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

Originally posted by here4awhile
lol classic X...i think what i've added to this thread is worthwhile...trolling? maybe a little...but at least it's less offensive than the responses everybody with a different opinion than you gets...I just felt the need to point out something we're all thinking...and it's the truth...but go ahead and keep spouting it you broken record...

Opinion is not fact.. An opinion is formed on information available.. Is it a problem to post information to help people whose opinion is based on faulty info / understanding? Its no better when members attack me simply because of my line of work, while stereotyping all police.

So im supposed to abandoned my argument simply because people find my posts pointless / non valid because they dont like the police?

That argument is akin to saying a person who gets drunk and drives and causes an accident is not responsible for the accident, the other person is.

Originally posted by here4awhile
even if I came back with a response even relevant to the topic at hand...you'd just find any reason to call me or the plethora of other users stupid and uneducated like you're so good at...

So your argument is my actions / tone / words are wrong because it classifies people, yet its perfectly ok for people to attack me because of my profession and for providing the information they are lacking?

At what point does personal accountability enter your vocabulary? Its always someone else's fault..

Originally posted by here4awhile
we all may not have such an in depth understanding of the laws that be as you may have...but it doesn't change that we can tell when a wrong is committed...

How? If you don't know the law, how can you determine an action is wrong? If you were not present at the scene, how can you determine an action is wrong?

Right and wrong are based on the info at hand and the laws in place. Its not an opinion using moral standards, and it never should be. We have seen what happens when moral standards get in the way.

Originally posted by here4awhile
killing an unarmed man is unacceptable...plain and simple...

Its never plain, nor simple. Based on this logic I would be forced to stand and watch an unarmed person strangle a child and not be able to engage the individual because he is not dangerous to me. What if a man is holding a woman hostage, and he douses her in gasoline and threatens to light her on fire. Based on your logic I would not be able to act.

No.. its not plain and simple..

Originally posted by here4awhile
killing in the name of the law should only be acceptable in clearly obvious situations...

Whats obvious? what criteria? Regardless of how many laws are in place, and how many policies are in place, there will ALWAYS be a situation that does not fall under either.

Originally posted by here4awhile
seems like I see things like this happen all too often..

I blame the media.. A feel good story is not news worthy.. They view it, and rightfully so, that the police are doing their job, its what we pay them to do, so why report on it. For every incident the media runs showing bad police conduct, thousands more go unreported because it went well.

Originally posted by here4awhile
.the fact you defend such actions saying the officers have it tough and the law is on their side is just disturbing...but go ahead and rinse and repeat your argument if you feel the need...

And again your problem is you are jumping to conclusion. Point out where I have ever said the officer is in the right. What I have done is supply information for those who hate the police the ability to explore the world of law enforcement. As ive said, it doest matter if they agree with it, but being closed minded simply because of blind hatred accomplishes nothing.

Originally posted by here4awhile
have a nice night

you to


For those curious about Officer involved shootings -
Hollywood vs. Reality Officer Involved Shootings .

Originally posted by Honor93
ah geez man, what does Senate direction have to do with this conversation?
Article I, Section 3, give it a rest will ya?

Yeah, whole person, doesnt cover Indians, and classifies all others as 3/5 of a person. No ambiguity there... As a constitutionalist you can be the one to explain that slavery is ok, that certain classes of people are counted partially or not at all, that women cannot vote, that Federal Senators are once again elected by the state government and not the people of the state, as well as Miranda rights, and all case law that applied the Constitution to the states.

Originally posted by Honor93
you are trying to misinterpret and misrepresent the Constitution and i'm beginning to think it's on purpose.

Im not so please point out where im misrepresenting it.

Originally posted by Honor93
however, it is not i who is enveloped and entranced with law, that'd be you.
i am a Constitutionalist and am equally aware that the abuse of my rights defines current LEO procedure.

And being a Consitutionalist is fine, but its not the way things work. There is no abuse of your rights by LEOs, but ill take the bait.. What rights of yours are being abused and how.

Originally posted by Honor93
subversion comes in many forms but all of them stem from an evil source.

So you go after me for posting laws and part of the Constitution that you claim to be familiar with, and then you go down this road? wow....

Originally posted by Honor93
i'm familiar with some of the case law, not all, is kinda why i asked.
i have not had a personal need or desire to challenge the US government until most recently.

Then how can you make the claims people are in the wrong and your rights are being abused? As I said, its fine your a Constitutionalist, but shouldn't you be familiar with all laws, regardless if you agree with them or not, in order to better your argument for change?

Originally posted by Honor93
and that would be incorrect, it restricts governmental applications upon the individual.
it also encompasses specific rights to which these restrictions shall be applied.

yeah... no. Go write up a PC statement and submit it to the PA and have a judge sign off on it, then get back to me. The 4th applies to the government, not the individual. Its defining what the government must do in order to search and seize.

Originally posted by Honor93
again, it does apply to the individual AND the government.
it protects the individual while restricting the actions of government at the same time.

By stating the government, and only the government, must satisfy these requirements in order to search and seize. It applies to the government, not the individual.

Originally posted by Honor93
this situation, does not fit the criteria for exigent circumstance, no matter how it's twisted.

Actually it does through case law.. That pesky area people refuse to acknowledge and decide to just ignore.

