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

reply to post by Toffeeapple

why did the police man not disable him? Why do they always seem to shoot to kill

They are only allowed to shoot if it is to kill. Read a book. Educate yourself. At least Google. I am so tired of you cop haters with no idea of procedure or law pontificating about what could have been different, especially when your course of action would have been illegal.

Originally posted by Domo1

They are only allowed to shoot if it is to kill. Read a book. Educate yourself. At least Google. I am so tired of you cop haters

Dude, you are so full of .

You can lick the boots of cops while you are bent over.

Men don't do that, I don't care if he has a tin badge or not.

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by Toffeeapple

 

why did the police man not disable him? Why do they always seem to shoot to kill

They are only allowed to shoot if it is to kill. Read a book. Educate yourself. At least Google. I am so tired of you cop haters with no idea of procedure or law pontificating about what could have been different, especially when your course of action would have been illegal.

I am tired of murder defenders.

This is news to me - I live in England, and the idea that cops can only shoot if they intend to kill is news to me, and if it's true, then it needs to be changed. I read books every day btw, so keep your ignorant personal remarks to yourself - you're the one who referred to the English as the wierdos over the sea the other day. You're very rude and racist.

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by Alexander the Great

 

But they just watched their father be murdered.

How do you know he was murdered? I would be careful about what you say here. If I were to interpret that as a death threat against the officer and report it it could become a hassle for you.

are you serious ??
perhaps then it should read ... they just witnessed their father being gunned down in a disgusting display of bravado that they will literally pay for, for the remainder of their lives ... better?

and as for that promotion, i would tend to agree.

first, many officers tested our limits with our pets, remember ??
then, the officers tested our resolve with OWS ... now, it's become a free for all and i do hope those in the fire lines value their families over their paychecks and masters, cause it will come to that and unfortunately, i'd bet sooner vs later.

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by Alexander the Great

 

But they just watched their father be murdered.

How do you know he was murdered? I would be careful about what you say here. If I were to interpret that as a death threat against the officer and report it it could become a hassle for you.

I will not be carfeul when i say...

i know he was murdered because he is dead...


It may not be dressed as First degree.. second degree.. etc.

Still murder, takena nother life when the guy wasnt armed, and even being mentally or physically threatening, shooting an unarmed person is always murder.. just is....

poor guy. if he lived in turkey, he never get shot for this. our police talking only looks like police in usa equal to god. you must obey or get shot/die.

Originally posted by Honor93
hello X,
thought you'd drop by here, eventually. i give ya credit for sharing some legal aspects others should know but i offer you the most accolades for finally including this gem of truth along the way ... for those who may have missed it --

As I point out that others get irritated with - an officers use of force is based on what the officer perceived at the moment force was used. Its not a blanket license to kill as some suggest and the officer is required to specifically describe the threat in detail to justify his actions.

perception does not equate to a threat ... never has, never will.

Heya...
In the case of a law enforcement officer in the course of their duties it is perception. Because of the fluid nature of the encounters that can create a split second decision, a use of force is very much based on officers perception.

The reasoning behind it, and many are going to go nuts with me stating this, is the expectation of a civilian to to listen and follow the directions of the officer. Failure to do that very much gives off the perception of an escalating situation.

Originally posted by Honor93
perception is equally distributed ... in other words, if i perceive you to be a threat then i have equal right to pre-emptively kill you, correct?

Yes and No - If you are stating you as a civilian and me as a uniformed officer then no, you would not be able to pre-emptivley kill me (and the often mentioned supreme court rulings that state otherwise are from 1893 and 1900 and new case law has made those rulings obsolete).

For a civilian - You have a duty to retreat if you can safely do so in some states. You can defend yourself and others if there is no safe retreat option available. For the other states you can stand your ground. Like police you will be required to justify your actions, and must articulate the reasoning behind the decision, just as law enforcement.

