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.

 

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

page: 13
61
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
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!


And sometimes its "BANG! BANG! BANG! HE HAS A PLASTIC SPORK!!! BANG! BANG! BANG!"




posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by retiredTxn
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.

* - Crashing through the locked gate - Damge to front of the car and part of the gate was wedged in the undercarriage of the vehicle.
* - Driving at a high rate of speed through the parking lot.
* - For the fatal encounter - caught on dash cam, not yet released.
* - Statement from one of the children.
* - Shot through the drivers side window, not shot in the back while walking to the car.


Originally posted by retiredTxn
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?

Because the officer was still giving verbal commands for the guy to stop. It was not until the very last possible moment when the situation was forced. People argue officers should have tried different methods The deputy, from the moment of contact with this guy, up to the fatal shot, gave the guy every chance under the sun to stop his actions.

How many warnings should a person get?


Originally posted by retiredTxn
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?

For use of force its what did the officer perceive at the moment force was used. Take the officer out of the equation and replace him with you. Your a civilian sitting in the same parking lot when you observe the vehicle bust through the gate and drive at a high rate of speed across the parking lot. Guy gets out of his car, you notice 2 kids in the back seat who are left. You observe the individual acting in a strange manner, talking to himself, not making coherent sentences.

Would you let it go? Would you call the police? Would you act to prevent the man from getting back in his car in order to protect the children?

Its on thing to read about the events and speculate. Its something else entirely to actually be present when a scenario like this occurs. We dont get to see body language / the strange behavior, crashing through the gate, high rate of speed etc etc etc.

In the hypothetical I gave would it not be reasonable for the civilian to see that something is not right and the children might be in danger?

UPDATED: Deputies' Union Defends Fatal Shooting of Marine


Originally posted by retiredTxn
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.


Your welcome and thank you for asking questions and engaging in the debate. Im not expecting people to outright agree with my posts. People have a tendency to take my posts as being biased in favor of law enforcement in situations like this.

What they tend to overlook - the information I provide is to allow those who are not versed in law enforcement or the laws that govern it see the other side of the coin. People like to comment about how they dont think the law is fair, should be changed, or should not exist. The same argument is used with law enforcement - Why didnt they do this, why did they use a gun instead of a taser etc..

All valid questions and view points. When we want something changed, dont just walk up say I dont like this law, this law is illegal, violates rights etc etc etc. If you do, the response is going to be please explain how you are coming to that conclusion, followed up again with what would you suggest be changed and why?

Being familiar with the laws and court rulings / police procedures etc, regardless if you agree with them, is the first step in making a change.

Which method do you (and others) think would be the best approach?
* - Ranting and raving about the police and the laws, misquoting court rulings, giving your own interpretations of those court rulings which arent correct, not knowing what the laws are, let alone how they are applied in situations.

or

* - Exercising due diligence and researching all the information to get a picture of how things are done on that side of the fence. By understanding how something works, its then possible to specifically identify the areas for improvement, which in turn allows the person to come up with a solution that works and is based on sound reasoning.

Ignoring / dismissing the information simply because people dont like what it says or what it allows solves nothing, and only perpetuates the divide and communication failures, resulting in mistrust, in both directions.
edit on 14-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ufos8mycow
reply to post by sirjunlegun
 


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

Lawsuit


WOW...so a guy beats the crap out of his girlfriend gets bit by a dog and gets to sue for 10 million dollars. The lawyers must have had an orgasm.
edit on 14-2-2012 by Malcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Masterjaden
 


Respect is a 2 way road...
Communication is a 2 way road...
Learning is a 2 way road...

When either side of the road is blocked by something, there should be an effort to remove the blockage, from traffic in both directions.

When we leave the road block there for whatever reason, and just drive around it into the oncoming lane, there is bound to be a collision. That results in both parties being pissed at each other, pointing the finger at each other)

In reality, it doesn't matter why the blockage is there or how it got there. What matters is can people come together from both directions to work together to remove the blockage? Then we can look to see where the blockage came from, how it occurred and why, and make the needed changes to reduce the chances of it occurring again.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by sirjunlegun
 


On the off chance you care, I stopped reading at the "TPTB" portion. The laws arent weird and are easily understandable. The legaleze language is the court process, not the law enforcement process.

