It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Marine fatally shot in his car by police in front of his two young daughters

page: 12
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 06:57 PM

Originally posted by Brandon88
Their job is to save lives not take them.

And sometimes that means they must take a life to save the lives of others.

Updated information on incident
edit on 14-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 07:16 PM

Originally posted by bigyin
Prison Officers
Fire Fighters
Social Workers

All deal with similar situations without resorting to shooting people dead.

These trigger happy Policemen are incompetant imo.

Really? They see similar situations? Large, volatile men, at 4 a.m., in abandoned parking lots, with children in their care, and a split second to make a decision? I don't think so.

Sure, they deal with angry people, I get death threats daily in my job. Hell, when I used manage a retail store, I often had physical confrontations with idiots, and the police were at least 10 minutes away at most times.

BUT, a police officer is specifically paid to do a specific job. They are issued a gun for a reason. Nurses, Teachers, and Social Workers usually stay at a safe distance until the police arrive. Fire Fighters and Ambulances often have to wait for police escorts. A police officer works out on an island, and as you can tell, they are not respected for their work, so they are facing life and death every day, and they want to go home at the end of the day just like anyone else. Nobody wants to die at work, and I don't believe anyone wants to kill someone at work either.

These threads get pretty ridiculous sometimes.

posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 07:49 PM
Just a few observations:

The police are now working overtime on damage control and social engineering public opinion. To ANY sane person this is plainly an overzealous cop who killed a man unjustly.

They are comparing police medals to Marine medals.

During his service, Loggins received a Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal, two Navy Unit Commendations, three Marine Corps Good Conduct Medals, the National Defense Service Medal, a Korean Defense Service Medal and the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal.

The deputy -- himself a former Marine and recipient of the sheriff's Medal for Lifesaving and the Medal of Courage -- followed Loggins on foot, but went back to the vehicle when he heard screaming from the girls, sheriff's officials said.

Trying to make the victim look like a bad father...

Loggins' 14- and 9-year-old daughters were in the back seat of the SUV at the time, and were not wearing seat belts, according to the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs.

"It is heartbreaking that Manuel Loggins created a situation that put his children in danger and ultimately cost him his life," said Tom Dominguez, president of the deputies' union.

Changing the 'official' story...

"(The deputy) felt his life was in danger," Amormino said. "I don't know how many shots were fired."

When he put the vehicle into gear, "it was then clear that Loggins was going to drive off and further endanger the children," prompting the first deputy on the scene to fire at the suspect, according to the union's statement.

And of course blaming the victim for causing his own death.

Dominguez said. "It is unfortunate that his actions put his own children into immediate danger and resulted in his death."

One question I do have is how the Police Union got permission and access to the investigation file?

Maybe someone here who is an officer might explain that. You would think that in an ongoing investigation the detectives wouldn't let just anyone outside of the department have a looksie at a file. And before you say the union officials are police too does that mean that ANY officer in the department can just stroll over and open the file and read it over lunch?

Doesn't seem to me to be a secure method of investigating the killing of an 18yo kid.

If the Department would have kept the files private then we might not have blatant leaks such as...

He is a 15-year veteran of the department and served in the Marines for four years, according to the union, which put out the statement to "correct certain inaccuracies in the facts" of the deputy-involved shooting, according to a spokewoman.

P.S. If the officers we're afraid for the children then why didn't they remove them from the vehicle and into a cruiser when they had the chance? They just left them there to be taken?

As other deputies arrived, the first deputy on the scene "comforted the children in the backseat," and the girls said their father "had been acting oddly," according to the union.

edit on 14-2-2012 by ufos8mycow because: missed sumthin

posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 08:19 PM
You know... All this going back and forth. There is excellent proof to be had with what exactly happened. Not just the cam... But something everyone here keeps forgetting about... The 2 children. The 14 year old will be the most credible as a witness. And they likely had something to say to the officers. I wonder how many times they screamed don't shoot my daddy...
You know, the dude who kept them safe for 9 and 14 years. It is not like the driver was a thug speeding off with someones kids. Those were HIS kids. That should have counted for something when they were deciding on shooting. Most folks will not kill their children if angry about something. Won't you all feel like fools if it comes out this man got killed because he got upset over his child getting an F on a test or his teenager hooked up with the wrong kind.