Because of the training law enforcement recieves, and taking the job requirements into account, there is a seperate set of laws / case laws that govern police. I can go into detail but it would be an entire page plus of info, so unless people really want an indepth comparison let me know). Long story short the laws in place nation wide allow law enforcement to escalate force to one level above the current situation. That is not so for civilians because they are not empowered to enforce the law in the same manner as police.

Originally posted by Honor93
at least, that's what you are implying, although i beg to differ because actions based on perceptions are usually as wrong as the perception.

The US Supreme Court doesn't agree with that view. They acknowledge that law enforcement officers face such situations that a restrictive but broad approach was required. Hence the what the officer perceived at the exact moment force was used. Just because the officer percieves someone as a threat, doesnt mean their actions are justified, hence the varying levels of investigations in these types of incidents.

- Criminal Local / State
- Policy
- Federal

Originally posted by Honor93
and, let's not forget ... dead men don't tell lies ... never have, never will but cops, well ... we all know their track record.

Actually we don't. What we DO know is there are officers out there who dirty the uniform by behaving in a manner that is inconsistent with the level of trust and authority the public has temporarily granted them.

Originally posted by Honor93
children (at least of that age) and specifically, emotionally distraught ones make for very bad witnesses and are frequently intimidated with great ease.

Which is why we use (in my state, its other names in other states) a CACS interview method. A safe enviornment, professionals trained in interviewing children on a level they understand. Children are very succeptible to "suggestive answers" IE if a question is asked wrong, the child may answer simply because they think thats what the adult wants to hear.

Originally posted by Honor93
and if that's not enough, just to re-iterate your confession

Its not a blanket license to kill as some suggest and the officer is required to specifically describe the threat in detail to justify his actions.

in layman's english that means -- tell a good tale

No, it means you better have all your ducks in a row, cross your t's and dot the lower case j's. Thank you though for again stereotyping.. Its suych a rarely used technique on this site, specifically with law enforcement.

Rule of thumb for Police. If you are going to engage in an activity you would not want to be shown on tv, then this line of work is not for you.

Originally posted by Honor93
and only a true psychopath would believe such, remember, dead men don't tell lies.

Ah yes more stereotyping.

Originally posted by Honor93
my sincerest condolences to the children and other family left behind. there are no words to express my total disillusionment of the way of life we once held dear.

What way of life was that? The late 1800's with the wild west and tit for tat violence? The 1900-1930's with the mob killing people left and right and walking around with submachine guns intimidating the population? The 1940's-1960's where if you were a color other than white or were anything but a true patriot you were nothing and suspect to Mcarthyism? The 1970s-1980's where the policy of beat and release was valid and went unchecked? The 1990's where new technology forced law enforcement to be held more accountible for their actions.

Please explain which time period you meant and the dear times people had during them. By the way as the population grows so does contact with law enforcement. As technology changes, what was once reported in a 30 minute block at 6pm once a day is now reported on a 24 hour cycle.

With the change in technology comes the new rush to judgment and even more impressive monday morning quarter backing from people who don;t know or understand the law...

Originally posted by Tw0Sides
No, you are wrong yet again.
Please don't compare me to that piece of s... cop.

I didn't.. I merely pointed out you are behaving in a manner that you disdain the police for.

Originally posted by Tw0Sides
I am Joe Citizen. I go through daily life without a gun, and once in awhile I find myself in "dangerous" situations deal with it the best way I can.

IAll the more reason not to monday morning quarterback / jump to a conclusion for a situation you know nothing about.

Originally posted by Tw0Sides
I have never killed someone for the Crime of "not listening to me"
I have never had to tie some ones hands together, and with the help of five close friends "teach him a lesson".

neither have I, neither have the officers I work with. Once again, stereotyping and jumping to a conclusion through monday morning quarterback doesnt make you morally superior. All it does is allow you to look like a fool by chiming in with comments you cant support or have nothing to do with what happened.

Originally posted by Tw0Sides
So no, dont compare me to a cop, I haven't sunk that low.

I thin you mean you haven't risen to their level.

no worries though, ive been called worse by better. Again though props on your ability to obfuscate everything in the post and try to change the topic by again brinig up something unrelated to the post. Ironic its a tactic you accuse law enforcement of.

