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: 18
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 10:55 AM
reply to post by Unity_99


What about section 25 of the Criminal Code of Canada?

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 11:08 AM
reply to post by AmericanPitBull

Its is a good report and contains specific issues that need to be addressed. It does not negate the fact that the current laws are what guides law enforcement though.

The report was made by using information from many police sources, however it does not mean that every single officer is a problem. The one flaw in the report was the average number of hours for a police academy. Each state sets the criteria for certification, and some states have varying levels of certificates based on experience as well as continued advanced training (California).

The other topic thats not covered that directly affects actions are the people who have contact with law enforcement. People are to quick to accuse police of bad behavior while ignoring the possibility that the person they are dealing with is the source of the escalation.

Looking at this incident (op) - If there was nothing wrong with Mr. Loggins (not drunk / on drugs / mental breakdown etc etc) then why did he behave in the manner he did? He had multiple avenues to talk to the deputy yet failed to do so.
edit on 16-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 11:46 AM
Wow that's alot of front end damage on the Yukon. Did he drive through a bank vault wall? it's a write of for sure......

edit on 16-2-2012 by dl2oneThe2nd because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 12:14 PM

Originally posted by sirjunlegun
reply to post by Xcathdra

Would anyone like a HAM SANDWICH????

What happens in ham sandwich, stays in ham sandwich

posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 01:46 PM
Not being sarcastic now,i realy wanna know-what happened to tazers? I was under the impression American cops had those tazers at their disposal,that shoots out 2 strings or something,and is so potent it can disable a grown man? What ive been reading on this site lately is most disturbing-if i lived in America(God forbid)i,d be scared to leave the house in case some trigger-happy cop decided i looked suspicious,and shot me down while my little son was walking right next to me..or even shot my l'il son down down,cus he made a cop feel threatened in some way..i dont know,something is very wrong ,and unless the American people can stand together and find a way to stop this before it goes any further,i foresee many,many more instances of this type of shooting-till eventualy people get used to it,and it becomes the standard..remember,folks can pretty much get used to/adapt to anything,no matter how outrageous,so i urge ALL Americans to not let this continue,rise up en masse and make yourselves be could be sure none of the citizens shot in the past few weeks thought such a thing could ever happen to them,it was propably not a thing that would ever even have entered their minds for a split second..

posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 01:48 PM
reply to post by Raxoxane

Tasers are voluntary for each cop in a particular department that approves tasers. Some departments don't want them at all. In other departments, they approve them, but each cop has a choice to carry it or not.

posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 03:06 PM
reply to post by getreadyalready

Thats unfortunate-they should make tazers the mandatory first option,imo..(unless maybe the guy is so freaked out on pcp or sumthing that he's as unmanageable as one of the rage virus sufferers of 28 Days Later,maybe,but im sure that dont occur real often) If there has been a misunderstanding on the part of a cop,if he genuinely but mistakenly believed he was threatened,then this can be cleared up once the suspect is safely in a cell..kind of hard to set things right if the suspect is dead.

posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 03:08 PM
reply to post by Raxoxane

I disagree. I've had two law enforcement acquaintances killed in the past year while attempting to use tasers. In my opinion all tasers need to go, and police should get back to good ol' hands on training, and guns should be used only in rare life-threatening situations.

Police have lost the skill of hand to hand combat and submission of a subject, and they rely too heavily on tasers and/or guns these days.

posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 02:13 AM
Just an update about the deputy that shot the marine and his demeanor. Looks like there may be some skeletons in his closet. Although he has fared well in other departments.

Deputy Who Killed Marine Identified

Privately, other sources named Sandberg, who worked as a deputy in Mission Viejo before joining the Sheriff's Academy in mid-2011 as an instructor. One source described Sandberg as "high-strung," and said some sort of "problem" led to his recent departure from the academy.

Sandberg has received praise and commendations in other quarters. Last June, shortly before he transferred from the sheriff's Mission Viejo station to the academy, city officials praised the deputy's service, according to minutes from the June 20 City Council meeting.

reply to post by getreadyalready

You are spot on! Manny was definately outnumbered. So he should have never even made it to the SUV.

edit on 18-2-2012 by elouina because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 03:00 AM
reply to post by Raxoxane

A taser will work but the effects are delayed on people who are hocked up on PCP. Rodney King was on PCP when that mess went down. What was played in the media over and over was the last part of the incident, where you see batons coming out.

