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

Originally posted by Kryties
This is how I am reading it....straight from the news itself.....

www.sfgate.com.../n/a/2012/02/10/state/n092441S33.DTL

Sgt. Manuel Loggins Jr. was a devout Christian who walked at the San Clemente High School track with his family early in the morning, Maj. Christopher Cox told the Los Angeles Times ( lat.ms...).

Authorities say a deputy tried to pull over Loggins for a traffic violation at about 4:30 am Tuesday when he drove through the school parking lot gate.

Authorities say Loggins ignored the deputy's orders and when he walked back toward the SUV, the deputy feared for his life and fired.

Loggins' 9- and 14-year-old daughters were in the SUV at the time. Neither was injured.

Loggins' wife usually walked with the family but had stopped going because she is pregnant, Cox said.

"He was a mentor, somewhat of a father figure, to a number of the Marines," Cox told the newspaper. "He was very soft-spoken, very nonconfrontational — very, very respectful. He was just the epitome of respect."

Read more: www.sfgate.com.../n/a/2012/02/10/state/n092441S33.DTL#ixzz1mNKugpUt

So a man who usually takes early morning walks with his family at the high school, enters the high school grounds in a fast manner. The marine ignores a cop who wants to ticket him for speeding and continues about his normal, daily routine. The cop, not liking the fact that somebody ignored his directions, pulls out his gun and shoots the guy twice in the back, shattering glass in the marines car. The fact that the glass shattered from bullets is testament to how close those bullets came to hitting the children.

In short - Marine speeds, cop tries to ticket him, Marine ignores cop, cop shoots him in the back.

That's how it reads to me. Worst case scenario, if I were the cop, I would shoot for the leg to avoid killing a possibly innocent man who was just having a bad day.

Check the thread about the 70 years old man that was beaten up. I raised this point and one of them answered me back saying they couldn't shoot to injure they aren't allowed to... He didn't seem didn't see to understand the fact two grown men jumping a 70 years old frail man and beating the crap out of him and tasing him in the face didn't male sense... This answered was it wasn't a 70 years old man it was an armed man... Doesn't matter to them if its a sick elder, a 4 years old kid walking around with a knife in on your lawn... To them its a armed individual.

He told me they had some data of people lunging at you with knife covering 25meters in seconds... He didn't understand the physical impossibility of this man to do this neither...

Its sad but I figured why there's so much cop killing and its just damn obvious they hire wussies that SHOULD NOT be doing this job, the stop someone for a traffic violation and they stand near the friggen gaz tank with both hands on their guns I mean cmon... They have no darn cold blood whatsoever... Look all of those shootings...

-Officer afraid for his life the guy took his wallet... Guy shot to death...
-Officer beat the crap out of sick seniors he had a 3 inch knife.... Officer was afraid for his life so they double jump the senior...
-Officer shoot a man walking away from him twice in the back... Officer was afraid for his life the man was walking toward a car...

WTF Seriously you couldn't taze him, pepper spray him, call for reinforcement... Just call of reinforcement and wait it off...

Just for fun look at all video's and explanation from police station of these and you'll notice the underlying lack of courage and necessary aptitude to face danger cold-blooded in order to make calculated risks and good judgement calls...

They just jump on that handgun and shoot the crap out of everything that moves like scared mofo's in the bush at night with a gun...

Hiring standards should be hirer and those jobs should ALL be given to our combat vets that come out of the army having gave life, blood and being rewarded with no job and nothing... At least we'd have "men" patrolling the streets...

They shouldn't have been given that kind of power in the first place. Pulling out the gun is unacceptable with how close those children were and no matter how the storys spun the officer was in the wrong.

I've read a few of these speculations re how the marine may have had a fall-out with his wife / his kids, and hence not behaving rationally.

How do we know the cop hadn't had a fall-out with his wife and kids, and was therefore being aggressive.

I know for a fact (from the numerous video clips) that it's customary for American police to often behave in an overly and unnecessarily authoritative manner, barking commands. That alone is enough to escalate any tense situation, where a respectful, friendly approach may instantly diffuse a potential problem. They've got personality problems I think, and exacerbate things just by their stinking, pubescent, play-ground bully style attitude.

