19-year-old shot 5 times for suspected underage drinking

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Which will eventually result in you performing an action that is in fact illegal.

Actually I won't. I did my research. I know what's legal and not legal in regards to the police according to my state. Apparently you think I just took CopBlock/CopWatch's word for it? No. I researched the law. Try again.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by VoidHawk

 

Again, were the 30 individuals present lying in order to support law enforcements version of events?

Also if you are going to quote from somewhere please provide a link back to the source.

Possibly. Maybe they falsely think all police are the good guys. Or maybe they don't want to be targeted by these cops. Perhaps they are playing it safe.

Or they are wrong about what they remembered. Eyewitness testimony isn't always the strongest "evidence."

Also, he did supply a link for his source. Go back and look.

Originally posted by CoolerAbdullah786
19-year-old shot 5 times for suspected underage drinking

Headline is a lie.
I know you didnt write it, but its still a lie.
The shooting had nothing to do with the drinking whatsoever, and as one will find out after reading the story it has everything to do with a driving incident.

So, I wonder, what else does copblock.org want to lie to me about in order to maximise OUTRAGE.

reply to post by alfa1


Perhaps you should read the thread and all its comments? We're only one page 2 so it's not that daunting of a task. This has already been addressed and we're discussing the merits of the claim on both sides.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by VoidHawk

 

Again, were the 30 individuals present lying in order to support law enforcements version of events?

Also if you are going to quote from somewhere please provide a link back to the source.

edit on 24-7-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

I did, about 30 seconds after I posted.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Again, were the 30 individuals present lying in order to support law enforcements version of events?

It certainly seems the police were telling lies, many times according to the aticle!

WHAT A BUNCH OF CRAP....lies lies lies SHAME ON YOU!!!!

Inflaming hatred of cops for your own agenda....telling lies...these MEN tried to flee and ran into the cops...so now the police should not try to stop crime or investigate crime at all...these MEN were on private property that was not theirs and underage drinking, fleeing from the police and injured two police officers!!!


This is disgusting!!!!

www.elpasotimes.com...

reply to post by timetothink


Is anyone with a dissenting opinion of this (with the exception of Xcathdra) going to even attempt to discuss the merits of the claims on both sides or are you going to just "shout" things like "THIS IS A LIE!!!!"

Sorry, but caps-lock and a bunch of exclamation points don't prove anything. We're already passed the initial claim of this story being false. We're now into presenting the evidence from both sides. Try and keep up. Again, we're only on page 2. It's not hard to get up to speed on the discussion.

Originally posted by timetothink
WHAT A BUNCH OF CRAP....lies lies lies SHAME ON YOU!!!!

Inflaming hatred of cops for your own agenda....telling lies...these MEN tried to flee and ran into the cops...so now the police should not try to stop crime or investigate crime at all...these MEN were on private property that was not theirs and underage drinking, fleeing from the police and injured two police officers!!!


This is disgusting!!!!

www.elpasotimes.com...

Should we be allowed to shoot cops who break the law and try to run away?

reply to post by VoidHawk


Your argument makes no sense...you sound like a 5 year old...you are allowed to shoot someone who is running you over, yes.

Originally posted by CoolerAbdullah786

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Which will eventually result in you performing an action that is in fact illegal.

Actually I won't. I did my research. I know what's legal and not legal in regards to the police according to my state. Apparently you think I just took CopBlock/CopWatch's word for it? No. I researched the law. Try again.

Yes for some reason you failed to note in your post the other side of the story, which tells me either you failed to exercise due dilligence by providing all the information or that you in fact just saw the copblock and took them at their word and posted their information.

Since your post has nothing but the copblock info im going with you just taking their word for it.

As for you knowing the law in your state good... I hope you are correct and I encourage others to learn the laws in their state. However taking advice from copblock on the laws and your rights is a sure fire way to get yourself arrested, especially if you think the people in the other thread I linked were in the right.

So lets review....
You posted an article from copblock...
You failed to get all of the information and I called you out on it....

