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

reply to post by SyphonX

Yet here you are, a moderator, saying you'd shoot a cop. Curious.

What does me being a moderator have to do with who I might or might not shoot?

In the other thread, the off-duty cop got in the face of a pregnant woman, and then pulled his gun for no reason. Yes, in that instance, he would have hit the floor before he had a chance to give it a second thought. Nobody will ever get away with pointing a gun at my wife.

This thread is the flipside of that. Apparently this deputy had the similar thoughts, as in "no way I'm letting that erratic man get behind the wheel of that SUV with those girls inside."

reply to post by getreadyalready


I agree questions need to be addressed on both sides and only time will tell. His grounds for firing on the individual just don't seem solid to me.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Where you loose me is - how comethe only 2 options are seen to be either let someone get away and maybe, or maybe not, cause a problem, or alternatively, SHOOT THEM TO DEATH!

reply to post by getreadyalready


My four year old can come up with the damndest excuses and get his six year old brother to back him up when no one else is present to say differently. Cops do the same thing. No one else saw it but the cops and the kids. LA police have a notorious track record of doing just that. End result, murderers with badges andddd they get a paid vacation for doing so.

Go figure!

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by speculativeoptimist
Xcathdra, I am curious about factors that determine whether a dash cam recording makes it to utube or not. How come sometimes they do and other times they don't? I understand that there may not be an official release due to ongoing investigations, but how do some dash cam vids make it out?

Its dependent on Department policy however most state courts have ruled dash cam videos must be treated as and submitted as evidence if it was running during the officers duties. However sunshine laws / FOIA requests from the media often force the police to release the dash cam footage. If parts of it are critical to the investigation, portions of the video can be withheld. Usually (not always) the officer does not have access to his own dash cam. Usually a supervisor or evidence control officer will be one of the few with access to the dash cam material. People need to understand they aren't withholding video because they are trying to hide something. Its evidence, and can have a potential impact on any jury pool candidates.

Originally posted by speculativeoptimist
What is your opinion of this specific incident too, based on the given report thus far? I guess we have to get the right version first, because walking back to his vehicle is different than being inside the vehicle, which is what the 'updated' report convey.

From what I have read - crashed through a gate, high rate of speed, got out of vehicle - ignored all verbal commands, stated something to the deputy before he fired - I am thinking the guy possibly made a statement against his own self interest that could have placed the 2 kids in danger.

Again people need to be aware that police are forced to take a person they are dealing with at their word, regardless if its true. As an example if an officer is dealing with a person who claims to be very well trained in martial arts, then the officer will take the guy at his word, regardless if its true or not. It changes the dynamics of the encounter, allowing for the greater and faster use of force based on the new threat. If the guy says he has a gun, yet has no weapon visible in his hand, he will still be treated as if he has a weapon.

Originally posted by speculativeoptimist
Also, what could a person say to justify an officer shooting them, for words only? The only thing I can think of is "I have a bomb/gun and I'm going to kill you." Even this should only cause an officer to draw his weapon, not shoot it yet. Do any other words from a suspect justify a shoot first response? Does body language and facial expressions play a part? I would think the only justification for shooting to kill is if a weapon was seen first.
As I have mentioned, I don't have the facts, and will reserve judgement, but I am just curious about procedures.

Your examples are valid. Because other people were involved (the kids), the situation changes to protect them as well as the officers present / bystanders in the area. 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. Words / threats coupled with actions can justify a deadly use of force by an officer. As I said, and cant say it enough, its irrelevant if the suspect was lying. We must take the person at his word when ti comes to threats.

Its a split second decision - What would you do?

Originally posted by speculativeoptimist
Thanks,
spec

You're welcome.. Thank you for asking questions

Xcathdra I'm assuming you are a police officer of some sort? If so would you be comfortable disclosing how long you've been a police officer for? I ask because my father was a member of the RCMP in the 80's and he told me many stories of having to draw his weapon in certain situations but the policy (for him and his fellow constables at least) was to never pull the trigger unless you were 100% sure either your life was in danger or the life of someone else was in danger. I'm curious if this is a policy that is different regionally or if perhaps there is a trend in modern police work that sees the definition of "life threatening" somewhat loosened. I agree that there aren't enough publicly released facts to draw an astute conclusion here, but from the facts released, it would seem that shooting this man was not necessary. The whole thing smacks of shoddy police work imo.

Originally posted by Toffeeapple
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

Where you loose me is - how comethe only 2 options are seen to be either let someone get away and maybe, or maybe not, cause a problem, or alternatively, SHOOT THEM TO DEATH!

Well, I agree with you there. It seems the deputy should have been able to stay between the man and the SUV, and handle the situation more physically and less lethally. Especially if he already had backup on the scene.

Cops these days seem to have a problem with using their hands? I don't know why that is, but if it were me, I probably would have been more physical, earlier in the situation and hopefully it would never have come down to needing my gun.

Sort of reminds me of what sparked the London riots last year.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
The biggest takeaway of the story: Your opinion does not grant you the right to murder someone.

Unless the individual is offering a life threatening situation where either yourself is in clear, imminent, life threatening danger or another person is in such danger, you do NOT use lethal force.

The officer, with the given information, should be charged with murder.

You are absolutely correct, but as we all know this Deputy will go on paid/administrative leave and continue to receive his benefits until a "final decision" is reached. With O.C.'s history of disciplining its officers....that usually means nothing will ever happen.

