School teacher killed by police for rolling up her car window

[hillbilly123069]

Admin's plz put this story where ever you think it belongs. 2 sides of the story here. I'm kind of biased myself. The 54yo unarmed woman kind of made it so. It's just another disgusting example law enforcement members not living up to the oath they took. More to write my congressman about, city council members, county board members, etc.
http://wusa9.com/news/article/189808/373/Witness-To-Fatal-Police-Shooting-Says-Officer-Was-Not-Dragged

[Seraphim]

TPTB have trained cops to be animals - they WANT a war. It's that simple.

[Gary4Liberty]

let that be a lesson to you all. OBEDIENCE! Thats murder. He should get life for that and his captain should be fired too.

[squarepusher]

sad sad sad

[Czolgosz]

Cops are known liars.

[libertyjam]

THis should have gone to General politics with all the other stories like it, or at least Indi. Liberty section

[Cabal]

This is what happens when there is a monopoly on force.

[mrsat_98]

TPTB have trained cops to be animals - they WANT a war. It's that simple.

TPTB have induced the cess pool we call government to believe it has authority to consider us all animals. Sometimes it is worthwhile to shoot back.

http://www.google.com/search?q=fred+ensminger+william+grigg&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

[Brian Coulter]

That witness had better watch his back. If they have no qualms about shooting a 54 year old house wife they won't have a problem taking his ass out either.

[The Bavarian]

Don't mess with the gestapo.

[heavenlyboy34]

And people fear private security. :rolleyes: Government murder is so much more legitimate. /sarcasm :(

[Cyberbrain]

According to Virginia State Police, at approximately 10 a.m. Thursday, Culpeper Police got a call about a suspicious women sitting in a Jeep Wrangler in a church parking lot in the 300 block of North East Street. The officer started talking to Patricia A. Cook, 54, of Culpeper. State police say that for some reason, while the officer was trying to get her identification, Cook "suddenly closed her driver's side window trapping the officer's arm and started driving away dragging the officer alongside."

How in the hell do you SUDDENLY get your arm trapped in a side window when you're getting someone's ID? That's the best they could come up with I guess. Makes me furious, I grew up right near there.

[noneedtoaggress]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSPhC916GQM

and a bonus:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gqG6-3wHkQA

[camp_steveo]

I would like to see the dash-cam video.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

And yet another cop gets away with murder, literally.

[Gary4Liberty]

so what is this officers name who murdered this woman?

[MooCowzRock]

*makes violently ugly anti-cop comments before knowing the whole story*

[fisharmor]

*makes violently ugly anti-cop comments before knowing the whole story*

Once upon a time, a cop killed a woman. Nobody doubted this. The story the cops came up with to justify it was the most hole-riddled pile of bullshit that the VA state police ever told. All the law enforcement thugs in the land jumped to his defense, as well as most public-school brainwashed tax cattle and even some people on RPF.
The cop lived to a ripe old age and got to commit all sorts of other atrocities, and lived happily ever after.
The end.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Better start believing in the police state. The police do. Now we have the FBI and DHS encouraging them. Maybe she was playing "word games" or something.

[HOLLYWOOD]

TPTB have trained cops to be animals - they WANT a war. It's that simple.Appears to be happening in every country across the globe where there is unrest/peaceful protests.

Keep in mind most police departments have lawyers review police reports PRIOR to submitting the OFFICIAL report. That's why cameras are the Citizen's best defense against organized state crimes. Sounds like 2 weeks of paid vacation for the killer while the propaganda machine at the DA's office reviews the case... SOP

You know it's BS, because LE would not stick their arms in anyone's vehicles... always at a safe distance in a defensive position.

What's the law on lying again? Oh, sorry that only effects the victim, uh I mean the citizen.

[youngbuck]

His arm was caught in the window? That window must have shot up extremely fast for the cop to not have time to pull his arm out.

I hope the truth comes out, and, if need be, the cop is charged with murder.

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

Wow this is terrible, and the cops story does not sound credible at all.

[milo10]

You know it's BS, because LE would not stick their arms in anyone's vehicles... always at a safe distance in a defensive position.

Very good point.

This whole story is bizarre.

[Anti Federalist]

Crime?

Contempt of Cop.

Sentence?

Immediate on scene execution.

Always keep this in mind, when having any sort of encounter with these psychopaths.



"He was right next to the vehicle. He had one hand on the door handle and one hand on his weapon. And she was rolling the window up. And they were exiting out of the parkng lot.

The window was half way up he said 'stop or I'll shoot.' I really didn't think he was going to do it. But she got the window all the way up and that's when he shot. And then she took a left out of the parking lot here and he stepped out in the street and fired five more times," said Buchele.

Buchele says the officer was not dragged and that he shot her before she drove away. He says he didn't have his arm caught because the officer's left hand was on the door handle and right hand was holding a weapon. Also, he says he distinctly saw her roll up the window all the way before the officer shot out the glass and killed her.

Now you know.

Too bad you weren't paying closer attention before this happened.


"I'm angry, frustrated, sad, and fighting back tears right now, " said Gary Cook, Pat's husband of eight years. He doesn't understand why a police officer would shoot his unarmed wife multiple times.

"Personally I think it may be an overreaction, maybe excessive force, but I can only surmise that," Cook said.

[Gary4Liberty]

still no name of the cop or name of the supervisor?

[bolil]

THis is what happens when the law is used to promote, rather that inhibit, injustice. Monopoly or not. This pig needs to be punished. He should be ostracized from society in earnest, he should be imprisoned in the Gang unit.

[Anti Federalist]

See Something, Say Something.



According to Virginia State Police, at approximately 10 a.m. Thursday, Culpeper Police got a call about a suspicious women sitting in a Jeep Wrangler in a church parking lot in the 300 block of North East Street.

[Reason]

That witness had better watch his back. If they have no qualms about shooting a 54 year old house wife they won't have a problem taking his ass out either.

That's what I was thinking...

[NidStyles]

Who wants to bet this guy was a Veteran of Iraq, and was diagnosed with PTSD?

[JudgeNapFan]

This is where I'll miss 'Freedom Watch' with Judge Nap the most. He could have a whole show just on abuses.

[DamianTV]

This is where I'll miss 'Freedom Watch' with Judge Nap the most. He could have a whole show just on abuses.

It would have to be an Hour Long Daily Program, not just One Episode. And that still would only cover SOME of the Injustices committed by Police.

If these so called Enforcers of the Law were Elected to their positions instead of filling out a job application with lower standards than being able to work at McDonalds, they would have to be Accountable for their actions.

[AFPVet]

He needs to be indicted for murder. He knowingly or intentionally fired his weapon with the mens rea of killing the victim. This was not a crime of passion or justifiable homicide. He calmly fired through the glass and fired five additional times after the vehicle was in motion. They claimed that the woman attempted to close his arm in the window and drag him. If that were true, he would have only fired the one shot... not shooting her multiple times after the threat passed.

[fisharmor]

He needs to be indicted for murder. He knowingly or intentionally fired his weapon with the mens rea of killing the victim. This was not a crime of passion or justifiable homicide. He calmly fired through the glass and fired five additional times after the vehicle was in motion. They claimed that the woman attempted to close his arm in the window and drag him. If that were true, he would have only fired the one shot... not shooting her multiple times after the threat passed.

Those rules apply only to you, peasant.

[Khun Jean]

"just'us"
Celente

[jmdrake]

Sad. I wonder how much bullet proof car windows cost?

[aGameOfThrones]

The window was half way up he said 'stop or I'll shoot.' I really didn't think he was going to do it. But she got the window all the way up and that's when he shot. And then she took a left out of the parking lot here and he stepped out in the street and fired five more times," said Buchele.




‘That’s why I’m a cop, I can do whatever I want to do.’”

Off Duty cop executes man in bar for saying he "sucked at darts" (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?341916-Off-Duty-cop-executes-man-in-bar-for-saying-he-quot-sucked-at-darts-quot&highlight=darts)

//

[Hospitaller]

See Something, Say Something.

wow.

[squarepusher]

lets put this man on a paid vacation and get to the bottom of this! Giev him desk duty if it turns out to be his fault!

[squarepusher]

See Something, Say Something.

suspicious woman in a church parking lot!! teacher her a lesson!!

[DamianTV]

See Something, Say Something.

Yeah, I got something to say after what I saw. I saw a Cop doing something Illegal, so what I will say I will say to anyone that isnt a Cop: DONT EVER CALL THE FUCKING COPS!

That would be the Something I have to Say.

[Gary4Liberty]

Sad. I wonder how much bullet proof car windows cost?

and I wonder if you had bullet proof windows and the bullet bounces off your window and kills the officer you know they would charge you with murder..

[LibForestPaul]

I would like to see the dash-cam video.

Yes, why has it not been released for the public to view. I am sure the dash cam was fully functional, the tape has not been lost, and it completely exonerates the cop.

[TheTexan]

This is just disgusting. Anyone want to lay odds on whether or not this cop spends a day in prison?

[Anti Federalist]

bump

[GraniteHills]

Ah, Culpepper, VA. Anyone familiar with The Case for Innocence will recognize the name of that place, and remember that cops there helped screw a man out of 17 years of his life.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Earl_Washington.php

[JK/SEA]

This story dropping into the deep dark abyss in 3..2..1...

Anyone up for a rousing abortion debate?

[AGRP]

Maybe she was behaving irrationally and had children in her car? Oh wait. That's another excuse.

[Kylie]

Any updates on this?

[Gary4Liberty]

if the husband is so afraid of the cops that he remains polite and understanding after his wife was gunned down in cold blood because the cops wee wee is too small, then I think its safe to say that nothing is going to happen to the cop. Its a corrupt town like in Breaker Breaker with Chuck Norris. Where is Chuck Norris when you need him? Oh wait, I think he is voting for Gingrich. Well where is one of his ass kicking characters when you need one?

[Anti Federalist]

This story dropping into the deep dark abyss in 3..2..1...

Anyone up for a rousing abortion debate?

No kidding...or a same sex marriage thread or anacap vs. minarchist thread.

[Gary4Liberty]

"and nobody seems to care and nobody seems to notice"..... george carlin

[Anti Federalist]

Any updates on this?

The cops are leaning on the witness and claiming he changed his story. The eyewitness denies it.

Of course, the cop car's dashcam video was "not working".



Va. State Police Say Kris Buchele Of Culpeper Changed His Story About Officer-Involved Shooting

10:05 PM, Feb 14, 2012

http://wusa9.com/news/article/190763/188/Va-State-Police-Say-Kris-Buchele-Of-Culpeper-Changed-His-Story-About-Officer-Involved-Shooting

CULPEPER, Va. (WUSA) - State police say Kris Buchele changed his story about what he saw Thursday morning when a five-year Culpeper police officer shot and killed 54-year-old Patricia Cook. Buchele says he told state police and reporters the same thing...then and now... that the officer's arm was not stuck in Cook's window and he was never dragged.

WITNESS: OFFICER NOT DRAGGED BEFORE SHOOTING

"His left hand was on the door handle and his right hand was on his gun, they were close together, you know. " says Buchele. He says he never saw the officer arm in the window. He says he heard the officer shout, "Stop, or I'll shoot!" and that he assumed the officer meant stop moving the car. Then, suddenly, the officer fired right at Cook, shattering the driver's window. Buchele says he was stunned the officer fired... and continued firing as Cook drove up the street.

"This is a residential area, he could've hit somebody else," says Buchele.

The Culpeper town spokesperson says the officer's cruiser did have a video camera, but that it was not working. He also said the officer did not turn on his blue lights. If he had, it would've been a sign that he was detaining the person, says attorney and former Fairfax County Police officer Ted Sibert .

If the person is not being detained, she should be free to go, Sibert says.

"What is he investigating? if its just for we call a suspicious person, then he doesn't have jusification to use force to maintain the contact. So if the person wants to roll the window up, they can. He can't be sticking his hand in the window or pulling someone out of the the car or open the door. Those all need justification," Sibert says.

Sibert says that before an officer tries to stop or detain someone, he needs reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred or is about to occur. Trespassing is not sufficient, especially if the person is trying to get off the property. Furthermore, to charge someone with trespassing, you'd need proof the person knew she was trespassing. Was it clearly marked? Did the property owner tell the person to leave?

Sibert says if the officer did put his arm in the window, he needs to have reasonable suspicion a crime was committed or about to be committed. Virginia State Police have said nothing about why the officer was detaining Cook in the first place,or, in other words, why he was putting his hand in her window, if in fact that's what he did.

Pat Cook's husband Gary Cook says she was a retired cosmetologist. He says she told him she was just going to run errands that day. He has no idea what she was doing in the Catholic school parking lot. Cook believes the officer may have used excessive force. He is seeking legal counsel.


Husband suing the town. (some of the pro cop comments are pretty frightening)



Widower to pursue lawsuit

By: By Steven Butler and Allison Brophy Champion | Culpeper Star Exponent
Published: February 17, 2012
» 78 Comments | Post a Comment

http://www2.starexponent.com/news/2012/feb/17/widower-pursue-lawsuit-ar-1695343/

The husband of a 54-year-old woman shot and killed by a Culpeper police officer Feb. 9 has secured an attorney and said he will pursue a lawsuit.

“I am pursuing a suit with the Town of Culpeper,” said Gary Cook early Thursday afternoon. He deferred questions regarding the specifics of the suit to his Charlottesville-based lawyer, David Kendall, of Kendall Law Firm, who confirmed that they had not yet filed a suit against the town and would not comment on specifics of the potential suit out of respect for Patricia Cook’s memorial service Sunday.

Culpeper Mayor Chip Coleman and Culpeper Police Chief Chris Jenkins met with Cook and Kendall Wednesday night at Culpeper United Methodist Church, where Patricia Cook was active in the children's ministry. The Rev. Randy Orndorff, who will officiate Mrs. Cook's memorial service Sunday, was also there.

Coleman on Thursday acknowledged the receipt of the letter of representation from Kendall at the meeting, and said he wants everything surrounding the police shooting to remain as open as possible.

“We are a community," Coleman said Thursday, noting it was, “Very important we open up our books, so to speak, as much as we can.”

In the letter, addressed to Coleman, Kendall lists another Charlottesville attorney, Gary Webb, as co-counsel and ends by saying, “We will be sending out a formal notice, pursuant to statute, in the near future.”

Jennifer Parrish of Parrish, Houck & Snead, PLC in Fredericksburg will represent the town.

Virginia State Police, the agency heading the ongoing investigation, have said an unnamed Town of Culpeper police officer was investigating a suspicious person sitting in a school parking lot on North East Street. While attempting to retrieve her identification, “the woman suddenly closed her driver’s side window trapping the officer’s arm and started driving away dragging the officer alongside,” reads the VSP release. It continues that “the officer repeatedly commanded the woman stop the moving vehicle. She refused and shots were fired.”

On Tuesday, eyewitness Kris Buchelle told the Star-Exponent, “I am 100 percent sure that he did not have his arm in that window and he was not being drug by that vehicle.”

He continued that “when the window was about half way up, I heard him say ‘stop or I’ll shoot’ and she got the window at about three-quarters, maybe all the way up, and he shot. I couldn’t believe it, I was in shock,” he said.

Buchele said after the first shot, Cook took a left out of the parking lot and the officer fired five more times at the back of the Jeep.

“It didn’t look like he was stuck in any way. It looked like he was trying to open the door, he had his weapon out and he was sidestepping with the vehicle…any normal person could have walked alongside the vehicle,” said Buchele.

[Anti Federalist]

If these case numbers and screename are correct, some asshole cop posts prior "incident reports" from five years ago regarding Kristopher Buchele in order to discredit him.


Posted by sgt051267 on Feb. 17, 2012 - 1:19 a.m.

GC07008706-00 BUCHELE, KRISTOPHER M. 09/19/2007 10:30 AM BREAK AND ENTER
GC07008707-00 BUCHELE, KRISTOPHER M. 09/19/2007 10:30 AM POSSESS CONT. SUBSTANCE

Posted by sgt051267 on Feb. 17, 2012 - 1:07 a.m.

Defendant:
BUCHELE, KRISTOPHER M. Sex:
Male Race:
White Caucasian (Non-Hispanic) DOB:
04/20/****
Address:
CULPEPER, VA 22701
Charge:
POSSESS HEROIN



http://www2.starexponent.com/news/2012/feb/17/widower-pursue-lawsuit-ar-1695343/

[AFPVet]

The cops are leaning on the witness and claiming he changed his story. The eyewitness denies it.

Of course, the cop car's dashcam video was "not working".



Va. State Police Say Kris Buchele Of Culpeper Changed His Story About Officer-Involved Shooting

10:05 PM, Feb 14, 2012

http://wusa9.com/news/article/190763/188/Va-State-Police-Say-Kris-Buchele-Of-Culpeper-Changed-His-Story-About-Officer-Involved-Shooting

CULPEPER, Va. (WUSA) - State police say Kris Buchele changed his story about what he saw Thursday morning when a five-year Culpeper police officer shot and killed 54-year-old Patricia Cook. Buchele says he told state police and reporters the same thing...then and now... that the officer's arm was not stuck in Cook's window and he was never dragged.

WITNESS: OFFICER NOT DRAGGED BEFORE SHOOTING

"His left hand was on the door handle and his right hand was on his gun, they were close together, you know. " says Buchele. He says he never saw the officer arm in the window. He says he heard the officer shout, "Stop, or I'll shoot!" and that he assumed the officer meant stop moving the car. Then, suddenly, the officer fired right at Cook, shattering the driver's window. Buchele says he was stunned the officer fired... and continued firing as Cook drove up the street.

"This is a residential area, he could've hit somebody else," says Buchele.

The Culpeper town spokesperson says the officer's cruiser did have a video camera, but that it was not working. He also said the officer did not turn on his blue lights. If he had, it would've been a sign that he was detaining the person, says attorney and former Fairfax County Police officer Ted Sibert .

If the person is not being detained, she should be free to go, Sibert says.

"What is he investigating? if its just for we call a suspicious person, then he doesn't have jusification to use force to maintain the contact. So if the person wants to roll the window up, they can. He can't be sticking his hand in the window or pulling someone out of the the car or open the door. Those all need justification," Sibert says.

Sibert says that before an officer tries to stop or detain someone, he needs reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred or is about to occur. Trespassing is not sufficient, especially if the person is trying to get off the property. Furthermore, to charge someone with trespassing, you'd need proof the person knew she was trespassing. Was it clearly marked? Did the property owner tell the person to leave?

Sibert says if the officer did put his arm in the window, he needs to have reasonable suspicion a crime was committed or about to be committed. Virginia State Police have said nothing about why the officer was detaining Cook in the first place,or, in other words, why he was putting his hand in her window, if in fact that's what he did.

Pat Cook's husband Gary Cook says she was a retired cosmetologist. He says she told him she was just going to run errands that day. He has no idea what she was doing in the Catholic school parking lot. Cook believes the officer may have used excessive force. He is seeking legal counsel.


Husband suing the town. (some of the pro cop comments are pretty frightening)



Widower to pursue lawsuit

By: By Steven Butler and Allison Brophy Champion | Culpeper Star Exponent
Published: February 17, 2012
» 78 Comments | Post a Comment

http://www2.starexponent.com/news/2012/feb/17/widower-pursue-lawsuit-ar-1695343/

The husband of a 54-year-old woman shot and killed by a Culpeper police officer Feb. 9 has secured an attorney and said he will pursue a lawsuit.

“I am pursuing a suit with the Town of Culpeper,” said Gary Cook early Thursday afternoon. He deferred questions regarding the specifics of the suit to his Charlottesville-based lawyer, David Kendall, of Kendall Law Firm, who confirmed that they had not yet filed a suit against the town and would not comment on specifics of the potential suit out of respect for Patricia Cook’s memorial service Sunday.

Culpeper Mayor Chip Coleman and Culpeper Police Chief Chris Jenkins met with Cook and Kendall Wednesday night at Culpeper United Methodist Church, where Patricia Cook was active in the children's ministry. The Rev. Randy Orndorff, who will officiate Mrs. Cook's memorial service Sunday, was also there.

Coleman on Thursday acknowledged the receipt of the letter of representation from Kendall at the meeting, and said he wants everything surrounding the police shooting to remain as open as possible.

“We are a community," Coleman said Thursday, noting it was, “Very important we open up our books, so to speak, as much as we can.”

In the letter, addressed to Coleman, Kendall lists another Charlottesville attorney, Gary Webb, as co-counsel and ends by saying, “We will be sending out a formal notice, pursuant to statute, in the near future.”

Jennifer Parrish of Parrish, Houck & Snead, PLC in Fredericksburg will represent the town.

Virginia State Police, the agency heading the ongoing investigation, have said an unnamed Town of Culpeper police officer was investigating a suspicious person sitting in a school parking lot on North East Street. While attempting to retrieve her identification, “the woman suddenly closed her driver’s side window trapping the officer’s arm and started driving away dragging the officer alongside,” reads the VSP release. It continues that “the officer repeatedly commanded the woman stop the moving vehicle. She refused and shots were fired.”

On Tuesday, eyewitness Kris Buchelle told the Star-Exponent, “I am 100 percent sure that he did not have his arm in that window and he was not being drug by that vehicle.”

He continued that “when the window was about half way up, I heard him say ‘stop or I’ll shoot’ and she got the window at about three-quarters, maybe all the way up, and he shot. I couldn’t believe it, I was in shock,” he said.

Buchele said after the first shot, Cook took a left out of the parking lot and the officer fired five more times at the back of the Jeep.

“It didn’t look like he was stuck in any way. It looked like he was trying to open the door, he had his weapon out and he was sidestepping with the vehicle…any normal person could have walked alongside the vehicle,” said Buchele.

Is there an organization which goes to bat for victims of police abuse? If not, there needs to be....

[QuickZ06]

This story dropping into the deep dark abyss in 3..2..1...

Anyone up for a rousing abortion debate?

Sad.


No kidding...or a same sex marriage thread or anacap vs. minarchist thread.

But they are whats really important :rolleyes:

[Kylie]

Thanks, AF. I know I can always count on you :)

[heavenlyboy34]

Sad.



But they are whats really important :rolleyes:

The threads about danno's sex life, funny pictures, the VAT, and pornography are more important by far.

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/009/986/internet-serious-business-cat.jpg

[JK/SEA]

too bad we can't have bunchies as cops. the world would be like the Wonka Candy Company.

[Anti Federalist]

too bad we can't have bunchies as cops. the world would be like the Wonka Candy Company.

Bunchies!

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lhltr4GSeo1qa2mwe.gif

[dillo]

shes shoudnt have paid for that starbucks in cash

[Lethalmiko]

Sorry to say this, but all I am seeing here is mass hysteria. The officer has been declared guilty until proven innocent. Let us discuss the facts and a few questions.

FACTS

1. Patricia Cook DISOBEYED a DIRECT order from a police officer.

2. Kris Buchele says that the vehicle was already in motion when Cook was rolling up the window and BEFORE the officer shot her. She was told to stop BEFORE she was shot.

3. AFTER being shot at, she continued driving away.

4. Buchele is the ONLY witness so far.

5. The officer could NOT have possibly known whether she was armed or not.


QUESTIONS

1. If someone in a moving car disobeys a direct order to stop, does the officer have the right to use force to stop them?

2. If the officer suspects that the driver of the vehicle is driving away so that they can then pull out a gun without being seen, is it unreasonable to shoot at them?

3. Is there any reason we should believe Buchele's testimony?

4. Buchele claims the officer shot through the window. Is it not possible that one hand was caught in the window and the other was outside holding the gun?

5. Even if the "hand-in-the-window" part of the story is proved false, does it change anything with respect to the facts above?

6. Does an officer have the right to order someone to stop, even without blue lights on? Does ordering them to stop mean he wants to detain them?

7. If Cook was innocent, why did she drive away and not just obey the officer?

8. How did Cook manage to keep driving and turn the car after being shot at point-blank range?

9. Is it impossible for the officer to have had a good reason to order her to stop?

10. Does it make sense to make conclusions about corruption in the police force based on what we know so far about this incident?

11. Given the aforementioned, what should the officer have done at the point Cook disobeyed him and continued driving away?

[heavenlyboy34]

too bad we can't have bunchies as cops. the world would be like the Wonka Candy Company.

Bunchies!