It was said that he crashed into a normally open gate. I think we should all sit back and wait for more information.

posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 08:54 PM
reply to post by Xcathdra

You keep mentioning the statement he made to the officer. It doesn't matter what statement he made to the officer. even if he threatened to kill him that is considered uttering threats and it still does not give the officer green light to be the judge and the executioner. In most cases where a cop killing a person and be a write off is when the individual has a clear weapon or what is percieved to be a weapon (toy gun) . The officer I'm sure after the facts will be or should be charged for murder.You don't shoot somebody with their back turned on you thats cowardly.

posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 08:58 PM
reply to post by 1ncegreat

A 6,000 pound SUV that has already crashed through one fence is a pretty clear weapon, and they didn't shoot him until he ignored there demands and the vehicle started to move. That is the same as pulling a gun.

posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 08:58 PM

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Updated information released -

Deputy union releases version of Marine killing

In the statement, the deputy's union disclosed information that had not been previously disclosed by the sheriff's department, or that the department declined to provide, citing an ongoing investigation.

For example, according to the union's statement, additional deputies arrived at the high school before Loggins returned to the SUV. Some of the deputies spoke with Loggins' children – ages 14 and 9 – while he was in the field and "comforted the children in the back seat."

Sheriff's officials said Loggins returned to the vehicle and "did not stop, ignoring the deputies who had their weapons drawn and got into the driver's side of the car despite multiple warnings."

According to the union's statement, Loggins put the car in gear, and the deputy fired through the driver's side window as the car moved forward.

No argument here, just a question or two. I presume this information is what you referred to in an earlier post as "facts" some are ignoring. These are not facts, they are just one side of the story, and there has been ample time to clean up this story, from the deputy and unions side.

IF officers were present at the SUV, and "comforted the children in the back seat", why was he allowed to return to the vehicle, thereby placing the children in jeopardy? Would not a prudent act be to remove the children from harms way? Maybe secure the SUV so it is no longer available to the man? As citizen's, we are subjected to the question "what would a reasonable person do" to support our actions. Should LEO's not face the same standard?

UPDATED: Deputies' Union Defends Fatal Shooting of Marine

I understand you have been hit hard today, but I personally appreciate your posts. Very informative. I do understand the pressures placed on our LEO's, and my intent is only to explore some of the options that have opened up since the Unions statement was released. I worked for the Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice for 21 years, and faced many Monday morning quarterback investigations myself. Not fun to say the least. Keep up the good work, and thanks for your time.

posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 09:10 PM
I believe that Police officers should always err on the side of caution. They are in a position of great responsibility and should always be prepared for the unthinkable. If this marine is a criminal then he should be in Police custody. If the officer who fired and shot him in the back, more than once, genuinely perceived a threat then he should have arrested him. If this continues, and I'm sure it will, eventually the public will no longer view the Police with any respect whatsoever and their position of responsibility as society's peace keepers will no longer be held to be of importance and when that time comes ordinary citizens will undoubtedly begin to open fire on suspect Police officers on sight. It will become routine to see an officer of the law and to shoot him before he shoots you. If I was with my family and I thought anyone, including a Police officer, was going to star shooting at myself or my wife or children then I would at least have to try and shoot first. When this happens we will have a state of nature. A mildly organised one but a state of nature none the less. Perhaps this is what we need or more importantly what we want.

posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 09:17 PM
reply to post by Xcathdra

if you really want people to respect police officers authority and you don't want it to come down to people killing police, then you had better make sure you don't wrongly stand up for the men in blue and that you pass that on to your fellow uniforms because it's getting to the point that people will not take a chance and with so many of these incidents occuring, someone who decides to shoot a cop in self defense will be able to cite these incidents as reasoning for fearing for their lives.

