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

reply to post by AmericanPitBull


I left because I got tired of banging my head against the wall of ignornace people in this thread have. I provided all of the neccissary laws / resources / explanations for you guys to read. I would have thought with your superior level of intelligence, because you know you arent a cop, you would take that information and actually get off your ass and do something to change the laws you either dont like or just plain ignore.

Why should I need to continue responding to the same argumentss over and over and over? Why should I have to correct people over and over and over, that this guy was not shot in the back, posted all the info to show that, and people still ignored it, because they wanted to paint law enforcement in a bad light come hell or high water.

Even after bowing out people still include me in their posts / comments, which is proof they dont bother to read what pothers type when they dont agree with that persons view or profession in my case.

As for your snide and assinie comment - I bowed out because this gets old, listening to children bitch yet not do anything about it, refusing to learn how the government works, how the law works, and how their rights work and in what circumstances they don't.

What I offered are facts and the law, not excuses. So until you guys decide to do something other than bitch, they will remain factual, they will remain as law, and you will continue to be wrong.

Props for attacking me after I left the thread... Not surprising for someone to throw rocks when the party was overwith while trying to pretend they were there from the start to look cool.

To drive my point home.. Its easy for you to make the claims, yet you have absolutely nothing to back them up. At the very least I provided my sources of information, where as you made your up. If you wish to dispuite that feel free to support your claims with sources.

reply to post by Honor93


Interesting response.. My only suggestion would be to go back to wherever you receievd your education and ask for a refund.

When you are ready to discuss the actual law, both local, state as well as con law, let me know. Until then you are entitled to your very wrong and flawed intereptation of the constitution, local laws, state laws and supreme court rulings, as well as law enforcement operations / functions / procedures.

To answer one of your flawed rebuttals - the 4th amendment applies to the government, not the individual.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Show me where it states a citizen must get a search warrant / arrest warrant / need probable cause to perform a search. It requires the government to comply with that requirement before we act. If you and I, me being an officer and you being a civilian, go to a house where drugs are known to be.

If you break down the front door you can be guilty with burglary (no ones home).

If I did it, as an officer while doing my job, I would be guilty of burglary (no ones home) as well as violating the 4th amendment being I did not have a warrant.

My action would be criminal at the local level and state level, in addition to a policy violation, and finally a violation of 42 USC 1983 - civil rights violation.

So again, the 4th amendment applies to the government. I need PC, you dont, which answers another flawed comment that all laws are applied equally.

If any with an open mind is curious about this topic - please watch

Hollywood vs. Reality Officer Involved Shootings


In the video there is a scene showing an officer firing into the back of a man who is apparently walking away from him. Here is why they used that clip in the video -

****Both videos contain a graphic scene of a person being shot and killed****

**** MODS - Imbedding disable by youtube - users are directed to youtube site ***

This is video 1 from the dashcam

****Both videos contain a graphic scene of a person being shot and killed****

**** MODS - Imbedding disable by youtube - users are directed to youtube site ***

This is video 2, dashcam from the backup officer



To address some comment sI have seen throughout, referencing emotions and being cold.

Until you do this job and deal with and see what law enforcement sees, it is impossible for you to judge the mental mindset of the officer. In an avergae year, a civilian will go with no adverse issues... No deaths in the family, no divorces, no substance abuse, no money issues, gainfully employed etc....

Its possible you may know a person or 2 who are having a bad year.....

An officer will deal with these incidents, and then some, multiple times throughout a year, and in some cities, in the course of a month. I have had days where I have worked child abuse cases, fatality accidents along with the death notification, suicidal people as well as domestics..

In the course of one shift....

When you have a bad day, you have a tendency to carry that mood and at times you take that mood out on others. Law Enforcement makes every attempt to not do that, and because we are human we fail. However, there arent many people that an officer can talk to that truely understands the pressures of the job, and this thread and some of the comments made are very much proof of that dilema.

What you see as cold an uncaring is in reality a coping mechanism.. It pissed me off working a case where a child received a broken arm because of his father.. I cannot take that emotion to the next call, and I cant take the emptions from that call, to the next call.

Police have been accused of having a really bad sense of humor.. to people not in law enforcement, you are going to view it that way, and thats fine. Again, its a mechnism that allows us to do the job on a daily basis.

It doesnt matter if you hate the police, or the laws... What does matter is to maybe take the extra second to consider this info before calling for a rope and tall tree.

**** Info about the 2 videos people may not know ****

Coming back to the last 2 videos, and hopefully people watched them with an open mind, I will point out something people might have missed...

All of that, the 2 videos, the pursuit, the shots fired, the death of the guy in the end...
He did not have a weapon...


he pointed his cell phone at the other officer...

A split second decision....

what would you have done?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by AmericanPitBull

 

I left because I got tired of banging my head against the wall of ignornace people in this thread have. I provided all of the neccissary laws / resources / explanations for you guys to read. I would have thought with your superior level of intelligence, because you know you arent a cop, you would take that information and actually get off your ass and do something to change the laws you either dont like or just plain ignore.