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lhltr4GSeo1qa2mwe.gif
Bunchies FTW!!

[Travlyr]

What was her crime?


Article the sixth [Amendment IV]

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.

Article the seventh [Amendment V]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article the eighth [Amendment VI]

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

[Anti Federalist]

I'll be back to this hot mess of shit later, have not got the time right now to do it justice.

I'll just say this: you have the legal and moral right to use lethal force IF YOU ARE IN IMMEDIATE, IMMINENT AND UNAVOIDABLE threat of serious bodily injury or death.

Regardless of whether you are a cop or not. Other than that, you cannot blow people away for "failure to comply".

But, I understand your position, from the other thread, that being "all is well, and everything is fine, America is fine, the freest country on earth, we just need to tweak things a little bit and we'll be in good shape!"



Sorry to say this, but all I am seeing here is mass hysteria. The officer has been declared guilty until proven innocent. Let us discuss the facts and a few questions.

FACTS

1. Kris Buchele says that the vehicle was already in motion when Patricia Cook was rolling up the window and BEFORE the officer shot her.

2. AFTER being shot, she continued driving away.

3. Cook DISOBEYED a DIRECT order from a police officer.

4. Buchele is the ONLY witness so far.

5. The officer could NOT have possibly known whether she was armed or not.


QUESTIONS

1. If someone in a moving car disobeys a direct order to stop, does the officer have the right to use force to stop them?

2. If the officer suspects that the driver of the vehicle is driving away so that they can then pull out a gun without being seen, is it unreasonable to shoot at them?

3. Is there any reason we should believe Buchele's testimony?

4. Even if the "hand-in-the-window" part of the story is proved false, does it change anything with respect to the facts above?

5. Does an officer have the right to order someone to stop, even without blue lights on? Does ordering them to stop mean he wants to detain them?

6. If Cook was innocent, why did she drive away and not just obey the officer?

7. How did Cook manage to keep driving and turn the car after being shot at point-blank range?

8. Is it impossible for the officer to have had a good reason to order her to stop?

9. Does it make sense to make conclusions about corruption in the police force based on what we know so far about this incident?

10. Given the aforementioned, what should the officer have done at the point Cook disobeyed him and continued driving away?

[Lethalmiko]

But, I understand your position, from the other thread, that being "all is well, and everything is fine, America is fine, the freest country on earth, we just need to tweak things a little bit and we'll be in good shape!"
You are misrepresenting my position (strawman). Awaiting your full response.

[Anti Federalist]

You are misrepresenting my position (strawman). Awaiting your full response.

Actually, it was sarcasm.

[Anti Federalist]

What was her crime?

Contempt of cop.

[azxd]

Sorry to say this, but all I am seeing here is mass hysteria. The officer has been declared guilty until proven innocent. Let us discuss the facts and a few questions.

FACTS

1. Patricia Cook DISOBEYED a DIRECT order from a police officer.

2. Kris Buchele says that the vehicle was already in motion when Cook was rolling up the window and BEFORE the officer shot her. She was told to stop BEFORE she was shot.

3. AFTER being shot, she continued driving away.

4. Buchele is the ONLY witness so far.

5. The officer could NOT have possibly known whether she was armed or not.


QUESTIONS

1. If someone in a moving car disobeys a direct order to stop, does the officer have the right to use force to stop them?

2. If the officer suspects that the driver of the vehicle is driving away so that they can then pull out a gun without being seen, is it unreasonable to shoot at them?

3. Is there any reason we should believe Buchele's testimony?

4. Buchele claims the officer shot through the window. Is it not possible that one hand was caught in the window and the other was outside holding the gun?

5. Even if the "hand-in-the-window" part of the story is proved false, does it change anything with respect to the facts above?

6. Does an officer have the right to order someone to stop, even without blue lights on? Does ordering them to stop mean he wants to detain them?

7. If Cook was innocent, why did she drive away and not just obey the officer?

8. How did Cook manage to keep driving and turn the car after being shot at point-blank range?

9. Is it impossible for the officer to have had a good reason to order her to stop?

10. Does it make sense to make conclusions about corruption in the police force based on what we know so far about this incident?

11. Given the aforementioned, what should the officer have done at the point Cook disobeyed him and continued driving away?
I can hardly wait to hear your answer to your questions.

[specsaregood]

11. Given the aforementioned, what should the officer have done at the point Cook disobeyed him and continued driving away?

What harm would have been done to society if the officer had just let Cook drive away?
He no doubt already had her plate #. He no doubt already could identify her. Why could thye just not put out a warrant for her or swing by her home later?
She was committing no crimes when the officer showed up.

[Travlyr]

Sorry to say this, but all I am seeing here is mass hysteria. The officer has been declared guilty until proven innocent. Let us discuss the facts and a few questions.

FACTS

1. Patricia Cook DISOBEYED a DIRECT order from a police officer.

2. Kris Buchele says that the vehicle was already in motion when Cook was rolling up the window and BEFORE the officer shot her. She was told to stop BEFORE she was shot.

3. AFTER being shot, she continued driving away.

4. Buchele is the ONLY witness so far.

5. The officer could NOT have possibly known whether she was armed or not.

QUESTIONS


1. If someone in a moving car disobeys a direct order to stop, does the officer have the right to use force to stop them?
No. Not in a free society.



2. If the officer suspects that the driver of the vehicle is driving away so that they can then pull out a gun without being seen, is it unreasonable to shoot at them?
Yes. In a free society.



3. Is there any reason we should believe Buchele's testimony?
Yes. Under oath in court in front of a jury of his peers.



4. Buchele claims the officer shot through the window. Is it not possible that one hand was caught in the window and the other was outside holding the gun?
There no excuse for anyone to stick their hand in the window of someone else's car.



5. Even if the "hand-in-the-window" part of the story is proved false, does it change anything with respect to the facts above?
No. Patricia Cook was deprived of her right to life under the law. Amendment V.



6. Does an officer have the right to order someone to stop, even without blue lights on?
No. Amendment IV.



Does ordering them to stop mean he wants to detain them?
Yes, and he has no right to do that in a free society. Amendment IV.



7. If Cook was innocent, why did she drive away and not just obey the officer?
She was probably afraid he would kill or rape her.



8. How did Cook manage to keep driving and turn the car after being shot at point-blank range?
It is hard for dead people to put their foot on the brake, perhaps?



9. Is it impossible for the officer to have had a good reason to order her to stop?
Yes, in a free society. No, not in a tyrannical police state.



10. Does it make sense to make conclusions about corruption in the police force based on what we know so far about this incident?Yes, this incident along with all the other known facts about police corruption the world over.



11. Given the aforementioned, what should the officer have done at the point Cook disobeyed him and continued driving away?
Let her drive and enjoy her life. In a free society, he has no right to order her to do anything unless he has a warrant for her arrest. Amendment IV.

[Barrex]

I agree with everything that Travlyr (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?25156-Travlyr) wrote.

Little explanation on last answer: Police officer should let her drive away and write her car registration. He could have followed her; arrest her BUT HE HAD NO RIGHT TO USE LETHAL FORCE because that woman was not a threat for him or anyone else.

[Danke]

If a Cop disobeys an order from his employer (us), can we shoot 'em?

[JK/SEA]

ya know, i'd rather there was wanton lawlessness, than having this system of having' police' running around with guns and a license to harrass, maim, rape, rob and murdering citizens. At least in a non-police state the average law abiding joe with a gun could take care of REAL criminals without ego driven assholes with permission from the State and Police Unions to wander un-checked.

Seriously...i'm more afraid of cops than some jackass breaking into my house.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

3. AFTER being shot at, she continued driving away.



If I'm ever shot, the first thing I'm going to do is stop moving so they can keep shooting me. I can't even believe you think that's a relevant fact, along with many others.


None of your "facts" were reasons to kill that woman. That police officer is supposed to be protecting her, not killing her.

[eric_cartman]

is there a place that has a list of all the articles and news stories of cops doing crazy stuff like this? it seems like every day there is a new story about a cop killing someone or shooting a family dog. is there a blog out there that keeps a list of all this stuff?

[JK/SEA]

cop watch.

[Anti Federalist]

Sorry to say this, but all I am seeing here is mass hysteria. The officer has been declared guilty until proven innocent. Let us discuss the facts and a few questions.

FACTS

1. Patricia Cook DISOBEYED a DIRECT order from a police officer.

The Culpeper town spokesperson says the officer's cruiser did have a video camera, but that it was not working. He also said the officer did not turn on his blue lights. If he had, it would've been a sign that he was detaining the person, says attorney and former Fairfax County Police officer Ted Sibert .

If the person is not being detained, she should be free to go, Sibert says.

"What is he investigating? if its just for we call a suspicious person, then he doesn't have justification to use force to maintain the contact. So if the person wants to roll the window up, they can. He can't be sticking his hand in the window or pulling someone out of the the car or open the door. Those all need justification," Sibert says.


2. Kris Buchele says that the vehicle was already in motion when Cook was rolling up the window and BEFORE the officer shot her. She was told to stop BEFORE she was shot.

Why is this an issue?

The cop was, in likelihood, being belligerent and abusive, this woman thought, mistakenly, that she still lived in a free country and that if not formally under arrest and not having done anything wrong, that she should not have to sit there and silently and politely take abuse, produce papers and comply with the illegitimate orders of the local kommissariat.

Thus, she closed her window and drove away.


3. AFTER being shot at, she continued driving away.

Of course she did! What did you expect her to do? Stop so she can more easily be shot at?

That's assuming she was even still alive at that point.


4. Buchele is the ONLY witness so far.

And?

You know how many people are rotting away in prison based on the testimony of one witness?

How many more are in prison based on the testimony of one cop witness?


5. The officer could NOT have possibly known whether she was armed or not.

Exactly.

Which is why this was murder.

You can't just blow people away for no reason. The victim, according all testimony so far, never brandished or threatened the cop with a weapon of any sort.


1. If someone in a moving car disobeys a direct order to stop, does the officer have the right to use force to stop them?

No, unless there is again, that immediate threat to life. That's why the story first floated by the cops insisted that the cop was caught in the window and being dragged.


2. If the officer suspects that the driver of the vehicle is driving away so that they can then pull out a gun without being seen, is it unreasonable to shoot at them?

Yes, completely unreasonable. If I shot somebody based on what I thought they were going to do, I'd go to jail.


3. Is there any reason we should believe Buchele's testimony?

Is there any reason we should not?


4. Buchele claims the officer shot through the window. Is it not possible that one hand was caught in the window and the other was outside holding the gun?

The witness also makes it clear that he saw both of the cops hands, one on the door handle, one on his weapon. When it became clear that he could not open the door and drag this woman out of the car for a proper beat down, he shot her.


5. Even if the "hand-in-the-window" part of the story is proved false, does it change anything with respect to the facts above?

Of course it does. If the cop's hand wasn't caught in the window, then there was no immediate threat to life.


6. Does an officer have the right to order someone to stop, even without blue lights on? Does ordering them to stop mean he wants to detain them?

Not in a free society they don't.


7. If Cook was innocent, why did she drive away and not just obey the officer?

Because some of us are not going to sit politely by while being harangued, harassed and abused by some petty tyrant with badge.

I, for instance, make it my mission to be as difficult as I can be every time I fly to TSA people.


8. How did Cook manage to keep driving and turn the car after being shot at point-blank range?

Don't know. Cops are notoriously bad shots. Maybe he missed. Maybe the vehicle kept rolling of it's own momentum. Maybe she was just injured.

Why is this relevant?


9. Is it impossible for the officer to have had a good reason to order her to stop?

Does not appear so at this point.


10. Does it make sense to make conclusions about corruption in the police force based on what we know so far about this incident?

Of course. Always. If government or one of its enforcers told me the sky was blue and sun rose in the east, I'd argue the point.

The track record is long and grim enough that I don't believe a single word that they say, and when a case like this comes up, my default position is "the cops and the system are lying".


11. Given the aforementioned, what should the officer have done at the point Cook disobeyed him and continued driving away?

Let her go.

If there needed to be follow up, they had license plate numbers, follow up at home.

[Lethalmiko]

What?! I cannot believe what you guys are saying. Are you anarchists or something?

Travlyr, what you have written is nonsense. If we followed what you are saying, every criminal would simply drive away once an officer approached them and keep repeating this since the police would have no authority to stop them by force. Ditto for running away on foot. How long do you reckon it would take before anyone is arrested? Why would an innocent person be running away?

Imagine the police stops a guy they suspect of being a criminal. They tell him to put his hands in the air so that they can search him. In your so-called "free society", he simply ignores what they say, turns his back to them, starts running away and pulls out a gun from his pocket, turns round, crouches and shoots them to death. Don't you see how silly that is?

Buchele was talking to reporters and everyone in this thread believes what he was saying. He was not even under oath. And even if he was, people lie all the time in court. Moreover, eye-witness testimony from a single witness carries less weight than from two witnesses.


There no excuse for anyone to stick their hand in the window of someone else's car.
This was not anyone. It was a police officer mandated to enforce the law. Until you hear why he did it, you cannot conclude anything.


No. Patricia Cook was deprived of her right to life under the law. Amendment V.
So? Criminals and suspected criminals are gunned down all the time and deprived of their right to life.


No. Amendment IV. Yes, and he has no right to do that in a free society. Amendment IV.
More nonsense.


FOURTH AMENDMENT
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.

What is unreasonable about stopping a suspicious person away from their home and possibly searching them to make sure they do not have a weapon?


She was probably afraid he would kill or rape her.
Every criminal and every other citizen can say the same thing to justify running away. And how can he kill and rape her in a place where it was easy to be seen? Where do you get this nonsense from?


It is hard for dead people to put their foot on the brake, perhaps?
Are dead people also able to turn the wheel of a car?


Yes, in a free society. No, not in a tyrannical police state.
So everybody including criminals in your ideal anarchist society can just ignore the police and take off anytime they are confronted.


Yes, this incident along with all the other known facts about police corruption the world over.
Nothing in this incident proves corruption in the police force.


Let her drive and enjoy her life. In a free society, he has no right to order her to do anything unless he has a warrant for her arrest. Amendment IV.
Imagine someone anonymously calls the police to tell them he has seen a car parked with blood dripping from the trunk and the driver still in it. Do you expect the officer nearby who is supposed to go check it out to first go see a judge to get a warrant to search the car? Does this sound sensible to you?


Little explanation on last answer: Police officer should let her drive away and write her car registration. He could have followed her; arrest her BUT HE HAD NO RIGHT TO USE LETHAL FORCE because that woman was not a threat for him or anyone else.
Nonsense. He had no way of knowing whether she was armed or not. How can any police officer be reasonably expected to know that someone driving off after being told to stop is not a threat?

[eric_cartman]

cop watch.

i went to their site... i couldn't really find a good list of mainstream media articles. am i looking in the wrong part of the site?

this guy has a good youtube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/CopsOutofControl

[GunnyFreedom]

What?! I cannot believe what you guys are saying. Are you anarchists or something?

Travlyr, what you have written is nonsense. If we followed what you are saying, every criminal would simply drive away once an officer approached them and keep repeating this since the police would have no authority to stop them by force. Ditto for running away on foot. How long do you reckon it would take before anyone is arrested? Why would an innocent person be running away?

Imagine the police stops a guy they suspect of being a criminal. They tell him to put his hands in the air so that they can search him. In your so-called "free society", he simply ignores what they say, turns his back to them, starts running away and pulls out a gun from his pocket, turns round, crouches and shoots them to death. Don't you see how silly that is?

Buchele was talking to reporters and everyone in this thread believes what he was saying. He was not even under oath. And even if he was, people lie all the time in court. Moreover, eye-witness testimony from a single witness carries less weight than from two witnesses.


This was not anyone. It was a police officer mandated to enforce the law. Until you hear why he did it, you cannot conclude anything.


So? Criminals and suspected criminals are gunned down all the time and deprived of their right to life.


More nonsense.



What is unreasonable about stopping a suspicious person away from their home and possibly searching them to make sure they do not have a weapon?


Every criminal and every other citizen can say the same thing to justify running away. And how can he kill and rape her in a place where it was easy to be seen? Where do you get this nonsense from?


Are dead people also able to turn the wheel of a car?


So everybody including criminals in your ideal anarchist society can just ignore the police and take off anytime they are confronted.


Nothing in this incident proves corruption in the police force.


Imagine someone anonymously calls the police to tell them he has seen a car parked with blood dripping from the trunk and the driver still in it. Do you expect the officer nearby who is supposed to go check it out to first go see a judge to get a warrant to search the car? Does this sound sensible to you?


Nonsense. He had no way of knowing whether she was armed or not. How can any police officer be reasonably expected to know that someone driving off after being told to stop is not a threat?

Wow.

We clearly live in different universes. In my universe, a government that obeys the Constitution is not 'anarchist.' In my universe, police are not supposed to be authorized to randomly gun down anybody that they don't know whether they are armed or not. In my universe, every single American, including the Police, are supposed to be under the same law, and not different laws for different people. "Everybody equal under the law" is the basis for a "Republican form of government" per US Constitution Article 4 Section 4.

Your acceptance and even defense of this blatant abrogation of our Constitutional form of government frankly frightens me.

[Anti Federalist]

Yah, that about sums it up for me.

Well done Gunny.

+rep


Wow.

We clearly live in different universes. In my universe, a government that obeys the Constitution is not 'anarchist.' In my universe, police are not supposed to be authorized to randomly gun down anybody that they don't know whether they are armed or not. In my universe, every single American, including the Police, are supposed to be under the same law, and not different laws for different people. "Everybody equal under the law" is the basis for a "Republican form of government" per US Constitution Article 4 Section 4.

Your acceptance and even defense of this blatant abrogation of our Constitutional form of government frankly frightens me.

[Gary4Liberty]

1. Patricia Cook DISOBEYED a DIRECT order from a police officer. SO ITS OK TO KILL HER?

2. Kris Buchele says that the vehicle was already in motion when Cook was rolling up the window and BEFORE the officer shot her. She was told to stop BEFORE she was shot. SO ITS OK TO KILL HER?

3. AFTER being shot at, she continued driving away. ITS REASONABLE TO DRIVE AWAY AS FAST AS YOU CAN FROM SOMEONE SHOOTING AT YOU FOR NO REASON

4. Buchele is the ONLY witness so far. IF THERE WAS NO WITNESS, THERE STILL IS NO REASON TO SHOOT THIS PERSON

5. The officer could NOT have possibly known whether she was armed or not. SO HE SHOT HER. YOU CAN SAY THE SAME ABOUT ANYONE WALKING DOWN THE STREET. SO ITS OK TO SHOOT ANYONE


QUESTIONS

1. If someone in a moving car disobeys a direct order to stop, does the officer have the right to use force to stop them? ABSOLUTELY NOT. USE FORCE? YOU MEAN KILL THEM? AGAIN NO!

2. If the officer suspects that the driver of the vehicle is driving away so that they can then pull out a gun without being seen, is it unreasonable to shoot at them? YES IT IS UNREASONABLE

3. Is there any reason we should believe Buchele's testimony? IS THERE ANY REASON NOT TO? HE STORY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE RESULT. A SUNDAY SCHOOL TEACHER DEAD FOR ROLLING UP THE WINDOW

4. Buchele claims the officer shot through the window. Is it not possible that one hand was caught in the window and the other was outside holding the gun? IMPOSSIBLE

5. Even if the "hand-in-the-window" part of the story is proved false, does it change anything with respect to the facts above? YES

6. Does an officer have the right to order someone to stop, even without blue lights on? Does ordering them to stop mean he wants to detain them? DO THE WORDS REASONABLE SUSPICION and PROBABLE CAUSE MEAN ANYTHING TO YOU?

7. If Cook was innocent, why did she drive away and not just obey the officer? SO HE SHOT HER?

8. How did Cook manage to keep driving and turn the car after being shot at point-blank range? SO ITS OK TO KILL HER?

9. Is it impossible for the officer to have had a good reason to order her to stop? SO HE KILLED HER WHEN SHE DIDNT?

10. Does it make sense to make conclusions about corruption in the police force based on what we know so far about this incident? ABSOLUTELY

11. Given the aforementioned, what should the officer have done at the point Cook disobeyed him and continued driving away? NOT EMPTY THE CLIP INTO HER BODY. Let her go since he has no right to detain her without cause. If he has cause, make an arrest. Call for backup?

[Lethalmiko]

ya know, i'd rather there was wanton lawlessness, than having this system of having' police' running around with guns and a license to harrass, maim, rape, rob and murdering citizens. At least in a non-police state the average law abiding joe with a gun could take care of REAL criminals without ego driven assholes with permission from the State and Police Unions to wander un-checked. Seriously...i'm more afraid of cops than some jackass breaking into my house.
The Wild Wild West in short. And for those without guns?



If I'm ever shot, the first thing I'm going to do is stop moving so they can keep shooting me. I can't even believe you think that's a relevant fact, along with many others. None of your "facts" were reasons to kill that woman. That police officer is supposed to be protecting her, not killing her.
It is relevant because it disproves the assertion some people may have that he shot her dead at point-blank range. When an officer shoots at you, continuing to run gives them more reason to shoot again.



He also said the officer did not turn on his blue lights. If he had, it would've been a sign that he was detaining the person, says attorney and former Fairfax County Police officer Ted Sibert .
If this rule applies universally, what if the police man has parked his car far away and he just happens to be walking past. Should he go back and retrieve his car, park it behind and turn hif blue lights on? What if there is a crime in progress?



If the person is not being detained, she should be free to go, Sibert says.
This does not make any sense. If an officer walks up to a car and wants to ask the driver for their ID, what does this have to do with detaining them? Is he supposed to first announce that he is detaining the driver before they show him their ID? What if he is just verifying their identity and will then let them go if all is well but they refuse to show him?



"What is he investigating? if its just for we call a suspicious person, then he doesn't have justification to use force to maintain the contact. So if the person wants to roll the window up, they can. He can't be sticking his hand in the window or pulling someone out of the the car or open the door. Those all need justification," Sibert says.
When a cop is checking out a "suspicious" person, he has every legal and moral right to be satisfied that all is well before letting them go. Suppose he had asked for her license and registration, is she justified to just ignore what he says and drive off even after being told to stop?



Why is this an issue?
Because driving away and rolling her window up means she was disobeying a direct order from the police officer which obviously made him very suspicious.



The cop was, in likelihood, being belligerent and abusive, this woman thought, mistakenly, that she still lived in a free country and that if not formally under arrest and not having done anything wrong, that she should not have to sit there and silently and politely take abuse, produce papers and comply with the illegitimate orders of the local kommissariat. Thus, she closed her window and drove away.
How the hell do you know this for a FACT? What if he was not being abusive? What if he politely asked for her ID papers?



Of course she did! What did you expect her to do? Stop so she can more easily be shot at?
I expect someone who has just been shot for running away to stop because at that point they know the officer is serious.



And? You know how many people are rotting away in prison based on the testimony of one witness? How many more are in prison based on the testimony of one cop witness?
Just because it has happened does not make it right. I would never convict someone only on the strength of one testimony, unless there was corroborating evidence or other physical evidence.



Exactly. Which is why this was murder. You can't just blow people away for no reason. The victim, according all testimony so far, never brandished or threatened the cop with a weapon of any sort.
I repeat. Imagine someone does not threaten the cop or show any weapon but drives away and once the cop cannot see what they are doing, they open the glove compartment and get out a gun. They stop, wait for the officer to come close again and they shoot him dead. Is this beyond your imagination?



No, unless there is again, that immediate threat to life. That's why the story first floated by the cops insisted that the cop was caught in the window and being dragged.
So the guy who refuses to put his hands into the air and reaches into his pocket should be left alone? If you were an officer and someone suspicous disobeys your orders and takes off, you would not consider the possibility they were getting ready to shoot you?



Yes, completely unreasonable. If I shot somebody based on what I thought they were going to do, I'd go to jail.
It was not just the thought. There was an action of disobedience involved. Refer to the glove-compartment and hand-in-the-coat examples.



Is there any reason we should not?
Yes. Cops are trained not to shoot people anyhow. When they do, my default assumption is they had a good reason to. Most cops are good people. Just because you can point to some articles showing corruption and wrongful death does not prove the majority of cops are dirty trigger-happy killers.



