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: 5
61
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by LonelyGuy
What did he get for punishment? Slap on the wrist i assume.


This incident just occured in the last week or so. The investigation is still in progress, as well as the Orange County PA's investigation.

Autopsy results arent back yet either.




posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by stirling
This is whats comming to the neighbourhoods near you.....wherever you live in the "Free world"
Canada, The US its all the same.....
Police take more and more liberty with the laws and their supposed authority.
The time will come when they will be the recievers of some of their own "justice"and i sense the public is about to explode with this crap....it will only take a single incident like this to start the revolution that is building against the goverments totalitarian methods.
Lets bring the Marines home and ask them what to do about this.......


Ex-Marines have taken quite a hit from police in the last five years or so. I could easily see them getting mad enough to go hunting.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by Toffeeapple
 


I'm not defending a murderer. I am defending a person who has yet to face trial. Innocent until proven guilty is sort of a thing here.


Innocent until proven guilty huh? Was that how the marine was treated as he was pumped full of bullets?

I think not.


Practice what you preach or shut the hell up.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 05:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Hellas
 


I think the title is trying to point out how veterans, and defenders of the constitution and such are being deemed as enemies of the state......... in a round about way........... so to speak............ ?



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
Since when did it become a Capital Crime to disobey a police order when a) a known felony had not been committed and b) the life of the officer was not threatened?? This is happening almost on a weekly basis.

Police see themselves as better than the rest of us
The aren't in fact they are several steps down from the average person- They have no useful skills that someone would 'pay' them for.
Compare the actions of the police vs armed security and you will see which ones assess a situation and diffuse it with minimum amount of force - The private security why? Because they will get fired and replaced if they mess up. The police see themselves as untouchable and right now they are.



Originally posted by Vitchilo This whole business needs to be investigated and the cop at least fired for this.


It should be but it won't and he won't.


Originally posted by FraggleRock
And hopefully the dash cam video captured the audio for the entire incident. Otherwise we only have the officers account of what was said.


Good argument for buying and using a hidden helmet cam to back up the truth. The police may stop feeling so free to lie if everyone else records them and can contradict their lies.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by Toffeeapple
 


I'm not defending a murderer. I am defending a person who has yet to face trial. Innocent until proven guilty is sort of a thing here.


Innocent until proven guilty huh? Was that how the marine was treated as he was pumped full of bullets?

I think not.


Practice what you preach or shut the hell up.



You talk big on an internet forum, Mr. Anonymous.

What did Loggins say to the officer(s)? Did he say "have a nice day" or could he have said "I'm going to kill and dismember my two kids now"? We don't know, because we weren't the ones there that Loggins was talking to. At any time the officer could've opened fire on him, but he didn't until Loggins said something specific to him.

If the man said what amounts to the former, then the officer committed murder. But if faced with a guy that might be about to cause harm to his children, could you make the decision that officer did, big shot?

/TOA



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


He could have shot him in the leg mate, instead of 2 in the back in front of the guys kids. The man was unarmed so that would have put him out of action to be arrested and have the matter dealt with in a manner that doesn't involve shooting a father dead in front of his kids.

Regardless of what was said, the police officer acted as judge, jury and executioner all in the space of a minute or so. The situation (whatever that might have been) would have been resolved without the use of lethal force.

It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.



Originally posted by The Old American
You talk big on an internet forum, Mr. Anonymous.


So do you. Mirror much? The difference being I have been a member here a lot longer than you, and am well known around these parts. Can you say the same?
edit on 14/2/2012 by Kryties because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 08:42 AM
link   
What's with the apparent lack of taser use in the USA? No one should be shot unless they have a weapon themselves or are an extreme danger to the public.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties

He could have shot him in the leg mate, instead of 2 in the back in front of the guys kids.


That's what I was talking about. Please will someone in America either confirm or refute Domo1's response to that, where he/she said that police in the States are only allowed to draw their guns in order to KILL people - they're not permitted to disable (i.e. aim at a limb).