Way to go stereotyping btw.. As Is aid to another comment, you guys dont get under my skin. Ive been called worse by better.
edit on 14-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   
this is a disgusting example of how some police officers mis-use their authority. I'm utterly disgusted. Those poor children must be traumatised.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


The medical condition, if people dont know, is called Diabetic Ketoacidosis and for officers who have training as a medical first responder as well as DWI training they know what to look for.

The symptoms mimic that of a person who is intoxicated..

* - slurred speech
* - incoherent babbling
* - Loss of fine motor control
* - loss of situational awareness
* - can become combative then at ease very quickly
* - inability to multi task
* - unable to understand people speaking to them / unable to follow a conversation
* - sweet smelling odor from the mouth
* - vomiting
* - dehydration

etc etc etc...

To add a thought - Law Enforcement is not allowed to officially diagnose an individual. Again its based on perception / observation / actions. I have had a few encounters with this medical condition and the only way to confirm it was to wait for EMS on scene / at the hospital to do a blood sugar check.

In those situations, EMS / Fire / Police have been "assaulted". Not one of those people were ever charged with assault because they did not know what they were doing, and dont remember it when they come back around.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
No one should rush to judgement, however, it ALWAYS ends up getting swept under the rug anyways.

When an investigation is done and no charges are filed its almost always because the actions were justified and within the law / policy.

Question - Arent you rushing to judgment by stating the thing will be swept under the rug?

Its not being swept under the rug in the least. Just because people dont like a law that allowed an officer to perform the action doesn't mean its a governmentt conspiracy to protect law enforcement.


Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
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...

Not really.. Probable Cause for law enforcement is just that - There is probable cause to believe the individual broke these laws by doing these specific actions, violating the following law(s).

Having PC does not mean the person is guilty.



Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
STOP RESISTING, STOP RESISTING! Meanwhile no one is resisting anything... BANG!

Where does it say the officer was yelling stop resisting? According to the articles the officer continually gave commands for the individual to stop. Since there was no physical fight, yelling quit resisting doesn't make sense.
edit on 14-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ufos8mycow
And sometimes its "BANG! BANG! BANG! HE HAS A PLASTIC SPORK!!! BANG! BANG! BANG!"


and sometimes they have a knife.....



a gun



a cell phone



lipstick...




Pen



comb





Complacency kills... Just because a person is not holding a gun or knife does not mean they are friendly.
edit on 14-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

* - Crashing through the locked gate - Damge to front of the car and part of the gate was wedged in the undercarriage of the vehicle.
* - Driving at a high rate of speed through the parking lot.
* - For the fatal encounter - caught on dash cam, not yet released.
* - Statement from one of the children.
* - Shot through the drivers side window, not shot in the back while walking to the car.


None of this is "fact", yet. Just speculation.


Originally posted by retiredTxn
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?



Originally posted by Xcathdra
Because the officer was still giving verbal commands for the guy to stop. It was not until the very last possible moment when the situation was forced. People argue officers should have tried different methods The deputy, from the moment of contact with this guy, up to the fatal shot, gave the guy every chance under the sun to stop his actions.

How many warnings should a person get?


I understand what the one deputy was dealing with, but if we are to believe the unions version, additional officers were present, and attempted to comfort the children in the back seat. Yet, they left the children alone in the vehicle rather than removing them from the equation. I feel the union is hurting the case by trying to justify the deputies actions, when they should have just said they support his actions, and await release of further information. In essence, they have muddied the waters, and better hope and pray the dashcam footage agrees with their story.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 11:14 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra


Guys I wouldn't lose my time arguing with the guy, he's a cop he slipped in another thread... And HE WILL keep trolling until people stop replying or the thread is dead/closed...

See the last 4-5 pages of the following thread...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Lets not pay too much attention to him yet, we'll have a thread in his name someday...



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by retiredTxn
None of this is "fact", yet. Just speculation.

All the listed items have already been verified, making them facts.


Originally posted by retiredTxn
I understand what the one deputy was dealing with, but if we are to believe the unions version, additional officers were present, and attempted to comfort the children in the back seat.
Yet, they left the children alone in the vehicle rather than removing them from the equation. I feel the union is hurting the case by trying to justify the deputies actions, when they should have just said they support his actions, and await release of further information. In essence, they have muddied the waters, and better hope and pray the dashcam footage agrees with their story.


The deputy followed the man until he hard the girls yelling from the car, at which point he returned to them. Additional units arrived and established a perimeter. Im not sure what your back ground is so my apologies if you know this. When a large perimeter is established, you will not alway have direct line of site to other officers on the perimeter. Just because other officers are present doesn't mean they are seeing what the others are.