If you want it to change, then start with your perception. It doesn't matter what the courts say. It matters what the constitution says and what people perceive. You were so quick to say that it's the cops perception that matters. Well it's coming to a time that these incidents are going to change the way that the public perceives the threat that cops pose to our safety and security and cops will start to go down. I would suggest you read the constitution and stop taking what your superiors tell you at face value.

You don't have the right to demand that people do whatever you say, sorry you DON'T....
You don't have the right to shoot unarmed people because you percieve a potential threat.

Get a clue or you will suffer for the bad apples that create these incidents.


posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 09:18 PM

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by 1ncegreat

A 6,000 pound SUV that has already crashed through one fence is a pretty clear weapon, and they didn't shoot him until he ignored there demands and the vehicle started to move. That is the same as pulling a gun.

and the cops let him back into this giving them he "deadly weapon"defense right? so the cops themselves allowed him access to the weapon they are claiming was either a danger to the cop or the girls depending on what story is told.which ,by the way, is only coming from those with a clear interest in the outcome. At what point is LE accountable because as I am seeing the bases are pretty well covered for some real cowboy up kinda action like we are seeing. I have already asked way back if the cops let him back into the vehicle to use the Deadly Weapon" crap.
Finally he was a great enough perceived threat to shoot but not enough to remove the children from his custody/vehicle and place them in a squad car or to stop prior to his entering the vehicle despite 'back-up" being on scene. Well he WAS unarmed until the LEO's let him back in the vehicle then they effectively "armed" a man they are claiming was behaving irrationally. This is so full of big holes but there seems to be legal spackle to cover up most of it. So I will just say Good job! the threat was stopped and you have control of the spin. The news cycle will roll over this quickly and even if down the road the girls story outs the incident as a bad shoot we will likely not here a word about it due to shut up settlements out of court.


posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 09:25 PM
1) If the guy walked away why didn't the cops take the children out of the car?
2) If they "lost sight" of the guy for 5 minutes, did they go look for him?
3) Why was he allowed to go back in the car?
4) If they felt he was such a threat to the children, why did the officer fire shots INTO the car?
5) Was this officer trained in non-lethal / less than lethal force?
6) Was the use of a taser completely out of the question?
7) Has this officer had any previous incidents or complaints against him?

There are many other questions to be answered. If this officer was in the right, and should be exonerated, then they should release the dash cam footage. At least up to the point where the first shot was fired. Of course, this is a blue shield situation. The police and police unions are going to vehemently defend this cop. It just doesn't look good with all the other recent police shootings in the area.

I don't know what gives a police officer the right to shoot first, ask questions later. I hear "he gave a verbal command". I'm sorry. My name isn't Toby and police aren't slave masters.

posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 09:26 PM
reply to post by Xcathdra

Only if you share it with everyone and add a side of common sense and the ability to research and understand the law before condemning it. Whats even better is its free so no one will have to pay for it.. The government will pick up the check for you.

Well, I knew the "ham sandwich" would finally loosen you up and let that inner condescending cockiness shine through; even though rather smug, still shining through like the shine on them Jack Boots. This sandwich is not made of ham, just pork. It may be hard to swallow. Get you something to wash it down with/

Now I get to play the huckle bearer.

