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

reply to post by Xcathdra

well, in response to the majority of this post, i guess a reminder is due.
the US Constitution does NOT GRANT RIGHTS ... so, the majority of this post is moot.

it doesn't need to state a citizen can make an arrest, it's a given.
it doesn't need to state what my/your/our rights are, they are unalienable, natural and self-evident.
it isn't constructed to govern ppl, they are expected to govern themselves
the Supreme Court was not designated or empowered to set precedent, yet they have.
the Supreme Court does not function to interpret the Constitution, yet they have.
the Constitution does not need to be interpreted, it needs to be upheld.

the Constitution may not be perfect but it is not to be subverted by "laws" which contradict it.
while it does give the States great law-making power, no State law may conflict with it.

i can make citizen arrests all day long, it is my RIGHT
standing law may not support my reason for the arrest but nothing is stopping from performing such activities.
and, i am not "impersonating an officer" unless i do so.

the 4th amendment does not apply to the individual

are you sure about that?
after all, it begins ... "The right of the people ... shall not be violated"
hows does that NOT apply to the individual and or their property?

and don't give me any case law, it doesn't supersede Constitutional protections.

you compare armed confrontation to a game of "tic-tac-toe" ???
have you lost your marbles?
and what's wrong with a stalemate? at least in this case, everyone lives.

no, i linked the DC statute to emphasize that even districts recognize the natural right of the people to commence with citizen arrests.
you can say it doesn't matter, i say it does.

If a person pointed a gun at you and did not shoot would you perceive that action as a threat?

no, i would already KNOW it's a threat, no perception needed.
"person pointed a gun" = threat in reality
person might have a gun = perception - possible threat in my imagination

i sure hope my childhood encounter isn't reflective of what goes on today, lordy i hope not.

why would i need any understanding of the "law" to determine ...

we know they are coached, from very early on in the process. and, truth be told, i have yet to read an accurate and truthful police report. (and i've read many)

don't need law to read.
don't need law to understand and identify a lie.
don't need law to determine a historical fact.
see prior link about Supervisors rewriting the whitewash of their subordinates and then tell me again how i need "law" to determine the sub is "coached".

as for false police reports, please don't get me started, i'll get flagged for off topic.
fyi, "witnesses" (officers) don't appear 10 minutes after the event but they sure write like they do.

so, before i go on, i'm curious X ... why are you avoiding answering the direct question about what a ham sandwich is?
i kinda thought you'd be all over that with some kind of "that was before, this is now" rhetoric.
so what gives, truth hurt?

ummm, how does my being a Constitutionalist predispose me as "biased" ??
biased to what?
illegal laws?
less than lawful shootings?
ohhhh i got it, i must be biased toward the PC crap that's driven us here, yeah, that's it.

i don't have the option of "rejecting police reports", where'd you get that idea?
i am currently in possession of one pending litigation, your point?
actually, their reporting is fabricated and shall be litigated further ... are you saying this stuff doesn't happen?

totally don't follow your "double-standard" comment, care to expand?

I do and I reject the premise because its based on the mindset of the officer covering up an unlawful act by killing the person. Reverse the positions where this guy killed the officer. Is he trying to cover up an unlawful act by killing the officer?
With the officer being dead we only have one side of the story and not the counter-story.

i would prefer the full story, from all sides, but that isn't possible, is it?
rejecting the premise doesn't change it or make it go away ... reject it all you want, it's fact.
the "meat" of the story matters, always has, always will or the supervisors wouldn't perform re-writes.
won't answer your hypothetical reversal cause the simple fact is, we'd never really know, would we? guess that would depend heavily on the "tale he told".

Weren't you the one who stated you have read police reports and that they are all wrong / lies?

nope, didn't say that at all ... read many, have found numerous fabrications
nice try though.