The first part of that incident was LAPD officers using every tool under the sun except deadly force to get him under control. LA at the time used a swarm technique, which is essentially come at the person from all sides, take the ground and use brute force to overcome the resistance. He was throwing the officers around like rag dolls.

It was only when all of those options failed did the batons come out. Ive had the unique experience fighting a person who is on PCP. It resulted in about 10 officers from 2 agencies swarming the guy and tying the person down just to get handcuffs on.

Pepper spray had zero effect..
PCP (and a few other drugs like meth) directly affect pain perception. You can hit the person over and over, full strength, and chances are they will barely feel it, if at all.

The introduction of the Taser placed a needed gap into those situations, and actually is responsible for lowering the number of officer and suspect injuries. For every new advance in technology there will be people who don't understand the need for it, and want to attack it without have all the information (not you btw).

Try to look at it like this - v(not real stats btw, just made up for this demo)
You can have over 1500 deaths in 1 year (nationwide) of physical confrontation with police / suspect. That number will be both sides, officers and suspects and is based on no taser present, just physical.

A tool comes out that gives the chance of being able to deescalate / end a situation before it becomes physical. In that 1 year time frame deaths drop to 500.

Granted, 500 is still higher than 0, however its better than the year before it came out.

When a physical encounter occurs between an officer and suspect, the ability to use deadly force drastically increases. IM all for more hands on training and better Inter Personal Communications / Crisis Prevention and Intervention training.

We would be deluding ourselves to think that every encounter can be ended by verbal communications only.

reply to post by elouina

I am curious to what the reasons are. Secondly I hate "anonymous" sources that will give part of a story, leaving out the info that could place it into context. If there is an established history of behavioral / policy violation issues, then by all means the investigation should not just be into the Deputy, but his chain of command who knew his background and still placed him in patrol.
edit on 18-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 08:53 AM
reply to post by Xcathdra

Hi,yeah like i said in my reply,imo tazers should be first option exept in cases where the suspect is acting "rage virus"-violent,then,tragicaly shooting may be inevitable.It would be a good solution if cops could be trained in hand-to-hand/martial arts,but it seems that the issue goes deeper anyway-its like American cops feel more threatened by and suspicious of the general public these days..However,in my country cops REALY seem to be fair game-in the past few years,so many have been killed by criminals,not even in the line of duty,actualy targeted just cus they are cops,and killed off-duty.Its been a real concern here,and cops in this country could not be blamed for casting a wary eye on anyone they pass in the street,yet we never hear of this type of thing over here,that a cop just shoots an unarmed citizen.

posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 09:05 AM

Originally posted by Hellas
Why is the title 'Marine' so important? Does that make him a better person somehow?

Yes it does.. Absolutely does!

posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 09:26 AM
reply to post by getreadyalready

You make a good point,but i dont think your country's law enforcement governing body(or my country's legb,for that matter) is actualy ever gonna be changing, to making hand-to-hand combat/martial arts the first option in the apprehension of suspects..guns and/or tazers are what the cops are stuck with-of which tazering seems the best,in a country like the US where it seems shooting of unarmed civilians is happening more frequently.I realy am sorry for the loss of your aquaintances,truly i am,but (and please dont think im being cold-hearted) it IS a fact that when you choose being a cop as your career,you know you are taking on a dangerous job which could well get you killed.
Being a civilian,you do not expect that any/every day you leave your house,it could be your last day,cus some cop perceived you as threatening,and shot you.Being tazered surely can't be much fun,but heck,at least you'd still be reply was an opinion on an alternative+better way of dealing with a situation where the suspect is an unarmed citizen,who dont seem to be violent or out of control/holding some one hostage/engaged in any violent criminal act.Obviously,in extreme situations,it calls for extreme measures-but in the shooting incidents ive read about lately,shooting to kill seems monstrously out of proportion to the actual level of threat the suspect presented-like bringing a rocket launcher to a POSSIBLE fist fight.

posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 09:48 AM
reply to post by Raxoxane

it IS a fact that when you choose being a cop as your career,you know you are taking on a dangerous job which could well get you killed.

Very true, and they do accept that responsibility on a daily basis, and for average pay at best.

But, this is something civilians often forget. The cops face dangerous people day in and day out. They are often in volatile, dangerous confrontations, and statistics show the overwhelming majority of the time they handle these situations professionally, and are able to consider everyone's safety, including the suspects. Out of literally millions of interactions each and every day, there are a very slim number of unfortunate outcomes.