Why should I need to continue responding to the same argumentss over and over and over? Why should I have to correct people over and over and over, that this guy was not shot in the back, posted all the info to show that, and people still ignored it, because they wanted to paint law enforcement in a bad light come hell or high water.

Even after bowing out people still include me in their posts / comments, which is proof they dont bother to read what pothers type when they dont agree with that persons view or profession in my case.

As for your snide and assinie comment - I bowed out because this gets old, listening to children bitch yet not do anything about it, refusing to learn how the government works, how the law works, and how their rights work and in what circumstances they don't.

What I offered are facts and the law, not excuses. So until you guys decide to do something other than bitch, they will remain factual, they will remain as law, and you will continue to be wrong.

Props for attacking me after I left the thread... Not surprising for someone to throw rocks when the party was overwith while trying to pretend they were there from the start to look cool.

To drive my point home.. Its easy for you to make the claims, yet you have absolutely nothing to back them up. At the very least I provided my sources of information, where as you made your up. If you wish to dispuite that feel free to support your claims with sources.

edit on 16-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

LOL More "perceived threat"? I did not attack you, I applauded your command of the reasons LE can use to kick my arse or shoot me( now I AM being snide)
To drive my point home, Obviously my comments about the cop being scared have your feathers ruffled and obviously you have nothing but an angry response to the truth of it. Is not each excuse prefaced by "I feared for?" In this case it was both he feared for his safety then he feared for the children's safety at any rate the poor armed man was scared and you yourself provided the legal mechanism by which his fear excuses the death of a man.
Now you respond to the truth by assuming I am idle in effecting change. Well and good I have NOT changed anything ,But it is not because I am idle it is because the web of interconnected legal tom foolery can not be undone by a single citizen initiative or voting in one or two sympathetic politicians as you well know given your excellent command of laws and statutes many of which were backed by LE to lessen public accountability.
Finally as for what you have given it is all from police sources, We have nothing but LE's account of the children.
My point was via the alternate version was that stories are easy to make up and the ones telling this story are the same ones who killed the guy, the same ones who let him back into the vehicle they called the deadly weapon they feared so badly they shot him to death for being in it and leaving.
and Xcathdra ( had to look twice to get it right) You showed how the system and the automatons repping it will legally get away with it.
APB

reply to post by AmericanPitBull


Then you really should read your posts before submitting them -

Lets start withthe one above - here
"perceived threats".... Trust me.. you are not a threat to me to.. possibly to yourself but not me.
"Cops being scared - ruffled feathers" - again, no. not even close. I see you think very highly of yourself though, almsot if not more arrogant than the cops you accuse of it.

and no, I am not buying your excuse of legal tomfoolery.. You are to lazy to make an effort to challenge / change the laws you dont like, and thats evident by your level of contempt for police and their actions. You make comments that its been like this will always be like this... Yet here you are, once again bitching and nothing else.

Ive given you the laws that governmn law enforcement, which is a start for you since you now know where to look and which ones you may want to challenge / get changes.

You know, the ones that allow cops to kill you without reason.. Its easier for you to come into this thread and make anonymous posts attacking a profession and the laws, when the reality of it is, you no absolutely nothing about the topic your complaining about.

Odds are you wont, and neither will anyone else who has complained in this thread... All complaints, no solutions, aside from the ones talking about killing the officers.... They might be a danger to you though so I would look into that if I were you..


From your post - here

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

here
here - cutting our losses / losing argument etc etc etc

Accusing me of offering excuses so we can kill you...

"obviously prepared".... - I do this job for a living, so yes I have been prepared to know the law and how it works and the box I am in when I perform my duties. Just because you and others refuse to learn the laws / dont understand them / ignore them because you dont like them, doesn't mean my knowledge / training is to make excuses for our actions to people who don't know our job or the laws. Its so I can do my job and protect the civilians I work for, not to come into this thread and bang my head against ignorance.

damage control.....
ridiculous post from we love the LE love children...

thats you giving props and being nice?????

The response I want to give you will get me banned.. So I will just let your lies and then your dismissal of those lies by saying you never attacked me stand on their own.

You have no idea what you are talking about..

Hope you aren't taking your case to the DA. It is full of more holes than the OP.
Look I know exposing the subjective fear these cops have when they use the "perceived threat" to kill an unarmed (until the LE on scene armed him by allowing his return to the vehicle) man must really make you feel vulnerable but now armed with this new understanding YOU can effect some real change from within....
APB

BTW it is obvious you have had a few so best let it lie till tommorow. Don't go driving till morning ,mkay? I will pick this back up with you then if you still have the stomach for it.
APB

Originally posted by AmericanPitBull

Hope you aren't taking your case to the DA. It is full of more holes than the OP.
Look I know exposing the subjective fear these cops have when they use the "perceived threat" to kill an unarmed (until the LE on scene armed him by allowing his return to the vehicle) man must really make you feel vulnerable but now armed with this new understanding YOU can effect some real change from within....

APB

DA?? Lol thats funny.. I dont need the DA's approval to fill out the 96 hour Psychiatric hold paperwork for you since you apparently are crazy and cannot deal with reality...

