Entire House Of Reps Gives Standing Ovation To Cops After Killing Unarmed Mother

[green73]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlyTOSEPJGI#t=54
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlyTOSEPJGI#t=54

[LibertyEagle]

It seems a bit histrionic to be calling it murder.

[tod evans]

"Just-Us" :mad:

[LibertyEagle]

She rammed the White House gates and when approached backed up and sped off toward the Capitol. I dunno, guys, I don't think this was an example of what you are saying.

[tod evans]

She rammed the White House gates and when approached backed up and sped off toward the Capitol. I dunno, guys, I don't think this was an example of what you are saying.

I've gotta question "ramming" anything..

The front of her vehicle appears pristine in the pictures I've seen...

Could it be that the histrionics are spewing from the cops mouths?

[donnay]

Meet Miriam Carey, the dental assistant summarily executed by Capitol Hill police

Connor Adams Sheets
International Business Times
Fri, 04 Oct 2013 05:06 CDT

http://www.sott.net/image/image/s7/153112/large/miriam.jpg
Miriam Carey (right), is the woman identified in news reports as the shot to death in front of her daughter by Capitol Hill police on Thursday afternoon. This photo is from a newsletter announcing her having been hired as a hygenist at a Connecticut periodontics practice.


Here's what we know about Miriam Carey, the woman identified in news reports as the suspect in a shooting incident that left Capitol Hill on lockdown for a brief period Thursday afternoon, and has now reportedly been shot dead by police.

According to the New York Post (http://nypost.com/2013/10/03/capitol-shooter-was-conn-based-dental-hygienist/?utm_source=SFnewyorkpost&utm_medium=SFnewyorkpost) and the New Haven Register (http://www.nhregister.com/) newspapers, Carey, a 34-year-old dental hygenist, was involved in the episode that began when she allegedly rammed her black Infiniti luxury sedan into a barricade near the White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/). The incident ended when Carey led police on a high-speed car chase towards the U.S. Capitol. After repeatedly warning Carey to stop and get out of her car, the Capitol Police (http://www.uscapitolpolice.gov/) shot and killed her.

http://www.sott.net/image/image/s7/153113/large/capitol_shootout.jpg
Who wouldn't panic when confronted by trigger-happy U.S. Capitol Police with their guns drawn?

The altercation led to the U.S. Capitol being locked down for a brief period of time after shots rang out near Garfield Circle, in the vicinity of the Hart Senate Office Building.

Carey, who has ties to both Stamford, Conn., and Brooklyn, N.Y., hails from a condominium complex in Stamford called Woodside Green, according to the Register, and was permitted to work as a hygenist in Connecticut prisons, the Post reported.

ABC News reported (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/shots-us-capitol-puts-senators-lockdown/story?id=20460948) that Carey had "a history of mental health issues."

Source:
http://www.ibtimes.com/meet-miriam-carey-suspect-reportedly-killed-capitol-hill-shooting-photos-1414716

[better-dead-than-fed]

It seems a bit histrionic to be calling it murder.

I'm trying to recall cases where people killed police for driving erratically and it wasn't called 'murder'. Coming up short.

[LibertyEagle]

What I am saying is that we do not have all the facts yet and it looks ridiculous to be calling it MURDER in the thread title. Just like it looks stupid to be calling everyone who doesn't agree with us 100% a neocon.

After awhile, you get the reputation of being the boy who cried wolf and no one will listen to you.

[Anti Federalist]

Disgusting.

[donnay]

D.C. Cops Running Drill on Same Day as Capitol Shooting
http://www.infowars.com/d-c-cops-running-drill-on-same-day-as-capitol-shooting/

[donnay]

What I am saying is that we do not have all the facts yet and it looks ridiculous to be calling it MURDER in the thread title. Just like it looks stupid to be calling everyone who doesn't agree with us 100% a neocon.

After awhile, you get the reputation of being the boy who cried wolf and no one will listen to you.


Yeah, "murder" is too lame of a word..."executed" is a better word to use.

[Anti Federalist]

Hostile neutralized.

Mission Accomplished.

RTB

[tod evans]

Shot in cold blood.

[kathy88]

Eliminated?

[Anti Federalist]

Eliminated?

Terminated.

[EBounding]

Did they applaud before or after they learned the woman was unarmed?

[donnay]

Did they applaud before or after they learned the woman was unarmed?

She had a weapon of mass destruction (a car).

[fisharmor]

How many of those reps have made a career out of screeds against abortion?
The irrefutible fact is that human life isn't precious to anyone in power. This is another case that underscores that.
RP talked about changing society before we can change laws.
A lot of you have called me and my ilk dreamers for advocating statelessness.
That may be true, but you are also dreamers who think respect for life can be imbued to our society.

When this forum, which I had thought was a haven for those valuing human life, no longer harbors apologists for state killings, then living in a land that respects life will be more than a pipe dream.

Until then, we're deluding ourselves.

[DGambler]

What I am saying is that we do not have all the facts yet and it looks ridiculous to be calling it MURDER in the thread title. Just like it looks stupid to be calling everyone who doesn't agree with us 100% a neocon.

After awhile, you get the reputation of being the boy who cried wolf and no one will listen to you.

When one human being kills another, it's murder.... don't sugarcoat it.

And when you point out that the cops are MURDERING people, perhaps a light will click for some.

[FloralScent]

She rammed the White House gates and when approached backed up and sped off toward the Capitol. I dunno, guys, I don't think this was an example of what you are saying.

Have you seen the after picture of her bumper? She didn't "ram" anything.

[FloralScent]

I've gotta question "ramming" anything..

The front of her vehicle appears pristine in the pictures I've seen...

Could it be that the histrionics are spewing from the cops mouths?


Beat me to it...rep +1.

[liveandletlive]

Hardly a murder or police brutality. A car does become a weapon if used with malintent. The cops may have feared a car bomb. It's unfortunate she was was mentally ill but she could have easily killed someone else recklessly.