The witness also makes it clear that he saw both of the cops hands, one on the door handle, one on his weapon. When it became clear that he could not open the door and drag this woman out of the car for a proper beat down, he shot her.
But why do you believe Buchele?



Of course it does. If the cop's hand wasn't caught in the window, then there was no immediate threat to life.
Nonsense. What if she had a gun?



Not in a free society they don't.
Addressed above.



Because some of us are not going to sit politely by while being harangued, harassed and abused by some petty tyrant with badge.
How the hell do you know that he was harassing her?



Don't know. Cops are notoriously bad shots. Maybe he missed. Maybe the vehicle kept rolling of it's own momentum. Maybe she was just injured. Why is this relevant?
Explained above.



Does not appear so at this point.
Based on what? Your imagination?



Of course. Always. If government or one of its enforcers told me the sky was blue and sun rose in the east, I'd argue the point. The track record is long and grim enough that I don't believe a single word that they say, and when a case like this comes up, my default position is "the cops and the system are lying".
And what about all the other millions of cases where the police tell the truth? Have you ever heard of "Presumption of Innocence"?



Let her go. If there needed to be follow up, they had license plate numbers, follow up at home.
Disproved above.

[heavenlyboy34]

Wow.

We clearly live in different universes. In my universe, a government that obeys the Constitution is not 'anarchist.' In my universe, police are not supposed to be authorized to randomly gun down anybody that they don't know whether they are armed or not. In my universe, every single American, including the Police, are supposed to be under the same law, and not different laws for different people. "Everybody equal under the law" is the basis for a "Republican form of government" per US Constitution Article 4 Section 4.

Your acceptance and even defense of this blatant abrogation of our Constitutional form of government frankly frightens me.
btw, I would argue there is no constitutional authority for government police to begin with.

[Travlyr]

btw, I would argue there is no constitutional authority for government police to begin with.
I agree. Police didn't show up in America until around the time of the Greenback. Counterfeit money is the only reason we need police. When we finally get back to honest sound money, then the police state goes away. The FBI and CIA came with The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and State Police came with confiscation of gold.

[GunnyFreedom]

btw, I would argue there is no constitutional authority for government police to begin with.

Certainly not at the Federal level. Most State Constitutions do clearly authorize elected Sheriffs and Constables.

[Lethalmiko]

Wow.

We clearly live in different universes. In my universe, a government that obeys the Constitution is not 'anarchist.' In my universe, police are not supposed to be authorized to randomly gun down anybody that they don't know whether they are armed or not. In my universe, every single American, including the Police, are supposed to be under the same law, and not different laws for different people. "Everybody equal under the law" is the basis for a "Republican form of government" per US Constitution Article 4 Section 4.

Your acceptance and even defense of this blatant abrogation of our Constitutional form of government frankly frightens me.
As hard as this may be for you, I want you to imagine that she was a hardcore criminal who had a dead body in the trunk and was about to shoot the officer and get away. Imagine she drove off to get a chance to get out her gun after being asked for her ID. Would you still hold onto your assessment?

[GunnyFreedom]

I agree. Police didn't show up in America until around the time of the Greenback. Counterfeit money is the only reason we need police. When we finally get back to honest sound money, then the police state goes away. The FBI and CIA came with The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and State Police came with confiscation of gold.

Pretty sure there were County Sheriffs throughout North Carolina and the other 12 States in the 1780's.

[Anti Federalist]

As hard as this may be for you, I want you to imagine that she was a hardcore criminal who had a dead body in the trunk and was about to shoot the officer and get away. Imagine she drove off to get a chance to get out her gun after being asked for her ID. Would you still hold onto your assessment?

I would rather a hundred guilty go free, than one innocent go to jail.

Or in this case, be gunned down in the street for "contempt of cop".

[Travlyr]

Pretty sure there were County Sheriffs throughout North Carolina and the other 12 States in the 1780's.

Right. County Sheriffs & Constables mostly. Night watchmen.


The New York City Police Department (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Police_Department) (NYPD), established in 1845, is currently the largest municipal police force in the United States, with primary responsibilities in law enforcement and investigation within the five boroughs of New York City. The NYPD is one of the oldest police departments established in the United States; tracing its roots back to the first Dutch eight man night watch in 1625, when New York City was New Amsterdam. It has its headquarters at One Police Plaza in Lower Manhattan.

[Anti Federalist]

The Wild Wild West in short. And for those without guns?

The "Wild West" wasn't nearly as wild as any major urban center in America is today.

I'm not about to go back and forth, arguing and re-arguing point by point by point, in an endless circle jerk.

I get your point: we're engaged in a bunch of out of control hysterics and hyperbole, and we should all relax and give the benefit of the doubt to the cops and "authority".

Be my guest if you want, but that's not for me.

[GunnyFreedom]

As hard as this may be for you, I want you to imagine that she was a hardcore criminal who had a dead body in the trunk and was about to shoot the officer and get away. Imagine she drove off to get a chance to get out her gun after being asked for her ID. Would you still hold onto your assessment?

Police don't get to decide who is and is not a hard core criminal, that's why we have a judicial system and judicial warrants. There are already rigid laws and rules for probable cause which you are simply ignoring. The dead body in the trunk thing is something you are inventing whole-cloth in an attempt to justify this murder. No weapon was found or seen on the victim. You don't get to just make stuff up and then kill people for it, and neither do the police.

My assessment stands. If you can invent dead bodies and invisible weapons and nonexistent threats as an excuse to kill a sunday school teacher minding her own business, then any number of things can be 'invented' to simply assassinate political opponents and claim they had an invisible gun and a fictitious body in the trunk and suddenly it's all perfectly OK.

What you are saying here sir, it's insane. Americans are not created to cower in fear and submission to police and government authorities. That's some new creation that has no place in the American tradition. You have been brainwashed by the security state, and that blind acceptance of the degradation of what makes America America is why our country is in so much trouble today.

I hope and pray that you will awaken from your slumber and help us reclaim the American way of life, as that is the only path to the peace and the prosperity we once knew. As things stand, we are on the verge of a tyrannical police state, and you are acting it's patsy.

Government exists only to secure the blessings of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (often described as 'property'), and when any form of government becomes damaging to those ends it is the duty of the people to alter or abolish it.

[heavenlyboy34]

Certainly not at the Federal level. Most State Constitutions do clearly authorize elected Sheriffs and Constables.

"At the time of the Constitution's ratification, the office of sheriff was an appointed position, and constables were either elected or drafted from the community to serve without pay."

If you haven't read it, you may be interested in Roger Roots' essay ARE COPS CONSTITUTIONAL? (http://constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm) Good day to you, sir! :) /tips hat

[mikeforliberty]

As hard as this may be for you, I want you to imagine that she was a hardcore criminal who had a dead body in the trunk and was about to shoot the officer and get away. Imagine she drove off to get a chance to get out her gun after being asked for her ID. Would you still hold onto your assessment?

You sir are a ridiculous human being.

Its called escalation of force. And he went straight from may I see your ID to "Kill! Kill! Kill!" How can you be so naive?

[Lethalmiko]

Gary4Liberty, the biggest problem with most of your comments is that you are using a strawman argument. I NEVER ever said it was OK to kill her. Of course it is sad that this woman was killed. My main argument is that you cannot judge the officer as guilty of murder until you know ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS. It may well turn out that he was within the law to shoot at her under those specific circumstances of her disobeying his order and then taking off. In my opinion, IF he had simply asked for her licence and registration or asked her why she was parked there for a while and she simply ignored him and started driving off, then he was justified to ask her to stop and her refusal gave him reasonable cause to suspect she may possibly be armed or possibly be a criminal. We do not yet know what really happened, other than the testimony of a single witness who may not be telling the WHOLE TRUTH. He may be like most of you and distrusts the police and would love to see the cop jailed for murder. He may have been on drugs at the time, or just wants his 15 minutes of fame. All these possibilities I came up with in a few seconds. There are plenty more I can think of.

The officer only shot at her AFTER she began driving away so your Fact 3 comment is false. Fact 4 was meant to show you that you cannot make any conclusions yet on the testimony of one witness. Fact 5 comment is inapplicable because a person innocently walking down the street is NOT the same situation as them being told to stop and they disobey and run away. The essential point you fail to grasp is that she acted in a very suspicious way that could have conceivably put the cop's life in danger.

Another possibility you have not considered is that the officer may have meant to fire a warning shot to her side but maybe she suddenly accelerated causing the position of the gun to change. You do not yet know why the officer made the decision to shoot at her but you confidently say it was because she wound up her window. If you were the prosecutor in court, there would be an objection from the defence for speculation.

The logical conclusion of your comment on question 11 is that plenty of criminals would get away.

I might as well ask another question. Does the current law allow an officer to shoot at someone who is running away after they are told to stop?


1. Patricia Cook DISOBEYED a DIRECT order from a police officer. SO ITS OK TO KILL HER?

2. Kris Buchele says that the vehicle was already in motion when Cook was rolling up the window and BEFORE the officer shot her. She was told to stop BEFORE she was shot. SO ITS OK TO KILL HER?

3. AFTER being shot at, she continued driving away. ITS REASONABLE TO DRIVE AWAY AS FAST AS YOU CAN FROM SOMEONE SHOOTING AT YOU FOR NO REASON

4. Buchele is the ONLY witness so far. IF THERE WAS NO WITNESS, THERE STILL IS NO REASON TO SHOOT THIS PERSON

5. The officer could NOT have possibly known whether she was armed or not. SO HE SHOT HER. YOU CAN SAY THE SAME ABOUT ANYONE WALKING DOWN THE STREET. SO ITS OK TO SHOOT ANYONE


QUESTIONS

1. If someone in a moving car disobeys a direct order to stop, does the officer have the right to use force to stop them? ABSOLUTELY NOT. USE FORCE? YOU MEAN KILL THEM? AGAIN NO!

2. If the officer suspects that the driver of the vehicle is driving away so that they can then pull out a gun without being seen, is it unreasonable to shoot at them? YES IT IS UNREASONABLE

3. Is there any reason we should believe Buchele's testimony? IS THERE ANY REASON NOT TO? HE STORY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE RESULT. A SUNDAY SCHOOL TEACHER DEAD FOR ROLLING UP THE WINDOW

4. Buchele claims the officer shot through the window. Is it not possible that one hand was caught in the window and the other was outside holding the gun? IMPOSSIBLE

5. Even if the "hand-in-the-window" part of the story is proved false, does it change anything with respect to the facts above? YES

6. Does an officer have the right to order someone to stop, even without blue lights on? Does ordering them to stop mean he wants to detain them? DO THE WORDS REASONABLE SUSPICION and PROBABLE CAUSE MEAN ANYTHING TO YOU?

7. If Cook was innocent, why did she drive away and not just obey the officer? SO HE SHOT HER?

8. How did Cook manage to keep driving and turn the car after being shot at point-blank range? SO ITS OK TO KILL HER?

9. Is it impossible for the officer to have had a good reason to order her to stop? SO HE KILLED HER WHEN SHE DIDNT?

10. Does it make sense to make conclusions about corruption in the police force based on what we know so far about this incident? ABSOLUTELY

11. Given the aforementioned, what should the officer have done at the point Cook disobeyed him and continued driving away? NOT EMPTY THE CLIP INTO HER BODY. Let her go since he has no right to detain her without cause. If he has cause, make an arrest. Call for backup?

[GunnyFreedom]

"At the time of the Constitution's ratification, the office of sheriff was an appointed position, and constables were either elected or drafted from the community to serve without pay."

If you haven't read it, you may be interested in Roger Roots' essay ARE COPS CONSTITUTIONAL? (http://constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm) Good day to you, sir! :) /tips hat

Honestly I don't need to read an essay, because I have an actual physical copy of the NC State Constitution in which Article 7 Section 2 directly requires elected County Sheriffs.

Indeed, in the North Carolina State Constitution of 1776, Article 2 Section 38 likewise requires a Sheriff or Constable in every county.

Given that there is nothing in the US Constitution barring the States from electing Sheriffs, and there are provisions in the several State Constitutions going back to 1776 requiring said Sheriffs in the Counties, then County Sheriffs are clearly Constitutional.

See, I don't need to read interpretations of Constitutions to tell me what is and is not Constitutional when I have the texts of the Constitutions themselves which are both clear and simple to read.

[Lethalmiko]

I would rather a hundred guilty go free, than one innocent go to jail. Or in this case, be gunned down in the street for "contempt of cop".
All you are saying is that a cop's life means nothing to you and he should put himself in harm's way just to satisfy your false reasoning.

[Travlyr]

Honestly I don't need to read an essay, because I have an actual physical copy of the NC State Constitution in which Article 7 Section 2 directly requires elected County Sheriffs.

Indeed, in the North Carolina State Constitution of 1776, Article 2 Section 38 likewise requires a Sheriff or Constable in every county.

Given that there is nothing in the US Constitution barring the States from electing Sheriffs, and there are provisions in the several State Constitutions going back to 1776 requiring said Sheriffs in the Counties, then County Sheriffs are clearly Constitutional.

See, I don't need to read interpretations of Constitutions to tell me what is and is not Constitutional when I have the texts of the Constitutions themselves which are both clear and simple to read.
The important distinction is that County Sheriffs are "elected" and sworn to uphold and defend the constitution. Police are not.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

When an officer shoots at you, continuing to run gives them more reason to shoot again.


lol. No, it doesn't. Firearms are to be used to stop threats from advancing. She was clearly retreating and not an advancing threat.

You must be having fun with this thread, because I find it hard to believe that even you believe some of the things you are saying.



As hard as this may be for you, I want you to imagine that she was a hardcore criminal who had a dead body in the trunk and was about to shoot the officer and get away. Imagine she drove off to get a chance to get out her gun after being asked for her ID. Would you still hold onto your assessment?

If phone booths were rocket ships, we could fly to the moon. She drove off. If she comes back after him, it is a completely different situation. By your reasoning, cops can and should kill pretty much anyone they pull over. Maybe they have a dead body in the trunk and they're thinking about getting out a gun. Time to kill.

[heavenlyboy34]

Honestly I don't need to read an essay, because I have an actual physical copy of the NC State Constitution in which Article 7 Section 2 directly requires elected County Sheriffs.

Indeed, in the North Carolina State Constitution of 1776, Article 2 Section 38 likewise requires a Sheriff or Constable in every county.

Given that there is nothing in the US Constitution barring the States from electing Sheriffs, and there are provisions in the several State Constitutions going back to 1776 requiring said Sheriffs in the Counties, then County Sheriffs are clearly Constitutional.

See, I don't need to read interpretations of Constitutions to tell me what is and is not Constitutional when I have the texts of the Constitutions themselves which are both clear and simple to read.

Agreed. The topic of Sheriffs is mentioned by Roots:

"Few of the duties of Founding-era sheriffs involved criminal law enforcement. Instead, civil executions, attachments and confinements dominated their work. When professional police units first arrived on the American scene, they functioned primarily as protectors of public safety, health and welfare. This role followed the "bobbie" model developed in England in the 1830s by the father of professional policing, Sir Robert Peel"

[mikeforliberty]

All you are saying is that a cop's life means nothing to you and he should put himself in harm's way just to satisfy your false reasoning.

Good God yes! When you don a uniform you are accepting a substantial risk of physical harm. It is absolutely your responsibility to risk being hurt because you were wrong than to hurt others because you were wrong. Seriously do you know what forums you are on?

[Lethalmiko]

Police don't get to decide who is and is not a hard core criminal, that's why we have a judicial system and judicial warrants. There are already rigid laws and rules for probable cause which you are simply ignoring. The dead body in the trunk thing is something you are inventing whole-cloth in an attempt to justify this murder. No weapon was found or seen on the victim. You don't get to just make stuff up and then kill people for it, and neither do the police.

My assessment stands. If you can invent dead bodies and invisible weapons and nonexistent threats as an excuse to kill a sunday school teacher minding her own business, then any number of things can be 'invented' to simply assassinate political opponents and claim they had an invisible gun and a fictitious body in the trunk and suddenly it's all perfectly OK.
Your line of argument contains the huge fallacy of drawing conclusions about what the cop should have done AFTER THE FACT. I gave you that example to open your mind to the other side. Have you thought about all the cops who have been gunned down by criminals in the line of duty protecting your way of life because they took your approach? What if this had turned out the other way and the cop was shot dead? Would you go to his family with a straight face and tell them that he was okay to let the criminal drive away and shoot him?

You fail to grasp the simple point that in the situation, NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING was known about the woman or her intentions. You cannot as a cop know that she is "minding her business" as you approach the car and talk to her.

[GunnyFreedom]

The important distinction is that County Sheriffs are "elected" and sworn to uphold and defend the constitution. Police are not.

Correct.

[mikeforliberty]

Your line of argument contains the huge fallacy of drawing conclusions about what the cop should have done AFTER THE FACT. I gave you that example to open your mind to the other side. Have you thought about all the cops who have been gunned down by criminals in the line of duty protecting your way of life because they took your approach? What if this had turned out the other way and the cop was shot dead? Would you go to his family with a straight face and tell them that he was okay to let the criminal drive away and shoot him?

You fail to grasp the simple point that in the situation, NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING was known about the woman or her intentions. You cannot as a cop know that she is "minding her business" as you approach the car and talk to her.

You can never know what someone's intentions are. We can't have cops going around killing people because they don't comply with orders and cops don't "know their intentions".

This is just stupid. Can we personally block people on these forums? I'm more than happy to debate this idiocy elsewhere, but I come to RPF to take break from these statist supporters.

[Lethalmiko]

lol. No, it doesn't. Firearms are to be used to stop threats from advancing. She was clearly retreating and not an advancing threat. You must be having fun with this thread, because I find it hard to believe that even you believe some of the things you are saying. If phone booths were rocket ships, we could fly to the moon. She drove off. If she comes back after him, it is a completely different situation. By your reasoning, cops can and should kill pretty much anyone they pull over. Maybe they have a dead body in the trunk and they're thinking about getting out a gun. Time to kill.
In short, anyone who runs away should be allowed to, even if it allows him/her to then be in a position to pull out a gun? Please avoid strawman tactics. Cops cannot shoot at anyone they pull over. They shoot at people who drive off, disobeying a direct order to stop.


Good God yes! When you don a uniform you are accepting a substantial risk of physical harm. It is absolutely your responsibility to risk being hurt because you were wrong than to hurt others because you were wrong. Seriously do you know what forums you are on?
Part of a police officer's training is to reduce the risk of being killed by taking commonsense precautions like adopting a more aggressive stance when someone disobeys you and runs away. Innocent people do not normally run away and understand that the scenario being played out with them may be happening elsewhere with a hardcore criminal.

[mikeforliberty]

In short, anyone who runs away should be allowed to, even if it allows him/her to then be in a position to pull out a gun? Please avoid strawman tactics. Cops cannot shoot at anyone they pull over. They shoot at people who drive off, disobeying a direct order to stop.


Part of a police officer's training is to reduce the risk of being killed by taking commonsense precautions like adopting a more aggressive stance when someone disobeys you and runs away. Innocent people do not normally run away and understand that the scenario being played out with them may be happening elsewhere with a hardcore criminal.

And we have no idea what that cop said to the woman that scared her into fleeing. How often do people talk to a cop and then decide its worth fleeing. Then there is the fact that he shot her at point blank and then shot her as she drove away. Seems to me she was scared of the cop. Apparently her fears were justified.

[Lethalmiko]

You can never know what someone's intentions are. We can't have cops going around killing people because they don't comply with orders and cops don't "know their intentions".

This is just stupid. Can we personally block people on these forums? I'm more than happy to debate this idiocy elsewhere, but I come to RPF to take break from these statist supporters.
What is more stupid/idiotic is declaring that the officer is guilty of murder before you know all the facts, in total disregard of the principle of presumption of innocence.

[specsaregood]

And we have no idea what that cop said to the woman that scared her into fleeing. How often do people talk to a cop and then decide its worth fleeing. Then there is the fact that he shot her at point blank and then shot her as she drove away. Seems to me she was scared of the cop. Apparently her fears were justified.

From the moment I first read this story, I thought to myself that it sounded like a "hit". just saying...

[GunnyFreedom]

Your line of argument contains the huge fallacy of drawing conclusions about what the cop should have done AFTER THE FACT. I gave you that example to open your mind to the other side. Have you thought about all the cops who have been gunned down by criminals in the line of duty protecting your way of life because they took your approach? What if this had turned out the other way and the cop was shot dead? Would you go to his family with a straight face and tell them that he was okay to let the criminal drive away and shoot him?

You fail to grasp the simple point that in the situation, NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING was known about the woman or her intentions. You cannot as a cop know that she is "minding her business" as you approach the car and talk to her.

Nothing was known...so he has the right to shoot her? That's crazy. This is America, we don't have kings or nobility here. This is a Constitutional REPUBLIC. Everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY is bound by the same law.

Police cannot go up to random citizens and because they know nothing about them start blasting away. "Oh well, I didn't know that they weren't a serial killer."

According to your logic, some random person walking down the street may have a nuclear bomb in their backpack, and just saying 'hello' could cause them to trigger it, therefore police should set up sniper nests and just kill anybody with a backpack all over America.

Miko, we have a Constitution for a reason. The bottom line is that police do not even rank in the top 200 dangerous professions. According to Forbes, policing recently leapt to #314 in the ranking of most dangerous professions, due almost entirely to the new (very recent) focus on aggressive security posture. The "shoot first ask questions later" mentality that YOU sir are advocating, is the most dangerous thing to ever burden a police department in the history of the United States.

You logic is frankly bizarre in the extreme. Take a random citizen with no wants or warrants, no probable cause, and because you don't know that they AREN'T a threat you are justified in shooting them to death?

That may be one of the most twisted justifications of murder I have ever heard. I am serious here Miko, you have been brainwashed by the security state. What you are advocating is a direct violation of the American tradition from 1776 all the way through 1984, not to mention a blatant transgression of our law and Constitution.

A lack of knowledge is not justification for deadly force. Not even on the battlefield in a time of war are we allowed to just kill random unarmed people because we don't know whether they might be a threat in the future or not. You are advocating giving the police more power over life and death than an infantry platoon in WW2 had. I'm sorry but that's just crazy.

[mikeforliberty]

What is more stupid/idiotic is declaring that the officer is guilty of murder before you know all the facts, in total disregard of the principle of presumption of innocence.

A principle you have already denied to the woman who was killed. Too bad we'll never know since the dash cam was "not working". I guess we'll just have to hope the cop admits he killed a woman for driving away.

[GunnyFreedom]

In short, anyone who runs away should be allowed to, even if it allows him/her to then be in a position to pull out a gun? Please avoid strawman tactics. Cops cannot shoot at anyone they pull over. They shoot at people who drive off, disobeying a direct order to stop.


Part of a police officer's training is to reduce the risk of being killed by taking commonsense precautions like adopting a more aggressive stance when someone disobeys you and runs away. Innocent people do not normally run away and understand that the scenario being played out with them may be happening elsewhere with a hardcore criminal.

I weep for the America that we have already lost if you are representative of the population. This isn't Nazi Germany with ultimate power in the police state. We have a Constitution for a reason, and nobody, not even the police, are authorized to ignore it.

[mikeforliberty]

There is no justifiable reason for shooting through the window and then firing 5 additional times unless the cop was actively being attacked. Sorry thats the end of it. Of course no weapon was found in the woman's car and of course she was 54 and running away and of course deadly force is not authorized to stop someone from fleeing the cops, but lets just forget all of that and defend the cop who just killed an unarmed woman for failing to comply because he "didn't know her intentions".

[GunnyFreedom]

A principle you have already denied to the woman who was killed. Too bad we'll never know since the dash cam was "not working". I guess we'll just have to hope the cop admits he killed a woman for driving away.

Winner.

A Republican form of government. A Constitutional Republic. These basic descriptions require that ALL citizens, including butchers, bakers, candlestick makers, police, judges, assemblymen, congressmen, and even Presidents are all subject to the exact same law. We don't have one law for ordinary citizens and then a different law for the police. That's textbook tyranny.

[mikeforliberty]

Lol most 54 year old women I know carry guns in their cars, wait for cops to walk up to their door, then try and drag them through parking lots, then try and get a small distance away and shoot the cop. Yeah that happens all the time and cops never use unjustifiable force. Obviously we need more facts.

Hint: Sarcasm.