Pot... kettle...

The guy was not shot in the back, as you stated,

reply to post by TheRealTruth84



He will, a paid vacation on our dime.

U

reply to post by GonzoSinister


Let me end the debate for everyone on this particular tug of war.

Any time a person life is ended its either listed as suicide, natural causes, or homicide, unknown etc..

If its homicide, its either justifiable homicide or criminal homicide etc.... Even people who are executed from death row have homicide as a cause of death. I dont and never will advocate creating categories for cause of death. Doing that would very quickly dehumanize the situation since the perception would be in some peoples minds that if its not homicide, I must be ok in my action.

The terms murder / manslaughter / etc are the legal breakdowns that take into account the various situation facts that resulted in death. If a person is speeding, hits a car and kills the person, there was no intent but there was still criminal negligence = charge with a lesser crime.

Food for thought -
Wiki - Autopsy

Forensic autopsy

A forensic autopsy is used to determine the cause of death. Forensic science involves the application of the sciences to answer questions of interest to the legal system. In United States law, deaths are placed in one of five manners:
Natural
Accident
Homicide
Suicide
Undetermined

.....................

Specifically for Homicide you have -

1 Justifiable homicide
2 Criminal homicide
3 State-sanctioned homicide

#1 - Self defense / defense of others
#2 - actions resulting in death were not justified IE police using deadly force when the situation doesn't warrant it.
#3 - Execution of a death row inmate.

Hope this helps...

reply to post by Toffeeapple

I am tired of murder defenders. This is news to me - I live in England, and the idea that cops can only shoot if they intend to kill is news to me, and if it's true, then it needs to be changed.

I'm not defending a murderer. I am defending a person who has yet to face trial. Innocent until proven guilty is sort of a thing here. You don't even have both sides of the story yet are so quick to condemn.

There is a very good reason cops are only allowed to shoot to kill. It is actually to protect the person they are shooting at/bystanders. Think how scary it would be if cops could shoot to injure, but kept accidentally nailing people in the head. 'My bad, just trying for the leg and I missed.'

I'm glad you read daily. That's wonderful. I don't think I'm racist, and being against a country would not make me so. A nation is not a race. Perhaps Calvin and Hobbs don't teach that in their books. I actually love the English. I also love Canadians. And Americans. I also poke some gentle fun here and there.

reply to post by Domo1


I've heard it all now! Cops are only allowed to shoot to kill, to protect the people they're shooting at!?! This is so bereft of logic or common sense that I don't know how to respond. It's no wonder the police there are out of control.

I wonder if that would stand up in a court of law if a civilian murdered someone 'for their own protection'. #.

It reminds me of the policeman who tasered a retarded man to death on his bicycle the other week, because they were worried he might be injured.

Here's a tip - if you don't make it clear your comments are tongue-in-cheek, calling the British, "Those wierdos over the sea", does not come across as warm and fuzzy.


I've decided to interpret all your comments on this thread as tongue-in-cheek.

reply to post by Xcathdra

thanks for your in depth response but i'm gonna have to disagree with most of it and here's why ...

The reasoning behind it, and many are going to go nuts with me stating this, is the expectation of a civilian to to listen and follow the directions of the officer. Failure to do that very much gives off the perception of an escalating situation.

i do hope you'll permit me to disagree with such false and illogical reasoning or you'll have to agree with the following ...
so, what you're saying is cops are paid to perceive and eliminate whereas i believe they are paid to identify and neutralize a real threat.

you know, protect society not plink'em like a carnival attraction.
personally, i find their "expectations" a bit over-reaching.

now, i understand the fluidity factor totally, however, a threat is a threat, it is NOT a perception.
whomever employed this line of "reasoning" should be examined by a professional as they are far from it.

now, if we can agree to disagree about the "reasoning", i'd be curious which laws apply to said reasoning.
point being ... and sorry, back to the Constitution ... if it applies for cops, then it applies for everyone else ... hence the 2nd amendment.