(continued)

reply to post by Xcathdra

(continued)
i notice you seem to think cops are held "accountable", i'd love to know how.
they are seldom punished adequately, occasionally released with benefits, untouchable in a civil suit (burn the family twice ya know - they lose a loved one and pay more taxes to cover any prosecution and/or potential settlement), the PD identity is often kept from the public and they aren't even exposed by the "good guys", if there's any of those left.
i really can't remember a time in my life when cops were "held accountable" for their horrific acts.
loss of a job is hardly a penalty equal to the loss of a life.

ok, i'll indulge this one ...

Because all police are bad? because all illegal immigrants are bad?

never said all police are bad [shame on you]
and i never said illegal immigrants but they are criminals.

why would i ask the Europeans how things went for the American Indians?
that's like asking an orange how the apple gets so red ... any point here?

an invalid position?
who says i have any position regarding the outcome of this case?
i haven't declared any position other than one man shot and killed another in front of his young children.
did i misinterpret or misrepresent that fact?

DWI ?? distractions, distractions, distractions ... off topic.
was Loggins intoxicated? did i miss that somewhere?
please advise if i missed it, i haven't caught up yet.

Originally posted by Kryties

(Need I remind people of the thread started by a certain mod here on ATS who is a cop who tried to blame police actions on the general public? Here it is.....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by semperfortis

Why taze granny? Why gas granny? YOU...... That's right I said it, YOU.

The gradual change I have referenced is of course the sue happy people of this once great nation. The police can't physically assert their authority, can never build a reputation because the moment they lay hands on any one of you, you will sue them; and the liberal courts, or liberal jurisdictions will award them money and at the very least they lose their jobs or even worse, their homes and other possessions.
Yet they are still required by YOU to enforce the laws of their particular jurisdiction or again lose their jobs. What a funny little society we have that requires miracles from our police.

See the ridiculous excuses LEO's use? Nothing is ever their fault, it is the fault of the general public.)

edit on 15/2/2012 by Kryties because: (no reason given)

That statement is so factually and ethically WRONG on so many levels that the mind boggles!

"The police can't physically assert their authority" - actually, I think you'll find the police can and do assert their authority physically, every time they cuff somebody, or restrain them. It's legal and it's correct. And you're a policeman? WTF? Do you actually mean the police aren't authorised to kick the cr*p out of people on a whim? I should hope they damned well aren't - though there's plenty of evidence they do that too - ("Stop resisting arrest" ). Ridiculous!

You think it's a "Funny little society we live in, that requires miracles from our police"? Well I think it's a funny little mindset (funny peculiar, as opposed to humorous) that tries to insist the police don't have sufficient powers to perform their duties within the confines of fairness and legality and without resorting to brutality at the drop of a hat.

Now please explain directly why it's necessary to tase / gas granny. But you can't, because unless granny's got a gun aimed at you, there's no justification whatsoever, and nobody's to blame for it happening, except the dangerous psychopaths who apparently think it's appropriate.

reply to post by Xcathdra

You don't perceive any of those actions as a potential threat towards the officer, his children or the community?

worthy of being shot dead, NO.
did he need to be addressed regarding his actions, sure, but shot, absolutely NO.

i won't engage your hypothetical because it's unrelated.
sorry but, reality rules ... perceptions are imaginary until proven otherwise.

laws that are in conflict with the Constitution do not apply as they are illegal themselves.

i will not debate Constitutional conflict with someone who does not UNDERSTAND the Constitution.

Again a Constitutional question - Please show me where in the Constitution it says you have a right to privacy. The fact is it does not, and only came around as a result of case law.

it does NOT GRANT RIGHTS ... never has, never will.
the right to privacy is nature's law from birth and can be exercised to the extent of my desire.

I agree rulings can be flawed and thats when the people should participate ain government and work to have it changed.

totally agree and wish more ppl did get involved in changing or challenging the laws ... but alas, we have too many jackboots on each corner just awaiting our 'step out-of-line'.

thank you for bringing some of the most ridiculous laws to the forefront.
it is good to know where to start.
i wonder if ppl realize just how many "laws" are on the books and have never been repealed or enforced in decades.

reply to post by Xcathdra

first you say this ...