You didnt bother to research beyond the article, which is evident in your comments -

Perhaps they were trying to get the alcohol out of his system via bullet holes?

Since they did not shoot him for drinking, you apparently took the copblocks word for it.....

In all seriousness this is absolutely appalling. When are we going to realize that these are not "isolated incidents"? When are we going to see that there is a bigger problem here? I know a lot of people understand this, but America as a whole has a problem grasping the concept that not all cops are really here "to protect and serve."

What is appaling is you posting an article and going after law enforcement while failing to learn anything mroe about the incident itself. The bigger problem are people, such as yourself, who think they know the law yet dont, that make a claim you dont take copblocks word for it when in fact you did, by failing to even look for the other side of the story. Had you done your due dilligence you would have found he was not shot for being underage and drinking.

Since you "don't" take copblocks word, please answer something for me -
Since the officers never made it to the vehicle nor made contact with the occupants / driver in the vehicle, please explain how the officers decided the driver / occupants were drinking?

Since the officers never made it to the vehicle nor made contact with the occupants / driver in the vehicle, please explain how the officers decided the driver / occupants were underage?

The police would not have that information at the outset unless -
* - People on scene gave statements.

Or are you suggesting the police are telepathing / clairvoyant now?

The US Supreme Court has ruled law enforcement officers cannot intentionally place themselves in front of a fleeing vehicle and then exercise deadly force. If they have the room they are required to get out of the way. If they are intentionally targeted, IE attempting to get out of the way and the car changes direction towards the officers new movement area, they are injured / patrol vehicle struck and the individual does not stop deadly use of force is allowed.

Something Copblock fails to note...

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by VoidHawk

 

Your argument makes no sense...you sound like a 5 year old...you are allowed to shoot someone who is running you over, yes.

We have no evidence that anyone was being run over. And if you read the aticle you'll see how many times the police changed their story.

you sound like a 5 year old

Most people on ats know what kind of person uses statements like that.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by VoidHawk

 

Again, were the 30 individuals present lying in order to support law enforcements version of events?

Also if you are going to quote from somewhere please provide a link back to the source.

edit on 24-7-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

Or the witness statements were twisted, coerced or outright fiction.

This has been seen countless time in countless situations. The cops tell the witnesses what they saw, and if they disagree or refuse to sign the statement they might be charged for having that open can in their hand or the joint they just put out.

I'm not calling you out as being an apologist for the cops, but I am suggesting that you have a very biased view of the situation. We haven't seen the witness statements at all, have you?

Originally posted by CoolerAbdullah786
Possibly. Maybe they falsely think all police are the good guys. Or maybe they don't want to be targeted by these cops. Perhaps they are playing it safe.

If you dont mind please explain to me how to conduct an interview of witnesses to a crime / possible crime?

Originally posted by CoolerAbdullah786
Or they are wrong about what they remembered. Eyewitness testimony isn't always the strongest "evidence."

All 30 witnesses and the officers on scene are all a bit fuzzy on the details of what happened? What does the dashcam footage show? Or is that fuzzy as well?

Did the driver make any statements?
He has been arrestd and a bond set which means he went before a judge.. What was his plea? what is his lawyers response so far?

Originally posted by CoolerAbdullah786
Also, he did supply a link for his source. Go back and look.

The link was not present when I reponded to his post. Hence the reason I asked for it.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by CoolerAbdullah786

 

Perhaps you should get all of the info first before posting only one side from an organization who goes out of its way to demonize law enforcement while distorting what actually happened.

El Paso S.O. - FOLLOW UP- SHERIFF’S DEPUTIES ARE ASSAULTED/ RESULTS IN SHOOTING INCIDENT

EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS- On 04-13-2012 just after midnight, El Paso County Sheriff’s Deputies were patrolling the desert area east of the Nayarit and Berryville intersection. Sheriff’s Deputies turned into an open vacant lot and observed several parked vehicles and approximately 30 individuals in and around the vehicles. As Deputies approached, a vehicle occupied with approximately 3 to 4 persons, attempted to flee and in the process the vehicle struck two Sheriff’s Deputies and injuring them. During the commission of the aggravated assault Deputies fired their weapons at the moving vehicle and injured one male suspect.