now let's be clear here, case law is of no interest to a Constitutionalist like myself.
case law has err'd many, upon many times over the years.
case law belongs in a court room, not in this current discussion.
we are talking about the most basic right, the right to life ... period.

so, as your statement separates us via citizen vs leo, i beg to differ with you based on the US Constitution.
please understand, i am not arguing law, rather natural, unalienable rights.

thank you for explaining the legal speak behind the actions of some but that still does not justify this particular lunatics behavior.

there should be NO SEPARATE LAWS governing police, period.
WE ARE EQUAL, remember?

but this of course establishes the true playing field, doesn't it?

Long story short the laws in place nation wide allow law enforcement to escalate force to one level above the current situation. That is not so for civilians because they are not empowered to enforce the law in the same manner as police.

in other words, cops can antagonize, demoralize, belittle or become aggressive with the sole intent of escalation and that's OK.

however, even though citizens are granted the power to "arrest" another citizen [District of Columbia Law 23- 582(b)], somehow we aren't sharing equal "authority" with the PD?
that's reeks of imbalance, can we at least agree on that?

regardless of any SC ruling, i will never agree that "perception" is any kind of a clear and present danger to anyone. actions based on perception are usually wrong anyway.

Actually we don't. What we DO know is there are officers out there who dirty the uniform by behaving in a manner that is inconsistent with the level of trust and authority the public has temporarily granted them.

^^^ you are welcome to your denial but i assure you, many of us do know, without a doubt and have known for generations.

yes, i've been present for one of those interrogations you mentioned, as a minor and the victim even, so please, don't go there.

nice twist to the layman's definition but do try to remember, 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)

where i come from ...

it means you better have all your ducks in a row, cross your t's and dot the lower case j's.

that is exactly what "telling a good tale" means, especially when there is no counter-story to be told. that side of the story died, remember?

reply to post by Xcathdra

oooops, missed all of this ...

Rule of thumb for Police. If you are going to engage in an activity you would not want to be shown on tv, then this line of work is not for you.

Originally posted by Honor93
and only a true psychopath would believe such, remember, dead men don't tell lies.


Ah yes more stereotyping.


Originally posted by Honor93
my sincerest condolences to the children and other family left behind. there are no words to express my total disillusionment of the way of life we once held dear.


What way of life was that? The late 1800's with the wild west and tit for tat violence? The 1900-1930's with the mob killing people left and right and walking around with submachine guns intimidating the population? The 1940's-1960's where if you were a color other than white or were anything but a true patriot you were nothing and suspect to Mcarthyism? The 1970s-1980's where the policy of beat and release was valid and went unchecked? The 1990's where new technology forced law enforcement to be held more accountible for their actions.

Please explain which time period you meant and the dear times people had during them. By the way as the population grows so does contact with law enforcement. As technology changes, what was once reported in a 30 minute block at 6pm once a day is now reported on a 24 hour cycle.

With the change in technology comes the new rush to judgment and even more impressive monday morning quarter backing from people who don;t know or understand the law...
edit on 14-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

so, stereotyping ??? are your reaching for straws now?
psychopath is not a stereotype, it's a diagnosis and a true threat to every sane, compassionate being, everywhere.
well, it's a known fact that dead men don't tell lies and layman's definitions of PC double-speak isn't stereotyping either, so, are you out of meds tonight?

why does my "way of life" concern you?
what if it was the 1600s or the 1800s or the 1970s, what difference does it make, it ain't anywhere near relative to the nonsense we are subjected to on a daily basis today.
1990s, held more accountable ???? surely you jest.

more exposed maybe, but certainly not accountable, not by a longshot.
the only thing really growing these days are immigrant and police populations and you think the natives have no reason to be restless???
so, how'd that work out for the American Indians long ago?

we are not discussing the invalid laws you support, we are discussing the BASIC RIGHT to LIFE, there is no law greater than that.
and once again, my heart goes out to those girls who will suffer this travesty for a lifetime.

reply to post by speculativeoptimist


I agree that the media can defentially distort tbe truth and paint a pretty picture, also that this has been happening a lot, never in my life in the past two years have i heard more stories about people being killed by policemen. Either way I believe theres a procedure that was broken...for instance you might if you were a smart officer ask somebody if they have any weapons on them and to get out of the car and then pat down, I also am guessing the multiple shots will hold weight against the officer in court...