Cops did the right thing here IMO

[liveandletlive]

No offense. You weren't there. You saying it doesn't make it true.

I'm sure you will counter the cops just made the whole thing up as a false flag

[liveandletlive]

When one human being kills another, it's murder.... don't sugarcoat it.

And when you point out that the cops are MURDERING people, perhaps a light will click for some.

Killing in self defense is not murder.

[tod evans]

Killing in self defense is not murder.

Are you alleging that this killing was self defence?

[phill4paul]

I'm trying to recall cases where people killed police for driving erratically and it wasn't called 'murder'. Coming up short.

You cannot give Reputation to the same post twice.

[Occam's Banana]

Hostile neutralized.

Officer safety assured.


Mission Accomplished.

RTB

[Brett85]

It seems a bit histrionic to be calling it murder.

You should realize that all cops are murderers, are evil, and should be completely abolished. The criminals are always on the right side. :)

[fisharmor]

You should realize that all cops are murderers, are evil, and should be completely abolished. The criminals are always on the right side. :)

So, sarcasm aside, you and LE need to answer two questions.

1) What crime was committed?

2) Was there a victim? If not, can it be considered a crime?

[Origanalist]

You cannot give Reputation to the same post twice.

Got that for you.

[Origanalist]

Hey, guns are drawn, might as well use them. Citations all around.

http://www.sott.net/image/image/s7/153113/large/capitol_shootout.jpg

[EBounding]

The simple test to see if this was justified is to take away the badge. If someone rammed into your house and started driving away, would you be justified in shooting the car?

[green73]

Gee, I wonder who voted this thread one star.

[Brett85]

So, sarcasm aside, you and LE need to answer two questions.

1) What crime was committed?

2) Was there a victim? If not, can it be considered a crime?

She rammed through the barricades and was then trespassing on public property. A vehicle can be used as a weapon. The police didn't have any idea what this woman was going to do, if she was going to try to run over someone, if she had bombs in her car she was going to set off, etc. She was putting other people's lives at risk.

[Brett85]

Gee, I wonder who voted this thread one star.

I did, but it already had one star even before I voted.

[Red Green]

She had a weapon of mass destruction (a car).

She was also armed with a small, black child and we know how dangerous those can be as their easily concealable.

[green73]

I did, but it already had one star even before I voted.

I know. You probably got all misty-eyed when the House of Criminals were applauding their brave protectors.

[Brett85]

I'm not exactly sure whether the police actually had to kill this woman or if they could've stopped her without killing her. But the idea that this woman was just some innocent victim who did nothing wrong is just ridiciulous.

[Occam's Banana]

Hey, guns are drawn, might as well use them. Citations all around.

"What's the point of having this superb military police force [...] if we can't use it?"
- Madeleine Albright (and other advocates & defenders of state-sponsored death-dealing)

[tod evans]

She rammed through the barricades and was then trespassing on public property. A vehicle can be used as a weapon. The police didn't have any idea what this woman was going to do, if she was going to try to run over someone, if she had bombs in her car she was going to set off, etc. She was putting other people's lives at risk.

Oh for Pete's sake TC look at the car.

If you "ram" a tricycle with todays cars they'll leave parts lying in the street.

Any one of us could have a bomb on us at any time, and police aren't entitled to "know what we're going to do"...

This stinks to high heaven.

[phill4paul]

trespassing on public property.

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view4/1571045/does-not-compute-o.gif

[kahless]

You see a woman with a car seat - baby in the car, how much of a threat could she have been. After she pulls away you can hear the cops firing shots at her. I am not saying it is right what she did by pulling away, but she probably feared for her life after that. Speeding away because they are shooting at her.

But once she was stopped why did they not break the window, take her out of the car and arrest her. Why execute her there on the spot? With all the cops and sharp shooters they could have shot out the tires or use the bearcats to pop the tires.

Congress Gives Standing Ovation to DC Cops For Executing Unarmed Mother
http://www.infowars.com/congress-gives-standing-ovation-to-dc-cops-for-executing-unarmed-mother/


....
As the mainstream media portrayed the incident as some kind of dramatic gun battle and car chase involving a deadly terrorist who had attempted to attack the White House, the truth began to emerge. Carey’s worst crime appears to have been driving erratically and freaking out at a checkpoint when police aimed guns at her head.

Contrary to initial media reports that Carey had somehow tried to breach sensitive White House property, the checkpoint was a temporary “outer perimeter” fence, making it quite possible that Carey was confused and frightened as to why she was being stopped in the first place. The temporary checkpoint may have been part of a drill that was running simultaneously.

Perhaps cognizant of the fact that cops routinely shoot unarmed innocent people for no reason whatsoever, Carey panicked and tried to escape.

After a brief chase, Capitol police and Secret Service agents unloaded at least 15 rounds into Carey’s vehicle despite the fact that her 18-month-old child was sitting in the back seat. CNN praised the cops for showing such patience by waiting for 12 seconds before they executed a defenseless Carey. D.C. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier said the police acted “heroically” in slaughtering the unarmed woman.

“Why was lethal force authorized to begin with?” asks Reno Berkeley. “All they had to do was use tire spikes, or shoot out her tires. Instead, according to a New York Daily News article, she drove through a hail of bullets, and then crashed into a cruiser, and was then again surrounded and bombarded with another rain of bullets. No gun was found in Carey’s car. No motive so far is evident. The 34-year-old mother could have been having a bad day and made the wrong decision that led to her death. So, why are police so intent on painting her as a woman with mental health issues if everyone that knew her seems to say the exact opposite?”

Another video also shows that the police car crash which resulted in the injury of an officer was entirely self-inflicted – the cop crashed into one of the same barricades that Carey was executed for breaching. A Secret Service agent received minor injuries as a result of Carey’s erratic driving.