Remember the retired sheriff's unarmed homeless son that was beaten in front of like 50 witnesses by 6 cops and died a week later from those injuries....that was O.C. too. Wonder what happened to those deputies

This is truly disgraceful and disgusting to the core.

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Originally posted by Toffeeapple
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

Where you loose me is - how comethe only 2 options are seen to be either let someone get away and maybe, or maybe not, cause a problem, or alternatively, SHOOT THEM TO DEATH!

Cops these days seem to have a problem with using their hands? I don't know why that is, but if it were me, I probably would have been more physical, earlier in the situation and hopefully it would never have come down to needing my gun.

They have problems using their hands because, these types are cowards...plain and simple.

Originally posted by Xcathdra


What we don't know -
* - What did he say to the deputy?
* - Was the guy suicidal / homicidal?
* - Was there any drugs / alcohol in his system?
* - Are there any issues in the guys personal life that affected his mental status?
* - Was there anything discovered in the vehicle of a criminal nature?
* - Were the kids harmed before the incident with the deputy?
- Was the suspect armed with any weapons visible or not?

etc etc etc...

Don't see how any of the above really matters now that the guy is dead.

Seems to be a case of shoot first and ask questions later.

Poor

How about;

Cuff him
Tazer him
Baton him
Shoot him in leg

To simply shoot somebody dead for no real reason is murder.

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Originally posted by Toffeeapple
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

Where you loose me is - how comethe only 2 options are seen to be either let someone get away and maybe, or maybe not, cause a problem, or alternatively, SHOOT THEM TO DEATH!

Well, I agree with you there. It seems the deputy should have been able to stay between the man and the SUV, and handle the situation more physically and less lethally. Especially if he already had backup on the scene.

Cops these days seem to have a problem with using their hands? I don't know why that is, but if it were me, I probably would have been more physical, earlier in the situation and hopefully it would never have come down to needing my gun.

Eureka!

(Oops! One word post)

reply to post by Xcathdra


This guy again...
Dude you get on EVERY cop post and try to justify MURDER by these pigs.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by stirling

 

If you dont mind me asking, where are people getting the info that the Officer new this guy was a Marine? Everything I have seen pointed out he was a Marine only after the encounter when the media started doing their thing.

so you don't think he ran the plates and had the answer delivered to his radio and laptop within seconds?

Allow me to say this as my reality.

I dont think all police are bad. I know some good ones here and there and i do understand the stress factor there in.

However, because i have run into a few unsavory cops i have concluded to see them as they see me. A potential threat to me and my families life.

The back of my vehicles has enough information for them to come professional or otherwise. I am not a soft target to them. Again i know their jobs are dangerous and so is mine. We will meet in the middle or make the news.

So yes, if ever i get stopped ( hasnt happened in years) i will have my hands on the steering wheel, car in park awaiting instructions and a good solid reason for being stopped aside from profiling.

Again. That respect goes both ways. I will not be disrespected nor willi allow it towards my family.

How long will this go on?

How many innocent people will be gunned down by war pigs?

reply to post by Domo1


www.youtube.com... can we get some clarification on they arent allowed to shoot to wound that guy seemed to get quite the compliments from his department for shooting that gun out of that suicidal mans hands,so is it normal patrol beat cops that cant shoot to wound or is it a blanket law that all police regardless of training cant shoot to wound?i understand this is a specialized sniper unit of the police but i was wondering if they have diffrent rules on shooting to wound/disarm vs shooting to kill

Originally posted by CaptainNemo
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

This guy again...
Dude you get on EVERY cop post and try to justify MURDER by these pigs.

And, apparently, you're on everyone of them too... and sounds like you have the same mindset on them all too, that cops are murderers (not saying you do, just that your statements sounds like you do). Seems to me every case should be approached from a neutral perspective which, it seems, both of you lack.

I wasn't going to comment but when I read your reply I couldn't resist.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by SyphonX

 

Yet here you are, a moderator, saying you'd shoot a cop. Curious.

What does me being a moderator have to do with who I might or might not shoot?

Forum cop! You're one of THEM! Come on.. admit it..

On topic: I haven't formed an opinion yet, I'm waiting on "the rest of the story". As we all should...


Oh wait! I guess that WAS an opinion.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Secondly what the hell is your problem? Are you really that big of an NTAC? As I stated in the other thread where you incorrectly judged the situation, just because you don't know and don't understand how the law works doesn't make an officers actions illegal.

Just when did the laws change then, my dear one?

Because just a short time ago, if you ever pulled a gun and someone was injured it went before hearing committees, and were very strict guidelines in which cases lethal force could be used.

No one, ever has the right to pull a weapon and shoot an unarmed man. This police officer should be in jail.

That is the law.

And if the law changed to accommodate the fascist CRIME of NWO, then its an illegal law.

In Canada, due to the erratic decisions of judges, and the time it can take to get justice carried out, some of the challenges that should have occurred didn't.

But the lawyer explained it simply. These things that violate basic law and constitution ARE CRIMES and it doesnt matter if a person is ignorant of the law, ANY EMPLOYEE WHO OBEYS THESE BILLS/LEGISLATIONS AND DOES THIS IS A CRIMINAL. FOR REAL.

I'm not a big fan of the globalist police force, they treat people like animals who need to be put down if they show the slightest sign of dissent. (Soviet Union)

The real enemy here is globalism, not the police enforcing "globalist law".