UPDATE: Investigators from the Crimes Against Persons Division have identified the driver of the vehicle/suspect as 19 year old Aaron Rosas of El Paso, Texas. The suspect has been charged with two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and has a total bond of $1,000,000. The suspect is being treated at a local area hospital for gunshot wounds he received as a result of his assault against the officers.





FOLLOW UP: ON 04-15-2012 AT APPROXIMATELY 6:00 p.m. AARON ROSAS WAS BOOKED INTO THE EL PASO COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY. INVESTIGATION IS STILL ONGOING…..

So no he was not shot 5 times because he was intoxicated / drinking. He was shot because as he was attempting to flee the scene he struck 2 sheriff's deputies.

Copblock is the same idiotic group behind this -
ATS - Police Attempt To Raid Garage Sale with AirSoft gear, Get Kicked To Curb (video)

edit on 24-7-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

Apparently you didnt read the actual article linked in the OP to see for yourself that everything you just posted is included in that "biased" article that is goingout of it's way to "demonize law enforcement".

If you had read the actual article you would also already know that the info you just linked is story #4 from the Poilice regarding the circumstances behind this shooting.

Originally posted by timetothink
WHAT A BUNCH OF CRAP....lies lies lies SHAME ON YOU!!!!

Inflaming hatred of cops for your own agenda....telling lies...these MEN tried to flee and ran into the cops...so now the police should not try to stop crime or investigate crime at all...these MEN were on private property that was not theirs and underage drinking, fleeing from the police and injured two police officers!!!


This is disgusting!!!!

www.elpasotimes.com...

It would seem the "hatred of police" is easily stirred, the thing to do is ask why this is so easily done.
Maybe the cops should calm themselves down.
They are the ones hired by the government to be the professionals, yet recently it seems maybe not so.

Originally posted by detachedindividual
Or the witness statements were twisted, coerced or outright fiction.

Which there is currently no evidence to support that.

Originally posted by detachedindividual
This has been seen countless time in countless situations. The cops tell the witnesses what they saw, and if they disagree or refuse to sign the statement they might be charged for having that open can in their hand or the joint they just put out.

Yes it has occured but does not occur in every single police investigation. As for the example you gave the person in question who refuses to go along with the police on that would not only have any charges dropped, the city / county / agency would be asking them how many 0's they want after the 1 on the settlement check they will be writing.

Originally posted by detachedindividual
I'm not calling you out as being an apologist for the cops, but I am suggesting that you have a very biased view of the situation. We haven't seen the witness statements at all, have you?

As I stated before I present the side of the story that the bulk of people on this site have no interest in researching. In the threads I post in how many other posters give the law enforcement side - from their actions to the laws that govern them? For every post I make explaining the law enforcement side, there are 5 posts going after law enforcement.

When you compare the post counts, you only see me and a few others posting the law enforcement side, so of course it looks like I am an apologist / biased.

What people fail to see in my posts is the information provided. When I make a post and explain the law / Supreme Court ruling on law enforcement actions, it does not mean I agree with the actions of the officer. What I am saying is here is the information that allowed that officer to do what he did and why.

Since we have a large group who dont care for law enforcement, they see my posts and just assume without asking. A perfect example is on page 1 where a poster pointed out I am a cop... No other information, just that im a cop coupled with disparragin remarks / dismissal of my reponse because of that.

My initial post showed the law enforcement version of events.. Because of that, I get attacked and accused of being an apologist / biased / etc etc etc.

Simply for showing the other side of the story...Tthe side a large bulk of people just have no desire to see because they made up their minds with just one side of the story.

So are those people biased against law enforcement or no? That street runs both ways...

Where are the witness statements. The copwatch site says this.

30 witnesses who were present back Aaron Rosas’ version of the events, but the word and testimony of police might as well be the word of god.

