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

This would never have happened if the man was born white. How absolutely disgusting. Couldn't the officer approach and question the man before deciding to shoot him? What the hell do they teach cops these days, to shoot first ask questions later?

Of course, it will be dismissed as an accident and this pig will be back on the streets terrorizing more people with his awful sense of judgment. People wonder why there is so much resentment towards police officers these days, look at how they conduct themselves and how they are never brought to justice for the wrongs they commit. If cops faced prison time for the manslaughter and second degree murder crimes they commit I doubt they would commit them nearly as frequently. No man should be above the law, especially not a person whose job it is to enforce the law. If those who enforce the law are above it, what does it tell you about our justice system?

reply to post by Kryties


The news article you used is out of date..

The guy was not shot in the back while walking to his car. The deputy gave commands for the guy to stop all the way up to the guy getting in the car, closing the door and starting the vehicle. Once the vehicle was started, the deputy discharged his weapon. The info / video I posted had the latest info as well as shots of the SUV, showing damage to the front of the vehicle as well as the window missing from the drivers side.

We do not shoot to kill, we shoot to stop the threat.
We cannot do wounding shots because the use of a duty weapon is classified as deadly force. While I understand your position and mindset, I dont agree with it because it leaves out factors you are not familiar with, and others that you just dont agree with.

If an officer has cause to discharge his firearm, it is a deadly force encounter. If an officer "wounds" as you suggest, then its NOT a deadly force encounter, which would make the use of a duty weapon a violation of policy as well as law.

Defense Attorney - Officer Jones, did you discharge your duty weapon into my client with the intent to wound?
Officer - Yes sir.
Defense Attorney - Officer Jones is it department policy / state law that you can only discharge your weapon when you fear for your safety / safety of other people where you / them fear their life is in imminent danger?
Officer - Yes sir
Defense Attorney - Officer Jones, I dont understand. Explain to the court how you are justified in discharging your weapon to "wound" my client". If you are not shooting to stop the threat, only to wound the threat, then the criteria to use your duty weapon legally was violated. In your mind the danger was not enough to end the threat and that is confirmed by your testimony.

If you felt the need to wound the individual then in your own mind my client was not an immediate danger to your life or the children in the back seat. How did you justify your use of deadly force to wound my client when in your own words he was not an imminent threat?

you guys get the idea... As I said, the suggestions people are making in this realm is based off of a lack of knowledge on the laws that govern the use of deadly force. The key part of that in the legal realm is we do not shoot to kill, we do not shoot to wound - we shoot to stop the threat.

As far as the comments go about the Taser - Orange County uses Tasers from what I have found in my research. The use of a Taser in that part of the US is completely different than the rest of the nation because of the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals who ruled a Taser can only be used when certain criteria is met (feel free to look up the info as I dont want to post another wall of text).

The use of a Taser on its own is usually prohibited by departments, where policy would require a second officer present who is capable of covering the less than lethal officer with lethal force as a backup. It varies for agencies but its food for thought.

Secondly and most importantly for this case.. A taser is not a choice for a lethal encounter. The fact the deputy did not use a taser tells me the actions at the end of the encounter passed the threshold of safely being able to use less than lethal force and moved it into deadly force.

We dont know what the guy said to the deputy... We have not seen the deputies report / version of events. The OCSO is not going to release there info since multiple investigations into the event are ongoing. Before passing judgment on the deputy I want to know his justification and all the facts.

Damned if we do, damned if we dont.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Kryties

 

Can you hit an 8" moving target under stressful situations from considerable distance with any type of reliability?

I shoot all the time, and I don't trust that I would be able to make that shot.

I find the Monday morning quarterbacking amusing, especially the people who have never been involved in any type of situation like this. Shooting a rabbit and shooting a human are not the same, and contrary to what people say they would do, chances are if faced with the situation they would not act.

Building on your moving target of 8 inches this should help others visualize -

Originally posted by Xcathdra

I find the Monday morning quarterbacking amusing,

Only a sick S>O>B> would find humor in the death of an innocent man.

reply to post by AmericanPitBull


The other 900 pound elephant in the room that people are ignoring are all of the facts leading up to the encounter. People are solely concentrating on the exchange between the deputy and the suspect, while ignoring the rammed gate and high rate of speed.

Another term I will introduce is totality of circumstances.

As far as me providing sources for laws and what not. Its to help educate people on this line of work. People are free to disagree with them all they like however they should not ignore the info. If anything they are being provided with the exact information / sources to target should they decide to get involved and attempt to change the laws that govern law enforcement.

If people argue the system is flawed, the first step to changing it is to find out how it works first. Target the areas and then go from there.

Im not making excuses for the officer, and at no point have I justified what this officer did. What I have done is explain the side of the story people ignore because its the law enforcement side. I suspect though with people making comments about wounding / guy being shot in the back when in reality and updated information he was not shot in the back that the info I provided will go to waste because there minds are already made up.

California yet again. Maybe California needs to review their hiring psych profiles or something. Or maybe it's just me that is seeing more of these incidents there than anywhere else. Poor guy probably had a seizure or stroke or panic attack and wound up shot in the back in front of his children? Tragic.

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by Xcathdra

I find the Monday morning quarterbacking amusing,

Only a sick S>O>B> would find humor in the death of an innocent man.

I agree.. Which person finds this guys death funny?