If you don't fancy your chances of aiming at someone's arm or leg while they're walking away from you at close distance, who the hell judged you fit to be out with a lethal weapon in your holster!?!

There are way too many of these mysterious, unfortunate events!

Originally posted by TrueInstinct
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.

Tasers are only used to torture restrained people. Taser deployment typically doesn't occur until the perpetrator is subdued and is unable to move.

reply to post by _R4t_


I know all about most of those instances you describe, I follow police brutality news whenever I can - primarily because my (now deceased) grandfather used to be a detective here in Australia. He used to absolutely love being in the police force but had to retire early simply because he could not put up with, and turn a blind eye to, the corruption that he said had eaten away at the very core of the police organisation. It was either retire, or become a whistleblower and end up either ridiculed or dead.

He chose early retirement.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Kryties

 

Of course, all the evidence will come out later, but as it stands now, it wasn't an execution, it was a dangerous and erratic man about to endanger the lives of 2 innocent children.

I could be wrong, we may find out details later to show that it was indeed an extreme overreaction, but if the story stands as written now, then I feel the shooting was justified. A man speeding in an SUV, crashes through some gates, acts erratically, says something apparently inflammatory for the situation, and then ignores the policeman's orders, and attempts to get back into the vehicle with 2 scared children........ I'd probably shoot him.

I love you people. You really crack me up. The big authoritarian gaggle of moderators and masons on this site really put me through a loop. You folks spend your entire time basically screaming at people to shut their mouth, because "we don't know the case yet", all the "evidence" has yet to be presented. So shut your mouths, shut your mouth. Learn 'the law', be more responsible, 'you don't know what it's like'.

Doesn't stop your own 100 meter rush to judgment though, does it?

Innocent until proven guilty? Sure, but not for the man that was shot dead in front of his children.

So I'm guessing the girls were in the back of the car?

..and to shoot this guy in the back, multiple times would've meant shooting threw the back of the car... where the girls were

So the police, worried about the kids safety, fired multiple live rounds threw the back of the car where the girls were sitting... priceless.

reply to post by SyphonX

Doesn't stop your own 100 meter rush to judgment though, does it?

How could I have been any more clear?

I said, "I could be wrong..." and "as it stands now..."

Where is my rush to judgement?

With the information available, had I been in the cops shoes, I probably would have shot the man that seemed to be a danger to the children. That's that.

In This Thread, I probably would have shot the cop. Maybe I'm just trigger happy. But, seeing as I have carried a gun for 20 years and never unholstered it anywhere but the range, I don't believe I'm too trigger happy. I just don't like people threatening, bullying, and acting aggressively. Luckily, I've been able to resolve many situations without the need for my gun, but in some of these extreme internet stories, a gun seems perfectly appropriate and necessary, and the cops are sometimes wrong. It just doesn't seem like this particular one was.

What is so frustrating to me about these recurring situations is the "blue wall" that stands up in automatic defense of these individuals. How can those who are meant to enforce the laws not be subject to them? What sense does that make in any sane society? So long as such behaviors go unpunished, they will not only continue, but grow.

He didnt crash through the gate and he wasnt speeding. The gate was and is always open. He and his family were not the only ones to use that track for walking/running. He was murdered point blank. Another kill for the police force.

Heres my question, what if the role was reversed and a civilian shot and killed a police because he/she feared for thier life. Paid suspension? I think not.

reply to post by getreadyalready


I'm glad you're not a policeman. There's no evidence stating the cop was frightened for the children - only, that stock comment which is rolled out routinely like a get-out clause - "I was in fear for my life". Well he'd no need to be. It was the marine who should have been in fear for his life.

Originally posted by PLASIFISK
He didnt crash through the gate and we wasnt speeding. The gate was and is always open. He and his family were not the only ones to use that track for walking/running. He was murdered point blank. Another kill for the police force.

Heres my question, what if the role was reversed and a civilian shot and killed a police because he/she feared for thier life. Paid suspension? I think not.

From the OP

About 4:30 a.m. on the day of the shooting, the deputy was doing paperwork inside his car near San Clemente High School when he said he saw Loggins driving a white GMC Yukon at an "unsafe, high rate of speed" into the school parking lot, Amormino said.

The SUV, according to Amormino, crashed through a locked gate and the deputy pulled in behind him.