[mikeforliberty]

"Oh shit, oh shit! She's driving away after I shot her! Instead of pursuing or calling an ambulance I'll shoot her 5 more times! I'm terrified of 54 year old fatally wounded unarmed women! Who knows, maybe she has a bomb in her trunk! I have no way of knowing her intentions!" - Cop you are defending.

[AFPVet]

Certainly not at the Federal level. Most State Constitutions do clearly authorize elected Sheriffs and Constables.

Yup... sheriffs, marshals, constables and their deputies and/or posses.

[FindLiberty]

In short, anyone who runs away should be allowed to, even if it allows him/her to then be in a position to pull out a gun? Please avoid strawman tactics. Cops cannot shoot at anyone they pull over. They shoot at people who drive off, disobeying a direct order to stop.

Part of a police officer's training is to reduce the risk of being killed by taking commonsense precautions like adopting a more aggressive stance when someone disobeys you and runs away. Innocent people do not normally run away and understand that the scenario being played out with them may be happening elsewhere with a hardcore criminal.

...NO !

Wow,
I'm reading a lot of statist arguments here (that only a tyrant could love).

Need more facts and evidence before any final conclusion can be reached.
Six shots fired, five were "in the back"? [POP, ...pop pop pop pop pop] WTF?

I need to see all dashcam/audio recording(s) ...unless they were accidently
erased, by now. So far, it sounds like the Cop is 100% wrong here and this
was his CTM. IMHO, our country needs Peace Officers, not military kill-bots.

I feel sorry for her family / husband in any case.

[MelissaWV]

No, he didn't know her intentions. Part of your training, though, is to guess the person's intentions.

He assumed that they were base and awful and that she was a threat. He also assumed that shooting her would neutralize the threat (this is NOT always the case, even if there IS a threat). He assumed less lethal forms of stopping her would not work or would make the situation more dangerous. He made a call that her driving away might be more dangerous.

Most of those things sound pretty friggin' wrong.

[Birdlady]

As hard as this may be for you, I want you to imagine that she was a hardcore criminal who had a dead body in the trunk and was about to shoot the officer and get away. Imagine she drove off to get a chance to get out her gun after being asked for her ID. Would you still hold onto your assessment?

Wow...I am almost speechless. You actually believe this? I don't want to insult you, but you have a long way until your programing is fully deconditioned. Are you new to Ron Paul? If so that is great and I welcome you, but you really have a lot to learn. Please hear out what we are saying to you. I know that you think you are right in this situation, but that's because you have become accustomed to a police state.

Basically from what I have read in this thread, you believe in punishing thought crimes or pre-crime. "She might have a gun" "She might have a body in the trunk". Well if the cop truly considered her a real threat, he should have called for back up, radioed in her license plate number so a search could begin. There is absolutely no reason why this cop should have shot her no matter what the circumstances.

[Anti Federalist]

You fail to grasp the simple point that in the situation, NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING was known about the woman or her intentions. You cannot as a cop know that she is "minding her business" as you approach the car and talk to her.

Alright, now you're just trolling, good for you, you got a rise out of everybody.

Successful troll is successful.

But, just on the off chance you were serious, this is what is the matter with your thinking.

Without a clear indication of any crime being committed, the state, and by extension, their enforcer's, default position must ALWAYS be that a citizen is doing nothing wrong and that a cop does not have the right, by virtue of being a cop, to harass, impound, impede, detain, force, or kill somebody, until it becomes clear that some crime has been committed.

[Anti Federalist]

I weep for the America that we have already lost if you are representative of the population. This isn't Nazi Germany with ultimate power in the police state. We have a Constitution for a reason, and nobody, not even the police, are authorized to ignore it.

You must spread some reputation around....

[Anti Federalist]

All you are saying is that a cop's life means nothing to you and he should put himself in harm's way just to satisfy your false reasoning.

A cop's life is worth exactly what my life or your life is worth, no more or less.

I carry a firearm on a regular basis.

And I cannot legally justify the use of deadly force against somebody else's life unless there is an immediate threat to mine.

As presented so far, that was clearly not the case here, not even close.

[JK/SEA]

geeez...HEY MODS...could you PLEASE un-ban REV-9 to take care of this poster?

thankyou.

[MelissaWV]

The policeman is putting his "life on the line" and getting paid for it. He receives training to, in theory, minimize his exposure to situations where he is alone and faced with mortal peril. He is armed with weaponry to help him stay alive, given non-lethal means of subduing people, provided with constant communication so that he can call for backup, is armored in many cases, and is given the authority of the law. If you kill a police officer, your sentence will be greater than if you kill another person. If a police officer kills an average Joe, their punishment will be less than if you did the same thing.

All of that said, we are not discussing the worth of a life. We are discussing what is reasonable.

If you believe every person you pull over is armed and has a bomb or a corpse or both in the trunk, then just save yourself the danger and shoot into the car before you even get out of yours. That isn't how things are supposed to work, though.

[GunnyFreedom]

Alright, now you're just trolling, good for you, you got a rise out of everybody.

Successful troll is successful.

But, just on the off chance you were serious, this is what is the matter with your thinking.

Without a clear indication of any crime being committed, the state, and by extension, their enforcer's, default position must ALWAYS be that a citizen is doing nothing wrong and that a cop does not have the right, by virtue of being a cop, to harass, impound, impede, detain, force, or kill somebody, until it becomes clear that some crime has been committed.

Correct. Thus 'probable cause.' If the police officer has probable cause to believe that a serious crime has been committed or is in the process of commission, then they are given certain leeway under the premise of exigent circumstances. A random guess that there 'could be' a weapon somewhere or there 'might be' a body in the trunk is not probable cause by any definition.

off topic -- someone around here is firing off some serious hardware. At the very least a .300 WSM. Sounds like a dam cannon or artillery piece :eek: Mind you, where I live you can't go 24 hours without hearing rifles and handguns in the vicinity...but the last 3 days someone has been shooting a frelling cannon! I'm telling you, .300 WSM at minimum, possibly something larger than .30

[GunnyFreedom]

The policeman is putting his "life on the line" and getting paid for it. He receives training to, in theory, minimize his exposure to situations where he is alone and faced with mortal peril. He is armed with weaponry to help him stay alive, given non-lethal means of subduing people, provided with constant communication so that he can call for backup, is armored in many cases, and is given the authority of the law. If you kill a police officer, your sentence will be greater than if you kill another person. If a police officer kills an average Joe, their punishment will be less than if you did the same thing.

All of that said, we are not discussing the worth of a life. We are discussing what is reasonable.

If you believe every person you pull over is armed and has a bomb or a corpse or both in the trunk, then just save yourself the danger and shoot into the car before you even get out of yours. That isn't how things are supposed to work, though.

I get what you are saying in the thread, and I get that the common justification for 'special' legal protections for police are justified by the 'life on the line' rationalization. My problem is that police officers are #300-something in ranking for dangerous professions, and that's only recently and due to the newer more aggressive posture putting them in more danger. They used to be in the 400's in the ranking of dangerous professions back before there was this 'shoot first ask questions later' mentality.

If someone is a criminal and they know a cop is liable to shoot first and ask questions later, they are more apt to defend themselves. Thus our more aggressive security state posture has led directly to the increasing danger in the police profession.

The reality, of course, is that policework is not now nor ever has been truly very dangerous. That's really a myth contrived in order to justify special legal protections for police officers. There are today at least 313 professions directly more dangerous than police work, and prior to 2001 there were at lease 450 professions directly more dangerous than police work.

So I get what you are saying, that in spite of all these special protections this particular shooting STILL appears unjustified. Nevertheless, I wince whenever I hear that 'life on the line' thing to justify the unequal treatment, because it's really just a myth after all.

Mind you, if we continue current trends and keep militarizing the police and their ROE's there stands a chance one day that police work may break the top 100 dangerous jobs, and then it could in fact become true. When it does, however, it will be due to their increasingly aggressive posture, which we here are trying to stop.

A valid argument can be made that people who think like we do are actively trying to prevent police work from becoming a seriously dangerous profession.

[JK/SEA]

geeez...HEY MODS...could you PLEASE un-ban REV-9 to take care of this poster?

thankyou.

release the KRACKEN!!!...

[mikeforliberty]

I hope Miko has a few things to think about... sadly I'm sure cognitive dissonance has already kicked in and his position is more statist than before.

[Gary4Liberty]

Gary4Liberty, the biggest problem with most of your comments is that you are using a strawman argument. I NEVER ever said it was OK to kill her. ....It may well turn out that he was within the law to shoot at her under those specific circumstances of her disobeying his order and then taking off. In my opinion, IF he had simply asked for her licence and registration or asked her why she was parked there for a while and she simply ignored him and started driving off, then he was justified to ask her to stop and her refusal gave him reasonable cause to suspect she may possibly be armed or possibly be a criminal.

It is not a straw man that I am stabbing with my pitchfork, it is actually you. You made it perfectly clear that you justified the shooting because she did not obey the cop. In upside down world where you live you think it is suspicious for a citizen to insist on their rights and object when a police officer violates them. Thats not suspicious thats what you are supposed to do. By your logic people should be shot for this if they dont obey.

[MelissaWV]

Gunny it's more of the opposite. This guy already gets the benefit of the doubt, as an officer, and much more protection than even a real criminal is likely to have. That compensates for the fact they may be pulling over someone with a gun. Frankly, police are far more at risk from other vehicles on the road than from the people they pull over.

[Travlyr]

What?! I cannot believe what you guys are saying. Are you anarchists or something?

No. Everyone who has been on this forum for more than a few months can testify that I'm not an anarchist. I support the Constitution for the united States of America which is the supreme Law of the Land.


Article. VI. (http://constitution.org/constit_.htm)

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Amendment IV

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.

Amendment V.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).
This is one of the leading cases in the history of the U.S. The opinion of the court was “Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law; Clearly for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme was illogical; for certainly the supreme law would prevail over any other law, and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme law would be the basis for all laws, and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law. It would bear no power to enforce, it would bear no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as though it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded by a court of law. No courts are bound to uphold it, and no citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a mere nullity or a fiction of law, which means it doesn‟t exist in law.”

This invalidates the Patriot Act, NDAA, and all oppressive laws. Government officials do not have the authority to stop, detain, or search persons without a warrant. Police get their authority from the weapons they carry.



Travlyr, what you have written is nonsense. If we followed what you are saying, every criminal would simply drive away once an officer approached them and keep repeating this since the police would have no authority to stop them by force. Ditto for running away on foot. How long do you reckon it would take before anyone is arrested?
I'm thinking about 100 years. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was a criminal coup d'état and it is now 2012. Hopefully, we will waken enough people to put the criminals in jail next year.


Why would an innocent person be running away?Fear. Fear of being killed, beaten, or tasered.

Now I have a question for you. Why would a cop arrest a person for growing industrial hemp?



Imagine the police stops a guy they suspect of being a criminal. They tell him to put his hands in the air so that they can search him. In your so-called "free society", he simply ignores what they say, turns his back to them, starts running away and pulls out a gun from his pocket, turns round, crouches and shoots them to death. Don't you see how silly that is? Sounds like a cop show on TV.



This was not anyone. It was a police officer mandated to enforce the law. Until you hear why he did it, you cannot conclude anything.He is guilty of murder according the supreme law of the land if a trial by jury finds him guilty of murder. Of course he will not be charged by the illegitimate oligarchy.



So? Criminals and suspected criminals are gunned down all the time and deprived of their right to life.
Happens all the time on TV. Have you watched Steve McGarrett and Danno on Hawaii Five-O? They break & enter, steal, beat people up and kill them all the time. Of course that is TV so the actors get to get-up, collect a paycheck, and go home to their families like this cop. Poor lady. May she RIP.



What is unreasonable about stopping a suspicious person away from their home and possibly searching them to make sure they do not have a weapon?What do you consider a weapon? A pencil? Somebody could stab you with a pencil.



So everybody including criminals in your ideal anarchist society can just ignore the police and take off anytime they are confronted.See. Obeying the Constitution is considered an ideal anarchist society by the true statists. That's what I've been saying on this forum since December 2009. Obeying the constitution is a virtual voluntary society. Liberty, Peace, and Prosperity. It can be made much better by amending it.



Nothing in this incident proves corruption in the police force.
Killing is corrupt.



Imagine someone anonymously calls the police to tell them he has seen a car parked with blood dripping from the trunk and the driver still in it. Do you expect the officer nearby who is supposed to go check it out to first go see a judge to get a warrant to search the car? Does this sound sensible to you?
Indeed it does sound sensible. It is part of the supreme Law of the Land
Article IV. "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." Hold the judges feet to the fire.



Nonsense. He had no way of knowing whether she was armed or not. How can any police officer be reasonably expected to know that someone driving off after being told to stop is not a threat?Drivers are all a threat. The automobile is the most dangerous weapon in the world. If we would just kill all the drivers, then they wouldn't be a threat. Just like if we bomb Iran before they get a nuclear weapon, then we won't have to worry our dead heads about getting nuked by them.

[Anti Federalist]

Correct. Thus 'probable cause.' If the police officer has probable cause to believe that a serious crime has been committed or is in the process of commission, then they are given certain leeway under the premise of exigent circumstances. A random guess that there 'could be' a weapon somewhere or there 'might be' a body in the trunk is not probable cause by any definition.

off topic -- someone around here is firing off some serious hardware. At the very least a .300 WSM. Sounds like a dam cannon or artillery piece :eek: Mind you, where I live you can't go 24 hours without hearing rifles and handguns in the vicinity...but the last 3 days someone has been shooting a frelling cannon! I'm telling you, .300 WSM at minimum, possibly something larger than .30

.50 BMG maybe.

I remember a few years back the fellow that owns the woods to the right of me, was out shooting some Tannnerite.

Crack, crack, crackBOOOOOM.

I had to get me some of that.

[phill4paul]

.50 BMG maybe.

I remember a few years back the fellow that owns the woods to the right of me, was out shooting some Tannnerite.

Crack, crack, crackBOOOOOM.

I had to get me some of that.

Guy up the road from me used some 'Southern Thunder' the other weekend. I thought a frikken natural gas tank had exploded.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLdiVWJn10Q

[GunnyFreedom]

Gunny it's more of the opposite. This guy already gets the benefit of the doubt, as an officer, and much more protection than even a real criminal is likely to have. That compensates for the fact they may be pulling over someone with a gun. Frankly, police are far more at risk from other vehicles on the road than from the people they pull over.

Indeed, quite so. Traffic is far and away more dangerous, and much of the added danger in policing has a lot to do with the fact that they spend so much more time in traffic than a regular person.

[Anti Federalist]

Brother, I'm gonna be following you around, giving you rep, for weeks after this thread in order to catch up.

Let me make a point on this one comment:


The reality, of course, is that policework is not now nor ever has been truly very dangerous. That's really a myth contrived in order to justify special legal protections for police officers. There are today at least 313 professions directly more dangerous than police work, and prior to 2001 there were at lease 450 professions directly more dangerous than police work.

As the stance becomes more aggressive, I agree that there will be more incidents, but that is being countered by the "neutralize at any cost" mentality of SWAT raiders.

The fact is, LEO deaths, (as MelissaWV rightly pointed out traffic deaths resulted in the majority of those killed.) are at a mostly all time low, at raw numbers approaching that of 1959, in spite of there being hundreds of thousands of more cops now, than then.

http://www.nleomf.org/assets/pdfs/reports/2010_Law_Enforcement_Fatalities_Report.pdf

I suggest that rise might be caused by the fact that we don't do anything here anymore. Manufacturing, especially heavy manufacturing, can be quite dangerous.

Not gonna be many work related deaths in a shuttered steel mill or tool and die foundry.

Point is, aside from traffic deaths, being a cop is a remarkably safe job, just like you said.

Safe enough that there is no justification for murders like this, or for the cops to be squared off against the citizens, as if we were a hostile enemy to be neutralized at any cost.


I get what you are saying in the thread, and I get that the common justification for 'special' legal protections for police are justified by the 'life on the line' rationalization. My problem is that police officers are #300-something in ranking for dangerous professions, and that's only recently and due to the newer more aggressive posture putting them in more danger. They used to be in the 400's in the ranking of dangerous professions back before there was this 'shoot first ask questions later' mentality.

If someone is a criminal and they know a cop is liable to shoot first and ask questions later, they are more apt to defend themselves. Thus our more aggressive security state posture has led directly to the increasing danger in the police profession.

The reality, of course, is that policework is not now nor ever has been truly very dangerous. That's really a myth contrived in order to justify special legal protections for police officers. There are today at least 313 professions directly more dangerous than police work, and prior to 2001 there were at lease 450 professions directly more dangerous than police work.

So I get what you are saying, that in spite of all these special protections this particular shooting STILL appears unjustified. Nevertheless, I wince whenever I hear that 'life on the line' thing to justify the unequal treatment, because it's really just a myth after all.

Mind you, if we continue current trends and keep militarizing the police and their ROE's there stands a chance one day that police work may break the top 100 dangerous jobs, and then it could in fact become true. When it does, however, it will be due to their increasingly aggressive posture, which we here are trying to stop.

A valid argument can be made that people who think like we do are actively trying to prevent police work from becoming a seriously dangerous profession.

[GunnyFreedom]

.50 BMG maybe.

I remember a few years back the fellow that owns the woods to the right of me, was out shooting some Tannnerite.

Crack, crack, crackBOOOOOM.

I had to get me some of that.

I know what a .50BMG sounds like and it wasn't quite that big. :) But it was certainly way bigger than you normally hear in the everyday 5.56 .270 .308 .30-30 .30-06 range.

As to exploding targets, that's something I want to try one day. I've got plenty of land for it.

I'll be buying an LMT308MWS with a 20" barrel within the next month. That'll be fun. :D

Sometime between now and then I'm going to be teaching someone I know how to shoot a pistol...

[heavenlyboy34]

Brother, I'm gonna be following you around, giving you rep, for weeks after this thread in order to catch up.

Jealous much? :D
http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/small/0912/jealousy-envy-jealousy-demotivational-poster-1259698088.jpg

[sanssq]

How in the hell do you SUDDENLY get your arm trapped in a side window when you're getting someone's ID? That's the best they could come up with I guess. Makes me furious, I grew up right near there.


Ever been stopped by the police before? Cops don't reach into a window of a car to get your ID. NEVER. You hand them the ID through the window.

[RiseAgainst]

Obvious FBI troll is obvious.

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

In short, anyone who runs away should be allowed to, even if it allows him/her to then be in a position to pull out a gun? Please avoid strawman tactics. Cops cannot shoot at anyone they pull over. They shoot at people who drive off, disobeying a direct order to stop.


Part of a police officer's training is to reduce the risk of being killed by taking commonsense precautions like adopting a more aggressive stance when someone disobeys you and runs away. Innocent people do not normally run away and understand that the scenario being played out with them may be happening elsewhere with a hardcore criminal.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lidawxP8a41qbhr57.gif

[Anti Federalist]

LoL - Not in the least.

Gunny followed through on this argument like a pro, the rep is more than well deserved.


Jealous much? :D
http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/small/0912/jealousy-envy-jealousy-demotivational-poster-1259698088.jpg

[Anti Federalist]

Never fails, this forum delivers, no doubt.

Hat Tip to AGameOfThones

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?361815-Idaho-Court-Feel-Free-to-Ignore-Cop-Tapping-on-Window

So Lethal, the courts say you can drive away when not under arrest.

Of course, if you do, you're liable to get gunned down.

I won't argue this point at all, that Patricia Cook, in this case, aggravated and provoked a psychopath that ended up killing her.

I have consistently stated that, if you want to survive an encounter with modern day US LEOs, you had better be calm, submissive and utterly compliant and that an encounter can go sideways in a matter of seconds that can leave you arrested, beaten or dead.

And that even more important than that, is to have no dealings with them in the first place.

DO NOT CALL THE COPS - DO NOT DIAL 911


"The evidence showed that Randle was not prevented from leaving the parking lot," Judge John M. Melanson wrote for the court. "The district court found that Randle could have backed up and driven away from the encounter without running over the officer because the officer was at Randle's driver's side window and the officer's vehicle was two car lengths behind Randle's."

"By approaching Randle's vehicle in the parking lot and tapping on the window, the officer did not restrict Randle's liberty to ignore the officer's presence and go about his business," Melanson wrote. "We conclude that, when the officer parked behind Randle's vehicle, left the patrol car's headlights on, approached Randle's vehicle and knocked on the window, such conduct would not have communicated to a reasonable person that he or she was not at liberty to ignore the officer's presence and go about his or her business."

[PaulConventionWV]

And people fear private security. :rolleyes: Government murder is so much more legitimate. /sarcasm :(

Non sequitur. It doesn't mean a private police force would be any better.

[PaulConventionWV]

Sorry to say this, but all I am seeing here is mass hysteria. The officer has been declared guilty until proven innocent. Let us discuss the facts and a few questions.

FACTS

1. Patricia Cook DISOBEYED a DIRECT order from a police officer.

2. Kris Buchele says that the vehicle was already in motion when Cook was rolling up the window and BEFORE the officer shot her. She was told to stop BEFORE she was shot.

3. AFTER being shot at, she continued driving away.

4. Buchele is the ONLY witness so far.

5. The officer could NOT have possibly known whether she was armed or not.


QUESTIONS

1. If someone in a moving car disobeys a direct order to stop, does the officer have the right to use force to stop them?

2. If the officer suspects that the driver of the vehicle is driving away so that they can then pull out a gun without being seen, is it unreasonable to shoot at them?

3. Is there any reason we should believe Buchele's testimony?

4. Buchele claims the officer shot through the window. Is it not possible that one hand was caught in the window and the other was outside holding the gun?

5. Even if the "hand-in-the-window" part of the story is proved false, does it change anything with respect to the facts above?

6. Does an officer have the right to order someone to stop, even without blue lights on? Does ordering them to stop mean he wants to detain them?

7. If Cook was innocent, why did she drive away and not just obey the officer?

8. How did Cook manage to keep driving and turn the car after being shot at point-blank range?

9. Is it impossible for the officer to have had a good reason to order her to stop?

10. Does it make sense to make conclusions about corruption in the police force based on what we know so far about this incident?

11. Given the aforementioned, what should the officer have done at the point Cook disobeyed him and continued driving away?

I'll take a crack at your little quiz. I might add that you have much to learn in the way of the law.

1. No, the police officer has to have a reason to suspect the person in question of a crime.
2. The officer must have evidence that a crime is about to take place. He can't just assume or suspect something.
3.Because he has no reason to lie. Even if he did, his testimony would be just as good as the cop's.
4. He says one hand was on the door handle and the other was on the gun and that the officer's hand never went through the window. The police officer never had the right to put his hand in the vehicle anyway. Also, it is suspect that he couldn't get his hand out of the window when everyone knows window's don't go up that fast.
5. It proves he was lying, and that he was never in danger for his life.
6. Yes, that's the whole point. If his blue lights are not on, then it is simply a casual confrontation and not an arrest or detainment so he doesn't have the right to force the person to do anything.
7. That question is irrelevant. It doesn't justify deadly force. Citizens can't be suspected of a crime simply because they didn't want to talk to the police. That would be a massive invasion of privacy and human rights.
8. Maybe the next five shots were the deadly ones. Did you read it? Also, it is only natural for a car that is in drive to keep moving if the driver is suddenly killed.
9. Under the law, yes. He was never justified to use force of any kind.
10. This story and the hundreds of others like it give me all the information I need to know, not to mention the principled stance against having state police force.
11. He should have walked away and went about his own business.

[RiseAgainst]

Non sequitur. It doesn't mean a private police force would be any better.

Yes sequitor. A private police force does not carry with it a monopoly on force. A private police force is accountable, a mobile tyrant is not.

[Lethalmiko]

Let me take a slightly different angle which hopefully will address most of the responses. Two issues:

1. POLICE OFFICER
What most of you expect me to believe is that this trained officer was just some crazy trigger-happy idiot who could not wait to pump several bullets into a middle aged woman. He was in a parking lot, was in the middle of a loud heated argument that could have been heard by many others, in broad daylight. Despite being conscious of all this and the fact that he could be seen by witnesses, he just decided to do something stupid like shooting someone several times that he supposedly knew was unarmed. And you also expect me to believe he knowingly broke the law and violated the constitution without caring that he may get jailed for murder. A choice between that and the other possible thesis that he judged her to be a potential threat or criminal in the heat of the moment with only split-seconds to make the decision, I lean towards the latter explanation until I see evidence of deliberate murder.