Law enforcement officers are typically confused starting out and ride around with big ol' thick black books full of wierd laws and stuff written in a mumbo-jumbo language that has lots of numbers. But that is okay because in Police Academy they were given highlighters. The powers that be know this & that is why it is taught to the junior officers that should not think and only arrest people and pay attention to highlighted areas as this covers most people. Simple stuff like "non-compliant with an officer." "Resisiting Arrest" "A.I" "Flagrant Non-Supporter" (biggie, but not really) Let the judges and lawyers and upper divisions handle the "harder stuff." TheLEOs job is not to judge but to enforce.
It is known in psychological realms police officers and convicted felons serve up similar results on a test called MMPI. Or as the LEO calls it MMPI-2 PSycho Test. (2nd version to help LEOs) THing is that if the test giver is blinded in a controlled experiment and didn't know the participant was a LEO or a CON he couldn't tell the difference by the results. This is ONLY TRUE IN THIS INTERESTING paradigm. All other walks of life are distinct in their results. Here is a link where LEOs are commenting on their uncomfortableness with taking the test. Note: even some Senior LEOs "don't get it" but the ones that do know how to coach because they know why some are uncomfortable with their own thoughts. Notice how their underlying question is "how do I manipulate the test?" They are looking for help inside the thin blue line. To define intelligence we can use the one that says towards the end he started given wrong answers HALF WAY through a 500 question test so he erased the LAST 50 answers to correct and EVERYBODY was looking at him funny. (PARANOIA he was getting caught for cheating? Bet he wished a had a FEW ham sandwiches)
An LEO doesn't truthfully understand a Republic. They understand Mob Rule, or democracy, the 51 wolves are deciding what the sheep is having for dinner, a HAM SANDWICH. You see that is why the Ham Sandwich fits so nicely all across the country with them. A Ham Sandwich is a gun that a LEO gives a dead body that has been murdered by a COP. It comes from evidence collection usually confiscated from a felon who doesn't want to tell the court he had 3 guns instead of two or one if they need more ham sandwiches. Serial Numbers have been scratched. Never have been ballistics tested (keeps out the FBI as all ballistics test results are required by the FBI National Database) and it can be for a "dirtbag" that seems to keep escaping justice (hence the need for mob-rule) or by an older "brother" from behind the thin blue-line that will need you in the future to repay your debt nervously shooting that guy who would n't listen to your commands. You will repay on the stand or in the street.
You want to know who is behind the thin blue line? It is esoteric but not to the observant eye. It is strategically placed on the rear bumper of their personal vehicles and motorcycles and it is a thin blue reflective strip usually lower right side(1/8"x4"). Right side (of the law, get it)?
Remember the MMPI?, well just like made men,......
Back to Democracy verses Republic. Who better to lead the assault against the Republic than the clones of a Democracy who believe everything is of their choosing and everybody else is screwed up. I mean look at all the haircuts these get. I mean the one intimidating cut they all get. Everywhere these clones are, they look the same. Whether they are wearing their Senor Frog T-Shirts or are in their Pink Polos. THEY LOOK THE SAME!!! These clones are attacking Americans at their most basic level. In their homes and in their neighborhoods. Not at the airport, malls, or in broad daylight. But at night down the alley or on the side of a fast moving highway.
Or in a school parking lot where they know by a jury of his peers they would have said he was a good Christian Dad so what they did was to coerce his OWN DAUGHTERS into planting the verbal ham sandwich that justifies Sgt. Joe Q. Public's murder by an Orange County Deputy.
I cam imagine you XCathedra, Jack Boot Thug Grinnin' saying "Whoa Carlos!!!..." at the end of this video with the same revealing attitude you sought to hide, of your complicit knowledge of your thin blue line in your above quoted comment.

edit on 14-2-2012 by sirjunlegun because: the shine on them Jack Boots.

edit on 14-2-2012 by sirjunlegun because: MMPI

edit on 14-2-2012 by sirjunlegun because: democracy

posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 09:29 PM
Wow I cant believe this.. What makes me even angrier than that story are the people in here defending the cops, saying that he would have killed his kids had they let him go.. Are you serious?! This man was unarmed, obviously violent YET UNARMED!!!!!! Your telling me those cops couldnt box his car in the whole time he was in the field? Or rather yet why did no one take the children away if they feared for them so much? It even states the the officers were talking to the girls when their dad was yelling in the field, so why did the cops leave them in the car??

I will never understand US Gestapo, err I mean police. Do cops in the UK shoot every volatile man they come across? No they detain the man like a real human being should do, when the hell did it become normal to start shooting people because they are volatile? If this guy had a gun then I would agree with the cop, yet he had nothing!!!