The release from the Union was to correct the info media was reporting on, which was not accurate. The narrative they released established the basic time line of events. Its not, from my understanding, the official narrative from the deputy's report. So we are still missing a lot of the information.

As the article states, the union doesn't generally ever do the releases. In this case they did, and the reason cited was all the conflicting information being reported.
edit on 14-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by unsteadystate
It is time the American people stood up, lined these pigs, corrupt politicians and banker criminals, against a wall and methodically execute them with a single high caliber gunshot to the head.
A close family member was a cop for 24 years and drew his weapon twice. And never fired it. This was years ago, something has changed.
The time has come people. Peaceful protest is a joke to them. The only thing left is to start killing them like they kill us. Period. And yes I know you are watching and listening pigs....
Oh, flame away cop lovers....Armed revolution NOW!!!


Armed resistance isn't the answer. After all we got our nation by polite and organized demonstrations away from the British while doing as they commanded. The British were so overwhelmed by our politeness and ability to follow their commands that they immediately said "These are some swell fellows. How about we just let them have a country of their own". Oh sorry, too early? This is slated for our future history books 25 years from now after everybody has sold out their soul and submitted.

In every case I hear about or see on the news I want to know all of the facts. I don't even care if the said Marine was have a bad day and told the officers to "# off". If I have to die for running through a gate and having a bad day then evidently something is seriously wrong. Btw, I've known both military police and civilian police. They very often serve power and money. Just the way it is. They are also often on ego trips. Not much difference than when a drug gang kills somebody for not doing what they were told to. Because you disrespected them you have to die.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by drgood
 


And if we were dealing with a crime that falls under US Code I would agree. However since the Constitution says anything not specifically stated for the Federal Government, is reserved to the states.

The actions occurred in California and with local law enforcement, not federal law enforcement.

As far as the laws go you should go back and read up before making a comment. If you did this you would see how state laws are applied as well as case law.

Which particular post do you have a problem with and why? Ill be more than happy to discuss it.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by _R4t_
 


Most of the people in the thread / board know I do law enforcement. I have stated as much in other threads like this, as well as this thread.

If you dont like something I say, fell free to point it out and offer up your information. It sure beats having you act like a child by coming into this thread, launching accusations at me, and then running off without participating in this thread. Since we seem to have a very large of anti police individuals on this board, I have no problem filling in the other side of the gap and offer the information and insight that routinely is ignored.

Asking people to just ignore me is humorous... Are you that insecure that you cannot tolerate / accept the fact there is an opposing view point to yours?

So yeah.. what problems do you have with my posts in this thread and why? As I said to the other guy, ill be more than happy to discuss / debate.
edit on 14-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Really? Be careful when you get into your weapon every morning. On the one hand I'm happy forum moderators seem to be taking a more active roll. On the other hand, people are tired of this kind of thing. Along with all of the other "It's all ok, trust us, while we rob, rape, kill" insanity coming from our authoritative government employees.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Apollumi
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Really? Be careful when you get into your weapon every morning. On the one hand I'm happy forum moderators seem to be taking a more active roll. On the other hand, people are tired of this kind of thing. Along with all of the other "It's all ok, trust us, while we rob, rape, kill" insanity coming from our authoritative government employees.



As well as OWS, Anonymous, Wikileaks etc etc etc etc.

Or is that justified because they aren't government entities?

Just curious..



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Can anyone can confirm what the laws are in California for police to use deadly force? I had thought that the majority of states only allowed deadly force to be used to prevent imminent serious physical injury or death to others, or escape where this is likely to happen? i.e. can shoot a robber fleeing with a pistol.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by drgood
 


And if we were dealing with a crime that falls under US Code I would agree. However since the Constitution says anything not specifically stated for the Federal Government, is reserved to the states.

The actions occurred in California and with local law enforcement, not federal law enforcement.


Unless state action or law conflicts with a relevant Federal law, or where the state action or law otherwise violates the constitution.

As a LEO, what is the standard for use of deadly force? Are you permitted wider latitude under the legal standard than civilians are? which is to say are you allowed to use deadly force in cases other than where you fear imminent serious bodily injury or death, or have a reasonable belief that the same is about to be inflicted on another?

Just curious is all! Currently a law student who trained outside the US studying for the State bar so always good to have these practical incidents to check in to make sure that I'm actually memorizing the correct legal standard.



new topics

top topics



 
61
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join