[EBounding]

You see a woman with a car seat - baby in the car, how much of a threat could she have been. After she pulls away you can hear the cops firing shots at her. I am not saying it is right what she did by pulling away, but she probably feared for her life after that. Speeding away because they are shooting at her.

Listen, she could have had her finger on a nuclear device and the car could have started flying. We just don't know.

[jkr]

the bottom line:

SH00T FIRST...NO FURTHER QUESTIONS

[Brett85]

the bottom line:

SH00T FIRST...NO FURTHER QUESTIONS

Well, I'm not really saying that no questions should be asked about what the police did. When I first heard this story, I did think it was odd that this woman ended up getting killed when she was unarmed. But, I'm also not going to say that this woman was just some innocent victim of the police who was just minding her own business, who did absolutely nothing wrong.

[69360]

A lot of people are jumping to conclusions without all the facts. Why did she hit the white house barriers? Cars have 5 mph bumpers, you can hit a gate without damage that will be visible in a blurry picture from hundreds of feet away, so this no damage argument is kind of silly. You can clearly see cops jumping out of the way as she drove her car at them in the video. That alone is justification to fire. I think you all should wait until the whole story comes out, this happened in front of hundreds of witnesses.

Until we know why she drove into the barriers, it's not possible to reach an intelligent conclusion.

[kathy88]

Now we can add "post partum" depression to the list of terrorist traits. How about a DNA test on that kid? Bet it belongs to someone connected in DC. Her mother said she became increasingly agitated when she found out she was pregnant. Maybe she was being threatened. You never know.

[fisharmor]

Well, I'm not really saying that no questions should be asked about what the police did. When I first heard this story, I did think it was odd that this woman ended up getting killed when she was unarmed. But, I'm also not going to say that this woman was just some innocent victim of the police who was just minding her own business, who did absolutely nothing wrong.

And as I've already pointed out, you support a systematic disrespect for human life.

[Brett85]

And as I've already pointed out, you support a systematic disrespect for human life.

Why? I specifically said that I don't know for sure whether it was absolutely necessary for the police to kill this woman or not. I'm just commenting on whether this woman broke the law or not and could've been seen as a threat to others in this situation. But as to whether there could've been another way for the police to stop this woman without killing her, I don't know since I wasn't there.

[DGambler]

Again, she was murdered by the state, plain and simple

[kathy88]

A lot of people are jumping to conclusions without all the facts. Why did she hit the white house barriers? Cars have 5 mph bumpers, you can hit a gate without damage that will be visible in a blurry picture from hundreds of feet away, so this no damage argument is kind of silly. You can clearly see cops jumping out of the way as she drove her car at them in the video. That alone is justification to fire. I think you all should wait until the whole story comes out, this happened in front of hundreds of witnesses.

Until we know why she drove into the barriers, it's not possible to reach an intelligent conclusion.

They were pointing guns at her. She panicked.

[69360]

They were pointing guns at her. She panicked.

Eyewitness reports don't seem to indicate that.


The chain-of-events began when the woman sped onto a driveway leading to the White House, over a set of barricades. When the driver couldn’t get through a second barrier, she spun the car in the opposite direction, flipping a Secret Service officer over the hood of the car as she sped away, said B.J. Campbell, a tourist from Portland, Ore.

“This wasn’t no accident. She was not a lost tourist,” Campbell said later near the scene that had been blocked off with police tape.

Then the chase began.

“The car was trying to get away. But it was going over the median and over the curb,” said Matthew Coursen, who was watching from a cab window when the Infiniti sped by him. “The car got boxed in and that’s when I saw an officer of some kind draw his weapon and fire shots into the car.”

http://connecticut.cbslocal.com/2013/10/04/cbs-news-woman-killed-by-capitol-hill-police-fired-from-job-over-argument-using-handicapped-parking-spot/

[Brett85]

"When the driver couldn’t get through a second barrier, she spun the car in the opposite direction, flipping a Secret Service officer over the hood of the car as she sped away, said B.J. Campbell, a tourist from Portland, Ore."

And of course the life of the Secret Service officer doesn't matter to people here. He was just a state sponsored murderer hired by the government to inflict as much pain and misery on people as possible.

[enhanced_deficit]

This is incredible and any doubts about false reporting being innocent reporting errors are vanishing. Even day after after it is fully clear that all shots were fired by cops, unarmed shot mother is still being headlined as "suspect" on front page of google news:


Featured:Gunshots Outside Capitol, Suspect Dead (http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/gunshots-outside-capitol-suspect-dead-20131003)National Journal - by Matt Berman (https://plus.google.com/100144970645675832123/posts)




She rammed the White House gates and when approached backed up and sped off toward the Capitol. I dunno, guys, I don't think this was an example of what you are saying.

Did you see that? Or you buy everything media says?

If you take a wrong turn into a police checkpoint in wrong neighborhood with your child with you and then panic and try to flee checkpoint, would you consider police justified in using deadly force?

[better-dead-than-fed]

the idea that this woman was just some innocent victim who did nothing wrong is just ridiciulous.


I'm also not going to say that this woman was just some innocent victim of the police who was just minding her own business, who did absolutely nothing wrong.


I'm just commenting on whether this woman broke the law or not and could've been seen as a threat to others in this situation.

There's a difference between arresting someone who's broken the law and killing her; and under the constitution, it takes more than "not having any idea what this woman was going to do" to justify killing a criminal.

[fisharmor]

Why? I specifically said that I don't know for sure whether it was absolutely necessary for the police to kill this woman or not. I'm just commenting on whether this woman broke the law or not and could've been seen as a threat to others in this situation. But as to whether there could've been another way for the police to stop this woman without killing her, I don't know since I wasn't there.

I'm not sure why these dots are so hard to connect.