So then your answer would be no, you cannot provide sources to support the claims / accusations you are making in this thread.

As I said.. you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.. If you did, you would have provided the info / sources instead of ignoring the challenge and instead resorting to the typical and old over used must be vulnerbale / exposed / acusation of me being drunk / attack the police while ignoring the facts excuse people like you use.

What funny but sad is your mentality, along with others, would bever survive in law enforcement. We would find you laying on the ground, hands in your pockets and a stupid friendgly grin on your face because an armed person is no danger.

Thanks for playing.. As I said, when you are educated on the topic, fell free to stop back in. So yeah we can call it a night, so you have some time to lick your wounds.




For those curious about Officer involved shootings -
Hollywood vs. Reality Officer Involved Shootings .

reply to post by Xcathdra

wow, you just cannot conduct a conversation without attacking the person, can you?

as for my education, what does it matter?
for all you know, i could be a prior attorney who has argued cases before the SC while you were still in diapers.

before you're schooled, yet again, let's get something straight ...
this case is not about drugs, not about known parameters and certainly not about the 4th amendment applying to the government over the people -- you are just plain wrong.

4th amendment protections are dually guaranteed to the INDIVIDUAL by itemizing specific actions to be performed by any government agent (not just LEO) PRIOR to any attempt to violate very specified and fully acknowledged rights of the PEOPLE.

this is not about breaking doors down while executing a legal warrant.
this is not about local laws.

this IS ABOUT an unarmed man who was gunned down in front of his children without warrant or due process. extenuating circumstances be damned.

you will not convince me that minor property damage and arrogance warrants the death penalty.
regardless of how many less than valid local OR state laws apply, this is a SEVERE Constitutional breach.

now, i have offered my gratitude for your contributions yet rather say thank you, you choose to offend ... aren't you just special?

i noticed your posted videos and i may giv'em a watch but these are rather old (2003) and many local and state laws have changed since then ... besides, neither is exemplary of the topic at hand.

edit to add: try not to forget that Mr Loggins should have been presumed innocent until proven guilty of a CAPITAL offense, so says most State law ... property damage just doesn't qualify.

pssssst ... still waiting for any case law that TRUMPS the Constitution.
and here i thought you were trying to help eliminate useless laws .... silly me

Originally posted by Honor93
wow, you just cannot conduct a conversation without attacking the person, can you?

no you cant..

Originally posted by Honor93
as for my education, what does it matter?
for all you know, i could be a prior attorney who has argued cases before the SC while you were still in diapers.

It matters a great deal because what I ave seen so far leads me to beleive you have no understanding of the law or of the government, let alone the Constitution.

Originally posted by Honor93
before you're schooled, yet again, let's get something straight ...
this case is not about drugs, not about known parameters and certainly not about the 4th amendment applying to the government over the people -- you are just plain wrong.

Since the op talks about a man being shot and killed by a police officer, its very much about the 4th amendment, since stopping a person, pulling a person over, arresting a person and, if you knew the law and understood it, ending a persons life, are ALL considered a seizure under the 4th amendment.

But by all means.. school me.

Originally posted by Honor93
4th amendment protections are dually guaranteed to the INDIVIDUAL by itemizing specific actions to be performed by any government agent (not just LEO) PRIOR to any attempt to violate very specified and fully acknowledged rights of the PEOPLE.

And you would be wrong.. the 4th amendment requires the GOVERNMENT and its AGENTS to meet specific guidelines in order to search / seize aan individual or their property. I ahve to submit a PC to get a warrant, where as you dont, because the 4th does not apply to you or your actions.

Originally posted by Honor93
this is not about breaking doors down while executing a legal warrant.
this is not about local laws.

Again you would be wrong... and, again, a person being shot and killed has been seized under the 4th amendment.

Originally posted by Honor93
this IS ABOUT an unarmed man who was gunned down in front of his children without warrant or due process. extenuating circumstances be damned.

Again a 4th amendment issue, along with local and state laws that govern the actions of law enforcement in the State of California and Orange county. A person does NOT have to be armed in order to be considered dangerous, nor does a person need to be armed in order for an officer to use deadly force.

again, totality of cirumstances along with that word you and so many others hate, but like to try and spin, what did the officer perceive at the moment force was used.

Originally posted by Honor93
you will not convince me that minor property damage and arrogance warrants the death penalty.
regardless of how many less than valid local OR state laws apply, this is a SEVERE Constitutional breach.

Ramming a gate, which is destruction of private property, would be a misdemeanor. Once you leave the accident and fail to report it, as in this case, its no longer property damage, but leaving the scene of an accident, which is a felony. Ignoring the officers commands and leaving the scene of the traffic stop is resisting a lawful detention / stop / arrest. The moment the guy failed to stop per the deputy, and get in the car, he made his decision on what the outcome was going to be. He forced the officer, not the other way around.

Originally posted by Honor93
now, i have offered my gratitude for your contributions yet rather say thank you, you choose to offend ... aren't you just special?