The US has about 400,000 cops, if you consider they are encountering a minimum of 5 situations per day, that is 2 million interactions per day. Lets examine some statistics....

An estimated 40 million U.S. residents age 16 or older, or about 17% of the population, had a face-to-face contact with a police officer in 2008. This is a continuing decrease in contact between police and the public, down from 19% of residents who had contact with the police in 2005 and 21% who had contact in 2002.

So, by that account, 5.6 million unique people had face to face interactions with police during that year. 25% of those people had multiple interactions.

In 2008, nearly 67 million encounters occurred between the police and the 40 million persons who had contact during that year, with an average of 1.7 face-to-face contacts per resident.

Of persons who had contact with the police in 2008, about 9 out of 10 felt the officer or officers behaved properly.

DOJ Source

Now lets look at something else...

The non-profit group reports that 124 law enforcement officers died in the line of duty this year, down 7% from last year and the lowest number since 1959.

WASHINGTON – Fifty police officers were shot to death in the United States last year, among 122 who were killed in the line of duty.

In all, 55 officers were killed intentionally, two fewer than in 2004, according to preliminary
FBI statistics released Monday. Vehicles were used in five deaths, the bureau said.

During the 3-year period from 2003 to 2005, 47 States and
the District of Columbia reported 2,002 arrest-related deaths
to the Bureau of Justice Statistics' (BJS) Deaths in Custody
Reporting Program (DCRP).

Those "arrest-related" deaths also include things like drug overdoses or natural where they died in custody by no fault of the police, The number of actual police-caused deaths was around 200 per year.

So, lets break down those numbers. 67 million interactions, 200 killings. 200/67,000,000=0.003%, of interactions with the public resulted in the police intentionally killing the suspect. Now, for you and me, that means we can estimate it will take interacting with the police 30,000 times before they are likely to shoot us.

Imagine, out of all the crimes we are aware of, and all the murderers and rapists and drug dealers the police arrest each and every year, they only kill about 200 of them, and in return about 50 police officers get killed.

So, this makes me believe, when someone is shot and killed, they must be doing something extremely erratic at the time. Perhaps they don't deserve to die, but neither does the police officer. Many times the police officer is acting in a professional manner, and the shooting is justified considering the situation, but in hindsight the victim is unarmed or no threat, and the police officer has to live with that knowledge the rest of their life. BUT, in general, I think the police are doing a hell of a job!

posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 04:06 PM
reply to post by Raxoxane

I think threatened might be a bit strong but I get the point. Something to keep in mind that people dont take into account, and a point people in the US dont think about because its been present since the founding of our country..

Law Enforcement in the US is a victim to and beneficiary of the 2nd Amendment - Right to bear arms.

We always exercise caution while keeping in mind the people we are dealing with may very well be armed. You would be surprised how some civilians act with firearms (and some cops) when police are around. From being pulled over, where the driver holds the gun out the window instead of his license / gun endorsement / id card and not understanding why the cop was pissed and pointing his gun at him, to open carrying etc..

A risk we accept and one I would never want to see go away (2nd). The reason I brought this up goes back to the taser comments. Like bullets, tasers can fail and there is no guarantee that the person we were trying to tase is weapons free. Its one of the reasons its suppose to be used along with another officer who has their duty weapon out.

Just as people go after the police and blame all for the actions of 1, the same argument can be applied to citizens, where it only takes 1 idiot and 1 incident to change the demeanor of an officer when dealing with people from that point on.

When you get stopped by an officer, there is a 99.5% chance that you know the person stopping you is an officer. You are thinking what did I do to get pulled over? Speeding.... no turn signal, rolled a stop, is my insurance card in the car, where is it at etc etc etc.

On the other end there is a 99.5% chance that we have no idea who is in the car and what their intentions are. Are they armed, is the car stolen but not reported, is the driver an escaped murderer, did the driver just get done killing a bunch of people, why cant I see them moving around in the car, why are they moving around so much in the car, plus more and thats before we even come to a complete stop from pulling them over.

It doesn't excuse the idiot ass behavior of some police or some civilians, however being complacent or assuming a person is not armed and opting to use a taser when in fact the taser fails and it turns out the guy is armed...

what to do.

posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 10:56 PM

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Raxoxane

On the other end there is a 99.5% chance that we have no idea who is in the car and what their intentions are. Are they armed, is the car stolen but not reported, is the driver an escaped murderer, did the driver just get done killing a bunch of people, why cant I see them moving around in the car, why are they moving around so much in the car, plus more and thats before we even come to a complete stop from pulling them over.