2. TENNESSEE V. GARNER COURT CASE (1985)
This landmark case is often used as a legal precedent in cases like this. The situation involved an unarmed burgler who was fleeing the scene of a crime and was told to halt but fled anyway and was shot dead by an officer who acted on a Tennessee statute that gave power to the police to use all necessary force to apprehend a fleeing suspect. The dead suspect's father sued based on the 4th Amendment but the District Court found the officer's actions constitutional. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed and it went to the Supreme Court who upheld the Sixth Circuit's decision by 6-3.

Prima Facie, you probably think this destroys my arguments, especially those of you who are shocked and think my opinion is insane. When you dig deeper into that case, you discover that a dissenting opinon was rendered by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (the first female Supreme Court Judge). The other two dissenting Justices who agreed with her were none other than the Chief Justice himself, Warren E. Burger and William Rehnquist (who succeeded Burger as Chief Justice). So presumably, these distinguished justices are as insane as me.

Some excerpts from the case (bold headings are my own and my comments are at the end):


SUMMARY
A Tennessee statute provides that, if, after a police officer has given notice of an intent to arrest a criminal suspect, the suspect flees or forcibly resists, "the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest."

Held: The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

THE SIX MAJORITY MEMBERS
The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects.

It is not, however, unconstitutional on its face. Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster.

THE THREE DISSENTING MEMBERS
By disregarding the serious and dangerous nature of residential burglaries and the longstanding practice of many States, the Court effectively creates a Fourth Amendment right allowing a burglary suspect to flee unimpeded from a police officer who has probable cause to arrest, who has ordered the suspect to halt, and who has no means short of firing his weapon to prevent escape. I do not believe that the Fourth Amendment supports such a right, and I accordingly dissent.

The facts below warrant brief review because they highlight the difficult, split-second decisions police officers must make in these circumstances.
...

For purposes of Fourth Amendment analysis, I agree with the Court that Officer Hymon "seized" Gamer by shooting him. Whether that seizure was reasonable, and therefore permitted by the Fourth Amendment, requires a careful balancing of the important public interest in crime prevention and detection and the nature and quality of the intrusion upon legitimate interests of the individual.
...

The clarity of hindsight cannot provide the standard for judging the reasonableness of police decisions made in uncertain and often dangerous circumstances. Moreover, I am far more reluctant than is the Court to conclude that the Fourth Amendment proscribes a police practice that was accepted at the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights and has continued to receive the support of many state legislatures.
...

There is no question that the effectiveness of police use of deadly force is arguable, and that many States or individual police departments have decided not to authorize it in circumstances similar to those presented here. But it should go without saying that the effectiveness or popularity of a particular police practice does not determine its constitutionality.
...

For purposes of this case, we must recall that the police officer, in the course of investigating a nighttime burglary, had reasonable cause to arrest the suspect and ordered him to halt. The officer's use of force resulted because the suspected burglar refused to heed this command and the officer reasonably believed that there was no means short of firing his weapon to apprehend the suspect. Without questioning the importance of a person's interest in his life, I do not think this interest encompasses a right to flee unimpeded from the scene of a burglary. Cf. Payton v. New York, 445 U. S. 573, 445 U. S. 617, n. 14 (1980) (WHITE, J., dissenting) ("[T]he policeman's hands should not be tied merely because of the possibility that the suspect will fail to cooperate with legitimate actions by law enforcement personnel"). The legitimate interests of the suspect in these circumstances are adequately accommodated by the Tennessee statute: to avoid the use of deadly force and the consequent risk to his life, the suspect need merely obey the valid order to halt.
...

No one can view the death of an unarmed and apparently nonviolent 15-year-old without sorrow, much less disapproval. Nonetheless, the reasonableness of Officer Hymon's conduct for purposes of the Fourth Amendment cannot be evaluated by what later appears to have been a preferable course of police action.
...

The reasonableness of this action for purposes of the Fourth Amendment is not determined by the unfortunate nature of this particular case; instead, the question is whether it is constitutionally impermissible for police officers, as a last resort, to shoot a burglary suspect fleeing the scene of the crime. Because I reject the Fourth Amendment reasoning of the majority and the Court of Appeals, I briefly note that no other constitutional provision supports the decision below.
...

Even if I agreed that the Fourth Amendment was violated under the circumstances of this case, I would be unable to join the Court's opinion. The Court holds that deadly force may be used only if the suspect

"threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm."

The Court ignores the more general implications of its reasoning. Relying on the Fourth Amendment, the majority asserts that it is constitutionally unreasonable to use deadly force against fleeing criminal suspects who do not appear to pose a threat of serious physical harm to others. Ibid. By declining to limit its holding to the use of firearms, the Court unnecessarily implies that the Fourth Amendment constrains the use of any police practice that is potentially lethal, no matter how remote the risk. Cf. Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U. S. 95 (1983).

Although it is unclear from the language of the opinion, I assume that the majority intends the word "use" to include only those circumstances in which the suspect is actually apprehended. Absent apprehension of the suspect, there is no "seizure" for Fourth Amendment purposes. I doubt that the Court intends to allow criminal suspects who successfully escape to return later with claims against officers who used, albeit unsuccessfully, deadly force in their futile attempt to capture the fleeing suspect. The Court's opinion, despite its broad language, actually decides only that the shooting of a fleeing burglary suspect who was in fact neither armed nor dangerous can support action.

The Court's silence on critical factors in the decision to use deadly force simply invites second-guessing of difficult police decisions that must be made quickly in the most trying of circumstances. Cf. Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. at 445 U. S. 619 (WHITE, J., dissenting). Police are given no guidance for determining which objects, among an array of potentially lethal weapons ranging from guns to knives to baseball bats to rope, will justify the use of deadly force. The Court also declines to outline the additional factors necessary to provide "probable cause" for believing that a suspect "poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury," ante at 471 U. S. 3, when the officer has probable cause to arrest and the suspect refuses to obey an order to halt. But even if it were appropriate in this case to limit the use of deadly force to that ambiguous class of suspects, I believe the class should include nighttime residential burglars who resist arrest by attempting to flee the scene of the crime. We can expect an escalating volume of litigation as the lower courts struggle to determine if a police officer's split-second decision to shoot was justified by the danger posed by a particular object and other facts related to the crime. Thus, the majority opinion portends a burgeoning area of Fourth Amendment doctrine concerning the circumstances in which police officers can reasonably employ deadly force.

The Court's opinion sweeps broadly to adopt an entirely new standard for the constitutionality of the use of deadly force to apprehend fleeing felons. Thus, the Court "lightly brushe[s] aside," Payton v. New York, supra, at 445 U. S. 600, a longstanding police practice that predates the Fourth Amendment and continues to receive the approval of nearly half of the state legislatures. I cannot accept the majority's creation of a constitutional right to flight for burglary suspects seeking to avoid capture at the scene of the crime. Whatever the constitutional limits on police use of deadly force in order to apprehend a fleeing felon, I do not believe they are exceeded in a case in which a police officer has probable cause to arrest a suspect at the scene of a residential burglary, orders the suspect to halt, and then fires his weapon as a last resort to prevent the suspect's escape into the night. I respectfully dissent.

SOURCE:
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/1/case.html

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=471&page=1


-------------------

MY COMMENTS
The essential question that needs to be settled is whether the officer had a justifiable reason to shoot at her in the specific situation of her disobeying his order and driving away. Since we do not know the exact circumstances of their interaction, we cannot conclude just yet that he was in the wrong. We are yet to hear his explanation in more detail and we are yet to examine Buchele's full testimony in detail.

One wrong assumption most of you have made was that she drove away in response to something negative he said or did. This has no basis. She could have decided to drive away before he even said anything. Or he could have asked something reasonable like for her to show him her licence/registration or what she was doing there and maybe she told him to fuck off and drove away. Fact is, her ACTION was very SUSPICIOUS and the officer had to make a decision quickly. There is no evidence so far that he intended to harm her in any way before the shooting.

EXTRA COMMENTS
Sorry to say this, but the reaction I have gotten on this forum several times proves that most of you in here are not true Libertarians. Many of you seem to be more of conspiracy theorists living in a dream world and you behave exactly like people in a cult, never accepting dissenting views. There is too much dishonesty, hypocrisy and self-contradictions on these forums. For people that claim to follow Ron Paul and his teachings, many of you are so far away from his essential philosophy and constitutionalism.

You judge the police officer as guilty before hearing all the facts which is not a constitutional position nor philosophically sound. Many of you engage in ad hominem and strawman attacks, endlessly speculate about my motives and call me a troll, something greater minds like Dr Paul would never do. You try to stifle honest debate but see no contradiction with the principle of free thought and free speech (of course within the rules of the forum). Many have this elitist attitude whereby they think they rule this forum because they have been here since 2007 and have thousands of contributions. They speak condescendingly towards "newbies" like me as if only they have superior knowledge and wisdom, and yet they spout endless fallacies that reveal minds not schooled in the process of logical thinking.

Not all is bad of course. There are some level-headed people here that I can have a respectful rational discussion with, even when we disagree. I salute such people and I hope to see more of you. Otherwise, no hard feelings guys. As much as hypocrisy and dishonesty really tick me off, I have learned to be patient.

Peace ya'll. :)

[JK/SEA]

here...read this....

my home town,

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20110630/NEWS01/706309796

[Anti Federalist]

EXTRA COMMENTS
Sorry to say this, but the reaction I have gotten on this forum several times proves that most of you in here are not true libertatians. Many of you seem to be more of conspiracy theorists living in a dream world and you behave exactly like people in a cult, never accepting dissenting views. There is too much dishonesty, hypocrisy and self-contradictions on these forums. For people that claim to follow Ron Paul and his teachings, many of you are so far away from his essential philosophy and constitutionalism.

You judge the police officer as guilty before hearing all the facts which is not a constitutional position nor philosophically sound. Many of you engage in ad hominem and strawman attacks, endlessly speculate about my motives and call me a troll, something greater minds like Dr Paul would never do. You try to stifle honest debate but see no contradiction with the principle of free thought and free speech (of course within the rules of the forum). Many have this elitist attitude whereby they think they rule this forum because they have been here since 2007 and have thousands of contributions. They speak condescendingly towards "newbies" like me as if only they have superior knowledge and wisdom, and yet they spout endless fallacies that reveal minds not schooled in the process of logical thinking.

Not all is bad of course. There are some level-headed people here that I can have a respectful rational discussion, even when we disagree. I salute such people all and I hope to see more of you. Otherwise, no hard feelings guys. As much as hypocrisy and dishonesty really tick me off, I have learned to be patient.

Peace ya'll. :)

And as much as failing to clearly recognize a danger right in front of someone ticks me off, I too, have learned patience.

[JK/SEA]

and so we come full circle, and the best advice can be found on this forum:

DO NOT CALL THE COPS FOR ANYTHING. Any contact with these gangsters can get you hurt...or killed.

[Anti Federalist]

You, or somebody close to you.

+rep


and so we come full circle, and the best advice can be found on this forum:

DO NOT CALL THE COPS FOR ANYTHING. Any contact with these gangsters can get you hurt...or killed.

[AFPVet]

.50 BMG maybe.

I remember a few years back the fellow that owns the woods to the right of me, was out shooting some Tannnerite.

Crack, crack, crackBOOOOOM.

I had to get me some of that.

I got that here too. It's definitely a .50 BMG rifle where I'm at. Once you hear one of those things, there's no mistaking it!

[mikeforliberty]

And you also expect me to believe he knowingly broke the law and violated the constitution without caring that he may get jailed for murder.

Haha no of course I don't expect you to believe that. I expect you to believe that the officer is probably not well-versed in the Constitution at all and is completely unaware of what it has to do with him. And Its not "without caring that he may get jailed for murder" because we all know that would never happen. This guy will be cleared of any wrong-doing. The police investigate the police, they rarely find fault with themselves. Cops can be reasonably sure that they won't lose their jobs for doing wrong much less serve time.

[heavenlyboy34]

Yes sequitor. A private police force does not carry with it a monopoly on force. A private police force is accountable, a mobile tyrant is not.
this^^ qft and +rep

Rev9

[RickyJ]

When the war starts I hope they keep riding around in police cars and keep their uniforms on, it will make it so much easier to identify them.

[Jonathanm]

This whole incident is disgusting. The police officer should be tried for murder in a court of law. I'm curious, though... Why is it that after killing someone, police aren't judged by a jury of citizens, rather than police officer peers? If you're not able to feel you can justify shooting someone, in a court of law, maybe you shouldn't be shooting them in the first place? Some might argue that this would put police officers in danger, but honestly, they have safer jobs than a lot of people in America. I don't personally understand why police officers get special circumstances for every little thing.

Is there any logical reason to not have police officers tried by a jury after shooting someone?

[Lethalmiko]

A principle you have already denied to the woman who was killed. Too bad we'll never know since the dash cam was "not working". I guess we'll just have to hope the cop admits he killed a woman for driving away.
Presumption of innocence applies to a person accused of something and therefore cannot apply to Patricia Cook.


You made it perfectly clear that you justified the shooting because she did not obey the cop. In upside down world where you live you think it is suspicious for a citizen to insist on their rights and object when a police officer violates them. Thats not suspicious thats what you are supposed to do. By your logic people should be shot for this if they dont obey.
Another strawman. Obviously the cardinal issue is that she drove away to escape, an action that is not mere disobedience. A person told to stand up by a cop who disobeys would not justfy being shot.


Now I have a question for you. Why would a cop arrest a person for growing industrial hemp? ... Killing is corrupt.
Because they are following the current law. Killing in and of itself is not wrong.


So Lethal, the courts say you can drive away when not under arrest....
I think they are wrong because it makes law enforcement difficult.

PaulConventionWV

1. No, the police officer has to have a reason to suspect the person in question of a crime.
2. The officer must have evidence that a crime is about to take place. He can't just assume or suspect something.

"The clarity of hindsight cannot provide the standard for judging the reasonableness of police decisions made in uncertain and often dangerous circumstances. Moreover, I am far more reluctant than is the Court to conclude that the Fourth Amendment proscribes a police practice that was accepted at the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights and has continued to receive the support of many state legislatures.... Thus, the Court "lightly brushe[s] aside," Payton v. New York, supra, at 445 U. S. 600, a longstanding police practice that predates the Fourth Amendment and continues to receive the approval of nearly half of the state legislatures."
Judge Sandra Day O'Connor, Tennessee V. Garner

3.Because he has no reason to lie. Even if he did, his testimony would be just as good as the cop's.

And how do you know he has no reason to lie, or that his testimony is just as good? Suppose in court he is found to be a habitual liar?

4. He says one hand was on the door handle and the other was on the gun and that the officer's hand never went through the window. The police officer never had the right to put his hand in the vehicle anyway. Also, it is suspect that he couldn't get his hand out of the window when everyone knows window's don't go up that fast.

What if the window was 90% closed? We don't know yet what really happened.

5. It proves he was lying, and that he was never in danger for his life.

I agree about the lying part though it still does not change the other facts about Cook disobeying him and driving away, etc.

6. Yes, that's the whole point. If his blue lights are not on, then it is simply a casual confrontation and not an arrest or detainment so he doesn't have the right to force the person to do anything.

So an officer cannot stop someone in the streets or in a building minus blue lights?

7. That question is irrelevant. It doesn't justify deadly force. Citizens can't be suspected of a crime simply because they didn't want to talk to the police. That would be a massive invasion of privacy and human rights.

The officer was responding to a call from a member of the public about a possible crime in progress and/or suspicious behaviour. During the investigation, she decided to run away, so don't simplify it to a single issue and leave out the other relevant facts.

8. Maybe the next five shots were the deadly ones. Did you read it? Also, it is only natural for a car that is in drive to keep moving if the driver is suddenly killed.

Already commented before.

9. Under the law, yes. He was never justified to use force of any kind.

Which law?

10. This story and the hundreds of others like it give me all the information I need to know, not to mention the principled stance against having state police force.

You might as well blame every bad incident on corruption (eg an innocent person caught in cross fire between police and criminals).

11. He should have walked away and went about his own business.

Even if she was in the process of committing a crime?


here...read this....
Interesting case, though the circumstances were different. He was dealing with a drunk person who had already been hit with a stun gun, so the use of lethal force may be less justified.

[Travlyr]

This whole incident is disgusting. The police officer should be tried for murder in a court of law. I'm curious, though... Why is it that after killing someone, police aren't judged by a jury of citizens, rather than police officer peers? If you're not able to feel you can justify shooting someone, in a court of law, maybe you shouldn't be shooting them in the first place? Some might argue that this would put police officers in danger, but honestly, they have safer jobs than a lot of people in America. I don't personally understand why police officers get special circumstances for every little thing.

Is there any logical reason to not have police officers tried by a jury after shooting someone?
Yes, there is a logical reason. People have been effectively indoctrinated by government schools, media, and hollywood. The majority do not understand the difference between a right and a privilege. They have never read the constitution. They believe that the constitution is an outdated document that should be abandoned. They have very poor or no understanding of the difference between sound money and unsound currency. Whoever controls the money supply controls the people. The Khazars (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?330008-Some-History&p=3742107&viewfull=1#post3742107) control the money supply. In fact, police officers are not allowed special circumstances. They are subject to grand jury investigation just like everybody else. The problem is getting 25 people together to form the grand jury. Common Law Grand Jury Rules (http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/grandjuryrules.htm)

[Travlyr]

Because they are following the current law.
There are a lot of immoral laws that go ignored by police. Why arrest people for growing the most environmentally friendly green plant on Earth? Where is the justification?


Killing in and of itself is not wrong.
So it is just fine if somebody kills you? Baloney. Right to life is inherent. That is why we have judges, juries, and executioners. And they are not supposed to all be the same thug. Ever hear of separation of powers? Killing of itself is wrong both morally and according to the supreme Law of the Land.


Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

[Lethalmiko]

There are a lot of immoral laws that go ignored by police. Why arrest people for growing the most environmentally friendly green plant on Earth? Where is the justification?
I never said I agree with the law. I was only answering your question about why an officer could possibly arrest a hemp grower.


So it is just fine if somebody kills you? Baloney. Right to life is inherent. That is why we have judges, juries, and executioners. And they are not supposed to all be the same thug. Ever hear of separation of powers? Killing of itself is wrong both morally and according to the supreme Law of the Land.
I never said it is fine. There are limits to the right to life. Killing is not wrong in self-defense, in a time of war, as capital punishment, during an accident, euthanasia, etc.

Please tone down the strawman tactics.

[Travlyr]

I never said it is fine. There are limits to the right to life. Killing is not wrong in self-defense, in a time of war, as capital punishment, during an accident, euthanasia, etc.

Please tone down the strawman tactics.
According to Lethal... which one of those in bold justifies the cop's action that killed Patricia A. Cook?

[Lethalmiko]

According to Lethal... which one of those in bold justifies the cop's action that killed Patricia A. Cook?
etc.

[GunnyFreedom]

And people fear private security. :rolleyes: Government murder is so much more legitimate. /sarcasm :(


Non sequitur. It doesn't mean a private police force would be any better.

I tend to agree. It seems to me that privatized police are more liable to serve the interests of the corporate entities that fund their budgets than the people who happen to live in their area of operations. Thus you come into the danger of antiwar activists being assassinated by the Northrop-Grumman police forces because they endanger the interests of Northrop-Grumman.


Yes sequitor. A private police force does not carry with it a monopoly on force. A private police force is accountable, a mobile tyrant is not.

No, a non-sequitur is a technical term in formal logic, and Paul is correct. "A is bad, therefore B is good" is a non-sequitur. It simply doesn't follow from the premise that "A is bad" that "B is good." A and B are entirely different terms, and bad and good are entirely different terms. No logical connection can be made from the premise to the conclusion, therefore it is a non-sequitur.


this^^ qft and +rep

Rev9

That's a pretty heavy assumption you are making, one which is called into doubt by existing real-world similes. Blackwater/XE is a private military contractor, therefore if the argument followed that private is necessarily better than public, we would rather have Blackwater/XE than the US Army. However in practice, the US Army both behaved better AND accomplished more in the illegitimate Iraq war than did Blackwater.

I am not prepared to assume either conclusion as a given, that private or public would be more or less corrupt than the other, but I do lean towards the idea that privatized police would be at least as corrupt as the public police.

A valid argument can be made that there is even more opportunity for corruption should they be fully privatized, given that today the police mostly protect their corporatist interests than public interests, fully privatizing them would remove the last obstacle and put them directly in the employ of those corporatist interests which they already serve, thereby increasing the corruption motive by removing the only separation which currently exists.

You can't assume that because public police are so corrupt that private police will necessarily be any better. The assumption does not follow from the premises. From where I sit, I see putting the police into the direct employ of corporate concerns as being extremely dangerous.

Say for instance there is a Merk lab developing some new medicine that is actually ridiculously dangerous so a bunch of people get activated and protest against it, spam the networks with information opposing it, and significantly affect Merk's bottom line, endangering the profit from this given lab. With only privatized police existing, Merk sends their special ops/SWAT team in and takes out most of the protestors. There is nobody to bring Merk to justice because nobody in the whole state has the budget to hire a bigger badder private police force than Merk.

Sometimes, the belief that privatized is always better can become an almost religious thing, simply taking on faith that it would be better without the cogent analysis or formal logic behind it. As much as the illegitimate and unconstitutional expansion of police powers worries me, the idea of abolishing the police altogether and replacing them with corporate mercenary squads scares the hell out of me.

As if NewsCorp wasn't bad enough, now we are going to give them guns and the power to police those who oppose their interests? no thanks!

[A Son of Liberty]

etc.

It's as simple as this: driving away from a cop is not a justification to kill.

[PaulConventionWV]

The Wild Wild West in short. And for those without guns?

Not all of us are anarchists, but that is one reason why everyone should have a gun.


It is relevant because it disproves the assertion some people may have that he shot her dead at point-blank range. When an officer shoots at you, continuing to run gives them more reason to shoot again.

If they started shooting, you have no reason to believe they will stop. If someone is shooting at you, what do you think you would do? I, for one, would get the hell out of there fast and with good reason. You can't treat someone like a criminal because they're running away from someone who is shooting at them just for rolling up their window.


If this rule applies universally, what if the police man has parked his car far away and he just happens to be walking past. Should he go back and retrieve his car, park it behind and turn hif blue lights on? What if there is a crime in progress?

His car was there, so he should have. I'm sure there is a procedure for police officers on foot or on a bicycle, but that is the procedure for officers in their cars. Officers don't leave their cars unless they're chasing someone on foot who's just committed a crime, anyway.


This does not make any sense. If an officer walks up to a car and wants to ask the driver for their ID, what does this have to do with detaining them? Is he supposed to first announce that he is detaining the driver before they show him their ID? What if he is just verifying their identity and will then let them go if all is well but they refuse to show him?

It's called a detainment if the person is not allowed to leave. If you know anything about the law or the Constitution, then you should know that. You're not allowed to detain someone under the law unless you have a reasonable suspicion that they have just committed a crime or are just about to. "Not knowing" whether or not they're going to pull a gun or commit a crime doesn't give them reasonable cause. The law also doesn't consider disobeying an order by a cop against the law unless the officer already has reason to believe they are involved in a crime. If a cop asks to see your ID or search your car for no reason, you have the Constitutional right to say no, and it is perfectly legal to want people to respect your privacy. Literally EVERYONE KNOWS THIS WHO KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT THE LAW. You, however, apparently know very little about it. I don't even know what you're doing here if you have such a militant stance on police aggression.


When a cop is checking out a "suspicious" person, he has every legal and moral right to be satisfied that all is well before letting them go. Suppose he had asked for her license and registration, is she justified to just ignore what he says and drive off even after being told to stop?

You are making stuff up now. According to you, just anyone could be held up and harrassed by the police for their papers without doing anything. The cop has no "right" to know anything about that person without their consent unesls a crime is being committed.


Because driving away and rolling her window up means she was disobeying a direct order from the police officer which obviously made him very suspicious.