Loggins walked onto the football field, and about three to four deputies arrived to set up a perimeter, Amormino said. The deputies said they lost sight of Loggins for about five minutes, and when he reappeared, he walked toward the car and climbed inside, ignoring deputies' commands, Amormino said.

Amormino said that Loggins made statements to the deputy before he was shot. He would not elaborate.

It's 4:30 a.m., an SUV driving too fast crashes through a locked gate, and a man gets out and walks onto a football field. Odd. More deputies arrive and set up a perimeter, and then the man ignores you, and heads back towards the SUV with children in it. Would you not fear for the safety of those children?

reply to post by getreadyalready


Amormino said..... Loggins told him

Amormino said.... Loggins told him

That would be that gun happy cop.
I bet he is saying a lot today.
Probably making plans for his soon to be, paid time off vacation.

reply to post by getreadyalready


They feared for the children so much that they shot at them and executed their father in front of them. They are now traumatized for life. You don't get over something like that. You have to learn to live with it.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Well not according to what's been reported. The copper said he was frightened for his safety. That's what they have to say, to justify shooting people.

Originally posted by Exemplar
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

They feared for the children so much that they shot at them and executed their father in front of them. They are now traumatized for life. You don't get over something like that. You have to learn to live with it.

And don't forget the marine's unborn baby too, who'll never know his or her father - his wife usually went walking with them, but abstained because she was pregnant.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Why did they not approach the man while he was out of the vehicle? If it was 4:30 am why did they set up a perimeter while allowing themselves to lose track of him? And my most important question is if the officer feared for the safety of the childeren why was he firing a weapon near them? I see some serious holes in this officer's story.

reply to post by getreadyalready


The "rush to judgment" remark isn't really directed at you. The whole post is more or less directed to what I'll refer to as the "gaggle", from now on.

As BBobb just brilliantly termed, the "Blue Wall", there doesn't need to be any wholesale defense in this discussion for the "cop", because he already has a defense. He's protected 100% by the "good ol boy" club he's subscribed to, and only under extreme circumstances will he be expelled from the club.

Expulsion will only occur when the people are a hair away from literally taking to the streets and destroying a large cluster of property. Oops, well it was a fun ride Billy, but we gotta let you go, otherwise the whole city could burn. The dead man doesn't have a defense, because he's dead. He doesn't subscribe to a good ol' boy club that would protect him, but even if he were, he's dead.

Also, I think it's strange that you can say you would literally shoot someone, in a very specific manner, but if a regular poster makes an obvious off-the-cuff reaction, all the mods will come down on him, within seconds, presumably while thinking they are "keeping the order" in some sort of metaphysical battle for society that plays out in their heads.

Yet here you are, a moderator, saying you'd shoot a cop. Curious.

Originally posted by Brandon88
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

Why did they not approach the man while he was out of the vehicle? If it was 4:30 am why did they set up a perimeter while allowing themselves to lose track of him? And my most important question is if the officer feared for the safety of the childeren why was he firing a weapon near them? I see some serious holes in this officer's story.

Could be some big holes. No doubt about it. Why didn't they go to the SUV before the man returned? What was it that he said to them? If he was there to go for a walk, why didn't he go for a walk? Why didn't the girls get out of the SUV, if this was their normal morning routine? Why was the gate locked this particular day? How did the other deputies arrive so quickly? I know in most counties, at 4 a.m., you're lucky to get one deputy to respond within 30 minutes, and you'll never get 4 or 5 at that time of the night?

There are plenty of issues with the whole scenario, no doubt about it. But the issues lie on both sides of the story. Obviously this was outside the guy's normal routine, but people are making it seem like he did this everyday?

I guess we'll have to wait and see what develops.

reply to post by loam


Sad day for those two children indeed. Well, once again Orange County Sheriff's...they are out of control if you ask me. Strange things always seem to happen in Orange County where the police shoot innocent people.

That's why I stay in Los Angeles County, even though they have their bad reputation too, Los Angeles County has calmed way down over the past decade after the Rampart scandal and tons of FBI investigations. Besides, I'd never help pay the salary of an OC Deputy or police officer. I have serious disdain for that place. Their entire department needs to be reorganized and dealt with as this happens way too often in the OC.

Poor kids and family...my heart goes out to them



ETA
There is absolutely no excusing this one!