The 4th amendment applies to the government, not the individual.

then you gone on to say this ...

Case law is what allows a person to challeneg law enforcement actions using the 4th amendment.

case law or lawyers were not necessary to challenge an unConstitutional law.
so, if the 4th Amendment does NOT apply to the individual, how then do individuals use it to challenge law or enforcement actions?

i would really appreciate it if you'd list any case law that you think supports these claims.
first, the 4th applies directly to the individual (and other persons now, ie: corporations).
second, law enforcement actions are not unConstitutional, laws are.
third, challenged law enforcement actions are generally resolved at the State level, unless a question of Federal Constitutionality arises.

The people need to start demanding federal investigations into the these type of police actions. The people of Albuquerque NM have done just that in mass. Last year 17 or 19 police shooting all resulting in death . The justice department had stepped in along with the ACLU. The end result of these investigation found that all the officer used excessive force in each indecent, and could have used other means not resulting in death of the alleged perpetrator or person. in addition the feds found fudged investigations and so on. APD is now paying in the high multi-millions in settlements If there was any punishment for any of these officers or firings the public had never heard of it and was not made public.

What was made public was this. ( This really caught my attention ) APD has now changed the requirements for becoming a police officer, The chief of police stated that the test has been changed some, and that they are looking for higher scores. People with a 4 year degree will have a preference. I think some current officers will under go new standard psychological evaluations as well.

Anyhow , The Feds and the ACLU cracked down very hard in other areas as well. Officers are now issued bean bag shotguns and other non lethal means. There is a long laundry list that APD must follow from now on. I think they are also on some federal s**T list of some type to clean up there act by cretin date.

So my I assume they have been using some sort of psychological profile in the past? Scores did not really matter, but the past psychological profile did? I would sure like know that past profile they have been using to hire our nations police officers.

Attention Mayors and counsel members of the nations cities reading this take heed to the real life actions that citizens are taking; or it will cost your city in the high multi-millions of dollars. which most cities cannot spare now. the City of Albuquerque is just about broke.

I do not believe the police story for one minute. These thugs are always in CYA mode. They watched the guy for how many minutes back up was there and they could not stop him from getting in his car without shooting him to death yeah right... Sigh.

Sadly, our young men and women returning from war in Iraq and Afghanistan are being targeted more and more, are routinely being labeled as a "threat", and our government is taking any means necessary to neutralize these "threats".

Unfortunately, I don't think this is a coincidence. I expect to see stories about veterans being jailed or killed ramp up considerably in the coming months. Welcome to Amerika.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Thanks for your posts Xcathdra.

Against my better judgement I opened and read through this thread which seems to have served only to highlight how so many ATS members jump to conclusions without knowing, or caring to know, any of the facts. I for one, found your responses very informative and interesting and for your patience in dealing with some ridiculous comments!

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Originally posted by bigyin
Prison Officers
Fire Fighters
Nurses
Teachers
Social Workers

All deal with similar situations without resorting to shooting people dead.

These trigger happy Policemen are incompetant imo.

Really? They see similar situations? Large, volatile men, at 4 a.m., in abandoned parking lots, with children in their care, and a split second to make a decision? I don't think so.

Sure, they deal with angry people, I get death threats daily in my job. Hell, when I used manage a retail store, I often had physical confrontations with idiots, and the police were at least 10 minutes away at most times.

BUT, a police officer is specifically paid to do a specific job. They are issued a gun for a reason. Nurses, Teachers, and Social Workers usually stay at a safe distance until the police arrive. Fire Fighters and Ambulances often have to wait for police escorts. A police officer works out on an island, and as you can tell, they are not respected for their work, so they are facing life and death every day, and they want to go home at the end of the day just like anyone else. Nobody wants to die at work, and I don't believe anyone wants to kill someone at work either.

These threads get pretty ridiculous sometimes.

Yes they all deal with any sized person, at all times of day and night, in all sorts of places and sometimes with children involved.