It doesn't excuse the idiot ass behavior of some police or some civilians, however being complacent or assuming a person is not armed and opting to use a taser when in fact the taser fails and it turns out the guy is armed...

what to do.

Since 99.5% of civilians are guilty of very inconsequential things like having a headlight out or not using a turn signal, it's hard to imagine you would immediately act like they were a murderer, or armed robber, etc.

This kind of logic is rediculous. It works both ways, the officer could be emotionally unstable, or perhaps a "bad cop." How do you know their true intensions, are we just forced to trust everyone?

Everyone is human, so your logic applys both ways.

posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 01:23 AM
reply to post by v1rtu0s0

Except you and others ignore the fact everyone is human, instead constantly relying on personal view points of law enforcement and the profession resulting in typical stereotypes.

When a person is pulled over, they have a different mindset than the officer walking up on the car.

posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 02:55 AM
reply to post by Xcathdra

well, i see you've continued babbling senselessly so i might as well respond.

Yeah, whole person, doesnt cover Indians, and classifies all others as 3/5 of a person.

again, the ambiguity is in your interpretation, not the Constitution. you are trying (terribly btw) to equate property to personhood and that isn't gonna fly with me, i know better.

besides, it's irrelevant to this discussion.
and, truth be told, IF it was "such a big deal", why was it resolved via case law instead of an amendment ??? i know, do you?
but, but, i thought the purpose of the CW was to "free the slaves" (yes, i know it wasn't) point is, if it was ... the Constitution would've been properly addressed but it wasn't and has never been, so, what's that tell ya?

laws do not protect rights that are inherent, that is not their design or function.
we can have a lengthy discussion about these topics, but please, start a thread, it doesn't belong here.

case law is not applied to the Constitution, it is derived from it.
Miranda was developed as an assertion of implied rights, a reminder to the accused and as a loophole for the government agents to manipulate the system for maximum profit.
it was a business decision.

Im not so please point out where im misrepresenting it

ok, but i'm not posting quotes so here's the top 5 paraphrased.
1) laws (both local and state) are superior to Constitutional protections -- wrong
2) laws in general are superior to the Constitution -- wrong
3) Constitutional authority only applies if the law agrees -- wrong
4) that slaves or slavery were somehow eliminated via case law -- wrong (case law ensures slavery)
5) that the 4th amendment applies solely to the government and its agents -- wrong

all of the above assertions are completely incorrect regardless of the case law supporting said assertions.
i could list more but we have other more important topics working in this thread.

what's wrong with my subversion comment? it's true.
ppl who support and engage in the subversion of the Constitution fit the profile, don't they?
never said that was you specifically, for all i know you could be trying to change things from the inside (at least i give you that much credit)
but, i must be mistaken because i thought we were engaging in a conversation not a battle.

wasn't it you who said something about learning things from each other?
my bad, i thought we were communicating.

what you are trying desperately to convince me of is this ...
case law defines the rights of the people
case law is absolute and serves to justify unreasonable acts that exceed the scope and authority provided in the Constitution. need i go on?

no, i have no need to be familiar with ALL laws, they are not applicable in my state.

Then how can you make the claims people are in the wrong and your rights are being abused?

because, when my rights are not honored, they are abused ... who needs law to determine that?
laws do not define my rights, laws restrict my rights, always have, always will.
laws were made to be broken and they certainly do not prevent crime of any kind.
the only true purpose of laws is to generate revenue.

think about this a moment ...
why are there still laws lingering on the books that haven't been enforced in decades ??
with all the lawyers we have roaming around, why do these laws still exist?
why are legislators more interested in designing more laws rather cleaning out the fluff?
why, as a self-governed species do we even need laws?

i'm not circling this drain with you.
for someone who doesn't comprehend the property values associated with Article 1, Section 3, there is no point in wasting my time on this subject.