Originally posted by Honor93
noooo, the officer is guilty of killing an unarmed man. that is absolute.

For a proclaimed constitutionalist who is complaining his rights are abused, you ahve no problem denying them to others I see. Please point out in the Constitution where it states everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law except for law enforcement? For a constitutionalist you dont have any issues denying due process?
Right to a trial, confront accusers etc?

The officer committed a homicide, thats not in question and is classified correctly. The question is whether or not is was justified, and until the investigations over we won't know.

Originally posted by Honor93
in a court of law, sure, he is perceived innocent until proven otherwise, however, he will always
be guilty of killing an unarmed man in front of his children.

I didnt realize you were telepathic.. Unless you read that somewhere.. Source please?

Originally posted by Honor93
ah yes, there's that perception thingy again ... so, how's that workin' out for most?

Just fine, why?

Originally posted by Honor93
guilty of killing a man, perceived innocent ... got it.

Killing a man to protect the lives of others - check

Originally posted by Honor93
guilty by perception, man is dead ... there's balance in this where?

Based on your comments and position none. The balance comes from the investigation into the incident and whether or not the actions of the deputy were justified. If they aren't then the law will make he balance.

As a constitutionalist you need to be familiar with Due process and again innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Police / civilians do NOT have to wait to be assaulted / shot at before taking a defensive action.

As a constitutionalist you should understand a persons rights end the moment they interfere with the rights of others.

For those curious about Officer involved shootings -
Hollywood vs. Reality Officer Involved Shootings .

Originally posted by Honor93
your list of charges cannot be applied posthumously.

I never said they would be. I pointed out the charges committed in the presence of the deputy, which directly influence the deputies actions.

Originally posted by Honor93
the man had an auto accident. there is NO -0- proof of anything else.

The actions were committed in the presence of the Deputy. There is damage to the vehicle from the accident.. he was speeding through the parking lot, left the scene of an accident etc etc etc etc.

The proof is there, and if it were to go to court would be submitted for the PA to make the case to find the man guilty.

Originally posted by Honor93
now, i'm not sure how you can equate appearance at an accident scene as a "traffic stop", however, it's wasn't called in that way. it was reported as a hit and run. why?

The man left the scene of the accident. He made no attempt to report it. When the deputy stopped him he had the opportunity to file the report with the deputy and did not. You can try to round robin this argument all you want but in the end the elements of the charges listed are all present and establish RS / PC for an investigation and potential arrest..

Originally posted by Honor93
if an accident is classified a "traffic stop", then why was it reported as a crime in progress?

The accident was not classified as a traffic stop.

An accident is just that. A traffic stop is done to signal the driver of the vehicle to stop. A traffic stop only needs RS to be done. A traffic stop is not mutually exclusive to an accident.

Originally posted by Honor93
are cops so zealous to "catch a criminal" that they cannot differentiate between an accident and a crime in progress?

Again you have no idea what you are talking about.

For those curious about Officer involved shootings -
Hollywood vs. Reality Officer Involved Shootings .

Originally posted by Honor93
dangerous speeds doesn't count as it is totally subjective. no proof anywhere of such.
that vehicle could have plowed that fence at 10mph.

Speed and the gate aren't mutually exclusive. Destroying the gate and speeding through the parking lot are 2 separate incidents.

Originally posted by Honor93
*** at this point i'm guessing you re-pasting my commentary without retort was an error on your part.
therefore, should you wish to continue, feel free.

do what?

Originally posted by Honor93
so, just to make sure we're on the same page here ...
accident with children on board = child endangerment

Operating a motor vehicle in a wreckless / impaired manner with children in the car is endangering the welfare of a child.

Originally posted by Honor93
accident with property damage = what again? intentional destruction of property?

He intentionally drove through the gate, doing damage, and left = Leaving the scene of an accident.

Originally posted by Honor93
(good luck proving it was intentional)
and lastly, if injured in an accident and you do not respond to authority, prepare to die ... got it.

He failed to stop when the accident occured, he left the scene, he left at a high rate of speed, he failed to make contact with the deputy, he failed to report to incident to 911.

Its intentional...

When the person places others into danger, yes, ignoring the verbal commands of a deputy who is pointing a gun at you telling you to stop because he is placing people in danger, including his children - yes.

reply to post by Xcathdra

A warrant is not needed to perform a traffic stop.

true, but it is required to obtain ANYTHING from that traffic stop unless it is volunteered.
the driver can refuse to cooperate and walk/drive away. (not belligerently but lawfully)

this was not a traffic stop in the classic and standard interpretation of the phrase.
this officer witnessed an accident. nothing more, nothing less.
he over-reacted, severely.

i have never and am not currently stating the officer was wrong to inquire.
however, i am stating further actions taken were beyond unreasonable and UN-Constitutional.

you still haven't answered what protocol allows an accident to be interpreted as a crime in progress.
you talk about others using strawman arguments but i notice you appear to be the king of the tactic.

so far, you claim he was speeding - with -0- evidence
you claim he was "endangering his children" - with -0- evidence
you claim he was uncooperative yet no medical intervention was obtained.
back up officers arrived and participated yet no medical intervention was provided ?

you claim the victim is responsible for the actions of the officer, i disagree.
you also claim the laws support these heinous actions, well ok, i believe that, so, are you willing to help resolve these conflicting laws or do you prefer we mere citizens get in line, learn the laws and obey?

the Supreme Court is not the end all in case law, it is the beginning, geeeeeesh.
some of the SC rulings that upheld warrantless seizures are being challenged currently, but not a quickly as Congress is designing more of them.

things like the Patriot Act are not absolute, the Constitution is.
the Patriot Act can be over-turned, the Constitution, not so much.