There is no damage to the car. There was no ramming.
There were pedestrians all around that she could have rammed, and didn't.
She was unarmed so there could not have been a threat to anyone's life with a firearm.
Cops have their own cars, tire damage strips, bearcats, and a whole host of other tools at their disposal to stop people from speeding around.

She didn't obey orders, and their default response when this happens is to kill. There was one attempt to stop her that involved telling her to stop. Then they killed her.
The video of the event showing this happening was on continuous loop all yesterday afternoon.

They aren't trained to do anything other than kill when orders are disobeyed.
Any apology for this amounts to nothing less than support of a system which disrespects life.

[Brett85]

There's a difference between arresting someone who's broken the law and killing her; and under the constitution, it takes more than "not having any idea what this woman was going to do" to justify killing a criminal.

Like I said, I wasn't there and didn't witness this event, so I can't say for sure whether there was a way for the police to stop her without killing her. I just think it's clear that this woman was also clearly at fault for what she did.

[Cabal]

It's always the same people.

[kathy88]

Eyewitness reports don't seem to indicate that.



http://connecticut.cbslocal.com/2013/10/04/cbs-news-woman-killed-by-capitol-hill-police-fired-from-job-over-argument-using-handicapped-parking-spot/




http://ww3.hdnux.com/photos/24/07/20/5272598/5/628x471.jpg

This is where the car ended up. Note no damage.



Car that actually hit a barrier.

http://ww4.hdnux.com/photos/24/07/21/5272659/3/628x471.jpg


Car PRIOR to ending up in above picture.
http://www.wgal.com/image/view/-/22264642/medRes/2/-/h/252/maxh/92/maxw/138/w/378/-/765ard/-/Capitol-shooting-from-caught-on-camera-jpg.jpg

Now. The last pic is more than likely after she "RAMMED the barricade" I think those are definitely guns drawn and pointed at her HEAD. That is prior to the shooting. The shooting took place in a completely different location.

[fisharmor]

Like I said, I wasn't there and didn't witness this event, so I can't say for sure whether there was a way for the police to stop her without killing her. I just think it's clear that this woman was also clearly at fault for what she did.

And what you're steadfastly refusing to recognize is that it's equally clear that her only fault was to disobey.

[DGambler]

Like I said, I wasn't there and didn't witness this event, so I can't say for sure whether there was a way for the police to stop her without killing her. I just think it's clear that this woman was also clearly at fault for what she did.

Relativism on display.

[angelatc]

This is where the car ended up. Note no damage.



Car that actually hit a barrier.




Car PRIOR to ending up in above picture.


Now. The last pic is more than likely after she "RAMMED the barricade" I think those are definitely guns drawn and pointed at her HEAD. That is prior to the shooting. The shooting took place in a completely different location.


And away we go.

They started shooting at her as she drove away from the last picture. Don't know if they hit her, but there is video. And the car is damaged in the first picture - look at the fender and the door.

[phill4paul]

And away we go.

They started shooting at her as she drove away from the last picture.

Thus ensuring that there was only one way in which this incident would end.

[angelatc]

Like I said, I wasn't there and didn't witness this event, so I can't say for sure whether there was a way for the police to stop her without killing her. I just think it's clear that this woman was also clearly at fault for what she did.

I have to agree with better-dead here. Multiple traffic violations should not be grounds for opening fire.

[EBounding]

Like I said, I wasn't there and didn't witness this event, so I can't say for sure whether there was a way for the police to stop her without killing her. I just think it's clear that this woman was also clearly at fault for what she did.


Well sure, she was guilty of driving recklessly. Does that justify execution though? I've been hit by a car while walking on the sidewalk (not seriously injured). Would I have been justified to open fire on the driver?

[angelatc]

Now we can add "post partum" depression to the list of terrorist traits. How about a DNA test on that kid? Bet it belongs to someone connected in DC. Her mother said she became increasingly agitated when she found out she was pregnant. Maybe she was being threatened. You never know.


If only someone had provided her with free birth control....

[phill4paul]

Hey, guns are drawn, might as well use them. Citations all around.

http://www.sott.net/image/image/s7/153113/large/capitol_shootout.jpg

And had they actually used all those vehicles to properly block her in, instead of jumping out and hut-hutting with guns drawn, this situation might have ended differently.

[better-dead-than-fed]

I just think it's clear that this woman was also clearly at fault for what she did.

How is that relevant to the question of whether they murdered her?

[Christian Liberty]

It seems a bit histrionic to be calling it murder.

Why?


How many of those reps have made a career out of screeds against abortion?
The irrefutible fact is that human life isn't precious to anyone in power. This is another case that underscores that.
RP talked about changing society before we can change laws.
A lot of you have called me and my ilk dreamers for advocating statelessness.
That may be true, but you are also dreamers who think respect for life can be imbued to our society.

When this forum, which I had thought was a haven for those valuing human life, no longer harbors apologists for state killings, then living in a land that respects life will be more than a pipe dream.

Until then, we're deluding ourselves.

Did EVERYONE in the House of Reps applaud? Even Amash and Massie? If so I'm seriously disappointed. What would Ron Paul have done if he was still in the House? I can definitely imagine him standing alone there, but wow.

I agree with you that statelessness is only a dream because people don't want it. I also agree with you that even certain elements of this forum are basically useless.

[phill4paul]

Funny that there is another thread on here that has some of the same characteristics. A motorist is involved in a traffic mishap. He feels threatened. He runs from those he feels are threatening his, and his child's, safety running one over in the process.
What would you think had the "bikers" pulled out guns and shot him down? Justified? Standing ovation?

[JK/SEA]

yeah yeah, whatever....how are the 2 cops injured in this jihad attack?

[Christian Liberty]

And of course the life of the Secret Service officer doesn't matter to people here. He was just a state sponsored murderer hired by the government to inflict as much pain and misery on people as possible.