Disobeying an order from the police is not illegal unless they have the legal jurisdiction to stop you, which is when they have a reasonto suspect that a crime is going to be committed or has been. Again, everyone knows this and it's in the Constitution. Ask any professor of a law class and they will tell you that. If you're not doing anything wrong, you have the right to say no to demands from the police.


How the hell do you know this for a FACT? What if he was not being abusive? What if he politely asked for her ID papers?

Papers, please. Yeah, just like the Weimar Republic. Do you know what that is? Do a little research because that's what you've just described: a police state like the Weimar Republic.


I expect someone who has just been shot for running away to stop because at that point they know the officer is serious.

LOL. Yeah, serious about killing them. I don't care who you are, if you are being shot at, you run away. I don't expect anyone to say, "Oh, it's okay that he's shooting at me because he's a police officer," and then calmly stop and apologize. Do you know how many innocent people they've killed just because they were "suspicious"?


Just because it has happened does not make it right. I would never convict someone only on the strength of one testimony, unless there was corroborating evidence or other physical evidence.

But it does happen and will continue to happen. Have you EVER heard of a police officer even getting a minor jail sentence? They ALWAYS let off their buddies because they can. It doesn't matter if it's right. If you allow stuff like this, it will continue to happen. We need to take the power away from the police in order to stop the major injustices that happen, not given them more of it. Police officers have been caught on tape saying they would just make stuff up in order to arrest someone for a crime.


I repeat. Imagine someone does not threaten the cop or show any weapon but drives away and once the cop cannot see what they are doing, they open the glove compartment and get out a gun. They stop, wait for the officer to come close again and they shoot him dead. Is this beyond your imagination?

Actually that's the PROBLEM. It's all in your imagination. You could imagine just about anything, but does that give you the right to go around shooting everything that moves like you're paranoid? That's the farthest thing from "reasonable" that I can think of. You can't just imagine something and then use it as evidence against them. Imagine telling the judge, "Oh, I had a reason to shoot them because I imagined that they would pull a gun out and start shooting at me even though I never had a reason to suspect that other than my imagination." Hell, I could imagine Godzilla walking around town, but does that give me reason to believe it's actually going to happen?


So the guy who refuses to put his hands into the air and reaches into his pocket should be left alone? If you were an officer and someone suspicous disobeys your orders and takes off, you would not consider the possibility they were getting ready to shoot you?

The police have a rule about getting out of the car. If someone randomly gets out of a car when they get pulled over and then reaches back in the car for something, that is called "reasonable suspicion", and I think that's a legitimate suspcion. Just imagining stuff is going to happen, however, doesn't give anyone a reason to go on the offensive.


It was not just the thought. There was an action of disobedience involved. Refer to the glove-compartment and hand-in-the-coat examples.

Like I said, disobedience is not illegal. If a cop tells you to undress in front of him for safety reasons, do you do it? In this country, we are protected against unreasonable searches and seizures by the law and by the Constitution because it is completely reasonable for someone to want their privacy respected if they're not doing anything wrong. The police are only there for when crime is imminent.


Yes. Cops are trained not to shoot people anyhow. When they do, my default assumption is they had a good reason to. Most cops are good people. Just because you can point to some articles showing corruption and wrongful death does not prove the majority of cops are dirty trigger-happy killers.

I know some are good people, but I think they are misguided. If cops are trained not to shoot people, then why did this happen? Apparently the training wasn't very good or else he would have had the "not shooting" thing down pat. Instead, he goes and kills some woman for no reason. So much for his training. Your default position should never be to just blindly trust someone's actions. You shouldn't trust a cop any more than you trust anyone else. That's the reason cops get away with stuff like this. A lot of cops think they can do whatever they want because the power gets to their head, and some have even said so.


But why do you believe Buchele?

Why do you believe the cop? He has a REASON to lie to protect his hide. The carpenter has no reason to lie. In fact, he has a reason not to because he might be afraid of getting involved if he didn't think he was morally obligated to to let the truth be known. You go and say it's not right for someone to be convicted of a crime based on one cop's testimony, and then you treat this guy as if he's a default liar. Aren't you treating HIM as if he's guilty until proven innocent?


Nonsense. What if she had a gun?

What if she was housing a Russian spy? I guess that gives the cop a reason to walk over to her and force her to let him into her home so he can search everything. After all, the cop has a right to have complete peace of mind despite other people's privacy, right?


Addressed above.

Refuted.


How the hell do you know that he was harassing her?

Irrelevant.


Explained above.

Refuted.


Based on what? Your imagination?

Oh, so it's okay for YOU to use your imagination, but not him? I see.


And what about all the other millions of cases where the police tell the truth? Have you ever heard of "Presumption of Innocence"?

Yeah, what about that? Have you ever heard of that? How about not assuming someone's guilty of something if they are just sitting in their car in the parking lot? Ring any bells? Your idea of disobeying orders means the cop could just make an order and, voila, he has created reasonable suspicion out of thin air so he can basically do anything he wants. Do you really believe this? There are very specific guidelines for what constitutes as "reasonable suspicion" and probable cause. You should look it up because it is evident you have never studied, nor do you know anything aboutk, the Constitution of the United States.


Disproved above.

Refuted.

[pcosmar]

Pretty sure there were County Sheriffs throughout North Carolina and the other 12 States in the 1780's.

An elected Sheriff is NOT the same as police.. Not in any way, shape or form.

The People are supposed to be the only law ENFORCEMENT.

[Danke]

I'd say the Culpeper Town Police would be perfect candidates for federal funding of their very own drone. Reduce the risk to their officers and could take out these threats from the comfort of a desk chair with donuts and coffee.

[Travlyr]

I'd say the Culpeper Town Police would be perfect candidates for federal funding of their very own drone. Reduce the risk to their officers and could take out these threats from the comfort of a desk chair with donuts and coffee.
That's a great idea. Drones could be operated from laptops at the donut shop. Plus, while it would help keep cops from getting killed by sunday school teachers it would create jobs. They would need drone maintenance mechanics, shops, and parts.

[GunnyFreedom]

An elected Sheriff is NOT the same as police.. Not in any way, shape or form.

The People are supposed to be the only law ENFORCEMENT.

Well sure, to you and me they are very different. To 90% of America though...including the vast majority of Sheriffs and police, they aren't. It's an issue we will need to overcome at some point.

[GunnyFreedom]

That's a great idea. Drones could be operated from laptops at the donut shop. Plus, while it would help keep cops from getting killed by sunday school teachers it would create jobs. They would need drone maintenance mechanics, shops, and parts.

Those goram sunday school teachers, that'll teachem. To quote the President, "Predator drones. You will never see it coming." Maybe we can pass a law to make sunday school teachers wear a yellow cross or something. Even better, put a locater chip in the yellow cross so that the hellfire missiles from the drones have solid target acquisition...

[Travlyr]

Those goram sunday school teachers, that'll teachem. To quote the President, "Predator drones. You will never see it coming." Maybe we can pass a law to make sunday school teachers wear a yellow cross or something. Even better, put a locater chip in the yellow cross so that the hellfire missiles from the drones have solid target acquisition...
I like the locator chip idea... wouldn't want to kill any innocent people. Hey, maybe it could be included in the cell phone technology.

[PaulConventionWV]

I tend to agree. It seems to me that privatized police are more liable to serve the interests of the corporate entities that fund their budgets than the people who happen to live in their area of operations. Thus you come into the danger of antiwar activists being assassinated by the Northrop-Grumman police forces because they endanger the interests of Northrop-Grumman.



No, a non-sequitur is a technical term in formal logic, and Paul is correct. "A is bad, therefore B is good" is a non-sequitur. It simply doesn't follow from the premise that "A is bad" that "B is good." A and B are entirely different terms, and bad and good are entirely different terms. No logical connection can be made from the premise to the conclusion, therefore it is a non-sequitur.



That's a pretty heavy assumption you are making, one which is called into doubt by existing real-world similes. Blackwater/XE is a private military contractor, therefore if the argument followed that private is necessarily better than public, we would rather have Blackwater/XE than the US Army. However in practice, the US Army both behaved better AND accomplished more in the illegitimate Iraq war than did Blackwater.

I am not prepared to assume either conclusion as a given, that private or public would be more or less corrupt than the other, but I do lean towards the idea that privatized police would be at least as corrupt as the public police.

A valid argument can be made that there is even more opportunity for corruption should they be fully privatized, given that today the police mostly protect their corporatist interests than public interests, fully privatizing them would remove the last obstacle and put them directly in the employ of those corporatist interests which they already serve, thereby increasing the corruption motive by removing the only separation which currently exists.

You can't assume that because public police are so corrupt that private police will necessarily be any better. The assumption does not follow from the premises. From where I sit, I see putting the police into the direct employ of corporate concerns as being extremely dangerous.

Say for instance there is a Merk lab developing some new medicine that is actually ridiculously dangerous so a bunch of people get activated and protest against it, spam the networks with information opposing it, and significantly affect Merk's bottom line, endangering the profit from this given lab. With only privatized police existing, Merk sends their special ops/SWAT team in and takes out most of the protestors. There is nobody to bring Merk to justice because nobody in the whole state has the budget to hire a bigger badder private police force than Merk.

Sometimes, the belief that privatized is always better can become an almost religious thing, simply taking on faith that it would be better without the cogent analysis or formal logic behind it. As much as the illegitimate and unconstitutional expansion of police powers worries me, the idea of abolishing the police altogether and replacing them with corporate mercenary squads scares the hell out of me.

As if NewsCorp wasn't bad enough, now we are going to give them guns and the power to police those who oppose their interests? no thanks!

Exactly. It is against the law now for a corporation (a misleading term, corporation is, I know, but I'm using it), to use force to change the market environment in their favor. Imagine if they were given the right to use force, "if necessary." They would make up all kinds of justifications for why they needed to use force when they are doing it for-profit, or at least in their own interests.

BTW, +rep

[GunnyFreedom]

I like the locator chip idea... wouldn't want to kill any innocent people. Hey, maybe it could be included in the cell phone technology.

Indeed, and portable tracking units with satnav uplinks that work even when the cellphones are off and have the battery removed. While we are at it we should make possession of a faraday cage a felony offense. Can't have anybody escaping the surveillance grid after all.

[PaulConventionWV]

Come to think of it, there are so many laws nowadays that are really unnecessary, so it's ridiculous to allow cops to use some of these laws when we know a bunch of them have no justification for their mere existence.

What I have in mind is speed laws. Many people like cops because they see it as a function of the police to make the environment safer for people to drive. The cops are incapable of doing so. How many times have you gone over the speed limit when you knew cops weren't around? All these legal speed limits could turn into suggested speed limits like on tight turns and it would be the same thing. Of course, it would still be illegal for someone to kill someone else with a car, but that doesn't mean we should engage in this arbitrary punishment of people who aren't "safe" enough. You could outlaw a newspaper delivery guy from making a certain kind of turn to reach a mailbox, and what good would it do? It's not the laws that keep people safe.

Just a thought.

[azxd]

Wow.

We clearly live in different universes. In my universe, a government that obeys the Constitution is not 'anarchist.' In my universe, police are not supposed to be authorized to randomly gun down anybody that they don't know whether they are armed or not. In my universe, every single American, including the Police, are supposed to be under the same law, and not different laws for different people. "Everybody equal under the law" is the basis for a "Republican form of government" per US Constitution Article 4 Section 4.

Your acceptance and even defense of this blatant abrogation of our Constitutional form of government frankly frightens me.
It shows me how unquestioning some can be toward what they view as authority.

The reality is ... This is nothing more than a cops perspective of why he shot and killed someone, and people like Lethalmiko coming to that officers defense, just because the office said the dead woman did something wrong.

I guess that's why the entire system of government is so screwed up ... To many people who will not question authority, and instead choose to passively comply with the orders given, regardless of how horrible they might be.

Step into the gas-chamber ... Yes, Sir !!!

[azxd]

As hard as this may be for you, I want you to imagine that she was a hardcore criminal who had a dead body in the trunk and was about to shoot the officer and get away. Imagine she drove off to get a chance to get out her gun after being asked for her ID. Would you still hold onto your assessment?
LOL
As hard as this might be for you, I want you to imagine that she was a soccer mom who had never committed a crime.

Why are you making excuses for this officer ?

[azxd]

I would rather a hundred guilty go free, than one innocent go to jail.

Or in this case, be gunned down in the street for "contempt of cop".
As would I !!!

[azxd]

Police don't get to decide who is and is not a hard core criminal, that's why we have a judicial system and judicial warrants. There are already rigid laws and rules for probable cause which you are simply ignoring. The dead body in the trunk thing is something you are inventing whole-cloth in an attempt to justify this murder. No weapon was found or seen on the victim. You don't get to just make stuff up and then kill people for it, and neither do the police.

My assessment stands. If you can invent dead bodies and invisible weapons and nonexistent threats as an excuse to kill a sunday school teacher minding her own business, then any number of things can be 'invented' to simply assassinate political opponents and claim they had an invisible gun and a fictitious body in the trunk and suddenly it's all perfectly OK.

What you are saying here sir, it's insane. Americans are not created to cower in fear and submission to police and government authorities. That's some new creation that has no place in the American tradition. You have been brainwashed by the security state, and that blind acceptance of the degradation of what makes America America is why our country is in so much trouble today.

I hope and pray that you will awaken from your slumber and help us reclaim the American way of life, as that is the only path to the peace and the prosperity we once knew. As things stand, we are on the verge of a tyrannical police state, and you are acting it's patsy.

Government exists only to secure the blessings of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (often described as 'property'), and when any form of government becomes damaging to those ends it is the duty of the people to alter or abolish it.
http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=559b3db64ef2ed111b258f1b1e16a14e&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.devilfinder.com%2Fgo.php%3 Fq%3Dclapping%2Bgif&v=1&libid=1329668387646&out=http%3A%2F%2Fi382.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo o268%2Fkirathi%2FJoker-Clapping.gif&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.devilfinder.com%2Fgo.php%3 Fq%3Dpassivly&title=clapping gif - The Devilfinder Image Browser&txt=http%3A%2F%2Fi382.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo o268%2Fkirathi%2FJoker-Clapping.gif&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13296683969581

[Czolgosz]

http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=559b3db64ef2ed111b258f1b1e16a14e&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.devilfinder.com%2Fgo.php%3 Fq%3Dclapping%2Bgif&v=1&libid=1329668387646&out=http%3A%2F%2Fi382.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo o268%2Fkirathi%2FJoker-Clapping.gif&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.devilfinder.com%2Fgo.php%3 Fq%3Dpassivly&title=clapping gif - The Devilfinder Image Browser&txt=http%3A%2F%2Fi382.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo o268%2Fkirathi%2FJoker-Clapping.gif&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13296683969581


Not sure that pr0n is allowed on RPF.

[azxd]

Not sure that pr0n is allowed on RPF.
Pr0n ?

[MRK]

I'm pretty sure a power window on a jeep wrangler wouldn't have the ability to trap someone's arm in place. I'll have to try this out on Monday.

Even if possible, the woman would have had to been pressing the power window switch to try to tighten the window in case his arm got loose while shifting out of park and into drive and navigating a turn out of the parking and lot and into the street while an armed police officer is threatening to shoot her.

Not to mention the dash cam evidence is not-so-mysteriously missing and the eyewitness account states no one was ever dragged or had an arm reaching through a window.

[heavenlyboy34]

That's a pretty heavy assumption you are making, one which is called into doubt by existing real-world similes. Blackwater/XE is a private military contractor, therefore if the argument followed that private is necessarily better than public, we would rather have Blackwater/XE than the US Army. However in practice, the US Army both behaved better AND accomplished more in the illegitimate Iraq war than did Blackwater.
Since Blackwater/XE was more of a GSE/fascist org, I don't think it's fair to use that in an argument against private security in general. (they got their money regardless of how badly they operated) Some good points though.

ETA: It should be noted that we have a similar problem with the police as far as abusing their power. They are not legally obligated to protect anyone, and can more often than not get away with violating others' rights. Also, although military folks take an oath and are subject to UCMJ, they don't have the profit motive and could theoretically be used against citizens (as standing armies have often done historically).

[Anti Federalist]

I like the locator chip idea... wouldn't want to kill any innocent people. Hey, maybe it could be included in the cell phone technology.

Well, now with the new implanted chips that can dispense drugs, I can see no need for a missile strike at all.

Somebody steps out of line, just press the cyanide dispenser.

Done.

All you gotta do at that point is collect the body for processing at the Soylent Green plant.

(I'm only half kidding here. I really do weep for the future.)

[Danke]

Well, now with the new implanted chips that can dispense drugs, I can see no need for a missile strike at all.

Somebody steps out of line, just press the cyanide dispenser.

Done.

All you gotta do at that point is collect the body for processing at the Soylent Green plant.

(I'm only half kidding here. I really do weep for the future.)

Poison contaminates body for Soylent Green.

Better:

http://gifs.gifbin.com/1238157980_scanners_-_head_explosion.gif

[Anti Federalist]

Poison contaminates body for Soylent Green.

Better:

http://gifs.gifbin.com/1238157980_scanners_-_head_explosion.gif

I see the link, that is not displaying.

"Scanners" head explosion FTW

[azxd]

Well, now with the new implanted chips that can dispense drugs, I can see no need for a missile strike at all.

Somebody steps out of line, just press the cyanide dispenser.

Done.

All you gotta do at that point is collect the body for processing at the Soylent Green plant.

(I'm only half kidding here. I really do weep for the future.)
Reading your words makes me wish I had not registered, and then stayed away for so looooooong.

Someone tell me where the REP button is ... AF deserves a bit more !!!

[Danke]

Reading your words makes me wish I had not registered, and then stayed away for so looooooong.

Someone tell me where the REP button is ... AF deserves a bit more !!!

Those reps won't be doing AF any good where he is bound. :toady:

:p

[AGRP]

I'm pretty sure a power window on a jeep wrangler wouldn't have the ability to trap someone's arm in place. I'll have to try this out on Monday.


This. It's Monk Time.

Look at the height of a typical wrangler:

http://expeditionportal.com/mscott/Users/mattscott/Febuary/TJMod/jeeplead.jpg

You are going to be lifted into the air if someone rolls up the window on your arm or at least incapable of doing what he did. The cop would have been married to the jeep as it was moving, thus justified to shoot because his life would have been in danger.

Conclusion: He was left behind as she was driving away. His arm was in no way caught by the window for any justifiable time that warranted his choice to kill her.

[Lethalmiko]

Let me tell you guys a short story. Some years ago, I had a discussion with some people over the existence of God. One guy gave what he considered irrefutable proof that God exists. I then pointed out fatal flaws in his "proof", upon which he went into a protracted diatribe denouncing me for being a fool for not believing in God and quoting zillions of Biblical passages. I waited for him to finish and then asked him a simple question. "At which point did I say anything about my position on the existence of God?" Needless to say, he looked rather embarrassed and quickly changed the subject.

The moral of the story is that ascribing to someone something they never said or drawing unsupported conclusions shows either dishonesty or poor comprehension. A strawman. It seems this carries the lion's share when it comes to fallacies by many of you. Argumentum ad hominem follows in close second. Third is failing to focus on the core issues and failing to keep in mind the full context of the discussion. Getting to the matter at hand:

1. Can any of you quote any statement I made that shows I am defending the officer or sympathizing with his action? If I give examples of possible explanations that may exonerate the officer, how does that prove I am taking his side? If I question the single eye-witness testimony, how does it follow logically that I believe the officer instead and think Buchele is lying? [Strawman]

2. How did I become a Statist or an unquestioning supporter of a tyrannical police state? Heck, why don't you just cut to the chase and call me a Communist? [Argumentum ad hominem]

3. This is NOT, I repeat NOT a situation where a cop just randomly went after Patricia Cook. He was responding to a tip-off from the public. Is the huge significance of this cardinal fact impossible for you guys to comprehend? An officer acting on a tip-off has reasonable suspicion, especially when the subject then tries to escape from the scene of a possible crime scene, similar to the Tennessee V. Garner case where the policeman arriving at the scene (after a tip off) saw the boy running away and shot him after he disobeyed the order to halt. In my view, the officer in that specific kind of situation should have the leeway to investigate and prevent any potential suspects from escaping until either satisfied that all is well or the crime (or potential crime) is stopped. [Focus/Context]


In Terry v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a person can be stopped and briefly detained by a peace officer based on a reasonable suspicion of involvement in a crime. If the officer additionally has reasonable suspicion that the person is armed, the officer may perform a search of the person's outer garments for weapons. Such a detention does not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizure, though it must be brief. In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada the Court further established that a state may require, by law, that a person identify himself or herself to an officer during a stop.
SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion


4. Why is every single one of you failing to question why Cook run away? Why do you fail to see the obvious suspiciousness of her action, bearing in mind the public tip-off? [Focus/Context]

5. Why are many of you confident that the officer cannot possibly have a justifiable reason to shoot at her, even before you hear the full details? [Focus/Context]

6. Why do you keep insisting that he shot her merely for driving away or winding up her window when the fact is you do not know? And why do you keep dropping from the situation the CONTEXT of the reasonable suspicion due to the tip-off? [Focus/Context]

7. How can you rationally conclude that Buchele has absolutely no reason to lie about the officer? What if he felt sad like most of you that an innocent woman was killed and he wants the cop to rot in jail? Do some of you have a problem with imagination? [Focus/Context]

-----

CONCLUSION: It is too early to make any judgements about this matter.

[MelissaWV]

I was promised a short story.

[Lethalmiko]

I was promised a short story.
The story ends in the first paragraph :)

[azxd]

Those reps won't be doing AF any good where he is bound. :toady:

:p
Possibly ... Unknown !!!
But where is the REP button ?
Did it get removed (abused), like it has been on many forums I participate on ?

[phill4paul]

Possibly ... Unknown !!!
But where is the REP button ?
Did it get removed (abused), like it has been on many forums I participate on ?

There should be a six-pointed star figure in the lower left hand corner of their post. In between the "Blog this post" icon and the triangular "report" button.

[azxd]

This. It's Monk Time.

Look at the height of a typical wrangler:

http://expeditionportal.com/mscott/Users/mattscott/Febuary/TJMod/jeeplead.jpg

You are going to be lifted into the air if someone rolls up the window on your arm or at least incapable of doing what he did. The cop would have been married to the jeep as it was moving, thus justified to shoot because his life would have been in danger.

Conclusion: He was left behind as she was driving away. His arm was in no way caught by the window for any justifiable time that warranted his choice to kill her.
Murder as a LE tactic does not need to be explained ... It will be dismissed as appropriate due to the circumstances.

[azxd]

There should be a six-pointed star figure in the lower left hand corner of their post. In between the "Blog this post" icon and the triangular "report" button.
Ahh,
The things you can learn after a long hiatus :cool:

Thanks and my first REP points (given) go to you !!!

[PaulConventionWV]

Let me tell you guys a short story. Some years ago, I had a discussion with some people over the existence of God. One guy gave what he considered irrefutable proof that God exists. I then pointed out fatal flaws in his "proof", upon which he went into a protracted diatribe denouncing me for being a fool for not believing in God and quoting zillions of Biblical passages. I waited for him to finish and then asked him a simple question. "At which point did I say anything about my position on the existence of God?" Needless to say, he looked rather embarrassed and quickly changed the subject.

The moral of the story is that ascribing to someone something they never said or drawing unsupported conclusions shows either dishonesty or poor comprehension. A strawman. It seems this carries the lion's share when it comes to fallacies by many of you. Argumentum ad hominem follows in close second. Third is failing to focus on the core issues and failing to keep in mind the full context of the discussion. Getting to the matter at hand:

1. Can any of you quote any statement I made that shows I am defending the officer or sympathizing with his action? If I give examples of possible explanations that may exonerate the officer, how does that prove I am taking his side? If I question the single eye-witness testimony, how does it follow logically that I believe the officer instead and think Buchele is lying? [Strawman]

2. How did I become a Statist or an unquestioning supporter of a tyrannical police state? Heck, why don't you just cut to the chase and call me a Communist? [Argumentum ad hominem]

3. This is NOT, I repeat NOT a situation where a cop just randomly went after Patricia Cook. He was responding to a tip-off from the public. Is the huge significance of this cardinal fact impossible for you guys to comprehend? An officer acting on a tip-off has reasonable suspicion, especially when the subject then tries to escape from the scene of a possible crime scene, similar to the Tennessee V. Garner case where the policeman arriving at the scene (after a tip off) saw the boy running away and shot him after he disobeyed the order to halt. In my view, the officer in that specific kind of situation should have the leeway to investigate and prevent any potential suspects from escaping until either satisfied that all is well or the crime (or potential crime) is stopped. [Focus/Context]


SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion


4. Why is every single one of you failing to question why Cook run away? Why do you fail to see the obvious suspiciousness of her action, bearing in mind the public tip-off? [Focus/Context]

5. Why are many of you confident that the officer cannot possibly have a justifiable reason to shoot at her, even before you hear the full details? [Focus/Context]

6. Why do you keep insisting that he shot her merely for driving away or winding up her window when the fact is you do not know? And why do you keep dropping from the situation the CONTEXT of the reasonable suspicion due to the tip-off? [Focus/Context]

7. How can you rationally conclude that Buchele has absolutely no reason to lie about the officer? What if he felt sad like most of you that an innocent woman was killed and he wants the cop to rot in jail? Do some of you have a problem with imagination? [Focus/Context]

-----

CONCLUSION: It is too early to make any judgements about this matter.