Personally, i think the Constitution could use an update but i find these issues far more pressing as they are compounding in unnecessary deaths.

ONLY reserved to the State providing it is NOT in conflict with the tenets of the Constitution or did you forget that part on purpose?

you cannot assume the gate was locked on a regular basis.
he and his family's regular presence has been noted publicly.
you are over-looking or ignoring the fact that this was an auto accident on private property and nothing more at the onset.

when a person has ongoing, open access to a public location, expecting a locked gate is a rather high expectation don't ya think?

there is NO LAW ON ANY BOOK that specifies a time limit for reporting an auto accident.
the man was shot dead in less than the time of a 20 min traffic stop.

exiting a vehicle after being involved in an accident is standard procedure not illegal.
wandering the accident scene is also not illegal by any stretch of your imagination.
and btw, if we are required to report an accident immediately then why does it take the PD nearly 2 hrs to respond on average?

If he were in his right mind

who is "in their right mind" following an auto accident with your children on board?
seems to me, the officer should have had better control of HIS OWN mind.
he was the witness, not the injured party.
(before you say there's no evidence of injury, may i remind you, shock is most definitely an injury, especially to the mind)

yes, thanks again for pointing out those silly "shoot to kill" laws, they WILL be addressed.
actually, for me, it's always a choice but perhaps we need some citizen laws that reflect the same?
after all, why waste the bullet, right?

you keep on with the "you don't understand your rights" baloney but do try to remember, i was born with them.
i'm pretty sure i understand them.
your laws on the other hand are arbitrary, ambiguous, offensive, non-productive, oppressive and in dire need of change.

dude, get off your high horse. i have shot, human target, in defense, and to wound, not kill.
one shot, where it was aimed with my loved one in the direct line of fire within 2 ft ...so, go to the range and then get back to me.

any shooter who believes the sole purpose is to kill, should be institutionalized and never permitted a gun.

yes fool, i know HOW to watch a video, my current source doesn't make it possible.
besides, you're videos are not exemplary of this situation.
and from what another poster said, perceiving a cell phone as a gun IS A REAL PROBLEM not a solution.

hmmmmm, false claims about our rights eh? got some proof for that?
i do, it's called the Constitution of the United States and our rights are natural, self-evident and inherent. which of those words is giving you pause?

running out of room ... to be continued

reply to post by Xcathdra

continued from previous post ...
you can believe the union press release all you want, i choose otherwise because it creates more questions than answers and contains NO witness statements of any kind.

and, i don't buy the "did it for the kids" as they had been addressed and apparently abandoned by the same "protective entity".
so, if you don't have a problem with that, all by itself, it says a lot about your loyalties.

what "solutions" are you referring to ??? i've offered none.
i suggested we the people get on about eliminating these silly laws, is that what you mean?
or, are you suggesting that you'd prefer mob rule?

NO LAW trumps the Constitution, you are mistaken.
a SC ruling can be over-turned and has been many times before.
the SC decides if a law is within the confines of the Constitution, they do not interpret the Constitution.
local and state laws that have NOT BEEN CHALLENGED, stand as they were passed. this too can change.

i find it offensive that you seem to prefer that ppl learn the ways of invalid laws rather fight for the right to be free of them.

and lastly, why do you keep trying to use State law to define Constitutional standards? what is that about?
schooling you has been both entertaining and almost challenging, thank you for that.

yep, my Constitutional ineptitude might just provide the amendment that straps your ego to your security vest
and then we'll see just how many of you guys qualify to carry a can of mace.
speaking of which, why wasn't that deployed first?

Show me where the Constitution forbids the actions law enforcement took

well, ok ...

4th in entirety
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

see underlined portion specifically. and, going back to Mr Loggins right to not comply ... see opening sentence of same amendment.
any law in conflict with the above specified protections is invalid. still enforceable mind you but invalid all the same.

well, that was just my alarm so perhaps we can continue this laters.
always enjoyable, seldom fruitful but a pleasure all the same.
have a good day

Originally posted by Honor93
true, but it is required to obtain ANYTHING from that traffic stop unless ..snipped for room)

It depends on the situation.. If contraband is in plain view there is no warrant needed. An arrest for DWI, which allows a search of the vehicle incident to arrest, allows for any incriminating evidence to be seized and logged.

As I pointed out, there are established exceptions to the 4th amendment.

Originally posted by Honor93
this was not a traffic stop in the classic and standard interpretation of the phrase. this officer witnessed an accident. nothing more, nothing less. he over-reacted, severely.

It was a traffic stop and it occurred because he left the scene. A traffic stop is just that, a stop, and is not a criminal action so to speak. You seem to be taking it as such and im not sure where you are getting that from. How can you state he overreacted while making the argument its only speculation? Double standard or?