I'll admit to this one. His job is to defend a mass murderer. He's not an innocent victim of anything.

[UtahApocalypse]

Sometimes people in the liberty movement disgust me.

While I think the standing ovation by congress was uncalled for, the actions of the police clearly were.

In this day and age of IED's I'm honestly surprised the police showed so much restraint. The easily were justified in stopping her by force long before any shots were fired.

Also if the car bumped, hit, rammed a barricade or not doesn't even matter. The actions following that were what drew the police to use force.

[green73]

It's always the same people.

yup

[Root]

Who's the victim here, again?

[Christian Liberty]

And what you're steadfastly refusing to recognize is that it's equally clear that her only fault was to disobey.

TC, if this accusation is untrue, you have GOT to come up with a better argument than "breaking the law" or "tresspassing on public property", neither of which is an argument for anything.

[ClydeCoulter]

Sometimes people in the liberty movement disgust me.

While I think the standing ovation by congress was uncalled for, the actions of the police clearly were.

In this day and age of IED's I'm honestly surprised the police showed so much restraint. The easily were justified in stopping her by force long before any shots were fired.

Also if the car bumped, hit, rammed a barricade or not doesn't even matter. The actions following that were what drew the police to use force.

What a weird perception, surreal.

Maybe you need to move to a safer area, if this is a daily threat in your area. We don't have any of those incidents here, that I know of.

[green73]

Sometimes people in the liberty movement disgust me.

While I think the standing ovation by congress was uncalled for, the actions of the police clearly were.

In this day and age of IED's I'm honestly surprised the police showed so much restraint. The easily were justified in stopping her by force long before any shots were fired.

Also if the car bumped, hit, rammed a barricade or not doesn't even matter. The actions following that were what drew the police to use force.

http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z242/dspell13/KoolAid.gif

[GunnyFreedom]

She rammed through the barricades and was then trespassing on public property. A vehicle can be used as a weapon. The police didn't have any idea what this woman was going to do, if she was going to try to run over someone, if she had bombs in her car she was going to set off, etc. She was putting other people's lives at risk.

To be honest, I have never seen a modern vehicle 'ram' anything without sustaining significant damage before. Perhaps the entire story is bunk?

[DGambler]

Sometimes people in the liberty movement disgust me.

While I think the standing ovation by congress was uncalled for, the actions of the police clearly were.

Sometimes people that give the benefit of the doubt to the police disgust me.


In this day and age of IED's I'm honestly surprised the police showed so much restraint. The easily were justified in stopping her by force long before any shots were fired.

Also if the car bumped, hit, rammed a barricade or not doesn't even matter. The actions following that were what drew the police to use force.

Perhaps my GoogleFu is broken this morning, most IED stories I uncovered were in warzones outside of the US.... are you stating that the police are becoming militarized and training for IED usage here?

[Henry Rogue]

Funny that there is another thread on here that has some of the same characteristics. A motorist is involved in a traffic mishap. He feels threatened. He runs from those he feels are threatening his, and his child's, safety running one over in the process. What would you think had the "bikers" pulled out guns and shot him down? Justified? Standing ovation?
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to phill4paul again.

[JK/SEA]

young black woman with a baby.

Made some fatal mistakes.

I look at her as a scared rabbit that got inside the farmers veggie fence.

apparently there is no strategy to stop someone like her other than to blow a person like that away....

really?...

fuckin' inhuman bullshit.

end of story.

[georgiaboy]

I don't see any airbag deployed in the pics, and if it had - ramming would presumably cause this - the driver would likely have been impaired as a result.

From what I'm gathering, the police overreacted, to put it mildly.

Scary that they got a standing ovation by the House. Makes me think they've been given the order to shoot to kill at the first sign of failure to follow orders. If that's the case, it's bad. Real bad.

[tod evans]

Who's the victim here, again?

The heros of course:rolleyes:

[tod evans]

To be honest, I have never seen a modern vehicle 'ram' anything without sustaining significant damage before. Perhaps the entire story is bunk?

Neither have I Gunny.

[69360]

http://ww3.hdnux.com/photos/24/07/20/5272598/5/628x471.jpg

This is where the car ended up. Note no damage.



Car that actually hit a barrier.

http://ww4.hdnux.com/photos/24/07/21/5272659/3/628x471.jpg


Car PRIOR to ending up in above picture.
http://www.wgal.com/image/view/-/22264642/medRes/2/-/h/252/maxh/92/maxw/138/w/378/-/765ard/-/Capitol-shooting-from-caught-on-camera-jpg.jpg

Now. The last pic is more than likely after she "RAMMED the barricade" I think those are definitely guns drawn and pointed at her HEAD. That is prior to the shooting. The shooting took place in a completely different location.

The last pic the car is clearly in contact with the barrier and a cop car. Multiple eyewitnesses say she hit a cop and if you watch the video, she clearly backed up into a cop car and drove at another cop who jumped behind the barrier out of her way. None of this is up for argument, it happened.

Perhaps ram was too strong of an adjective used by the media, but she definitely put her car in contact with the barriers and a cop car.

We need to know the motivation for her actions before rushing to judgement. But generally speaking, driving a car at cops with guns drawn is justification to fire.

[fisharmor]

I look at her as a scared rabbit that got inside the farmers veggie fence.

apparently there is no strategy to stop someone like her other than to blow a person like that away....

Yeah, but the farmer doesn't just shoot the rabbit. So if the analogy is really to work....

http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/500/29572517/Fine+Young+Cannibals+fineyoungcannibals.jpg

[fisharmor]

We need to know the motivation for her actions before rushing to judgement.

No, we really don't.
The only reason to investigate motive is if there is a trial.
The only actors left to judge are not going to go through that process.

[enhanced_deficit]

young black woman with a baby.

Made some fatal mistakes.