If it's true, it's the most insane thing I've ever heard. I have Googled it, and can't find any reference to it.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Toffeeapple
 


Actually I seem to remember a few stories out of America where police officers were applauded for disabling a suspect with a shot to a limb rather than killing them. I can't remember the details of any off the top of my head but, like you, I have done a cursory search on this supposed 'law of lethal force' and can find none.

Methinks some people in this thread are making information up to suit their own purposes. I could be wrong though, I reserve judgement until I see some sort of evidence that it is true (which I highly doubt).
edit on 14/2/2012 by Kryties because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Kryties
 


Yes, I had it in the back of my mind that they're instructed they mustn't draw weapons unless they're prepared to kill, but that's entirely different from what was stated (by the person implying my reading material is a kid's comic
)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   
Also this story from the last few days:


edit on 2/14/2012 by AkumaStreak because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by Xcathdra
You are leaving out the statement he made to the officer. We still dont know what was said, and it could explain the use of force. Secondly it was a combination of actions that resulted in the shooting, not just the refusal to comply.

edit on 13-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

It is you leaving out the Meat of the story, I'll remind you.

Two Shots In The BACK

Unarmed


Im not sure what your hangup is on shooting in the back. Tennesse Vs. Garner established police cannot shoot a fleeing felon unless that person presents a threat to the community as a whole / people at large.

I dont mind your comments but at the very least could you acknowledge the laws?


really man? The laws? Lets look at the facts, dude is dead from shots in the back and two little girls saw their dad get killed right in front of them. If someone is shot in the back, he was most likely not close to the officer and presenting no immediate danger. Does that sound lawful to you?



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   
The police are so out of control that the public would be safer without them at all.

The reason the marine was murdered was so the cop could feel what it was like to kill someone.
When a teenager does it they get put away for life.www.abovetopsecret.com...
When a cop does it they get a paid vacation and perhaps a warning to turn the dashcam off and look around to see if there are others left rolling and take them by force and destroy the evidence.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by AkumaStreak
 


It could be just a cluster of incedents but it could also be TPTB ramping up the use of deadly force police-y in order to desensitize the public and get them use to the idea that this is just the price we have to pay to live in society.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Yep, I'm with you on this one. He was already speeding, crashing (maybe intentionally?), ignoring the police orders, and about to get behind the wheel of a 3 ton SUV with two young girls in the backseat. The Cop seems to have been acting appropriately with the information he had at the time. He probably wasn't even sure if the girls belonged to the man or were victims themselves.

It is a sad story, but with the limited information available, I don't see how the cop could have acted any differently?

Suppose he doesn't shoot him, and the guy gets away, and does something horrible to the girls. Then people would be blaming the cop for not acting to save them.

This was a lose/lose situation for everyone involved. The only decent outcome possible would have been for the guy to come to his senses and surrender and limit the damage to his poor girls.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Orrrrrrr......

....he could have shot the marine in the leg as several people, including myself, have suggested. The fact that he shot the man dead, in the back, suggests that the officer acted out of emotion rather than rational, logical thought.

With the little information the cop had at the time, I think it's more a case of why didn't he disable the man then arrest him rather than shoot him in the back twice. The situation could have been worked out later at the Police Station rather than the Morgue.
edit on 14/2/2012 by Kryties because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Kryties
 


Nobody that has ever carried a gun will recommend shooting anyone in the leg.


If you make the decision to shoot someone, you have already decided that it might kill them, and you have decided it is necessary anyway. A leg shot might still be fatal, and it might not be, which means it might be disabling, and a legal nightmare. But, the biggest concern, is you will probably miss. And if you have decided that shooting a person is absolutely necessary, then you can't take a chance on missing.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


OK, so shoot first and ask questions later - gotya. And when the questions ARE asked, the only person able to answer them is the person who shot the guy, who is worried about his future career and prospects of being labelled a murderer - not to mention the damage to the organisation he works for...therefore they lie and cover it up. It's not like the dead guy can talk now is it?

I think people are just making excuses for the cops actions.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Double post.
edit on 14/2/2012 by Kryties because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
61
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join