Nope.. Just using the same tone you used with me in your 4 post response, which was wrong by the way.

Originally posted by Honor93
i noticed your posted videos and i may giv'em a watch but these are rather old (2003) and many local and state laws have changed since then ... besides, neither is exemplary of the topic at hand.

Actually they are very much relevant to understand the conditions during an officer involved shooting, the myths the public have about how law enforcement operates, including the constant they should have wounded the person argument.

BTW I will point out your close mindedness here with your comment about the videos not pertaining to the op. You have already made up your mind without even watching them first? Any reason why?

the 2 videos at the bottom are an example of how an officer involved shooting can go, and how they can be perceived by the public who dont have all the information. Which is very relevant to this thread sicne people are still claiming the police shot the guy in the back while he walked to his car, regardless of the fact its been updated / corrected to the person being shot from the drivers side window.

yet they still ignore it and accuse the police of changing their story..

As I said, there are people who simply hate the police and through teir own ignorance, arrive at conslusions that arent based in reality.. Even with the facts staring them in the face.



For those curious about Officer involved shootings -
Hollywood vs. Reality Officer Involved Shootings .

reply to post by Xcathdra


hey look...it's Xcathdra, the police officer, in a thread about police officers, defending the police officers...go figure...

Originally posted by here4awhile
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

hey look...it's Xcathdra, the police officer, in a thread about police officers, defending the police officers...go figure...

hey look... its here4awhile, the troll, in a thread about police officers, attacking the police officers, While offering absolutely nothing to the thread / debate... go figure...

About 40 other people beat you to it, and its not like I have not heard that from people on this site before.. Please get some new material, and while your at it how about you participate in the thread, maybe refute / challenge the info ive presented instead of jumping in, throwing stones, and then cowardly running away?


For those curious about Officer involved shootings -
Hollywood vs. Reality Officer Involved Shootings .

reply to post by Xcathdra

it matters not as understanding the language of the Constitution does not require anything greater than the ability to read.

the Constitution is NOT law. it was never meant to be.
the Constitution is absolute.
it is not ambiguous like law.
if you are bright enough to understand law, why is the Constitution so difficult for you?

Since the op talks about a man being shot and killed by a police officer, its very much about the 4th amendment, since stopping a person, pulling a person over, arresting a person and, if you knew the law and understood it, ending a persons life, are ALL considered a seizure under the 4th amendment.

i'm sure i'm not the only one who noticed you omitted the WARRANTLESS part.
i never said the 4th wasn't involved, however, it is not any kind of protection applied to the government, it is quite the opposite.

aside from changing the sentence structure, how is what i said, different?

the 4th amendment requires the GOVERNMENT and its AGENTS to meet specific guidelines in order to search / seize aan individual or their property

which is also specified by WARRANT of which none was issued at ANY time in this case.

Mr Loggins IS innocent until proven otherwise, period.
Mr Loggins was not actively involved in any crime, he had an auto accident.
sure, the LEO had enough suspicion to inquire, but again, Mr Loggins had no obligation to comply. WHERE's the warrant?

Warrantless seizure is NOT protected or permitted anywhere in the 4th, try again.

repeating silly local laws that are in direct violation of the Constitution isn't any argument
that justifies this loss of life.

he never left the scene or failed to report the accident, you are making assumptions based on that imaginary perception thing again.

"he forced the officer to act" --- are you freaking kidding me?
this has got to be the lamest line i've seen you print yet.

i'm all for the "they should have wounded him" argument, if i can (and i have) then he can and if he can't he shouldn't have access to a gun, period.

if LEO markmanship is that poor, NONE of them need to be handling guns.

videos: ATM, i cannot access them ... is there some rush?
it's not like they apply directly or anything.

why are you harping at me for something i never subscribed to? [shot in the back]
oh that's right, your straws are getting further away, i get it, really i do.

nooooo, actually, ppl are harping about the officer changing HIS story ...
first it was "i was in fear for my life" ... that became "i was in fear FOR the children", remember?
the same children that had been LEFT in the vehicle by subsequent officers who comforted them in the back seat ... this info was provided in public press release (not perceived)

oh please, there are sooooo many potholes in this scenario a magician couldn't fix it.

so, going back to the 4th ... where's the warrant?
and still yet, you have provided -0- local or state laws that TRUMP the Constitution ... ya got some of those?

reply to post by Xcathdra

here's a few more questions i doubt you'll venture to answer but at least i tried.

have you ever had an auto accident?
if so, did you behave erratically or even irrationally?
did your behavior warrant a death sentence?

when Mr Loggins wasn't responding to commands, why wasn't EMS called to the scene?
isn't it possible he may have been injured in the auto accident?

why was his behavior deemed menacing based on a perception when the only known fact at that moment was that he had an accident?

edit to add: after all, wasn't it also reported that he was speeding without any evidence?
so let's say he was, just for fun, let's say he had a mild heart attack in that moment and his disappearance was merely to regain his composure ... still warrants a death sentence, eh?
again, since he was out of sight for several minutes and an accident had occurred, why no EMS?