I look at her as a scared rabbit that got inside the farmers veggie fence.

apparently there is no strategy to stop someone like her other than to blow a person like that away....

really?...

fuckin' inhuman bullshit.

end of story.


When guns were drawn at her, one of the guys right in front of her sight was wearing shorts and black tshirt. She may have been traumatized in the past by people with guns at some checkpoint, with or without cops uniforms and in panic tried to get her one year old child out of harms way by trying to escape men wih guns. She can be charged with disobeying cops but getting killed by cops for not stopping is clearly very wrong. Although charges against 'shooting suspects' have not been filed yet and media has gone to extreme lengths to paint unarmed victim as "suspected shooter', good propsecution can get guilty verdict against actual 'shooting suspects' once trails begin.

If her family is as connected as Treyvon Martins was, they might succeed in getting Obama / Holder to speak out about this killing just blocks from White House/Houses of lawmakers and may get charges filed against shooting suspects. But this might not get attention unless her family injected 'racial element' into this case of police abuse of power against a mundane who didnt have the sense to obey their commands.

[69360]

No, we really don't.
The only reason to investigate motive is if there is a trial.
The only actors left to judge are not going to go through that process.

There will surely be an investigation into the shooting as there is with any officer involved shooting and they will attempt to discover her motivation. If she didn't tell anyone beforehand, she may have taken it to the grave with her.

[phill4paul]

There will surely be an investigation into the shooting as there is with any officer involved shooting and ...

...regardless of the evidence it will be found that the Capital police "followed policy" and "acted within department guidelines" and are to be commended on their heroic actions.

[KingNothing]

Assuming she was completely insane, which she appears to have been, and assuming that she did ram barricades, which she actually did, and assuming she sped away, which she actually did, I do not think she should have been shot. I don't even think police should have engaged in a high speed chase.

The police did an entirely unsafe thing and made a bad situation much worse. They should have been smarter.

[KingNothing]

D.C. Cops Running Drill on Same Day as Capitol Shooting
http://www.infowars.com/d-c-cops-running-drill-on-same-day-as-capitol-shooting/

Typical. Not that a drill was happening, or that Alex Jones YET AGAIN refuses to believe that some random thing could possibly happen, but that you post something completely worthless and stupid.

[KingNothing]

So, sarcasm aside, you and LE need to answer two questions.

1) What crime was committed?

2) Was there a victim? If not, can it be considered a crime?



Are you kidding me? What crime was committed? Really?

[ronpaulfollower999]

How many police chases end up with the driver being murdered? If it happened in any other city, she probably would still be alive today....albeit in jail, but still alive. Now we have a little girl who is going to grow up without a mother. Talk about a fine how do you do.

[69360]

...regardless of the evidence it will be found that the Capital police "followed policy" and "acted within department guidelines" and are to be commended on their heroic actions.

All indications so far are that they did follow proper procedure. Have you seen any evidence otherwise?

[KingNothing]

I'm not exactly sure whether the police actually had to kill this woman or if they could've stopped her without killing her. But the idea that this woman was just some innocent victim who did nothing wrong is just ridiciulous.

I agree, for the most part. The woman was a pile of garbage and a time-bomb waiting to explode. The police... well... probably the same. It's just a bad combo.

[phill4paul]

All indications so far are that they did follow proper procedure. Have you seen any evidence otherwise?

No. And that was kinda my point. ;)

[69360]

How many police chases end up with the driver being murdered? If it happened in any other city, she probably would still be alive today....albeit in jail, but still alive. Now we have a little girl who is going to grow up without a mother. Talk about a fine how do you do.

Define chase. When you drive at a cop, it escalates to more than a chase. I believe it is attempted vehicular homicide or something like that. A car is a deadly weapon when aimed at a person on foot.

[angelatc]

To be honest, I have never seen a modern vehicle 'ram' anything without sustaining significant damage before. Perhaps the entire story is bunk?

Of course it is. She is the mother of Obama's love child and she had to be taken out.

[ClydeCoulter]

I agree, for the most part. The woman was a pile of garbage and a time-bomb waiting to explode. The police... well... probably the same. It's just a bad combo.

What? You know her? Maybe she just let it all hang out of FaceBook? What?

[Occam's Banana]

Sometimes people in the liberty movement disgust me.

While I think the standing ovation by congress was uncalled for, the actions of the police clearly were.

The actions of the police were what? Uncalled for? I agree ...


In this day and age of IED's I'm honestly surprised the police showed so much restraint.

Go tell it to the jihadist under your bed.

[KingNothing]

If anything can be said to be funny about this, it's that she thought Obama was "stalking" her. In reality, his people were just recording every phone call she ever made, logging all of her text messages, emails and internet history, and capturing on video the locations of her vehicle every day.

[JK/SEA]

Hard to believe there are people out there not thinking clearly...

cops love it when you cross their path not thinking clearly....

[KingNothing]

What? You know her? Maybe she just let it all hang out of FaceBook? What?

By every single account, she was a lunatic.

[enhanced_deficit]

All indications so far are that they did follow proper procedure. Have you seen any evidence otherwise?

A unarmed black mother's dead body is not evidence enough?

[69360]

A unarmed black mother's dead body is not evidence enough?

Playing the race and woman card. Nice.

[GunnyFreedom]

What? You know her? Maybe she just let it all hang out of FaceBook? What?

Some dude in a uniform said so, therefore it must be true. Dudes in uniforms wouldn't lie.

[angelatc]

The last pic the car is clearly in contact with the barrier and a cop car. Multiple eyewitnesses say she hit a cop and if you watch the video, she clearly backed up into a cop car and drove at another cop who jumped behind the barrier out of her way. None of this is up for argument, it happened.

Perhaps ram was too strong of an adjective used by the media, but she definitely put her car in contact with the barriers and a cop car.

We need to know the motivation for her actions before rushing to judgement. But generally speaking, driving a car at cops with guns drawn is justification to fire.