Usually police backup is a phone call away, but usually they try and deal with the situation first before calling the police.

In the UK the police are not armed and they deal with the same situation as we have here, and they don't shoot anybody.

UK police would simply rush the guy, whack him with a stick, deck him, cuff him. If that din't work he would be pepper sprayed or maybe tazered though I havn't heard of tazers used much in UK.

Armed response is called as a last resort to deal with specific types of threat where somebody is believed to have a gun or explosives.

reply to post by bigyin


I'm not denying there should be a better way. There are lots of better ways. Andy Griffith never carried a gun!

But, I am saying, per our current procedures, the cop doesn't seem to have done anything inappropriate. It is a tragedy no doubt, and I long for the good ol' days of "Peace Officers" just like everyone else does.

Originally posted by Apollumi
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

Really? Be careful when you get into your weapon every morning. On the one hand I'm happy forum moderators seem to be taking a more active roll. On the other hand, people are tired of this kind of thing. Along with all of the other "It's all ok, trust us, while we rob, rape, kill" insanity coming from our authoritative government employees.

We should all be careful when we climb into our 100+ mph, 2 and 3 ton "weapons" each morning!

And, it won't comfort you any to know, but I am also an "authoritative government employee!"

But, I completely agree that people are becoming tired of this sort of thing, and it is only a matter of time before the government steps on too many toes and has to face a large scale uprising.

Hopefully it will comfort you to know that the majority of government employees are just people, like yourself, and we'll be standing side by side with you when the day comes that we have to reset the whole system.

reply to post by Xcathdra


SO basically what you are trying to say is if a person utter a threat in the field, that gives the officer the right to shoot and kill? I can smell total BS to the officer's story. He was not seen for five minutes that should have been more than enough time to take the kids out of the vehicle and into safety if they were concern for their safety. Plus I know ignoring commands from an officer last time i checked would be a similar charge to resisting arrest
and in which case as always seen, a simple beating or tasering the individual would have difuse the situation.

reply to post by wardk28



Oh the standard Police are walking a razors edge and have to make split second decsions line.

Ask your self this. If you were in the officers place. I dont mean that you were an officer, I mean you yourself, average Joe, If you had seen a SUV crash through a gate at a high rate of speed stop and a crazy acting man get out and walk around. You see kids in the back seat of the SUV. You are concerned about their well being so you ask the guy what the problem is and can you help. The guy pays you no attention so you tell him to not get back in his truck so you can call 911. He starts to get back in his truck. As he does he swears at you or calls you a name or something so you draw a firearm and shoot him in the back.

Do you think that your defense in the upcoming trial could be "I had a split second to act, its life or death out there. I didnt SEE a weapon but I had to act"?
Do you think that YOU would just get a paid vaction from work followed by a dismissal from the local DA professing that you had followed all reasonable logical reason?
Do you think that you would avoid Jail time on the charges that would follow this type of action?

The only thing keeping this cop from sitting in a cell right now is because he is a cop.

I have a very hard time beliving the cops story that the SUV crashed through a gate at a high rate of speed.
I have a hard time believing the cops story that the Marine was acting strange and did not follow his orders.
I have a hard time believing the Marine said something that indicated he was going to do something violent.

This cop needs jail time.

This had been quite an informative thread. Thanks to x....(can never remember that string of letters ) for giving us all the excuses LE can use to blow us out of our shoes. It was concise and obviously prepared but now that those excuses are being examined and the holes grow he has bowed out. As expected of damage control ops.
What we see here is a man killed in front of his kids by firearm while in a vehicle because the officer was scared. At first it was "for his life" but it changed to "for the children" but the bottom line is he was so scared he killed the guy. Cloak this in any other cloth and it is still what it is one armed scared man killed another man because of the perceptions of his fear and not a genuine and bonifide threat. The vehicle as deadly weapon is moot as they admit letting him re-enter the vehicle thus they provided the weapon they allegedly killed him over. Not even the most skilled damage control x-perts can hold water in this boat so he skipped on out.
This is probably seen as one of the "ridiculous posts" by the LE love children. That kinda makes me happy
APB