You think you're smart, but you have no idea. If you knew anything about the Constitution, you would know that all the facts, no matter whose story is true, point to the officer being in the wrong. How much more do you need to know before making a judgment? How much more can you know? Do you wish to remain in blissful ignorance?

[phill4paul]

CONCLUSION:

You think you're smart, but you have no idea.

[Anti Federalist]

4. Why is every single one of you failing to question why Cook run away? Why do you fail to see the obvious suspiciousness of her action, bearing in mind the public tip-off? [Focus/Context]

Because, in free society, people are free to leave the presence of a LEO, assuming they are not under arrest.


5. Why are many of you confident that the officer cannot possibly have a justifiable reason to shoot at her, even before you hear the full details? [Focus/Context]

Hundreds, thousands of similar cases. Based on what has been presented, there was no weapon, there was no immediate danger to life, there was no true "probable cause", thus no reason to use lethal force.


6. Why do you keep insisting that he shot her merely for driving away or winding up her window when the fact is you do not know? And why do you keep dropping from the situation the CONTEXT of the reasonable suspicion due to the tip-off? [Focus/Context]

Because "See Something Say Something" should not become the standard for "probable cause".


7. How can you rationally conclude that Buchele has absolutely no reason to lie about the officer? What if he felt sad like most of you that an innocent woman was killed and he wants the cop to rot in jail? Do some of you have a problem with imagination? [Focus/Context]

Maybe he is, maybe he isn't.

His witness testimony is as credible as anybody else's, including a cop.


CONCLUSION: It is too early to make any judgements about this matter.

No its not.

I've seen this enough times before to have a pretty good idea of what happened here.

[Anti Federalist]

I was promised a short story.

LOL

[aGameOfThrones]

According to Virginia State Police, at approximately 10 a.m. Thursday, Culpeper Police got a call about a suspicious women sitting in a Jeep Wrangler in a church parking lot in the 300 block of North East Street. The officer started talking to Patricia A. Cook, 54, of Culpeper.

"And, in justifying the particular intrusion, the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion.

....

Anything less would invite intrusions upon constitutionally guaranteed rights based on nothing more substantial than inarticulate hunches, a result this Court has consistently refused to sanction. See, e.g., Beck v. Ohio, supra; Rios v. United States, 364 U.S. 253 (1960); Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98 (1959)."


**********

Let's see what the U.S. 4th circuit court of appeals thinks in "United States v. Massenburg":


On the night of March 28, 2009, at 10:33 p.m., Richmond City Police received an anonymous tip that shots had just been fired.

Before an officer can stop and frisk a citizen, she must have "reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person seized is engaged in criminal activity." Reid v. Georgia, 448 U.S. 438, 440 (1980). We recently warned against the Government’s proffering "whatever facts are present, no matter how inno- cent, as indicia of suspicious activity" and noted that we were "deeply troubled by the way in which the Government attempts to spin . . . mundane acts into a web of deception." United States v. Foster, 634 F.3d 243, 248 (4th Cir. 2011). This concern is only heightened when the "mundane acts" emerge from the refusal to consent to a voluntary search. If the important limitations on the "stop and frisk" regime crafted by Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), are not to become dead letters, refusing to consent to a search cannot itself justify a nonconsensual search.

("[D]uring [initially consensual] police-citizen encounters, an officer is not entitled, without additional justi- fication, to conduct a protective search. To conduct such a protective search, an officer must first have reasonable suspi- cion supported by articulable facts that criminal activity may be afoot."); see also Terry, 392 U.S. at 32-33 (Harlan, J., con- curring) ("[I]f the frisk is justified in order to protect the offi- cer during an encounter with a citizen, the officer must first have constitutional grounds to insist on an encounter, to make a forcible stop. . . . If and when a policeman has a right . . . to disarm such a person for his own protection, he must first have a right not to avoid him but to be in his presence. That right must be more than the liberty . . . to address questions to other persons, for ordinarily the person addressed has an equal right to ignore his interrogator and walk away; he cer- tainly need not submit to a frisk for the questioner’s protec- tion.") (emphasis added).

And about being in a church's parking lot while sitting inside your car...

"An individual’s presence in an area of expected criminal(Religious(ha!))activity, standing alone, is not enough to support a reasonable, particularized suspicion that the person is committing a crime." Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 124 (2000); see Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 52 (1979).*

But...

To hold otherwise would be to authorize general searches of persons on the street not unlike those conducted of old by the crown against the colonists. Allowing officers to stop and frisk any individuals in the neighborhood after even the most generic of anonymous tips would be tantamount to permitting a regime of general searches of virtually any individual residing in or found in high-crime neighborhoods, where "complaints" of "random gunfire" in the night are all too "usual[ ]." James Otis famously decried general searches as "instruments of slavery . . . and villainy," which "place[ ] the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer," warning against abuses by "[e]very man prompted by revenge, ill humor, or wantonness." Timothy Lynch, In Defense of the Exclusionary Rule, 23 Harv. J. L. & Pub. P. 711, 722 (2000) (quoting James Otis, Speech on the Writs of Assistance (1761)). The Fourth Amendment, and the courts' Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, is aimed at this evil. Without reasonable particularized suspicion of wrongdoing, such searches and seizures offend the Constitution.

[mikeforliberty]

Let me tell you guys a short story. Some years ago, I had a discussion with some people over the existence of God. One guy gave what he considered irrefutable proof that God exists. I then pointed out fatal flaws in his "proof", upon which he went into a protracted diatribe denouncing me for being a fool for not believing in God and quoting zillions of Biblical passages. I waited for him to finish and then asked him a simple question. "At which point did I say anything about my position on the existence of God?" Needless to say, he looked rather embarrassed and quickly changed the subject.

The moral of the story is that ascribing to someone something they never said or drawing unsupported conclusions shows either dishonesty or poor comprehension. A strawman. It seems this carries the lion's share when it comes to fallacies by many of you. Argumentum ad hominem follows in close second. Third is failing to focus on the core issues and failing to keep in mind the full context of the discussion. Getting to the matter at hand:

1. Can any of you quote any statement I made that shows I am defending the officer or sympathizing with his action? If I give examples of possible explanations that may exonerate the officer, how does that prove I am taking his side? If I question the single eye-witness testimony, how does it follow logically that I believe the officer instead and think Buchele is lying? [Strawman]

2. How did I become a Statist or an unquestioning supporter of a tyrannical police state? Heck, why don't you just cut to the chase and call me a Communist? [Argumentum ad hominem]

3. This is NOT, I repeat NOT a situation where a cop just randomly went after Patricia Cook. He was responding to a tip-off from the public. Is the huge significance of this cardinal fact impossible for you guys to comprehend? An officer acting on a tip-off has reasonable suspicion, especially when the subject then tries to escape from the scene of a possible crime scene, similar to the Tennessee V. Garner case where the policeman arriving at the scene (after a tip off) saw the boy running away and shot him after he disobeyed the order to halt. In my view, the officer in that specific kind of situation should have the leeway to investigate and prevent any potential suspects from escaping until either satisfied that all is well or the crime (or potential crime) is stopped. [Focus/Context]


SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion


4. Why is every single one of you failing to question why Cook run away? Why do you fail to see the obvious suspiciousness of her action, bearing in mind the public tip-off? [Focus/Context]

5. Why are many of you confident that the officer cannot possibly have a justifiable reason to shoot at her, even before you hear the full details? [Focus/Context]

6. Why do you keep insisting that he shot her merely for driving away or winding up her window when the fact is you do not know? And why do you keep dropping from the situation the CONTEXT of the reasonable suspicion due to the tip-off? [Focus/Context]

7. How can you rationally conclude that Buchele has absolutely no reason to lie about the officer? What if he felt sad like most of you that an innocent woman was killed and he wants the cop to rot in jail? Do some of you have a problem with imagination? [Focus/Context]

-----

CONCLUSION: It is too early to make any judgements about this matter.

Are you still here *yawn*

You don't kill people who aren't trying to kill you... what is really so hard to understand about this?

[Lethalmiko]

You think you're smart, but you have no idea. If you knew anything about the Constitution, you would know that all the facts, no matter whose story is true, point to the officer being in the wrong. How much more do you need to know before making a judgment? How much more can you know? Do you wish to remain in blissful ignorance?
This is just BS.

By saying "You think you're smart", you are engaging in argumentum ad hominem. Even if I think I am smart, so what? Does pointing that out mean you have disproved my arguments? Do you think it is a "smart" thing to attack someone personally in an effort to discredit anything they say?

If you knew anything about the constitution, you would know that even when prima facie a person appears guilty, you cannot declare them guilty until you go through all the established facts. The constitution and the Supreme Court's ruling in the Tennessee V. Garner case (and others) give some leeway to the police in cases of "reasonable suspicion" or "probable cause". These can only be determined by examining the officer's detailed explanation (under cross-examination) about why he shot her. He needs to be asked about alternative actions he could have taken and why he did not use them. We still have not even determined whether it is true or false that his hand was caught in the window. By rejecting that explanation before hearing all the details, you are contradicting the very constitution you are pretending to follow. This is evidenced in your statement "...all the facts, no matter whose story is true, point to the officer being in the wrong." One of the so-called "facts" is Buchele's testimony which has not yet been put under cross-examination.

So either you are being dishonest or you do not understand what presumption of innocence means. Take your pick.

[Lethalmiko]

Because, in free society, people are free to leave the presence of a LEO, assuming they are not under arrest.
What about Terry v. Ohio?


Hundreds, thousands of similar cases. Based on what has been presented, there was no weapon, there was no immediate danger to life, there was no true "probable cause", thus no reason to use lethal force.
Previous cases are just a guide. There can be one crucial factor or unique combination of factors that changes the final judgement to go against earlier ones. You are still stuck on things that were established after the fact but were not self-evident during the situation. I don't know what I have to say to get you to keep that context in mind. I even earlier quoted Judge O'Connor: "The clarity of hindsight cannot provide the standard for judging the reasonableness of police decisions made in uncertain and often dangerous circumstances."


Because "See Something Say Something" should not become the standard for "probable cause".
Not sure what you mean here.


Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. His witness testimony is as credible as anybody else's, including a cop.
This is yet to be determined.


I've seen this enough times before to have a pretty good idea of what happened here.
Having "a pretty good idea" is no substitute for proving beyond reasonable doubt. Do you only follow the constitution when it suits you?

[invisible]

Damn. Noticing that this thread seemed to have jumped in size by about 10 pages since last checking it yesterday, I was thinking that perhaps there was some new development in this case. Instead, I end up wading through 10 pages of trolling by yet another police apologist. :mad:

[PaulConventionWV]

This is just BS.

By saying "You think you're smart", you are engaging in argumentum ad hominem. Even if I think I am smart, so what? Does pointing that out mean you have disproved my arguments? Do you think it is a "smart" thing to attack someone personally in an effort to discredit anything they say?

If you knew anything about the constitution, you would know that even when prima facie a person appears guilty, you cannot declare them guilty until you go through all the established facts. The constitution and the Supreme Court's ruling in the Tennessee V. Garner case (and others) give some leeway to the police in cases of "reasonable suspicion" or "probable cause". These can only be determined by examining the officer's detailed explanation (under cross-examination) about why he shot her. He needs to be asked about alternative actions he could have taken and why he did not use them. We still have not even determined whether it is true or false that his hand was caught in the window. By rejecting that explanation before hearing all the details, you are contradicting the very constitution you are pretending to follow. This is evidenced in your statement "...all the facts, no matter whose story is true, point to the officer being in the wrong." One of the so-called "facts" is Buchele's testimony which has not yet been put under cross-examination.

So either you are being dishonest or you do not understand what presumption of innocence means. Take your pick.

I have went through all the facts I need to know. Based on the officer's own testimony, he was still in the wrong. Regardless, it is plainly obvious that he had no authority or right to kill that woman.

Take into account the window thing the cop mentioned. Not only do windows not close that fast, but even if it was 90% closed, cops NEVER stick their hands in a window that is almost closed because they KNOW that's a major safety hazard. That's not proper procedure, and it's not Constitutional to stick his hand in her car in the first place.

Yeah, and I know what an ad hominem attack and all that is, so you can give the lecturing a rest. You and I both know the cop was in the wrong.

The thing is, a woman died at the hands of a cop for obviously trite reasons, and you can't understand what the fuss is about? Give me a break.

[azxd]

This is just BS.

By saying "You think you're smart", you are engaging in argumentum ad hominem. Even if I think I am smart, so what? Does pointing that out mean you have disproved my arguments? Do you think it is a "smart" thing to attack someone personally in an effort to discredit anything they say?

If you knew anything about the constitution, you would know that even when prima facie a person appears guilty, you cannot declare them guilty until you go through all the established facts. The constitution and the Supreme Court's ruling in the Tennessee V. Garner case (and others) give some leeway to the police in cases of "reasonable suspicion" or "probable cause". These can only be determined by examining the officer's detailed explanation (under cross-examination) about why he shot her. He needs to be asked about alternative actions he could have taken and why he did not use them. We still have not even determined whether it is true or false that his hand was caught in the window. By rejecting that explanation before hearing all the details, you are contradicting the very constitution you are pretending to follow. This is evidenced in your statement "...all the facts, no matter whose story is true, point to the officer being in the wrong." One of the so-called "facts" is Buchele's testimony which has not yet been put under cross-examination.

So either you are being dishonest or you do not understand what presumption of innocence means. Take your pick.
The LEO didn't, but keep at it ... I find your desire to defend what you do not know, but hypothesize about, very entertaining.

The strawmen in the trunk defense was very good.
Now how about expanding your perspective and making the assumption that the woman was innocent.

[Anti Federalist]

What about Terry v. Ohio?

Do you only cite precedent when it suits you?


This is yet to be determined.

But if it was a cop making a statement, then we can assume his word is gold?


Having "a pretty good idea" is no substitute for proving beyond reasonable doubt. Do you only follow the constitution when it suits you?

Ridiculous Straw Man is ridiculous.

How am not following the constitution?

I'm not trumping up false charges, like the cops do.

I'm not sweating a false confession out of this man, like the cops do.

I'm not saying this man should be stripped of his rights and, basically lynched, like government does.

By all means, he should be afforded every right to defense and privilege of due process, just like any other citizen should be, but many times, are not, denied by the very cops you are defending.

When does Patricia Cook get her day in court?

[Anti Federalist]

Are you still here *yawn*

You don't kill people who aren't trying to kill you... what is really so hard to understand about this?

Because there are some misguided folks out there that think government has the right to do just that, use deadly force whenever it feels like, to maintain "order".

Basically, to kill you for your own good.

[Lethalmiko]

....

aGameOfThrones, yours is the most substantive response I have seen out of a sea of fallacies.

United States v. Massenburg

This case does not actually support your apparent argument that the officer had no justification for acting the way he did (even if it eventually turns out that way). There are fundamental differences between the circumstances of this case and the Patricia Cook situation.

1. The four young men who were stopped were found FOUR BLOCKS away from the scene of the reported shooting. However, Cook was found at the scene described in the tip-off.

2. None of them was described in the anonymous tip-off to justify the officers reasonably suspecting them of any connection to the reported shooting. The vehicle Cook was in was identified by the officer as corresponding to the one described in the tip-off. So was the gender of the driver (female).

3. When the officers stopped the four guys to talk to them, they were cooperative. One of them showed his ID and two of them consented voluntarily to a body search, even though in this case, they could have reasonably refused like their fourth friend did. We do not yet know whether Cook was cooperative with the officer in his initial contact with her. The officer's statement is that while he was trying to get her ID, she refused to cooperate by closing the window and driving away.


According to Virginia State Police, at approximately 10 a.m. Thursday, Culpeper Police got a call about a suspicious women sitting in a Jeep Wrangler in a church parking lot in the 300 block of North East Street. The officer started talking to Patricia A. Cook, 54, of Culpeper. State police say that for some reason, while the officer was trying to get her identification, Cook "suddenly closed her driver's side window trapping the officer's arm and started driving away dragging the officer alongside." Police say the officer repeatedly asked her to stop but the car kept going. Then shots were fired, and the Jeep wrecked in the 200 block of North East Street. Cook was shot by the officer and died at the scene.

4. Now, I want you to put her action in the context that the officer had reasonable suspicion based on the fact that the details in the tip-off matched what he was seeing (the Jeep with a female driver). He was (with very high probability) talking to a suspect in a possible crime in progress (or one about to commence). Before he could even establish her identity, she tried to escape. This action, combined with all the antecedent events at that point would give any reasonable person justification to take a more aggressive stance towards her and reasonable suspicion would begin leaning towards probable cause because an innocent person in that circumstance who has been identified by the tip-off would reasonably be expected to cooperate. Instead, her actions were consistent with those of a criminal attempting to escape capture.

5. The case you have quoted is specific to searches and this is not what the officer was doing, according to his testimony. He was asking for her ID so whatever arguments and inferences can be made with respect to searching are therefore invalid.

[Anti Federalist]

4. Now, I want you to put her action in the context that the officer had reasonable suspicion based on the fact that the details in the tip-off matched what he was seeing (the Jeep with a female driver). He was (with very high probability) talking to a suspect in a possible crime in progress (or one about to commence).

So now, with no evidence, no testimony to that fact, no weapon, no prior criminal record, acco0rding to you, this woman was committing, or about to commit, a crime, just for sitting in public parking lot in broad daylight?


Before he could even establish her identity, she tried to escape. This action, combined with all the antecedent events at that point would give any reasonable person justification to take a more aggressive stance towards her and reasonable suspicion would begin leaning towards probable cause because an innocent person in that circumstance who has been identified by the tip-off would reasonably be expected to cooperate. Instead, her actions were consistent with those of a criminal attempting to escape capture.

Leaving the presence of a cop is not a crime.

Nor should it ever be taken as "reasonable suspicion".

She did not attempt to "escape" as she was not under arrest.

[Lethalmiko]

Based on the officer's own testimony, he was still in the wrong. Regardless, it is plainly obvious that he had no authority or right to kill that woman.
How did you arrive at this conclusion?


Take into account the window thing the cop mentioned. Not only do windows not close that fast, but even if it was 90% closed, cops NEVER stick their hands in a window that is almost closed because they KNOW that's a major safety hazard. That's not proper procedure, and it's not Constitutional to stick his hand in her car in the first place.
All this is pure speculation based on nothing. I am not even sure about your last statement. If the officer looks at your ID for example, and then hands it back to you by partially putting his hand through your window, he has violated the constitution? Which clause, considering that cars did not exist in 1789?


You and I both know the cop was in the wrong.
Speak for yourself. I don't know that for a fact at this time because I have no irrefutable evidence to base such a conclusion on, but since you do, please share.


The thing is, a woman died at the hands of a cop for obviously trite reasons, and you can't understand what the fuss is about? Give me a break.
Again, baseless speculation. I hope you and other like-minded people never ever serve as a juror in any trial.


The LEO didn't, but keep at it ... I find your desire to defend what you do not know, but hypothesize about, very entertaining.
This person said "How much more do you need to know before making a judgment? How much more can you know?" Does this not sound like someone passing judgement based on half-baked facts?


Now how about expanding your perspective and making the assumption that the woman was innocent.
When you arrive at a possible crime scene, it would be foolhardy to make any assumptions about anything or anyone. Not unless you want to wind up dead.


Do you only cite precedent when it suits you?
Explain.


But if it was a cop making a statement, then we can assume his word is gold?
Did I say that? Please quote.


How am not following the constitution?
Okay, strictly speaking, there is nothing unconstitutional you have done here. My only point was that declaring the officer guilty until proven innocent means you do not really believe in the principle of presumption of innocence and you therefore cannot make any pretensions about believing in the constitution.


I'm not trumping up false charges, like the cops do.....
Relevance?


When does Patricia Cook get her day in court?
Never. She has not been accused of anything.

[Anti Federalist]

Never. She has not been accused of anything.

And that should pretty much end the debate.

She wasn't then, she isn't now, she won't be in the future.

She didn't do anything wrong, other than committing the crime of "contempt of cop".

And it got her dead.

No judge, no jury, no due process, no constitutional rights, no nothing, other than summary, street side, execution.

And in a free country, that should not happen, ever.

Period.

[azxd]

Still entertaining :)

[Lethalmiko]

So now, with no evidence, no testimony to that fact, no weapon, no prior criminal record, acco0rding to you, this woman was committing, or about to commit, a crime, just for sitting in public parking lot in broad daylight?
This is just dishonest. How would it be possible for an officer to get evidence/testimony, know there was a weapon, or check someone's criminal record in such a situation? You are obfuscating the issue by using a red herring. Based on the tip-off, there was reasonable suspicion that a crime MIGHT be in progress or was about to. Whether she was just sitting in her car or not is immaterial because you are committing the fallacy of judging the officer's actions in hindsight which Judge O'Connor clearly showed is illogical.


Leaving the presence of a cop is not a crime. Nor should it ever be taken as "reasonable suspicion". She did not attempt to "escape" as she was not under arrest.
Again, you are dropping the context of the tip-off and how it gave the officer reasonable suspicion. When an officer has reasonable suspicion, an attempt to leave by an identified suspect in a possible crime (before anything is established) takes things in the direction of attempting to avoid getting caught, even if the specific crime has not yet been identified.

Can you categorically state whether a tip-off from the public with very specific details that are confirmed at the scene constitutes a basis for reasonable suspicion or not?

[A Son of Liberty]

I'd really like to know: how in God's Holy Name is "driving away" justification in your mind for gunning someone down? Do you not recognize NUMEROUS steps this cop could have taken to avoid taking this woman's life?

What is wrong with you?

[Lethalmiko]

And that should pretty much end the debate. She wasn't then, she isn't now, she won't be in the future. She didn't do anything wrong, other than committing the crime of "contempt of cop". And it got her dead. No judge, no jury, no due process, no constitutional rights, no nothing, other than summary, street side, execution. And in a free country, that should not happen, ever. Period.
This is ridiculous!

This whole debate is about whether the officer was justified in shooting her or not. You say "No" based on nothing but speculation and emotional feelings. I say "I am not sure yet because not all the facts and evidence have been examined in detail" and I explain in detail other possibilities. I then make the point that the officer needs to have his day in court for this to happen and your response is to argue that Patricia Cook will not get her day in court. How is that even remotely related to this discussion? And then you go on to focus on this emotion-based red herring without addressing my points. You even boldly assert that this was an execution!

Unbelievable!

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

A private citizen can not legally shoot a fleeing person, no matter what the circumstances. This is typically the same for police officers. The cop probably lied about being dragged because he knew this. The witness likely had no reason to lie. Since the cop killed the woman (this is not in dispute), you have the word of the cop versus the word of the witness. With the witness having no reason to lie, I find the witness more credible.

Good luck with your future lawyering, lethalmiko.

[Lethalmiko]

I'd really like to know: how in God's Holy Name is "driving away" justification in your mind for gunning someone down? Do you not recognize NUMEROUS steps this cop could have taken to avoid taking this woman's life?

What is wrong with you?
You are also engaging in the same context-dropping fallacy I have pointed out. This was someone whose car and gender had been described in a phone call to the police who then sent someone to investigate a possible crime in progress. Only when you put everything into context can you see that the simple action of driving away takes on a new meaning. Imagine a criminal who has just robbed a bank gets into his car and is told to stop by an officer at the scene. If he is shot as he drives away, can you make the same useless argument that "how in God's Holy Name is 'driving away' justification in your mind for gunning someone down?" Context of the action is important.