All of that is besides the fact that the cop shot the guy 6 times while two young girls were right in the back seat, how on earth could you ever justify that?

posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 09:38 PM
reply to post by loam

This is completely and utterly unacceptable...............

Is the world of law enforcement is becoming a joke! Shoot first ask questions later?

take heed...........

posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 09:41 PM
reply to post by sirjunlegun

According to the suspects own admission it was his drugs. The officer didn't plant them at all.


posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 09:44 PM

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by getreadyalready

My father recently had a serious accident when he forgot to take his diabetic medication and had a hypo behind the wheel - crashing into several cars then finally a telegraph pole. This is an equally plausible theory on what occurred to the marine based on his crashing through the gate and 'acting erratically'. In fact, to me it makes more sense than a Marine going apecrap for no particular reason with his kids in the car.

Equally plausible, and makes him equally as dangerous to his kids and the community. But I don't think the officer had any way to test the guy's blood sugar before determining he was a threat. He had to act at that moment, which he did. It will all come out as to whether it was the right decision or not. But your theories and everyone else's are only that...theories. None of us are right or wrong until we know exactly what happened to make the officer shoot him.


posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 09:52 PM
reply to post by ufos8mycow

According to the suspects own admission it was his drugs. The officer didn't plant them at all.

I am sorry. Did I not see the LEO give a signal, reach into his pocket and then shout,"WHOA...CARLOS" You JUST got yourself another freaking charge?" Did you not see it? Carlos' girlfriend was white, in Tennessee, Carlos was black in Tennessee.
It is what prosecutors give up this, THE STATE will give up what....? Mind trick they tell you what you wil give up, and what they will give up. This is why you never give up your right to a trial by your peers.

posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:03 PM
reply to post by 1ncegreat

A spontaneous utterance in legal areas refers to a person who is in custody, who has not been mirandaized, who then makes a statement against self interest. Those statements are valid and can be used against the person who stated it. It is not a 5th amendment violation since law enforcement never asked a direct guilt seeking question.

Also, it does matter what the guy stated. As I pointed out before if a person tells an officer he is a black belt in karate and has a knife on his person, it doesn't matter if the person making the statement is lying. He will be taken at his word, which can escalate the encounter to a deadly force encounter.

Im sorry you don't agree with that.. I don't know what to tell you other than do some research before making an incorrect claim. The other false claim you have made is the guy being shot in the back. That was reported by media and is not correct. He was shot from the side, not the back.

Please read the updates being posted. They correct a lot of the speculation and conflicting information.
edit on 14-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:04 PM

Originally posted by sirjunlegun
reply to post by ufos8mycow

According to the suspects own admission it was his drugs. The officer didn't plant them at all.

I am sorry. Did I not see the LEO give a signal, reach into his pocket and then shout,"WHOA...CARLOS" You JUST got yourself another freaking charge?" Did you not see it? Carlos' girlfriend was white, in Tennessee, Carlos was black in Tennessee.
It is what prosecutors give up this, THE STATE will give up what....? Mind trick they tell you what you wil give up, and what they will give up. This is why you never give up your right to a trial by your peers.

I actually haven't spoke to anyone involved in the case and rely on news reports such as this one for my ideas on the case of the planted drugs.

City Files Suit

That's two stories that says he admitted to own the drugs. And I doubt he would have 'given up his right to a jury trial' and then accept being sued. The video sure is suspicious but if a man admits to something twice I tend to believe them.

posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:07 PM
reply to post by Xcathdra

No one should rush to judgement, however, it ALWAYS ends up getting swept under the rug anyways.

Just because what the officer did wasn't illegal doesn't make it right. So he had probable cause to believe the guy was a threat and opened fire. You could have probable cause for anything...

STOP RESISTING, STOP RESISTING! Meanwhile no one is resisting anything... BANG!

new topics

top topics

<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in