Originally posted by Honor93
i have never and am not currently stating the officer was wrong to inquire.
however, i am stating further actions taken were beyond unreasonable and UN-Constitutional.

The crashing through the gate led to the accident which led the driver to leave the scene and not report it, which led him to speed through the parking lot, which led him to be stopped by the deupty which led the guy to get out of his car which led to the officr giving verbal commands to stop, which led the guy to ignore those commands, which led the guy to walk away, which led the guy to come back, which led the guy to ignore the deputy's commands again, which led him to getting in the car, which led him to ignoring the deputies commands again, which led him to start the car, which led the deputy to shoot.

Totality of circumstances - Each action made by Mr. Gibbons led to the reaction of the officer.

All actions legal and constitutional.

Originally posted by Honor93
you still haven't answered what protocol allows an accident to be interpreted as a crime in progress.
you talk about others using strawman arguments but i notice you appear to be the king of the tactic.

You are the one stuck on this topic not me, and ive answered it a few times now. You are the one who is classifying the accident as a crime in progress not me. Let me help - A crime in progress is when a crime is being committed. Leaving the scene of the accident, raising the charge from misdemeanor to felony by leaving the scene, is a crime in progress, using your language.

Originally posted by Honor93
so far, you claim he was speeding - with -0- evidence
you claim he was "endangering his children" - with -0- evidence
you claim he was uncooperative yet no medical intervention was obtained.
back up officers arrived and participated yet no medical intervention was provided ?

How many times are you going to ask the exact same questions? All these were answered in my last responses to you. Read those first, in their entirety, so we dont continue your game of round Robbin.

Originally posted by Honor93
you claim the victim is responsible for the actions of the officer, i disagree.
you also claim the laws support these heinous actions, well ok, i believe that, so, are you willing to help resolve these conflicting laws or do you prefer we mere citizens get in line, learn the laws and obey?

I participate in my local state and federal elections. I have provided you guys time and time again with links to the laws, the case laws etc... I send my thoughts / concerns to my representatives. I am educating you guys so you can fight for the changes you think are needed. Aside from arguing with me in here, what have you done, or anyone else in the thread for that matter, to find solutions?

The victim failed to comply with all commands. Yes - he forced the actions of the officer.

Originally posted by Honor93
the Supreme Court is not the end all in case law, it is the beginning, geeeeeesh.
some of the SC rulings that upheld warrantless seizures are being challenged currently, but not a quickly as Congress is designing more of them.

As a constitutionalist I am surprised that you dont understand that the US Supreme Court is the end of the line for court challenges. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. There are no more courts to appeal to after they rule, so your claim is wrong.

Originally posted by Honor93
things like the Patriot Act are not absolute, the Constitution is.
the Patriot Act can be over-turned, the Constitution, not so much.

The patriot act is not enforced by local law enforcement. Its a Federal Law that has State Government implications. Secondly the Patriot Act was challenged in addition to the Military Commissions Act of 2006. The US Supreme Court struck down almost all abilities of the government to go after citizens under the guise of terror. That resulted in the MCA of 2008, which complied with the Supreme Court rulings, as well as the MCA of 2009, which ended the enhanced interrogation techniques.

ALL are within the law and the constitution.

Originally posted by Honor93
Personally, i think the Constitution could use an update but i find these issues far more pressing as they are compounding in unnecessary deaths.

And changing the Constitution will have no effect on the laws you have issues with at the State / local level.

Originally posted by Honor93
ONLY reserved to the State providing it is NOT in conflict with the tenets of the Constitution or did you forget that part on purpose?

The Supremacy Clause? Nope im aware of it. What laws is in conflict with the Supremacy Clause? By the way, the supremacy clause deals with Federal Law, not the Constitution.

Originally posted by Honor93
you cannot assume the gate was locked on a regular basis.
he and his family's regular presence has been noted publicly.
you are over-looking or ignoring the fact that this was an auto accident on private property and nothing more at the onset.

It was a motor vehicle accident that turned into leving the scene of an accident, and was confirmed by the deputy who witnessed it. How many ways are you going to try to dismiss the actions prior to the deputy using deadly force?

Originally posted by Honor93
when a person has ongoing, open access to a public location, expecting a locked gate is a rather high expectation don't ya think?

Not when it comes to a school, especially ones in larger municipalities / counties. Also private property that is open to the public is still covered under the laws I listed a few posts back. Who is speculating now?

Originally posted by Honor93
there is NO LAW ON ANY BOOK that specifies a time limit for reporting an auto accident.
the man was shot dead in less than the time of a 20 min traffic stop.

Again if you spent more time reading and comprehending and less time arguing the same flawed points over and over you would know the time limit established was by Case Law, again the US Supreme Court.

This is from the Alameda California PA's office and has all of the case law (states / Federal Appeals / US Supreme Court listed at the bottom of each page).
Taaffic Stops

Originally posted by Honor93
exiting a vehicle after being involved in an accident is standard procedure not illegal.
wandering the accident scene is also not illegal by any stretch of your imagination.
and btw, if we are required to report an accident immediately then why does it take the PD nearly 2 hrs to respond on average?

Leaving the scene of an accident is a crime, as is walking off during a traffic stop. You keep harping on this. He LEFT the scene of the accident. When the officer made contact, it was not about the accident, it was leaving the scene of the accident. Secondly, Police can prevent people from walking around during a motor vehicle accident. We are responsible for their safety just as we are for people we arrest.