I have no quarrel with the idea that he could have possibly taken other steps to stop her without necessarily shooting her. But even this argument depends on whether his life was threatened or not and that has not been established beyond doubt. You have implicitly decided to disregard his testimony, which a court of law does not have the luxury to do.

In my own view, the police should have the option as a very last resort to gun down a clearly identified suspect trying to get away in a situation where they have reasonable suspicion.

[A Son of Liberty]

A private citizen can not legally shoot a fleeing person, no matter what the circumstances.

I was about to post something along these lines. Lethalmiko may not be defending the cop, per se, but he is going farther than he needs to in "holding judgment"; granted, the cop deserves his day in court, but as with anyone else, someone who has admittedly shot someone in the back (for all intents and purposes) is going to experience a fair amount of pre-judgment... and rightfully so.

Allowing Lethalmiko's contention that this cop harbored some suspicions about this women, the cop is not judge, juror, and executioner (tho' it seems many are coming to believe that's exactly what they are).

It's a sad day when a so-called Ron Paul supporter goes to bat on behalf of summary execution.

[Travlyr]

See.... this is why Andy only gave Barney one bullet and he had to keep it in his shirt pocket.

[A Son of Liberty]

You are also engaging in the same context-dropping fallacy I have pointed out. This was someone whose car and gender had been described in a phone call to the police who then sent someone to investigate a possible crime in progress. Only when you put everything into context can you see that the simple action of driving away takes on a new meaning. Imagine a criminal who has just robbed a bank gets into his car and is told to stop by an officer at the scene. If he is shot as he drives away, can you make the same useless argument that "how in God's Holy Name is 'driving away' justification in your mind for gunning someone down?" Context of the action is important.

I have no quarrel with the idea that he could have possibly taken other steps to stop her without necessarily shooting her. But even this argument depends on whether his life was threatened or not and that has not been established beyond doubt. You have implicitly decided to disregard his testimony, which a court of law does not have the luxury to do.

In my own view, the police should have the option as a very last resort to gun down a clearly identified suspect trying to get away in a situation where they have reasonable suspicion.

NO. Stop with that. Driving AWAY is BY DEFINITION not a threat to the cop's life. It is not acceptable in a supposedly free society to gun someone down on "suspicion". It would have been very simple to obtain her address and show up with a lawful warrant.

[Lethalmiko]

A private citizen can not legally shoot a fleeing person, no matter what the circumstances. This is typically the same for police officers. The cop probably lied about being dragged because he knew this. The witness likely had no reason to lie. Since the cop killed the woman (this is not in dispute), you have the word of the cop versus the word of the witness. With the witness having no reason to lie, I find the witness more credible.
A police officer who is bound by an oath to uphold law and order is NOT in the same class as a citizen with respect to shooting. For example, in a gunfire exchange with criminals, a citizen is only allowed to shoot in self-defense until the threat is eliminated. In the same situation, an officer is mandated to shoot not only in self-defense, but to ensure successful capture of the criminals because that is part of this job. He is authorized to pursue and if necessary shoot them until they are subdued if they attempt to run away. A civilian doing that would likely get into trouble with the law. You need to show me which case or law prohibits the police from shooting a "fleeing person, no matter what the circumstances". I doubt that you will, because it would mean police pursuing a criminal in a high speed car chase cannot shoot at his car.

And your deductions about the high likelihood of the cop lying are baseless. You do not even know anything about his character or that of the witness but you are confidently making presumptuous statements.


Lethalmiko may not be defending the cop, per se, but he is going farther than he needs to in "holding judgment"; granted, the cop deserves his day in court, but as with anyone else, someone who has admittedly shot someone in the back (for all intents and purposes) is going to experience a fair amount of pre-judgment... and rightfully so. Allowing Lethalmiko's contention that this cop harbored some suspicions about this women, the cop is not judge, juror, and executioner (tho' it seems many are coming to believe that's exactly what they are). It's a sad day when a so-called Ron Paul supporter goes to bat on behalf of summary execution.
So in your view, a guy who is arrested for murder on the strength of the testimony of three witnesses in a case of mistaken identity deserves "a fair amount of pre-judgment... and rightfully so"? I find it more sad that people who claim to follow the constitution are ready to ignore one of its core principles based on emotions.

The only thing I am vehemently defending is the constitutional principle of presumption of innocence, regardless of how "slum-dunk" the evidence appears to be initially (I frankly don't give a toss what happens to that cop). In the same way, I will defend the right of everyone to free speech, even if I vehemently disagree with everything they say (this is why for example I disagree with stopping bigots from speaking in derogatory terms about gays, blacks or Jews). What most of you are saying leads me to conclude that many of you on RPF do not really understand what liberty and libertarianism means, though you love to pontificate about how the American sheeple are not ready for freedom because they do not understand it.


NO. Stop with that. Driving AWAY is BY DEFINITION not a threat to the cop's life. It is not acceptable in a supposedly free society to gun someone down on "suspicion". It would have been very simple to obtain her address and show up with a lawful warrant.
Please apply your logic to my bank robber example. Secondly, you are also disregarding the testimony of the officer. Thirdly, what if the car she was in was stolen?

[heavenlyboy34]

In the same situation, an officer is mandated to shoot not only in self-defense, but to ensure successful capture of the criminals because that is part of this job.

Officers have no such obligation. There have been several court decisions about this, and no court has held that cops are required to defend anyone. AF has voluminous literature on the subject close at hand. I have some, but it'll take some digging around on my hard drive to find it.

[fisharmor]

The only thing I am vehemently defending is the constitutional principle of presumption of innocence, regardless of how "slum-dunk" the evidence appears to be initially (I frankly don't give a toss what happens to that cop).

I think you should do what AF suggested, and apply that logic to Patricia Cook.
But then again, you've already argued that cops are our social betters, playing by different rules than we do.

I honestly hope that one day you see how wrong that is.
I also honestly hope it's not because something like this happens to someone you care about.
Until then, you can expect a lot of knockback on this forum.

[A Son of Liberty]

So in your view, a guy who is arrested for murder on the strength of the testimony of three witnesses in a case of mistaken identity deserves "a fair amount of pre-judgment... and rightfully so"? I find it more sad that people who claim to follow the constitution are ready to ignore one of its core principles based on emotions.

What? This cop admittedly shot a woman in the back.


The only thing I am vehemently defending is the constitutional principle of presumption of innocence, regardless of how "slum-dunk" the evidence appears to be initially (I frankly don't give a toss what happens to that cop). In the same way, I will defend the right of everyone to free speech, even if I vehemently disagree with everything they say (this is why for example I disagree with stopping bigots from speaking in derogatory terms about gays, blacks or Jews). What most of you are saying leads me to conclude that many of you on RPF do not really understand what liberty and libertarianism means, though you love to pontificate about how the American sheeple are not ready for freedom because they do not understand it.

I have my issues with some of the folks around here, as well; but at the end of the day they're for the most part well-intended people who put a philosophy of individual liberty at the forefront of their interpretation of current events, etc. They generally impart the spirit of folks who said things like, "give me liberty, or give me death", and "better 100 guilty men go free than one wrongly imprisoned."

I have to admit, I'm woefully unfamiliar with an interpretation of libertarianism which advocates under any circumstances the shooting in the back of "suspects".


Please apply your logic to my bank robber example. Secondly, you are also disregarding the testimony of the officer. Thirdly, what if the car she was in was stolen?

I didn't see your bank robber example, but speaking from a philosophical perspective I would not advocate police shooting fleeing bank robbers, either.

If the car was stolen, the cop should have known it before he walked up to the car.

You are aware that we plebes are supposedly granted the presumption of innocence until our guilt is proven, aren't you? Thus, it is consistent with the concept of libertarianism to not advocate for summary executions.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

A police officer who is bound by an oath to uphold law and order is NOT in the same class as a citizen with respect to shooting. For example, in a gunfire exchange with criminals, a citizen is only allowed to shoot in self-defense until the threat is eliminated. In the same situation, an officer is mandated to shoot not only in self-defense, but to ensure successful capture of the criminals because that is part of this job. He is authorized to pursue and if necessary shoot them until they are subdued if they attempt to run away.


An officer is not "mandated" to shoot fleeing criminals, and certainly not fleeing suspects. Most departments have policies against chasing a fleeing car, let alone shooting at fleeing cars. Let's see you back up your assertions there with case law. I'm not the one playing pretend lawyer in a hornet's nest.



And your deductions about the high likelihood of the cop lying are baseless. You do not even know anything about his character or that of the witness but you are confidently making presumptuous statements.

They're not baseless. I just gave you the reasoning. I also said nothing about "high likelihood." I said "With the witness having no reason to lie, I find the witness more credible." Deal with that if you like, but stop putting words in my mouth.

[Lethalmiko]

I have realized two important issues that have helped me understand the confusion I am seeing in here.

1. PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE MISAPPLICATION

Presumption of Innocence does NOT apply to law enforcement. It applies only in legal cases where there is an accuser and an accused (Hence the "X Vs Y" format of legal cases). The principle therefore does not apply to Patricia Cook but applies to the officer once he is accused of something. It is based on a more general principle in philosophy about positive and negative statements.

Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit. --- "The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof."


The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of fact, who is restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused is to be acquitted.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence


2. MALEVOLENT PREMISE

The government has certainly become more tyrannical in nature over the decades and they often abuse law enforcement systems to sort out people. The system is certainly messed up a lot. My point however is that regardless of how messed up the system is, foundational principles can still apply. So most of you will have a negative knee-jerk reaction to any unfortunate deaths at the hands of the police, even if the officers in question were innocent in their actions.

[Travlyr]

Out of curiosity... how did you happen to come up with the name... Lethal miko?

[A Son of Liberty]

What's clear is that you will go to unusual lengths to undermine the principle of individual liberty.

Most of us around here are nowhere near as comfortable as you are with defending the right of the state to kill. Perhaps that is at odds with some obscure legal posturing; it is wholly consistent with the principles and values espoused by the namesake of this forum, however.

Cheers.

[fisharmor]

1. PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE MISAPPLICATION

Presumption of Innocence does NOT apply to law enforcement.

Then what need have we of courts at all? If officers of the law are free to assume guilt of whomever they are dealing with, what purpose do courts have?

[Lethalmiko]

An officer is not "mandated" to shoot fleeing criminals, and certainly not fleeing suspects. Most departments have policies against chasing a fleeing car, let alone shooting at fleeing cars. Let's see you back up your assertions there with case law. I'm not the one playing pretend lawyer in a hornet's nest.
First off, I use "mandated" in the "authorized" or "allowed" sense. Secondly, there is legal precedent for this and I gave it in an earlier post. Thirdly, it is justified philosophically for reasons I have already stated.

"This case requires us to determine the constitutionality of the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed suspected felon. We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."
Justice Byron R. White, Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 105 S. Ct. 1694, 85 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1985)


They're not baseless. I just gave you the reasoning. I also said nothing about "high likelihood." I said "With the witness having no reason to lie, I find the witness more credible." Deal with that if you like, but stop putting words in my mouth.
I am putting words in your mouth? Really? Didn't you say "The cop probably lied about being dragged because he knew this. The witness likely had no reason to lie." Need I remind you the meaning of "probably"? It means "with considerable certainty; without much doubt; easy to believe on the basis of available evidence". My contention is that you cannot state with any level of certainty anything about the validity of the two opposing testimonies. You have absolutely no way of knowing if Kris Buchele is a habitual liar, or loves to make things up for fun. You do not similarly know anything about the officer. Just because you cannot conceive a reason why Buchele would lie does not prove it is any less likely than the officer lying. If there was a second independent witness who said the same thing, then I would agree with you.

[Lethalmiko]

Out of curiosity... how did you happen to come up with the name... Lethal miko?
It was a nick-name given to me by a friend who thought I was "lethal" with the ladies :)


What's clear is that you will go to unusual lengths to undermine the principle of individual liberty. Most of us around here are nowhere near as comfortable as you are with defending the right of the state to kill. Perhaps that is at odds with some obscure legal posturing; it is wholly consistent with the principles and values espoused by the namesake of this forum, however.
If you are honest enough to read my posts with an objective mind, you would not conclude this.


Then what need have we of courts at all? If officers of the law are free to assume guilt of whomever they are dealing with, what purpose do courts have?
Officers are not allowed nor obliged to make ANY assumptions about the guilt or innocence of people they deal with during law enforcement. They simply follow established rules and apply laid down principles to the best of their ability. The rules they operate under take care of any issues to do with liberty. So there are rules against shooting anyone anyhow for example. There are rules about how evidence can legally be obtained that will be admissible in court.

In short, you cannot apply a correct principle to the wrong situation.

[Anti Federalist]

This is ridiculous!

This whole debate is about whether the officer was justified in shooting her or not. You say "No" based on nothing but speculation and emotional feelings. I say "I am not sure yet because not all the facts and evidence have been examined in detail" and I explain in detail other possibilities. I then make the point that the officer needs to have his day in court for this to happen and your response is to argue that Patricia Cook will not get her day in court. How is that even remotely related to this discussion? And then you go on to focus on this emotion-based red herring without addressing my points. You even boldly assert that this was an execution!

Unbelievable!

If the state had any credible evidence, or even faked up some, they would have brought it forward instantly, to discredit Cook and put the whole issue to bed.

They have not.

Executed.

[Anti Federalist]

In my own view, the police should have the option as a very last resort to gun down a clearly identified suspect trying to get away in a situation where they have reasonable suspicion.

Suspected OF WHAT?

What crime was committed, or alleged to have been committed, prior to "contempt of cop"?

But this says a lot, it really does, about where you are coming from.

Answered all my questions.

You think that cops can gun down unarmed, un-arrested people in the back.

I do not, and there is no argument that you can make that will convince me otherwise.

[Lethalmiko]

I have to admit, I'm woefully unfamiliar with an interpretation of libertarianism which advocates under any circumstances the shooting in the back of "suspects".
A very dishonest strawman.


I didn't see your bank robber example, but speaking from a philosophical perspective I would not advocate police shooting fleeing bank robbers, either.
So what about the guy who goes on a shooting rampage on a school campus and flees? We should just let him take off and blow a few more brains out?


If the car was stolen, the cop should have known it before he walked up to the car.
Even if he happened to be patrolling nearby and got to the scene in 30 seconds?


You are aware that we plebes are supposedly granted the presumption of innocence until our guilt is proven, aren't you? Thus, it is consistent with the concept of libertarianism to not advocate for summary executions.
In short, the officer is guilty until proven innocent for an action that he may be able to successfully explain?

[Lethalmiko]

Suspected OF WHAT? What crime was committed, or alleged to have been committed, prior to "contempt of cop"?
A person that flees a possible crime scene does not need to be accused of anything first for the police to try and stop him.


You think that cops can gun down unarmed, un-arrested people in the back. I do not, and there is no argument that you can make that will convince me otherwise.
And how would you know in the situation that they are not armed? And why are they fleeing in the first place?

[Anti Federalist]

A police officer who is bound by an oath to uphold law and order is NOT in the same class as a citizen with respect to shooting. For example, in a gunfire exchange with criminals, a citizen is only allowed to shoot in self-defense until the threat is eliminated. In the same situation, an officer is mandated to shoot not only in self-defense, but to ensure successful capture of the criminals because that is part of this job. He is authorized to pursue and if necessary shoot them until they are subdued if they attempt to run away. A civilian doing that would likely get into trouble with the law. You need to show me which case or law prohibits the police from shooting a "fleeing person, no matter what the circumstances". I doubt that you will, because it would mean police pursuing a criminal in a high speed car chase cannot shoot at his car.

You ought to read your posts, instead of just throwing up clouds of legal jargon without knowing what it means or does.

You cited Tennessee v. Garner:


In the United States this [use of deadly force by police] is governed by Tennessee v. Garner, which said that "deadly force...may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

Just "fleeing" IS NOT justification for use of lethal force by itself.

There must be the reasonable suspicion that the fleeing person will also be an imminent and immediate threat to others.

Based on what has been presented so far, there is none.

Executed.

[Lethalmiko]

Another implication of allowing a suspect to flee the scene of a crime is that he may destroy evidence that ties him to the crime (blood stains, hairs from a victim, etc).

[A Son of Liberty]

A very dishonest strawman.

It simply is not consistent with a philosophy of individual liberty to make the amount of room you are making for this. Sorry.


So what about the guy who goes on a shooting rampage on a school campus and flees? We should just let him take off and blow a few more brains out?

I wouldn't see a problem if the perpetrator was in the act of killing other people; it is not in accordance with individual liberty to grant police the authority to shoot "suspects".


Even if he happened to be patrolling nearby and got to the scene in 30 seconds?

Don't cops have those computer thingys in their cars where they can look up things like that? A quick run of the plates would put that info in his hands...


In short, the officer is guilty until proven innocent for an action that he may be able to successfully explain?

Talk about dishonest strawmen. I've already agreed that the cop is due his day in court. Hopefully he stands trial! But the fact remains that, as I said earlier, it looks bad for the guy, given that he shot her (for all intents and purposes) in the back.

[A Son of Liberty]

Another implication of allowing a suspect to flee the scene of a crime is that he may destroy evidence that ties him to the crime (blood stains, hairs from a victim, etc).

Yes, it's definitely better to run the risk of blowing an innocent person away... :shock:

[Anti Federalist]

And how would you know in the situation that they are not armed? And why are they fleeing in the first place?

Because they were not under arrest.

Leaving when you are not under arrest is not "fleeing".

It's a free person leaving the area.

You are having problem understanding that, aren't you?

[jmdrake]

This is ridiculous!

This whole debate is about whether the officer was justified in shooting her or not. You say "No" based on nothing but speculation and emotional feelings. I say "I am not sure yet because not all the facts and evidence have been examined in detail" and I explain in detail other possibilities. I then make the point that the officer needs to have his day in court for this to happen and your response is to argue that Patricia Cook will not get her day in court. How is that even remotely related to this discussion? And then you go on to focus on this emotion-based red herring without addressing my points. You even boldly assert that this was an execution!

Unbelievable!

This cop would agree with you.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67NwBMBeDuI

And sorry. I've read Terry v. Ohio. It doesn't get you where you are trying to go. It's about the exclusionary rule, not about the justification of deadly force.

In fact Tennessee v. Gardner KILLS your argument. (No pun intended). From that case:

Held:

The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Pp. 7-22.

So even by statute an officer cannot given license to kill someone just because they are fleeing.

Now here is the "leeway" your were trying to argue.

It is not, however, unconstitutional on its face. Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where [471 U.S. 1, 12] feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster.

Sorry, but the facts don't lend itself to your gross misinterpretation of the law. There's been no mention of a weapon. No mention of the woman trying to run over anyone with her car. The "I was being drug down the street" seems to be B.S. The law presumes all witnesses to be truthful and there seems to be no motive for the witness who said the officer's hand was not caught in the glass to lie. The officer will probably not testify. Now yes, he does have the presumption of innocence. His defense team will need to try to tear apart a credible eyewitness and somehow paint the victim, an upper middle aged, middle class white woman, as someone who would try to drag a police officer to death rather than someone just irritated by a rude police officer and wishing to leave. Sorry for emphasizing race, but it will play a factor against the officer. If this was some young black male the officer would likely be able to find a juror who might believe his story. The officer better hope for a D.A. willing to go against overwhelming public opinion and offer him something of a deal.

But to argue that this officer somehow had a right to shoot this woman because she was leaving the seen what wasn't even reported as a crime is just laughable. If any court ever buys such a cockamamie argument then this country has already gone to hell and we might as well be on the lookout for trucks to take us to FEMA camps.

If you are a defense attorney this is what you're up against:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSPhC916GQM

To go into court arguing some kind of constitutional protection for the officer if the officer wasn't actually being drug down the street should count as legal malpractice. Tell your stupid client to take any deal short of the death penalty and be happy.

[AFPVet]

A private citizen can not legally shoot a fleeing person, no matter what the circumstances. This is typically the same for police officers. The cop probably lied about being dragged because he knew this. The witness likely had no reason to lie. Since the cop killed the woman (this is not in dispute), you have the word of the cop versus the word of the witness. With the witness having no reason to lie, I find the witness more credible.

Good luck with your future lawyering, lethalmiko.

There is one situation where a citizen may shoot a fleeing felon—that is if the fleeing felon retains the means to continue to inflict serious harm or loss of life. One example of this would be where the perp is making a "tactical retreat".

—Indiana Law Enforcement Academy.

[Lethalmiko]

Just "fleeing" IS NOT justification for use of lethal force by itself. There must be the reasonable suspicion that the fleeing person will also be an imminent and immediate threat to others. Based on what has been presented so far, there is none.
I agree with your first and last statements. But bear in mind that fleeing in the CONTEXT of reasonable suspicion changes the picture dramatically. Secondly, I was quoting this case to answer a specific question about legal precedent for shooting fleeing suspects.

I personally disagree with the ruling in the case and I side with the 3 judges who dissented. I believe nothing should be off the table if the police have identified themselves and the suspect has been told to stop and warned that he will be shot if he does not stop. There should preferably be warning shots fired as well and all other options exhausted before shooting him. In some circumstances time is so short that some of these steps are skipped.

Ultimately, technology will solve this problem. In future, we shall have Star Trek guns that you can set to just stun someone from a long distance without killing them. Then we shall all be happy and in agreement.

[A Son of Liberty]

I believe nothing should be off the table if the police have identified themselves and the suspect has been told to stop and warned that he will be shot if he does not stop.

Yes, you've made yourself clear on this point already. As I've said, this is not consistent with libertarianism.


Ultimately, technology will solve this problem. In future, we shall have Star Trek guns that you can set to just stun someone from a long distance without killing them. Then we shall all be happy and in agreement.

Uh, no. I think not. :eek:

[Anti Federalist]

Ultimately, technology will solve this problem. In future, we shall have Star Trek guns that you can set to just stun someone from a long distance without killing them. Then we shall all be happy and in agreement.

It already has.

The implanted at birth, drug dispensing microchip, will have a dose of tranquilizer or cyanide, either of which will be able to be triggered by LEOs remotely as the situation warrants.

If they zap you with the cyanide dose, all that remains at that point is to collect your body for processing at the Soylent Green plant.

Yay! Future!

[pcosmar]

Officers are not allowed nor obliged to make ANY assumptions about the guilt or innocence of people they deal with during law enforcement. They simply follow established rules and apply laid down principles to the best of their ability. The rules they operate under take care of any issues to do with liberty.


That is so completely full of shit I do not know where to begin.

What bizarre fantasy world do you live in?

[jmdrake]

I personally disagree with the ruling in the case and I side with the 3 judges who dissented. I believe nothing should be off the table if the police have identified themselves and the suspect has been told to stop and warned that he will be shot if he does not stop. There should preferably be warning shots fired as well and all other options exhausted before shooting him. In some circumstances time is so short that some of these steps are skipped.


Please bring this up if you are ever being nominated as a judge so that the rest of us who are sane can oppose you.



Ultimately, technology will solve this problem. In future, we shall have Star Trek guns that you can set to just stun someone from a long distance without killing them. Then we shall all be happy and in agreement.

You mean like Tasers? Such technology is already here. And sometimes police abuse that power too and kill people. Sometimes the one that got away is just the one that got away. The officer could have taken this woman's take, called out an APB and she would have been caught eventually.

[jmdrake]

That is so completely full of shit I do not know where to begin.

What bizarre fantasy world do you live in?

You mean what FEMA region is he located in? Sadly his "fantasy" world isn't too far removed from rapidly approaching reality.

[Anti Federalist]

His defense team will need to try to tear apart a credible eyewitness and somehow paint the victim, an upper middle aged, middle class white woman, as someone who would try to drag a police officer to death rather than someone just irritated by a rude police officer and wishing to leave. Sorry for emphasizing race, but it will play a factor against the officer. If this was some young black male the officer would likely be able to find a juror who might believe his story.

Glaring truth is glaring.

[TheTexan]

I believe nothing should be off the table if the police have identified themselves and the suspect has been told to stop and warned that he will be shot if he does not stop.

You've got to be kidding me.