here's one more question: in my state, LEO will NOT respond to an auto accident on private property and here, some of that private property includes school and church parking lots, grocery stores, mini malls and the like ... so, what about this auto accident gave the LEO authority to even respond without offering assistance first ??

look XCathdra, i'm not intentionally trying to be a pain in your side, i am truly trying to figure out how we as citizens overcome this without armed insurrection. IMHO, this has gotten way out of hand. heck, just a few months ago, the local 7-11, located on a major thoroughfare was robbed and LEO didn't even respond physically, they phoned it in.
i surely don't understand that one.

an x-roomie was pulled over 3 times inside 1.5 hours on his bicycle ride to work at 4:30 am. (5-6 days a wk)
none was for an infraction, he was told "he resembles what they've been told to be on the lookout for" ... so, we don't profile but that profile is the sole reason they stopped him.
since when do LEOs give this much attention to a non-threat simply commuting to work ??? wth is going on?

in case i haven't been clear, i am interested in the case law that you claim supports your position, Constitutionally ... that way, i know exactly which laws need to be repealed, challenged, reversed or whatever is necessary to eliminate these gross abuses of our rights.

reply to post by Xcathdra


lol classic X...i think what i've added to this thread is worthwhile...trolling? maybe a little...but at least it's less offensive than the responses everybody with a different opinion than you gets...I just felt the need to point out something we're all thinking...and it's the truth...but go ahead and keep spouting it you broken record...

even if I came back with a response even relevant to the topic at hand...you'd just find any reason to call me or the plethora of other users stupid and uneducated like you're so good at...

we all may not have such an in depth understanding of the laws that be as you may have...but it doesn't change that we can tell when a wrong is committed...killing an unarmed man is unacceptable...plain and simple...killing in the name of the law should only be acceptable in clearly obvious situations...seems like I see things like this happen all too often...the fact you defend such actions saying the officers have it tough and the law is on their side is just disturbing...but go ahead and rinse and repeat your argument if you feel the need...

have a nice night

A taser couldn't haven been used? I seen a video on not to long ago of 2 cops emptying both of there guns into a ARMED man outside of Carl's jr using a taser FIRST then shooting him after he swung on the officer with his weapon. My point is he was ARMED and acting irrationally as well but the officers still attempted to tase him first. Clearly you said he was unarmed and outside of his vehicle and he wasn't shot in the back so be seen it coming.... Watch that cop run into that house he didn't even look scared the kid coulda been waitin for him on the other side.. Didn't look like much training went into cell phone pointed at them hahahhahahaha just going by what I see

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Yep, I'm with you on this one. He was already speeding, crashing (maybe intentionally?), ignoring the police orders, and about to get behind the wheel of a 3 ton SUV with two young girls in the backseat. The Cop seems to have been acting appropriately with the information he had at the time. He probably wasn't even sure if the girls belonged to the man or were victims themselves.

It is a sad story, but with the limited information available, I don't see how the cop could have acted any differently?

Suppose he doesn't shoot him, and the guy gets away, and does something horrible to the girls. Then people would be blaming the cop for not acting to save them.

This was a lose/lose situation for everyone involved. The only decent outcome possible would have been for the guy to come to his senses and surrender and limit the damage to his poor girls.

Um tazer much?


Lets not talk about how he was allowed to disappear for 5 minutes when he was parked in an empty school parking lot.

The cops didn't have a clue what was going on, they weren't even trying to pay attention.

Why wasn't he tazed as he attempted to casually walk off for 5 minutes after the police stopped him?

There was no level of force being used, which allows the police to go one step up which is NON LETHAL. This officer went 2 steps up.

I.E.

A situation that wasn't violent became a homicide.

Regardless this is terrible police action. Why when the father disappeared for 5 minutes did the police not secure the kids?

What did the cops do for the 5 minutes? Laugh back and forth about how the lost track of the guy? Debate what to do if he doesn't come back?

I mean wtf. They just wanted to shoot some one, it couldn't be anymore obvious. If I'm unarmed and I say I'm going to kill an officer to an officer after he already knows I'm unarmed, he cannot shoot me, he can taze/restrain/pepper spray, but he cannot kill me.

Originally posted by Honor93
it matters not as understanding the language of the Constitution does not require anything greater than the ability to read.

I highly recommend you do that then.

Originally posted by Honor93
the Constitution is NOT law. it was never meant to be.
the Constitution is absolute.
it is not ambiguous like law.
if you are bright enough to understand law, why is the Constitution so difficult for you?

Im not the one who is not understanding the Constitution, you are.

Not ambiguous?
Apparently your not familiar with Article I section 3 then...

Originally posted by Honor93
i'm sure i'm not the only one who noticed you omitted the WARRANTLESS part.
i never said the 4th wasn't involved, however, it is not any kind of protection applied to the government, it is quite the opposite.