If an accident is injury / blocking lanes of traffic, its a high priority call. If no injuries / no blockage, response is based on call priority.

Originally posted by Honor93
who is "in their right mind" following an auto accident with your children on board?
seems to me, the officer should have had better control of HIS OWN mind.
he was the witness, not the injured party.
(before you say there's no evidence of injury, may i remind you, shock is most definitely an injury, especially to the mind)

May I remind you he did not exhibit let alone request any medical treatment. Again you are constantly arguing the same points over and over, and I have provided you with the answers and sources.

Originally posted by Honor93
yes, thanks again for pointing out those silly "shoot to kill" laws, they WILL be addressed.
actually, for me, it's always a choice but perhaps we need some citizen laws that reflect the same?
after all, why waste the bullet, right?

The laws for citizens are in line with laws for officers with minor exceptions. But by all means chuck the constitution out the window for police... Hypocritical much?

Originally posted by Honor93
you keep on with the "you don't understand your rights" baloney but do try to remember, i was born with them.
i'm pretty sure i understand them.
your laws on the other hand are arbitrary, ambiguous, offensive, non-productive, oppressive and in dire need of change.

In other words, you dont understand your rights, how they are applied given a criminal situation and have no clue how the laws work and govern the situations.
Again, quit with the round robbin argument. They have been asked and answered now, multiple times. Every time you demand something, and are given the proof you failed to find, you jump to the next complaint.

Originally posted by Honor93
dude, get off your high horse. i have shot, human target, in defense, and to wound, not kill.
one shot, where it was aimed with my loved one in the direct line of fire within 2 ft ...so, go to the range and then get back to me.

im not on a high horse. I am giving you the information you say does not exist. Good for you to wound, but it doesnt change the fact law enforcement does not have that option. Just because you dont like a law doesnt make the law invalid. Wanna provide your case number for that incident? Cause frankly im not believing it.

Originally posted by Honor93
any shooter who believes the sole purpose is to kill, should be institutionalized and never permitted a gun.

Asked, multiple multiple times, and answered.

Originally posted by Honor93
yes fool, i know HOW to watch a video, my current source doesn't make it possible.
besides, you're videos are not exemplary of this situation.
and from what another poster said, perceiving a cell phone as a gun IS A REAL PROBLEM not a solution.

Wow.. weve already had this conversation. Get over it and move on. It is relevant, and if you actually were a constitutionalist, you would know this. Just like you should have known the US Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, and there are no more courts above it.

Id rather be thought a fool by knowing the law rather than being ignorant and being killed because you dont.

Originally posted by Honor93
hmmmmm, false claims about our rights eh? got some proof for that?
i do, it's called the Constitution of the United States and our rights are natural, self-evident and inherent. which of those words is giving you pause?

And you should read it.. Also you claimed the constitution, supremacy clause that I told you about, allows federal laws to override state laws when a conflict is present.

What local / state laws are in violation of federal law? You made the claim now either give the example and sources, or stop making false claims you cant support.

Originally posted by Honor93
running out of room ... to be continued

You keep asking / arguing the same points over and over, ignoring any and all information provided. You have made lots of claims, yet you have not provided one link / one source to support your claims. You just mouth off and keep repeating the same stuff over and over.

Make a claim - back it up.

reply to post by Xcathdra

ok, last one but i gotta go.

No but I didnt leave the scene of an accident, I didnt speed through a school parking lot, I didnt get out of the car and ignore the deputy, I didnt walk away from the deputy, I didnt peak incoherently / rant in a football field, I didnt ignore the officers commands while a gun was pointed at me, and I didnt ignore those commands to get back into my vehicle in an attempt to flee the scene.

oh, so apparently all you've experienced is a fender bender ... got it.

some accidents (such as this one) can cause grave effects merely from shock.
since it's reported the kids weren't belted, chances are neither was he which increases
the chances he suffered a head injury upon impact.

he did NOT flee the scene or attempt to.
he may have attempted to move his truck off the fence structure beneath it.
please prove rather assume he attempted to flee.
[ppl who flee don't generally return]

since when does an accident victim need to ask for EMS?
why would he think he needs them? was he bleeding?
if he isn't "of right mind", why would the LEO expect him to behave as though he was?

Going by all of the comments from people who new him, there should have been NO reason for the man to ignore the police in the manner he did.

precisely why i'm wondering WHY there was no medical intervention.

sure, they can refuse but he wasn't even offered, was he?

The accident, the failure to stop because of the accident, the speeding, the getting out of a car on a traffic stop and ignoring the deputy, walking away from the deputy, leaving his 2 children in the car, babbling incoherently, refusing the deputy who has a gun pointed at him......

Thats not enough to raise red flags for you?

considering the last one we fished out of a swimming pool, no it's not.
the red flag appears when EMS was NOT even dispatched.

you keep saying "failure to stop" but how is that even conceivable when he exited the stopped and parked vehicle?