Not arguing - just clarifying. This is the second barrier she ran into. Originally she tried to get past a "security fence" that blocks a road leading to the White House. That's where she it the SS officer.

[GunnyFreedom]

By every single account, she was a lunatic.

Isn't that exactly what the establishment says about Ron Paul supporters?

[angelatc]

Some dude in a uniform said so, therefore it must be true. Dudes in uniforms wouldn't lie.


Never mind that there were several hundred witnesses, some of them taking video.

[angelatc]

Playing the race and woman card. Nice.


Not to mention the Mom card.

[enhanced_deficit]

Playing the race and woman card. Nice.

You left out 'mother' card that was also played.

[DGambler]

I agree, for the most part. The woman was a pile of garbage and a time-bomb waiting to explode. The police... well... probably the same. It's just a bad combo.

Really?

[GunnyFreedom]

Never mind that there were several hundred witnesses, some of them taking video.

That she was a lunatic?

Well, a hoard of people running towards me with guns and I'm liable to get out by any means necessary also. I guess that makes me a lunatic too.

[jllundqu]

I disagree with almost everyone in this thread.

She hit a Secret Service agent with her car and tried to run over others.... the use of deadly force was justified. If she tried to run me over, she would have gotten a .40cal hollow point to the gray matter.

If she had run over a couple kids, you would all be singing a different tune.

Cops did their job in this case, but for people who hate police and all they do (even the good cops) there is no convincing.

Proceed with the neg reps and BS replies.

[KingNothing]

Some dude in a uniform said so, therefore it must be true. Dudes in uniforms wouldn't lie.

What? Some dude in a uniform? Like her mother? And her boyfriend? WTF are you guys going on about? Have you read nothing about this?

[kahless]

I am disbelief at some of the comments on RPF from long time posters. I do not think anyone here is saying she did not act inappropriately, the issue is how the police handled the situation.

They had the car surrounded and were close enough to see a woman with an infant. She pulls away and they open fire. That is following procedure???

Heroic my ass. What a bunch of cowardly wimps that had to pull a gun and fire shots for not being man enough to handle a woman with an infant.

[PaulConventionWV]

What I am saying is that we do not have all the facts yet and it looks ridiculous to be calling it MURDER in the thread title. Just like it looks stupid to be calling everyone who doesn't agree with us 100% a neocon.

After awhile, you get the reputation of being the boy who cried wolf and no one will listen to you.

I don't know what more you need. She got shot for driving wildly. There was no imminent threat to anyone else's life. If you accept those conditions, then you must also accept the term murder, since that is the definition.

[KingNothing]

That she was a lunatic?

Well, a hoard of people running towards me with guns and I'm liable to get out by any means necessary also. I guess that makes me a lunatic too.

She thought Obama was video recording her life to broadcast it on television. I'd say that, yes, she was a lunatic. She considered herself a prophet and was being treated for mental illness.

[fisharmor]

She thought Obama was video recording her life to broadcast it on television. I'd say that, yes, she was a lunatic. She considered herself a prophet and was being treated for mental illness.

Well if she's half right, doesn't that make her only half lunatic?

[angelatc]

I could accept these things once in a while if the reaction was one of grief, and at least a promise to examine and revamp procedures to be sure that lives were not necessarily snuffed in situations like this.

But that is not what we get. They are quite proud of themselves for going right for the jugular. It's psychotic.

[angelatc]

She thought Obama was video recording her life to broadcast it on television. I'd say that, yes, she was a lunatic. She considered herself a prophet and was being treated for mental illness.


That doesn't make her a piece of garbage.

[PaulConventionWV]

She rammed through the barricades and was then trespassing on public property. A vehicle can be used as a weapon. The police didn't have any idea what this woman was going to do, if she was going to try to run over someone, if she had bombs in her car she was going to set off, etc. She was putting other people's lives at risk.

How do you trespass on public property? You don't shoot someone for not knowing what they are going to do. If I were that paranoid, I would shoot everyone who exhibited even slightly strange behavior. Self-defense doesn't mean you get to shoot people because "they might have a bomb." They might have a lot of things, but that doesn't mean we should always assume the worst like the police do. Even reasonable suspicion is no justification for killing someone, so why would wild conjecture be?

[KingNothing]

I am disbelief at some of the comments on RPF from long time posters. I do not think anyone here is saying she did not act inappropriately, the issue is how the police handled the situation.



There are people here saying she was set up, or a patsy, or part of some vast conspiracy. There are other people claiming she did nothing wrong and that the hundreds of witnesses are lying about what happened. There are people here saying a whole bunch of stupid things, as usual.

There are few people stating facts - that she had a history of mental illness, broke many laws, was a danger to everyone in the area, and that in spite of these things, the police could have ended the debacle in a less awful manner.

[KingNothing]

That doesn't make her a piece of garbage.

It led her to doing what she did, and doing it with a 1 year old in the car. I'd consider that a pile of garbage.

[enhanced_deficit]

She thought Obama was video recording her life to broadcast it on television. I'd say that, yes, she was a lunatic. She considered herself a prophet and was being treated for mental illness.

She was wrong then, only her phone meta data should have been recorded by Obama team. Unless she had a video phone.
But you are okay with 'lunatics' like her being killed by cops for trying to escape a police checkpoint?

[KingNothing]

Well if she's half right, doesn't that make her only half lunatic?

Which half was she right about? Being a prophet, or being a reality TV star thanks to Obama?

[WM_in_MO]

I disagree with almost everyone in this thread.

She hit a Secret Service agent with her car and tried to run over others.... the use of deadly force was justified. If she tried to run me over, she would have gotten a .40cal hollow point to the gray matter.

If she had run over a couple kids, you would all be singing a different tune.

Cops did their job in this case, but for people who hate police and all they do (even the good cops) there is no convincing.

Proceed with the neg reps and BS replies.