Apparently you are not familiar with case law rulings by the US Supreme Court dealing with the 4th amendment. As far as it being the opposite no kidding. Contrary to the "making excuses" comment I received, the information in the thread, showing the laws that law enforcement operates under, is a double edged sword. If people would check the blind hatred at the door they might have realized that. If the officer acted outside any of the criteria ive posted, then the action will become criminal - not justified

Exceptions to the warrant requirement
* - Consent
* - Plain view / Open field / Curtlidge
* - Exigent circumstances
* - Motor vehicles (refined / reduced by Arizona V. Gant / Stufflebeam v. Harris)
* - Search incident to arrest (case law above applies here as well)

Originally posted by Honor93
aside from changing the sentence structure, how is what i said, different?

You are arguing it applies to the individual when in fact it does not. It applies to the government.

Originally posted by Honor93
which is also specified by WARRANT of which none was issued at ANY time in this case.

and if you took the time to research the 4th amendment, including case law, you would know that there are times when a warrant cannot be obtained due to exigent circumstance. Those circumstances are defined and very specific.

Originally posted by Honor93
Mr Loggins IS innocent until proven otherwise, period.

The Deputy is innocent until proven guilty, period.

Originally posted by Honor93
Mr Loggins was not actively involved in any crime, he had an auto accident.

Destruction of private property, felony leaving the scene of an accident, child endangerment, speeding / wreck less driving / C and I driving, resisting arrest by fleeing a lawful detention / stop, failing to obey a lawful command....

Originally posted by Honor93
sure, the LEO had enough suspicion to inquire, but again, Mr Loggins had no obligation to comply. WHERE's the warrant?

Its not up to a citizen to decide a traffic stop is invalid and to simply walk away. Because the deputy observed the gate being crashed and the dangerous speeds, the stop was lawful under state law and the 4th amendment.

A warrant is not needed to perform a traffic stop. Reasonable suspicion is the requirement and again is US Supreme Court case law. A traffic stop is a temporary seizure under the 4th, and on avergae per case law a stop should be resolved in 20 minutes or less. Anything going longer will require an officer to justify the reason.

Originally posted by Honor93
Warrantless seizure is NOT protected or permitted anywhere in the 4th, try again.

Check your Supreme Court rulings - try again.

Originally posted by Honor93
repeating silly local laws that are in direct violation of the Constitution isn't any argument
that justifies this loss of life.

What local laws are in violation of the Constitution.. Also aren't you the one who just argued the Constitution is not law? By the way anything not specifically linked to the Federal government is reserved to the state.

Originally posted by Honor93
he never left the scene or failed to report the accident, you are making assumptions based on that imaginary perception thing again.

Since the gate was locked, its 4:30 in the morning with no traffic, he is required to stay where he is and wait for law enforcement to show up. If it were in a busy street and the car is drivable then he could move it since it would pose a danger to other travelers.

Since he left the scene and made no attempt to contact law enforcement, let alone make contact with the deputy to make the report, he fled the scene of an accident.

Originally posted by Honor93
"he forced the officer to act" --- are you freaking kidding me?
this has got to be the lamest line i've seen you print yet.

Yes.. If he were in his right mind, and is intelligent, calm and rationale as everyone claims, he would have talked to the deputy. Instead, he ignored him the entire time, etc etc etc.

So yes, he forced the officer to act.

Originally posted by Honor93
i'm all for the "they should have wounded him" argument, if i can (and i have) then he can and if he can't he shouldn't have access to a gun, period.

We cannot shoot to wound, which is state and federal law. Its not specifically listed in the constitution, which means its reserved to the states to define, and they did. Just because you are in favor of it does not mean its a choice. Im telling you its NOT a choice, at all.

For a person who does not know the law, or police procedure,s or whats in the constitution, I really dont think you should be judging whether or not an officer should be armed. Leave that to the people who know what they are talking about.

Originally posted by Honor93
if LEO markmanship is that poor, NONE of them need to be handling guns.

This is not shooting an animal thats running away and the comparison is not even close to the shooting of a person. Anyone who endorses trying to wound should have their guns taken since it places a LOT more people in danger from the number of rounds that will go downrange instead oft he intended target.

Originally posted by Honor93
videos: ATM, i cannot access them ... is there some rush?
it's not like they apply directly or anything.

You know all about the Constitution and the law so you should be smart enough to figure out how to watch a youtube video, which in fact DO apply to this thread / op article.

Afraid that you are wrong and looking for an excuse not to watch them?

Originally posted by Honor93
why are you harping at me for something i never subscribed to? [shot in the back]
oh that's right, your straws are getting further away, i get it, really i do.

You are the one making all sort of false claims about the Constitution and law while trying to take law enforcement to task over something you know nothing about. I felt the need to correct your inaccuracies while pointing out you dont know what you are talking about.

Originally posted by Honor93
nooooo, actually, ppl are harping about the officer changing HIS story ...first it was "i was in fear for my life" ... that became "i was in fear FOR the children", remember?
the same children that had been LEFT in the vehicle by subsequent officers who comforted them in the back seat ... this info was provided in public press release (not perceived)

The officer never changed his story.. Again if you read the articles instead of just picking and choosing the parts that support your biased view, you would notice he never made any comments to the media. All info released to the media came from the SO office and the Union. The union release was to correct all of the MISREPORTING that was being done by media.