On the off chance you ever decide to learn to read and comprehend all the info, instead of taking snippets of a conversation and portraying them as something its not, you would know that I find the people who are Monday morning quarterbacking the situation as humorous. I base that on the lack of knowledge of the law and understanding of its application while people try to say the officer violated the law. I base it on the fact people are ignoring any and all other information except for the shooting portion.

And I base it on posts that you make, which are off topic, are personal attacks and contribute nothing to the thread that is constructive.

Any chance we can get you to act like an adult?

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
California yet again. Maybe California needs to review their hiring psych profiles or something. Or maybe it's just me that is seeing more of these incidents there than anywhere else. Poor guy probably had a seizure or stroke or panic attack and wound up shot in the back in front of his children? Tragic.

All fine and dandy, any others in the thread share your mindset.

Question -
At what point should we do psyche profiles on the civilians? People are ignoring the fact that in all of these encounters, the civilians made choices of their own free will.

At what point should we acknowledge and expect personal responsibility / accountability for actions by people other than law enforcement instead of making excuses for them?

Originally posted by Brandon88
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.

Based on?????

Originally posted by PLASIFISK
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.

edit on 14-2-2012 by PLASIFISK because: (no reason given)

Please provide your source showing the gate was open and not locked during this incident.

reply to post by Tw0Sides


I could be wrong, but it sounds to me like this is their opinion only. Hopefully someone else will be doing the investigating. All I want is for the absolute truth to be found out. And for it to be settled properly. Without the cam shots, we have no idea what the situation was truely like. Plus I wonder if perhaps the marine had a sudden illness. Either mental, thyroid, or perhaps even diabetes? Why would he plow into the gate in the first place? Everyone seems to rave about this mans personality. My opinion is that perhaps the police should have been protecting the marine from himself also.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Based on the fact he was firing rounds from his weapon to protect the childrens safety? While the children were in the effective kill zone of said weapon and a round could have easily ricocheted inside the vehicle and killed one of them. Or the fact that the individual could have kicked the vehicle into gear and died with his foot on the pedal and crashed the vehicle at a high speed killing ALL of them. So explain to me how his actions were to protect the children again?

reply to post by Fiberx


I would be hesitant to say the police are part of a Government conspiracy against the citizens. My best friends are cops and they are good guys.

It would be stupid of the police to declare war on the people, why because we really do have the best weapons and toys here in the US to fight back. Our tech is equal and better in most situations than what the police are allowed to carry...that is in FREE CONSTITUTION abiding states like Florida or Texas, not liberal Constitution burning states like California...

Sniper

reply to post by Xcathdra

At the point where it's their job too to make informed decisions and protect and detonate volatile situations, I suppose X. I'm seeing a growing trend of former military and Xe coming back from many multiple tours of Iraq and Afghanistan joining or returning to law enforcement with, shall we say, altered points of view. I do think that there are probably some forces already looking at this, and if they're not maybe they better. .

reply to post by ~Lucidity


So when military people return and go into law enforcement, they are somehow mentally deficient, but when they come back and choose another profession, like this marine killed, they are ok upstairs? You cant have it both ways, and stereotyping, again, doesn't solve anything.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Would anyone like a HAM SANDWICH????

Does anyone still not believe that the police state is here?

Load em if you got em.

Originally posted by Brandon88
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Based on the fact he was firing rounds from his weapon to protect the children's safety? While the children were in the effective kill zone of said weapon and a round could have easily ricocheted inside the vehicle and killed one of them. Or the fact that the individual could have kicked the vehicle into gear and died with his foot on the pedal and crashed the vehicle at a high speed killing ALL of them. So explain to me how his actions were to protect the children again?

The article states the deputy made the decision he was not going to allow the guy to drive off. The deputy gave more than enough verbal commands and warnings, all of which were ignored. Based on the info we have, its entirely possible the officer placed the children in danger by waiting as long as he did to try and gain compliance from the guy.

Also, you guys are ignoring all the facts, concentrating solely on the shooting while ignoring everything that occurred prior to that, which is the info the deputy had to make the decision he did.

One could argue that he placed his own children in danger by having them in the vehicle when he crashed through the gate and driving at a high rate of speed through the parking lot. He further placed them in danger by leaving them unattended in the vehicle. He placed them in danger by ignoring all commands given by the deputy. He placed them in danger when he returned, again ignoring all verbal commands from the deputy.

With everyone stating this guy would not hurt a fly, he exercised poor judgment. If he is calm and rational, then why choose actions that run contrary to how people portray him?

That is what does not make sense to me and is the reason I asked the list of questions I did on like the 2nd page. Autopsy results should be coming back in the next day or so and I will be curious if anything shows up.

There is also the possibility of suicide by cop in order to secure insurance money for his family, which is why I asked the questions I did.

There is a lot we don't know, so blaming the deputy is premature.

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Does anyone still not believe that the police state is here?

Load em if you got em.

By virtue of you being able to express that comment, in addition to the many many anti government anti police comments on this site, your paranoia is funny.

What does a police state theory have to do with this situation?

Originally posted by sirjunlegun
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Would anyone like a HAM SANDWICH????

Only if you share it with everyone and add a side of common sense and the ability to research and understand the law before condemning it. Whats even better is its free so no one will have to pay for it.. The government will pick up the check for you.