Tell me what the spped limit is on the school parking lot, and then tell me how fast he was going?

why? no one has that info, even you so why cling to the falsehood that says he was speeding?
where's the radar reading? (you know, probable cause)

so, no offense intended here but you're scraping awfully hard to present ANY probable cause for arrest.
something about that criteria you mentioned earlier, remember?

so, no probable cause, no apparent threat, no visible weapon and no medical assistance, just one man's assumptions / i mean, perceptions ... ya gotta love our laws.

oh, so now you're a medical professional too?
got news for ya, some ppl work right through repeated, minor heart attacks and never even know they had them.
it happens and it certainly could have happened here. the man was over 30.

and, as someone who is personally familiar with debilitating panic attacks, it could've been as simple as that.

ppl respond very differently when involved in an auto accident.
but, according to your arguments, the gentleman who wrecked through a wooden, privacy fence, on private not public property, catapulted into a swimming pool and exited the vehicle, also endangered his occupants, attempted to flee the scene cause he wandered to the front door to alert the residents and inquire if anyone had been hurt.
so, am i getting this right that he too should have been gunned down when the officers couldn't understand what he was trying to tell them?

oooooh, i almost forgot ... for those who don't know, a traffic stop is not "probable cause" for an arrest and neither is accidental property damage.
while probable cause may be gleaned from a traffic stop, the stop itself does not constitute "probable cause".

reply to post by Xcathdra

I blame the media.. A feel good story is not news worthy.. They view it, and rightfully so, that the police are doing their job, its what we pay them to do, so why report on it. For every incident the media runs showing bad police conduct, thousands more go unreported because it went well.

this opinion is almost as lame as you claim others to be.
since the 1980s, there has been more mainstream promotion of the PD, their functions and their successes than has EVER been in any form of media.

personally, i think that was the planned counterbalance for all the new and not so elegant exposure they knew was rapidly being placed upon them.
never has there been MSM promotion of the forces like there has been in the last 20yrs.

perhaps if the bad acts weren't so plentiful and downright despicable, maybe LEOs would receive the empathy and compassion that they seem to think they are due.

no one forced you to take the job you perform.
no one forces you to continue on your path, however, you are solely responsible for the perception in which you are viewed.
a simple luxury that wasn't afforded to Mr Loggins.

Originally posted by Honor93
ok, last one but i gotta go.

Every single question in your last post have been stated / asked and answered and refuted. Are you going to, at ANY point, provide us with your sources / links to the laws / constitution to support your arguments. All you are doing is talking in circles.

Originally posted by Honor93
oooooh, i almost forgot ... for those who don't know, a traffic stop is not "probable cause" for an arrest and neither is accidental property damage.
while probable cause may be gleaned from a traffic stop, the stop itself does not constitute "probable cause".

edit on 16-2-2012 by Honor93 because: (no reason given)

Good God LEARn the damn law You have no idea what you are talking about.

An officer needs reasonable suspicion that a violation occurred in order to initiate a traffic stop. During that contact, the officer is conducting an investigation with 2 results -
* - No violation occured or it did but released with a warning
* - A violation did occur and during the contact the offer makes his case to reach probable cause.

At that point, depending on the violation, a citation can be issued and the driver released, or the dirver can be arrested and taken to jail for the violation (like DWI).

You really need to learn what the term traffic stop means.

For those curious about Officer involved shootings -
Hollywood vs. Reality Officer Involved Shootings .

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by AmericanPitBull

 

I left because I got tired of banging my head against the wall of ignornace people in this thread have. I provided all of the neccissary laws / resources / explanations for you guys to read. I would have thought with your superior level of intelligence, because you know you arent a cop, you would take that information and actually get off your ass and do something to change the laws you either dont like or just plain ignore.

good deflection but your arguments remain weak

Why should I need to continue responding to the same argumentss over and over and over? Why should I have to correct people over and over and over, that this guy was not shot in the back, posted all the info to show that, and people still ignored it, because they wanted to paint law enforcement in a bad light come hell or high water.

it does not really matter where he was shot except that it was not done until LE allowed him back into the vehicle they call the deadly weapon and ultimate excuse for shooting this guy

Even after bowing out people still include me in their posts / comments, which is proof they dont bother to read what pothers type when they dont agree with that persons view or profession in my case

Is that a poor,poor ,pitiful me comment or what?

.

As for your snide and assinie comment - I bowed out because this gets old, listening to children bitch yet not do anything about it, refusing to learn how the government works, how the law works, and how their rights work and in what circumstances they don't.

Please don't take my snide comments personally unless the apply. You sre the one leading the defense of this action despite it being a real loser,man up and quit whining you are being challenged

What I offered are facts and the law, not excuses. So until you guys decide to do something other than bitch, they will remain factual, they will remain as law, and you will continue to be wrong.

So the facts are you guys have all the legal tools to escalate a situation until a man is dead and do so legally

Props for attacking me after I left the thread... Not surprising for someone to throw rocks when the party was overwith while trying to pretend they were there from the start to look cool.