Originally posted by Honor93
oh please, there are sooooo many potholes in this scenario a magician couldn't fix it.

With your knowledge and mindset, your "solutions" are the size of the grand canyon so I wouldn't be throwing stones if I were you.

Originally posted by Honor93
so, going back to the 4th ... where's the warrant?
and still yet, you have provided -0- local or state laws that TRUMP the Constitution ... ya got some of those?

Asked and answered.. For a person who claims to know and understand the Constitution, you are lacking in knowledge of it. Show me where the California law I posted on homicide is in contradiction to the Constitution. Show me where the traffic stop, property damage, speeding, etc are in the constitution? Show me where the Constitution forbids the actions law enforcement took.

Again, you do not know what you are talking about, and you know even less about laws and the Constitution. If your going to school me then please know what you are talking about.

For those curious about Officer involved shootings -
Hollywood vs. Reality Officer Involved Shootings .

Originally posted by Honor93
here's a few more questions i doubt you'll venture to answer but at least i tried.

lol

Originally posted by Honor93
have you ever had an auto accident?

yes I have

Originally posted by Honor93
if so, did you behave erratically or even irrationally?

No

Originally posted by Honor93
did your behavior warrant a death sentence?

No but I didnt leave the scene of an accident, I didnt speed through a school parking lot, I didnt get out of the car and ignore the deputy, I didnt walk away from the deputy, I didnt peak incoherently / rant in a football field, I didnt ignore the officers commands while a gun was pointed at me, and I didnt ignore those commands to get back into my vehicle in an attempt to flee the scene.

Originally posted by Honor93
when Mr Loggins wasn't responding to commands, why wasn't EMS called to the scene?
isn't it possible he may have been injured in the auto accident?

Why didn't he ask the deputy to request one? If he was in his right mind, or even injured, he could still ask. Going by all of the comments from people who new him, there should have been NO reason for the man to ignore the police in the manner he did.

Secondly unless the person is unconscious, they can refuse medical treatment.

Originally posted by Honor93
why was his behavior deemed menacing based on a perception when the only known fact at that moment was that he had an accident?

The accident, the failure to stop because of the accident, the speeding, the getting out of a car on a traffic stop and ignoring the deputy, walking away from the deputy, leaving his 2 children in the car, babbling incoherently, refusing the deputy who has a gun pointed at him......

Thats not enough to raise red flags for you?

Originally posted by Honor93
edit to add: after all, wasn't it also reported that he was speeding without any evidence?

Tell me what the spped limit is on the school parking lot, and then tell me how fast he was going?

Originally posted by Honor93
so let's say he was, just for fun, let's say he had a mild heart attack in that moment and his disappearance was merely to regain his composure ... still warrants a death sentence, eh?

No, and he was not having a heart attack. If he were, he wouldn't be walking away, and he certainly would be trying to get help from the deputy.. He did none of those things.

For those curious about Officer involved shootings -
Hollywood vs. Reality Officer Involved Shootings .

Originally posted by Honor93
again, since he was out of sight for several minutes and an accident had occurred, why no EMS?

The children were checked and were fine. The man was able to drive, get out of his vehicle and to walk away.
EMS will respond, however they are going to stage until law enforcement secures the scene.

Originally posted by Honor93
here's one more question: in my state, LEO will NOT respond to an auto accident on private property and here, some of that private property includes school and church parking lots, grocery stores, mini malls and the like ... so, what about this auto accident gave the LEO authority to even respond without offering assistance first ??

DWI / C and I / leaving the scene of an accident / property damage in excess of so much money (per state) / injury accident, all occurring on private property, will fall under law enforcement jurisdiction because the scenarios are not civil, they are criminal.

A motor vehicle accident, is just that, an accident, and is actually a civil issue between the drivers and their insurance companies. If a person shoots a person breaking into their house, why do the police respond? Its private property is it not?

Secondly Orange County schools use School resource officers in addition to sining agreements with local law enforcement where they can act on behalf of the school while on their property (trespassing included).

Originally posted by Honor93
look XCathdra, i'm not intentionally trying to be a pain in your side, i am truly trying to figure out how we as citizens overcome this without armed insurrection. IMHO, this has gotten way out of hand. heck, just a few months ago, the local 7-11, located on a major thoroughfare was robbed and LEO didn't even respond physically, they phoned it in.
i surely don't understand that one.

I have no issues with you being upset with the state of law enforcement in the US. It bugs the crap out of me also, which is one of the reason I take the time toe educate myself on laws and how the government operates at all levels.

I do take exception to the constant blanket view of law enforcement, and I blame the media, the citizens, and the police for the current issue.

The solution is communication in both directions, citizens to government / police and government / police responding, and engaging in dialog to not only identify the problems, but to trouble shoot on ways to fix the problems. It needs to be done in a way where all sides recognize where the other side is coming from, and taking time to put themselves in the other persons shoes.