What a terrible loss... my heart goes out to the family losing a father, too bad this country is falling into shoot first ask later, what happened to the days when policemen were polite and courageous... now they are murders

Originally posted by Honor93
thanks for your in depth response but i'm gonna have to disagree with most of it and here's why ... i do hope you'll permit me to disagree ....snipped for room

Nothing wrong with disagreeing.. I prefer it since it increases the odds that both of us will learn something.
NIJ - Law Enforcement Use of Force
Uhm - No, thats not what I am saying at all.

Originally posted by Honor93
you know, protect society not plink'em like a carnival attraction. personally, i find their "expectations" a bit over-reaching.

Protecting society will sometimes require the use of deadly force. There were 2 children in the car. Just because they are children, does not preclude an officer from protecting them.
Did this officer perceive a threat? yes he did.
What was it based on? Crashing through a locked gate, speeding through the parking lot all the while 2 children are in the car, getting out of the car once he was puled over, ignoring the verbal commands of the officer and walking away while he left his 2 children in the car, disappearing for 5 minutes, returning and again refusing to comply with officer commands.

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

Originally posted by Honor93
now, i understand the fluidity factor totally, however, a threat is a threat, it is NOT a perception.
whomever employed this line of "reasoning" should be examined by a professional as they are far from it.

Hypothetical - You are an officer who just pulled over a person for speeding. The guy gets out of his car and starts walking towards you. You see he has something in his hands but arent sure what it is, all the while you have your duty weapon pointed at him and giving commands. He refuses all of that -

What would you perceive? I would take those actions and perceive them as a threat. This is why law enforcement actions can not be reviewed in a 20/20 hind sight manner.

Originally posted by Honor93
now, if we can agree to disagree about the "reasoning", i'd be curious which laws apply to said reasoning.
point being ... and sorry, back to the Constitution ... if it applies for cops, then it applies for everyone else ... hence the 2nd amendment.

The State constitutions also apply. As do all local / state laws as well as case laws. Not all amendments apply to the individual by the way. The 4th amendment applies to the government, not the individual.

Originally posted by Honor93
now let's be clear here, case law is of no interest to a Constitutionalist like myself.
case law has err'd many, upon many times over the years.
case law belongs in a court room, not in this current discussion.
we are talking about the most basic right, the right to life ... period.

Then you are ok with slavery and denying women the right to vote? Case law is what applied the federal constitution to the States. Case law is what allows a person to challeneg law enforcement actions using the 4th amendment. It states no where in the Constitution that a person who is stopped in a car, arrested or shot and killed is covered under the 4th amendment.

Case law made it applicable.

Originally posted by Honor93
so, as your statement separates us via citizen vs leo, i beg to differ with you based on the US Constitution.
please understand, i am not arguing law, rather natural, unalienable rights.

No I understand your position and respect it. 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. I agree rulings can be flawed and thats when the people should participate ain government and work to have it changed.

Originally posted by Honor93
thank you for explaining the legal speak behind the actions of some but that still does not justify this particular lunatics behavior.

Until he is proven guilty in a court of law it does. Respectfully we dont have the entire story.

Originally posted by Honor93
there should be NO SEPARATE LAWS governing police, period.
WE ARE EQUAL, remember?

In every way except for profession. As I pointed out, there are laws that cover kidnapping / assault. If there was no seperate law specifically geard towards law enforcement, then we could never make an arrest. Secondly, the 4th amendment does not apply to the individual, so we already have an established precident for seperate laws for law enforcement / government.

