, you ok? Having car troubles? We received a call that you might be in trouble or distress...." You can assess without violating someones rights. etc. This situation, ended terribly.

the woman provided NO REASONABLE evidence of anything other than minding her own business.

You are right. She didn't. But for some reason, she was reported by someone who felt unsafe by the situation. Maybe a protective parent, property owner, who knows.

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.

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?

Put my thoughts above of observation. I don't like to assume anything. But to further, for sure, he could have done nothing and moved along.
Then, when he was gone, she could have set the complainants car on fire, or any number of things. Or she could have done nothing, and went home. See how that works?

As for complying with and officers requests. I will say, if you are a truly innocent party, it is more than ok to question each step of a request given by an officer. But, if you are informed that you are subject of a criminal investigation, your non compliance can be reasonable grounds for detention and possible arrest.

Once informed of arrest, further resistance, itself, becomes a criminal event.


I'm not disputing the persons' rights. But, policing exists to make sure everyone has the freedom to enjoy their rights. It is sad SAD to see it really going the way it is going. One of the reasons I am not in law enforcement any more. But, my main concern is that police are NOT supposed to be your enemy. But people like the OP are geared towards making sure every single "Brainwashed Cop" is viewed as the enemy. They are people. In this case, my feeling is that he was an a$$hole, that went too far. If eyewitness testimony turns out to be the story, then he is and should be treated like anyone else that committed murder. If he is protected by his department, then there is a much larger problem brewing down there.

reply to post by Demoncreeper

The Culpeper town spokesperson says the officer's cruiser did have a video camera, but that it was not working. He also said the officer did not turn on his blue lights. If he had, it would've been a sign that he was detaining the person, says attorney and former Fairfax County Police officer Ted Sibert . If the person is not being detained, she should be free to go, Sibert says. "What is he investigating? if its just for we call a suspicious person, then he doesn't have jusification to use force to maintain the contact. So if the person wants to roll the window up, they can. He can't be sticking his hand in the window or pulling someone out of the the car or open the door. Those all need justification," Sibert says.

WUSA News

There is more legal commentary from Sibert in this article that also pertains to this story....

The claim that the cruiser's video camera was "not working" is yet another red flag in this very fishy official story.

reply to post by DelMarvel


Yeah, I get all that. Like I said, I believe this to be fishy and very unfortunate. His actions, outweigh the scenario. Definitely.