What law enforcement sees as a problem might not be what the citizens see as a problem, and vice versa. The lack of communication is whats causing these issues, because both sides are becoming more and more paranoid and hostile towards each other.

Are their idiot cops? Absolutely
Are there idiot civilians? Absolutely?

Are all police and citizens idiots? Nope, and stereotyping doesn't help either side.

Learn the laws in your area, identify the problems the laws cause, and work to resolve it.

Participation is the solution.

Originally posted by Honor93
an x-roomie was pulled over 3 times inside 1.5 hours on his bicycle ride to work at 4:30 am. (5-6 days a wk)
none was for an infraction, he was told "he resembles what they've been told to be on the lookout for" ... so, we don't profile but that profile is the sole reason they stopped him. since when do LEOs give this much attention to a non-threat simply commuting to work ??? wth is going on

Its not profiling... Profiling is intentionally targeting a specific group of people and going out of there way in order to force contact with that group. Its one of the reason we are required to submit racial profiling information to the State government as well as the Federal government.

In your roomies case he is matching the description of a person they are looking for. In that instance, and investigative detention is valid. What the officers should have done was to put out his info to inform other officers he has already been checked. A threat and a suspect aren't mutually exclusive.

Originally posted by Honor93
in case i haven't been clear, i am interested in the case law that you claim supports your position, Constitutionally ... that way, i know exactly which laws need to be repealed, challenged, reversed or whatever is necessary to eliminate these gross abuses of our rights.

The laws you want have been posted, including case law. Local / state law enforcement (normal) aren't empowered to enforce federal law. We only enforce state / local. The FEderal law that governs our actions at this level is 42 USC 1983 - Civil rights violations (part of the civil rights act of 1964).

State and local laws can be challenged in municipal / circuit court. The feds have no jurisdiction when it comes to those laws until they have exhausted all options at the State level and its appealed to the federal level. When it goes to the federal appeals level the requirement is not based on the case at all. Its reviewed based on a challenge to the law in terms of legality and constitutional violations (due process, improper evidence resulting in flawed verdicts, judges making wrong decisions etc).

State laws / actions are checked against the US Constitution in the areas that apply to individual rights.


Thank you for toning the post down. I have no problems discussing / debating this with you. Im just tired of hitting a brick wall while trying to get the information out there that shows this side of the fence. Im not saying people have to accept it, but they should still learn it so they can better make their argument as to why the law needs to be changed.

knowledge is power, no matter how ridiculous some people think that knowledge is.


For those curious about Officer involved shootings -
Hollywood vs. Reality Officer Involved Shootings .

reply to post by Xcathdra

ah geez man, what does Senate direction have to do with this conversation?
Article I, Section 3, give it a rest will ya?

you are trying to misinterpret and misrepresent the Constitution and i'm beginning to think it's on purpose.

however, it is not i who is enveloped and entranced with law, that'd be you.
i am a Constitutionalist and am equally aware that the abuse of my rights defines current LEO procedure.

subversion comes in many forms but all of them stem from an evil source.

i'm familiar with some of the case law, not all, is kinda why i asked.
i have not had a personal need or desire to challenge the US government until most recently.

You are arguing it applies to the individual when in fact it does not. It applies to the government.

and that would be incorrect, it restricts governmental applications upon the individual.
it also encompasses specific rights to which these restrictions shall be applied.

again, it does apply to the individual AND the government.
it protects the individual while restricting the actions of government at the same time.

this situation, does not fit the criteria for exigent circumstance, no matter how it's twisted.

noooo, the officer is guilty of killing an unarmed man. that is absolute.
in a court of law, sure, he is perceived innocent until proven otherwise, however, he will always
be guilty of killing an unarmed man in front of his children.

ah yes, there's that perception thingy again ... so, how's that workin' out for most?
guilty of killing a man, perceived innocent ... got it.
guilty by perception, man is dead ... there's balance in this where?

your list of charges cannot be applied posthumously.
the man had an auto accident. there is NO -0- proof of anything else.

now, i'm not sure how you can equate appearance at an accident scene as a "traffic stop", however, it's wasn't called in that way. it was reported as a hit and run. why?

if an accident is classified a "traffic stop", then why was it reported as a crime in progress?

are cops so zealous to "catch a criminal" that they cannot differentiate between an accident and a crime in progress?

dangerous speeds doesn't count as it is totally subjective. no proof anywhere of such.
that vehicle could have plowed that fence at 10mph.

*** at this point i'm guessing you re-pasting my commentary without retort was an error on your part.
therefore, should you wish to continue, feel free.

so, just to make sure we're on the same page here ...
accident with children on board = child endangerment
accident with property damage = what again? intentional destruction of property?
(good luck proving it was intentional)
and lastly, if injured in an accident and you do not respond to authority, prepare to die ... got it.

thanks again for helping to minimize our risk.

as an afterthought ... i'm wondering, where does the "malicious intent" come into play here?
no one, not even the officer has or could claim Mr Loggins intended to crash the fence.
he certainly didn't intend on fleeing as he returned to the driver seat.
so, where is there any malicious intent requiring such a violent response?