Cop kills ex-wife on street with daughter in his car

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: faint1993
I think it's relevant that he's a cop. This isn't by any means the first time an off-duty cop has instantly become Judge Dredd. Cops should be held to a higher standard than the average thug out there who can't control his rage. If you wear a badge, and carry a gun, your actions should be under scrutiny by the public. Can't stand the heat? Stay out of the kitchen.

Then get them off the roids, you seen these heffers on the force lately? I think the whole division, male and female are on roids in some counties. There was that report a while back of a police captain whoring out his wife, and dishing out roids to the whole good-guy team he commanded.

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: howmuch4another

No one "decides," but perhaps there should be a group of people (such as the theoretic high court) to decide which laws are just and which aren't.

Yeah that was sarcasm. Actually we decide...you and me. We the people can change the laws in our states if we are willing to do the legwork and get it on the ballot and the majority agree. For example CO and WA changed their Marijuana laws and CA has it on the ballot. The key is it being constitutionally sound and getting a majority consensus.

And no, there is no "list," but generally those laws that exist even though the infraction doesn't harm anyone physically, financially, property-wise, etc.

Most laws are specific to the preservation of property and public safety..what are the unjust laws people are getting arrested for that you're talking about? I'm just trying to see where you are coming from.

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: SlapMonkey

If one looks at many psychological studies of the sort (when certain types of violence occur), it's about the perception (threat) of loss of control and of the perception of regaining control.

So, while I might be speculating in *this* instance, it's very likely that loss of control of a situation is indeed one (large) contributing factor among other factors.

So if we did a psychological study of you, specifically your avatar, what conclusion should we come to?

a reply to: howmuch4another

Marijuana is a good example.

Unfortunately, most laws aren't put on the ballot on or decided by the people. That's the problem. :/

A huge problem.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Now you're baiting.

Good bye.

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Xcathdra

Now you're baiting.

Good bye.

Not at all.. Your position and attitude towards law enforcement is supported by your avatar. The attributes you applied to this officer and law enforcement in general is the very same thing you are doing. Your avatar supports that position.

If you don't wish to be analyzed then may I suggest you don't make the blanket analysis based on your own bias towards others.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I really could care less if you analyze me.

The attributes i "applied" speak for themselves based upon the evidence of the situation (and others). While they might *seem* like blanket statements, they are supported, whether you are capable to stepping back to see that or not.

originally posted by: faint1993
I don't like the focus on how he was a police officer. What does that have to do with it?

Because if he was willing to this to his ex in front of his daughter, what was he doing with random strangers the rest of the time?

Behavior doesn't happen in isolation. He's always been like this. And they covered it up. And watch how he gets by with it.

eta: oh, yeah. He's NEVER off duty. Isn't that what they say when an off-duty cop does something? Of course, they have to say that so he's covered by qualified immunity.

a reply to: Liquesence

So I guess they suspended him with pay pending a investigation???

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: Liquesence

So I guess they suspended him with pay pending a investigation???

Wait until IA determines he was acting according to policy.

a reply to: Liquesence

I'll concede that, if we dissect it and really stretch, we can call any violence against another human being having the cause of "loss of control," be it over one's self or over a situation concerning another individual.

So, technically, you're right all the time, but that doesn't mean that it is the overwhelming cause of a crime like this. But, we both don't know for sure, so this debate is really a lesson in futility, I guess.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

That's very true.

However, by loss of control I don't mean losing control of one's behavior, but rather the perception of losing control of a situation and acting violently in order to regain control of said situation. Two completely different things.

In this situation it is definitely loss of control of one's behavior, but could very well be loss of control of the situation ( his marriage, and not being able to keep his wife or kids). He didn't want to loss his kids (or his wife?), and he couldn't control the situation: he was helpless, and wanted back in control. The whole "if I can't have you or them" rationale, wherein the final action to regain control is violence/murder.

That's speculation, but, again, a valid point in certain violent cases (both domestic and otherwise).

Cops shooting people for taking their wallet out when asked because they "thought it was a gun", shoot kids with xbox controllers because "they thought it was a gun" etc etc. This cop had a gun, and used it someone, they knew it, but since he was one of them, he didn't get shot before he could use it again. Unreal.......

Why is it in the thread I read about the shooting in South Carolina almost everyone was clamoring to kill the kid (without even a trial, sadly) and yet no one has in this case?

Honest question. I don't know why one crime is worse than the other and why everyone in that case immediately went to death as their reaction yet none of that here.

Oooooooooooh mmmyyyy...........!!!!!!!!!

WT*!!!! Are these cops just being singed sfter coming back from a few tours of duty or what!!!!

originally posted by: TheSpanishArcher
Why is it in the thread I read about the shooting in South Carolina almost everyone was clamoring to kill the kid (without even a trial, sadly) and yet no one has in this case?

Honest question. I don't know why one crime is worse than the other and why everyone in that case immediately went to death as their reaction yet none of that here.

That is a valid question.
I am not calling for the death penalty for either one.
I used to be a proponent of the death penalty, but I am no longer.
It costs more to execute than it does to keep them incarcerated for life, as silly as it seems.

a reply to: TheSpanishArcher

The only honest answer I can think to give is A) the number of victims, B) the shooting in SC got continuous national attention and dove into every possible uncovered detail about the kid, which had played pathos to most everyone, therefore their feelings and opinions are stronger, C) intent (fit of rage versus calculated premeditation), and D) the nature of the victims in relation to the murder (known vs unknown).

But, yes, murder is murder. Unfortunately, the kid killed a lot more people, and it appears he didn't do it in a fit of rage like this cop.

a reply to: Komodo

A very valid point, and one that has concerned me for a while: the number of ex-soldiers hired to police forces. Many of them seem to still have the warzone mentality, and seem to view and police American citizens just like they would citizens in the country in which they were deployed. And again, looks like modern police training is very similar in how the American public is largely viewed.

Everyone is a suspect.

:/