Dude grow some skin. if you think you can characterize my statements as attacks as you call me ignorant and other names I never used against anyone.you are showing that soft white underbelly that are the holes of not legality but of right and wrong, which you seem to equate as congruent

To drive my point home.. Its easy for you to make the claims, yet you have absolutely nothing to back them up. At the very least I provided my sources of information, where as you made your up. If you wish to dispuite that feel free to support your claims with sources.

edit on 16-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

My "claims" have as much "back -up" as those of LE(or their union?) and asking for what you know is non-existant is just more cop BS. So far there is enough evidence in the spotty, filled with holes story to seriously question the justification for killing this guy. And i will point out to you repeated claims I know nothing because I am not a cop only further cement the opinion you guys need checked, hard. Sorry my exposing that fear is what motivates many of your actions made your hiney hurt.
APB

Originally posted by AmericanPitBull
My "claims" have as much "back -up" as those of LE(or their union?) and asking for what you know is non-existant is just more cop BS.

The motto is deny ignorance for this site, not embrace ignorance.

Originally posted by AmericanPitBull
So far there is enough evidence in the spotty, filled with holes story to seriously question the justification for killing this guy.

If you read any of the information coming out, and then read the Union release, you would see the Deputy and his official report / dashcam footage has not been released. The media is the one who plugged the gaps with their own versions of what might have happened.

So your problem here is with the media, not law enforcement, since they, again, have not released any reports or dashcam.

Originally posted by AmericanPitBull
And i will point out to you repeated claims I know nothing because I am not a cop only further cement the opinion you guys need checked, hard. Sorry my exposing that fear is what motivates many of your actions made your hiney hurt.
APB

Deny ignorance, dont embrace it. Speaking of needing a thick skin....

As far as your opinion goes it doesn't concern / affect me one bit. If you are so blinded by hatred towards law enforcement that it prevents you from having an open mind to learning and actually doing the research required in order to understand what happened, then you are going to continue to be blinded by that hatred.

You guys are going to find fault regardless of the facts, which is just sad.

Since you dont agree.. How about you provide your information / sources / links to support your claims and refute the info ive provided.


For those curious about Officer involved shootings -
Hollywood vs. Reality Officer Involved Shootings .

The law, with regard to shooting to kill, rather than disable, Xcathdra, is downright insane. (Don't think I'm having a go at you). It needs to be challenged and changed.

That aside, and bearing in mind that the officers had ample opportunity to restrain the marine/ remove the girls from harm's way, prior to him attempting to drive away, I see no need for infinite reams of notes about the law.

It's a lot more simple than that. It's about the value of life - right and wrong. It's wrong to kill, and in this case it seems to have been so unnecessary. That's so obvious that it shouldn't even need reiterating.

The law is supposed to act to defend what's right, not encourage some macho Rambo mentality and tie people in knots of convoluted excuses as to why someone behaving a little oddly should be shot dead on the spot!

Originally posted by Screwed
Cops can clearly do whatever they want because we give them the power to do so.
I hate to say it but, we all deserve this treatment.
If we didn't, it would stop effective immediately.

When will we decide that we no longer deserve this?
When will we take a collective stand??
When will we say enough is enough???

Until we do, this is what we will get and this is what we will deserve.

You really think WE gave this cop that power? I think you's a little misguided. During Hurricane Katrina I saw cops do tons of things that were illegal and immoral and get away with it just because they had a badge and a gun and no morals to live by. You really think We The People will stop this? News flash for you - We The People don't have any power anymore - Our Government has made sure of that. We stand up for whats right and We will become the terrorists with a bullet with our names on it - not to say we should not try, but the fix is in. This is happening all over, elections are rigged, we have an illegal President and no one cares about any of this stuff one bit. We have no power and the Government isn't going to let us change things. They are all hired thugs - The U.S mafia.

Double posted I would say Sorry but it's this silly forums fault.

reply to post by Xcathdra
[moreI

I will give you this from inside the blue line
www.theppsc.org...
Now perhaps you will address the fact that we are all subject to perceived fear in the response we can expect from LE, since the first thing you do is asses "perceived threat" thus establishing how scared the cop is of what the subject MAY do. No due process in there is there? just cowboy justice.
Oh yeah I don't know jack cause I am not a cop. Hey you don't know jack because you are one. Time to meet jack,eh?
APB

ETA here is a snippet of the paper no one will read from LE itself on the subject of questionable shootings and there occurance

VIII. QUESTIONABLE POLICE SHOOTINGS Until recently, all known data pertinent to the frequency in which officers shoot unarmed suspects predates the landmark Tennessee v. Garner case. However, given the frequency in which police engage in low-light lethal force events, the pre-Garner studies deserve serious consideration. The 25-43% frequencyv in which those studies suggested that police shot unarmed suspects appears dated due to the more restrictive deadly force parameters established by Garner. Though the Garner decision may have attenuated this phenomenon over the last twenty years, currently available data suggests that it still persists with alarming frequency. Between 1990 and 2001, the Metro-Dade Police Department reportedly vi had 22 shootings in which suspects were clearly unarmed, and a dozen others in which the officers claimed they saw guns -- but no guns were found. All told, Miami officers shot and killed 33 people in that period of years -- 11 of which were under questionable circumstances.

That is 1/3 of all police shootings were "questionable"
I am not coming from ignorance, though you may wish I were. As a cop your 'perceptions' can "escalate things over the top as seen in your heated angry responses

Originally posted by Toffeeapple
The law is supposed to act to defend what's right, not encourage some macho Rambo mentality and tie people in knots of convoluted excuses as to why someone behaving a little oddly should be shot dead on the spot!

Valid points but I still maintain that ignoring the reams of law would cause more problems, not less.