Aaron’s attorney, Mr. Cervantes, believes a civil suit against the sheriffs will likely be successful, and that forensic evidence will be extremely helpful.

Later on, the sheriffs changed their story just a bit. They told a KFox reporter that Aaron’s vehicle was driving toward them, and they feared for their lives. Later on that same day, they issued yet another statement claiming an officer was hit. Finally, yet even later in the day, they claimed 2 officers were hit. According to Ms. Rosas, when he finally went to court, he allegedly had hit 3 officers. His bond was set at $1.5 million – $500,000 for each officer.

reply to post by MrWendal

reply to post by RealSpoke




You do understand that intial press releases arent always accurate right? You do understand that since its a criminal invesitgation x2 that certain information cannot be released / confirmed right?

the same thing occured in California when Orange County deputies shot and killed the Marine in the school parking lot. There were 5 different releases from the S.O regarding that incident and not one was consistent. The media also has issues when it comes to filling in the blanks on their own when its info that cannot be released. They specualte and mention that word maybe once in the reporting and then it disappears when the sotry is repeated.

As with any instance where a weapon is discharges, 2 investigations occur, although this thread is only concentrating on one - the individual who was shot by the police.

In addition to that investigation, there is a second one that is required.
* - You will have the Sheriff's department do an internal invesitgation into POLICY violations.
* - You will have an independent Police agency (usually state police / highway patrol) do a criminal invesitgation which coincides with the crminal invesitgation into the incident.
* - Once completed all reportts go to the PA's office who then reviews and runs their invesigation to clear up anything they have questions on.
* - Depending on the above results if the actions of law enforcement are questioned then the FBI can do a civil rights violation lawsuit (Federal law governing law enforcement actions with regards to civil rights is 42 USC 1983 for those who are intrested).

While the 5th amendment applies to everyone, including police officers, law enforcement officers, from an internal invesigation viewpoint, is guilty until proven innocent. We are read miranda like everyone else, however we are also read our garrity rights. Since we are quasi military with an estbalished chain of command we can be ordered to answer questions.

* - If we refuse that action can be used against the officer in internal disciplinary hearings and last I checked can be used in court that the officer is not complying with the internal invesitgation.
* - If we comply anything we provide can be used against us in court.

So while I understand people are suspicious of the police, it is difficult to act in an illegal manner and get away with it. That is supported by the comments people make about officers coercing / threatening people. The only reason we know about those instances is because of invesitgations and prosecutions of the officers involved.

We also know the media doesn't always get their reproting right either.. Something that is conveintly ignored in this thread...

As far as the post above asking where items are at.. Maybe you should ask the Sheriff's office instead of just pulling info from copblock, which is not reporting the entire story. Since the police have not relased all of the information, please explain to us how copblock has all of the information, including the actions of the police and the results of their invesitgation, as well as the claim the people were shot because they were underage and drinking.

Or would asking those questions place copblock into the position of being seen as making it up as they see fit to fit an agenda?

Where are all the witness statements that say this kid was shot because he was underage and drinking?

For those who dont think the Sheriff's Department is being honest about whats going on, feel free to exercise your right and let them know.

El Paso County Sheriff's Office Public Affairs

WHAT IS NON-RELEASEABLE INFORMATION?
1. Information posing an undue risk to the personal safety of the Office, media representatives, victims or others.
2. Information that may interfere with office investigations or operations.
3. Information that adversely affects the rights of an accused or the investigation or prosecution of a crime.
4. Information concerning the identity of children or victims of sexual assaults.

News agencies may request to be listed as "recognized" members of the working press by calling the El Paso County Sheriff's Office of Public Information at (915) 538-2223 or (915) 538-2119.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Man, you just keep moving that goalpost. RealSpoke illustrates that 30 witnesses backed Aaron Rosas, and suddenly you start talking about biased media and press releases aren't always accurate and "Where are all the witness statements that say this kid was shot because he was underage and drinking?"

Well where are all the witness statements backing up the cops claim? Because it seems that 30 back the victim.