ETA nobody has hit on the most likely scenario. The guy went for his morning walk. the normally open gate was shut and he plowed it. Being as described " responsible" he was likely upset and walked off to vent over hitting a fence ( Thinking from my own perspective here but I am pretty normal by most accounts:lol he comes back to see that is is now not just hitting a fence it is a bunch of cops and he feels threatened. From there words are exchanged, the cop feels disrespected and it is escalated out of control.
Wow see how easy it was to make a much more believable story than what the police union has provided.
Point is the only ones saying what happened would be called perpetrators if they were not police.
APB

reply to post by Screwed


I do not agree with you. Did those little girls "deserve" to watch their father get killed right in front of them? Did that unarmed man, who was of service to our country, "deserve" to die? No. You feel that we deserve this treatment because we are not fighting hard enough? What are you doing to change the system? I am sure you wouldn't be saying the things you said if it were your mother or father or friend that was in that car. You know damn well that this is not deserved.

reply to post by SteffieJo


Even though I disagree with him adamently, I can see his point.

Suppose it was his mother, or his father or brother in the car. If he believes, as he says he believes, then perhaps he would be willing to put his own life and freedom at risk to dole out some street justice. I think I would be willing to do so.

Until we are willing to stand up to the abusers and bullies and unconstitutional laws, by any means necessary, then on some level we do deserve whatever treatment we get. We are allowing ourselves to be abused. Everyone is too comfortable to take a stand, until it affects them personally, and then they are vastly outnumbered, because everyone else is still too comfortable to do anything to help.

So, on some level, we are reaping exactly what we have sewn. We have elected the lawmakers that passed these encumbering laws. We have elected the council people and mayors that have enabled the police tactics. We have elected the judges, and paid the lawyers that have created the legal precedents in these matters.

Unless we are willing to fight for our rights, pretty soon we won't have any.

I have a permanent circular headache from stopping a half dozen punks from breaking in and invading my neighbors home. It seems having a 22oz can of Mickey's Malt opened against ones temple leaves a permanent reminder
Cops, absolutely useless and despite the whole neighborhood hearing the death threats and such they did not spend 24 hrs in custody. So yeah I am down with a "citizen arrest" scenario and have put it on the line more than once to "do the right thing and not look away" Wish more folks were into it then things like this would be really dealt with and not legally excused as a terminated threat that may or may not have existed any where except in the mind of the "terminator"
APB

My boss said this today & it really surprised me when I overheard it. To hear him say it was like watching the weather....cops are too good to steal & too lazy to get a job. I thought wow

Props to LE in this topic.Polite and informed responses for the most part. Refreshing as the "# the pigs" posts are as bad and some much worse then some of the sheepish support of misconduct. So a very sincere Shout to X...? ( damnable nick you got there:lol and getreadyalready for their participation.
However I do note ya''ll are careful what battles to pick and know when to cut your losses. This one is a big loser for LE.
For the record I absolutely do not "hate" police in general. I do have a great deal of animosity to individual officers who use their position in an abusive manner. A trend which has increased over my life and more rapidly since Reagan ramped up the WOD. Prohibition corrupted the law in the 20's and it is again. It is an attitude of entitlement and some really strong legal protections coupled with easy picking of "criminal" property that are the seed that grows into a guy with no weapon but that which the cops allowed him to have (the vehicle) is now dead because the cops were scared (perceived threat = fear of possible action). Please read this again. He is dead because they were scared.Too scared to proactively defuse the situation in a non-lethal manner.
I really do not care if X...? come on here and gives all the legality of why it is OK for the cop to kill someone because they are afraid because it stands on it's own merit legal or not no man should die because another guy with a gun is simply scared. Too many dead bodies lined up behind the perception of threat that were unarmed and facing well armed and supposedly well trained Law Enforcers.
PS this one is dead and will roll under the scroll in less than two days
APB