Originally posted by Honor93
in other words, cops can antagonize, demoralize, belittle or become aggressive with the sole intent of escalation and that's OK.

Nio im not saying that. What I am saying is by not allowing for escalation, it would become a game of tic tac toe. Yes its possible to win, but the majority of the time its a stalemate. Law Enforcement is allowed to escalate in order to overcome the resistance present.

Originally posted by Honor93
however, even though citizens are granted the power to "arrest" another citizen [District of Columbia Law 23- 582(b)], somehow we aren't sharing equal "authority" with the PD?
that's reeks of imbalance, can we at least agree on that?

No where in the Constituion does it state a citizen can make an arrest. It also states anything not specifically listed for the Federal Government is reserved to the states.

the statute you linked by the way is applicable only to the district of Columbia. A citizens power of arrest is established and defined by the State government, not the police.

Originally posted by Honor93
regardless of any SC ruling, i will never agree that "perception" is any kind of a clear and present danger to anyone. actions based on perception are usually wrong anyway.

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

Originally posted by Honor93
yes, i've been present for one of those interrogations you mentioned, as a minor and the victim even, so please, don't go there.

Respectfully I will because your encounter does not mean all encounters go that way.

Originally posted by Honor93
nice twist to the layman's definition but do try to remember, 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)

Without a full understanding of the law, how can you make that determination? You state you are a strict constitutionalist, which presents the problem of being biased, rejecting police reports because the actions don't fit with your view on law.

Having that view is fine and I respect it, however it ignores the law, which is something people want to hold the police accountible for.

Is that not a double standard?

Originally posted by Honor93
where i come from ...

it means you better have all your ducks in a row, cross your t's and dot the lower case j's.

that is exactly what "telling a good tale" means, especially when there is no counter-story to be told. that side of the story died, remember?

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 ofthe story and not the counter-story.

Originally posted by Honor93
so, stereotyping ??? are your reaching for straws now?

Werent you the one who stated you have read police reports and that they are all wrong / lies? Since you have never reead any of my reports, you would be stereotyping.

Originally posted by Honor93
well, it's a known fact that dead men don't tell lies and layman's definitions of PC double-speak isn't stereotyping either, so, are you out of meds tonight?

I dont take meds, but thank you for stereotyping me as being mentally imbalanced.
PC double speak - again stereotyping.

Originally posted by Honor93
why does my "way of life" concern you?

It doesn't...

Originally posted by Honor93
what if it was the 1600s or the 1800s or the 1970s, what difference does it make, it ain't anywhere near relative to the nonsense we are subjected to on a daily basis today.
1990s, held more accountable ???? surely you jest.

Im sorry but please show me where people living in those times periods ,minus the 1970's in the US but not abroad, allowed people the presumption of innocence, due process, the right to be notified of the charges, to ahve access to the evidence being used against you...

So I guess you would be right since what we are subjected to today is a lot better than the time periods you listed.

Originally posted by Honor93
more exposed maybe, but certainly not accountable, not by a longshot.

See above comments.

Originally posted by Honor93
the only thing really growing these days are immigrant and police populations and you think the natives have no reason to be restless???

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

Originally posted by Honor93
so, how'd that work out for the American Indians long ago?

Good question.. Feel free to ask the Europeans since they are the ones who shipped people to the new world.

Originally posted by Honor93
we are not discussing the invalid laws you support, we are discussing the BASIC RIGHT to LIFE, there is no law greater than that.

We will agree to disagree. I find your position to be invalid as well so no worries. As far as right to life I agree. What about the 2 children in the cars right to life? What about a fatality DWI accident and the right to life?

As a side note -
If you have specific questions you want my opinion on let me know. My massive wall of text responding is giving me a headache and im sure putting off some people in the thread. That way I can concentrate on the parts that interest you and go from there.

Thanks for asking questions by the way. I respect the fact you don't agree while taking the time to engage in a debate.

*** If anyone was rsponding to my large posts I ended up splitting it into 2 posts to tone down the wall of text. ***

What did he get for punishment? Slap on the wrist i assume.