It was a combination of all of his actions, not just the odd behavior once out of the vehicle.

Food for thought on the other -
Its entirely possible the deputy thought the situation could have been resolved. Its 6 of 1, 1/2 dozen of the other on removing the kids. They could not have known he would return to the vehicle and ignore a deputy with a gun drawn.

Police remove the kids from the vehicle - possible reaction -
* - He sees his children aren't in the vehicle and sees them with police. If he were returning to deal with the situation, only to find police took his children out of his car and are in the back of a police car, that action could just as easily elevated the situation.

Multiple officers present - possibility -
Just because there were other deputies present does not mean they were in a position to see what occurred..

We would need to know where the vehicle was parked and what was around the vehicle at the end of the encounter. How quickly was he moving towards his vehicle? When did the deputy notice him coming back to the vehicle and how far away was he when it was noticed?

Was the vehicle parked close to the field?

Lets see what the autopsy / toxicology says.

The video was very good. The report covered the whole range of violent murder sprees by police, shooting unarmed teen flushing herbs down the toilet, WOW. No way would that cut any laws in Canada for use of fire arm.

It showed the escalating violent oppression of police on peaceful people, unarmed, and protesters.

Kudo's to all who were out there protesting this police state police brutality.

There are more violations of human rights occurring in the US/UK than in Syria, I mean the ones officially on record, deaths in jails even.

I have a thread on an independent journalist bringing all of that up.

There is no law in Canada that would ever allow a police officer to perceive an unarmed man as a threat, who was walking away, and could fire.

The apologetics and defenders of the police need to understand, this isn't about the serve and protect hero's who should be working for the people. That is not what this thread is about.

That is not what is actually occurring now.

We are talking about fascist police brutality.

Originally posted by AmericanPitBull
I will give you this from inside the blue line
www.theppsc.org...
Now perhaps you will address the fact that we are all subject to perceived fear in the response we can expect from LE, since the first thing you do is asses "perceived threat" thus establishing how scared the cop is of what the subject MAY do. No due process in there is there? just cowboy justice.
Oh yeah I don't know jack cause I am not a cop. Hey you don't know jack because you are one. Time to meet jack,eh?
APB

Again you should read what you post -

From your source -

Few occupations are analogous to law
enforcement, which is why comparisons to virtually
any other profession seem tenuous. A brief review of
what public expectations are of police may buttress this
perspective.
· We expect officers to be fearless, but not reckless.
· We expect officers to be passionate about what
they do, yet display no emotion in doing it.
· We expect officers to be decisive and forceful, but
not bullies.
· We expect officers to confront brute criminal
behavior with finesse and restraint.
· We expect officers to make micro-second
decisions regarding life-and-death that judges and
juries would deliberate upon for weeks.
· We expect officers to retain the athleticism of
their youth while sitting in police cars through
rotating 8-12-hour shifts, drinking gallons of
coffee to stay awake.
· We expect officers to exude the "Wisdom of
Solomon" and the ethics of saints at salary levels
commensurate with that of trash collectors.

Already we start out by pointing out the publics perception of how they think law enforcement works. That was in the video I posted a page or so back.

As far as the amount of hours for training - Tell me how an officer can be trained to deal with what he will face in a classroom setting? Contrived situations are great for training, however they dont include the unknowns, the officers know the "suspect" they are dealing with in the academy setting is not a threat to them, and when we do physical training we know when we get hit its only around 20%-30% of maximum force.

This profession requires an on the job training element. The same goes for doctors, fire fighters etc etc etc

Major changes coming from litigation - Ive have been stating that in the "reams" of info I posted.

There is nothing in that link that has not been brought up in this thread by me. As I have posted a few times now, the laws and case laws is what shaped law enforcement use of force standards and how those actions are reviewed / judged.

Ive stated it many many times now.. We have pinpointed key problems.. Next step is to research the issues, find solutions and go from there. Unfortunately people never want to go past the complaining about police stage.

reply to post by Xcathdra

I am very ready to go beyond just complaining and am not unsympathetic to the job stresses. More from the posted article

THE POLICE “PREY DRIVE” A stubborn bastion of concern in the way police tend to use force against citizens may be attributable to operational imperatives. Police tend to be fixated on the apprehension of suspects, and upon the seizure of contraband. That’s their job. An unfortunate outgrowth of this operational focus is apparent in too-frequent “prey-drive” scenarios. Analogous to a dog chasing a stick into a busy highway, oblivious to risk, the officer will often (unwittingly) subjugate his/her own safety concern toward apprehension and/or seizure goals. It is in such scenarios (e.g., after vehicular or foot pursuits) that we tend to see some of the more questionable police applications of force.

Sometimes this is attributable to the fact that the officer, like the dog who has run into oncoming traffic on a busy street, has found himself in a tactically untenable position. Other times it might be attributable to the heightened emotions of the moment. Regardless of how we tend to view the aftermath of such scenarios, recognition should be given to the nature of potentially troublesome operational imperatives through a combination of better policy and training. Apprehension and seizure objectives should be always be subjugated to concern for officer safety and public safety. What agencies fail to grasp is the direct correlation between the prioritization of occupational safety and the minimization of liability exposure. When and where reckless police behavior is minimized, so is liability exposure.

Good stuff!
APB