Its defining what the government must do in order to search and seize.
whose parameters were not met at any point in time during this incident.

you have yet to indicate what about an auto accident warrants search or seizure.
was the officer involved in a vehicular pursuit? no
was the officer witness to a crime in progress? no
did the officer view alcohol, drugs or weapons in the vehicle? no
so, since you're holding the bar (so to speak), please, school me on where the accident ends and the law breaking begins.
there's no proof of anything except a dead man, a broken fence and no medical intervention.

again, case law applies when the facts support it, in this case, they don't.
Constitutional protections apply continuously and are not dependent on anything.

how is stating a fact (man kills man) denying anyone Constitutional protections?
are you saying the LEO didn't kill Mr Loggins?

out of characters ... continued

posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 03:40 AM
reply to post by Xcathdra

continued from previous post addressing same "reply" -- will get to the others later.

the officer is presumed innocent in a court of law only, i already said that in a previous post.
however, he will ALWAYS be guilty of killing a man in front of his children.
again, that is an absolute, not arbitrary, ambiguous or in doubt.
he may not be found guilty of any form of homicide, but he will always be a killer.

why are you stretching the goal posts out of the playing field?

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?
now, how can any of this be attained when there is no accuser? he's dead, remember?

The officer committed a homicide
YOU SAID THAT, not me.
i said a man killed a man ... you sure he committed a homicide?
there is no mention of "homicide" in the Constitution either so what's your point here?

personally, i already know the whole court system is a sham so how does it serve the family to have the incident ruled "justified" ??
oh that's right, then the family can't sue.

how does it serve the system of case law??
it adds to the arguments against the Constitutional provisions already usurped.
i do understand the purpose here, do you?

what is your "telepathic" comment about? not following.

Killing a man to protect the lives of others - check

that is nothing more than your pure assumption.
however, killing a man, recently involved in an auto accident, rather requesting medical intervention ... is deplorable.

Police / civilians do NOT have to wait to be assaulted / shot at before taking a defensive action.

good, from now on i will perceive all LEOs as a fatal threat, that's easy enough.
all y'all are bigger than me, stronger than me and continuously armed with an apparent itchy trigger finger, so that should qualify as a reasonably perceived threat.

actually, there is no indication anywhere that my rights end, ever.
they may be curtailed, they may even be suspended but they do not end.
and, if my rights infringe on your rights, we should be capable of negotiating a resolve, this is where the LEOs fail miserably.
remember, they are not enforcing or protecting anyone's rights, they enforce laws.

fyi -- i don't go off spouting i hate cops so please check your attitude at the door.
i hate the duties cops are manipulated to perform.
i hate the payroll i'm required to support just to be subjected to such nonsense.
i hate the constant abuse of the rights of all people in lieu of false laws.
i hate the citizenry who plow onward as though nothing is wrong.
i hate the continual conflict arising from such silly laws.
i hate the perpetual losses of life associated with laws.
i hate the fact that officers must risk life and limb to enforce ridiculous laws.
i absolutely hate that too many lawmen think the Constitution only applies if the laws say so.
i could go on but that's already expressing more than enough hate for one day.

but ... i certainly love much more than i hate.
and, i actually enjoy the banter.
i'm kinda amused by the conflict we've shared but i'm more dismayed at the total state of confusion regarding the legal needs of this country.

and, the next time you shoot a cyber dagger my way, pray i don't submit the backtracking to admin.

re: time to report accidents in CA
CVC section 20008 -

The driver of a vehicle, other than a common carrier vehicle, involved in any accident resulting in injuries to or death of any person shall within 24 hours after the accident make or cause to be made a written report of the accident to the Department of the California Highway Patrol or, if the accident occurred within a city, to either the Department of the California Highway Patrol or the police department of the city in which the accident occurred.

an attorney POV -

If someone was injured, you must file a report within 24 hours, if it only involved property damage you (or your representative) must file a report within 10 days.

so, care to tell us again how Mr Loggins failed to follow this law?

oh yeah, recent SC ruling regarding the 4th and our unalienable right to privacy --- US v Jones (2012) US vs Jones decision & discussion
or more

posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 03:51 AM
reply to post by Xcathdra

so, care to explain how a law that allows 10 days to report an auto accident with only property damage was limited to 10 minutes for Mr Loggins?

or, let's go with the 24 hr requirement if injuries are involved ... still, Mr Loggins rights were violated.

and, back to the 4th --- which PROTECTS the citizens from unwarranted and unreasonable search or seizure ... where is the warrant?

no probable cause, no weapons, no drugs, no criminal acts of any kind, yet this Marine is still dead.
shame, shame, shame on any LEO who supports such acts.

edit on 19-2-2012 by Honor93 because: fix typo

top topics

<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in