Show some restraint. I'm not killing someone for bumping into me. Sure I'm angry, but if I'm alive i'm certainly not going to kill that person first chance I get.

That's no different from the cops shooting dogs that "charge" at them.

That's no different from cops who "Thought he had a gun"

You're using the same logic as the circular force continuum.

[jllundqu]

I don't know what more you need. She got shot for driving wildly. There was no imminent threat to anyone else's life. If you accept those conditions, then you must also accept the term murder, since that is the definition.

I disagree. Basic constitutional law shows the use of deadly force was justified. The second the woman struck the Secret Service officer it became a deadly force encounter. The second she attempted to run over others escalated it. When an officer is reasonably in fear of death or serious bodily injury (ie getting run over) the use of deadly force is called for. See Graham V Connor, Tennesee V Garner

[phill4paul]

Cops did their job in this case, but for people who hate police and all they do (even the good cops) there is no convincing.


http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2012/179/e/0/chef_bot___does_not_compute__by_giframa-d555wi8.gif

[angelatc]

I disagree with almost everyone in this thread.

She hit a Secret Service agent with her car and tried to run over others.... the use of deadly force was justified. If she tried to run me over, she would have gotten a .40cal hollow point to the gray matter.

If the SS officer had been shooting at her as she was heading for him, then of course it would be justified as self-defense. But that isn't what happened. We don't know if he fired at all.


The gaggle of cops in the video did not start shooting at her until after she was leaving. That is not self defense. If you shot someone in the back of the head, you'd be facing jail time.

[angelatc]

It led her to doing what she did, and doing it with a 1 year old in the car. I'd consider that a pile of garbage.

No, it makes her mentally ill.

[KingNothing]

I disagree. Basic constitutional law shows the use of deadly force was justified. The second the woman struck the Secret Service officer it became a deadly force encounter. The second she attempted to run over others escalated it. When an officer is reasonably in fear of death or serious bodily injury (ie getting run over) the use of deadly force is called for. See Graham V Connor, Tennesee V Garner

This is absolutely correct, and I still disagree with the use of deadly force in this instance. It was sub-optimal, as was engaging in the high speed chase. Innocent lives were unnecessarily put at risk while other, less dangerous, means of resolving the problem should have been pursued.

[KingNothing]

No, it makes her mentally ill.

I do not care what leads a person to run someone over and involve herself in a high speed chase with a one year old in the car. The act itself is enough to be labeled a pile of garbage

[jllundqu]

It's unpleasant for people in the liberty movement to admit that sometimes deadly force is NEEDED. Could the officers have made different choices? Yes, they could have tried stop sticks, rolling barricades, other tactics, but all the video I've seen shows a woman attempting to run over people. It's an unfortunate incident and I don't think Congress or anyone should celebrate the killing of this troubled woman, but the police were 100% justified in their actions (in my informed opinion).

Clean shoot.

[kahless]

I disagree with almost everyone in this thread.

She hit a Secret Service agent with her car and tried to run over others.... the use of deadly force was justified. If she tried to run me over, she would have gotten a .40cal hollow point to the gray matter.

If she had run over a couple kids, you would all be singing a different tune.

Cops did their job in this case, but for people who hate police and all they do (even the good cops) there is no convincing.

Proceed with the neg reps and BS replies.

This last summer I got run over at low speed but enough where I had put myself on top of the trunk to avoid being run over underneath the car. The driver was reckless since we may eye contact when I passed behind his car but he was being aggressive. I obviously was not a happy camper nor were people that witnessed it.

At no time did I or the people around me feel I would have been justified to execute the driver. But I suppose if I was a police officer it would have been okay? Did not realize all I need was a badge so I can execute people on the spot without a trial.

[angelatc]

I do not care what leads a person to run someone over and involve herself in a high speed chase with a one year old in the car. The act itself is enough to be labeled a pile of garbage

For all you know she thought she had been invited to the White House, and thought she was getting a police escort.

[brandon]

Being psychotic doesn't necessarily make someone violent or dangerous. There must be better ways for them to handle this sort of thing.

[jllundqu]

This is absolutely correct, and I still disagree with the use of deadly force in this instance. It was sub-optimal, as was engaging in the high speed chase. Innocent lives were unnecessarily put at risk while other, less dangerous, means of resolving the problem should have been pursued.

Have you seen the video of her car surrounded by people on foot and then she slams forward forcing several officers onto the curb/sidewalk and onto her hood?

That is 100% the use of deadly force.

[angelatc]

It's unpleasant for people in the liberty movement to admit that sometimes deadly force is NEEDED. Could the officers have made different choices? Yes, they could have tried stop sticks, rolling barricades, other tactics, but all the video I've seen shows a woman attempting to run over people. It's an unfortunate incident and I don't think Congress or anyone should celebrate the killing of this troubled woman, but the police were 100% justified in their actions (in my informed opinion).

Clean shoot.


Oh, well. I guess we didn't realize your opinion was informed.

[jllundqu]

This is Con Law 101, people

[jllundqu]

Oh, well. I guess we didn't realize your opinion was informed.

Suffice it to say I'm well versed in use of force law and exactly these types of incidents. No need to get snotty. ;)

[kathy88]

And away we go.

They started shooting at her as she drove away from the last picture. Don't know if they hit her, but there is video. And the car is damaged in the first picture - look at the fender and the door.

All I see is bullet holes.

[WM_in_MO]

It's unpleasant for people in the liberty movement to admit that sometimes deadly force is NEEDED. Could the officers have made different choices? Yes, they could have tried stop sticks, rolling barricades, other tactics, but all the video I've seen shows a woman attempting to run over people. It's an unfortunate incident and I don't think Congress or anyone should celebrate the killing of this troubled woman, but the police were 100% justified in their actions (in my informed opinion).

Clean shoot.

A car backing up and bumping in to you does not justify deadly force as a reaction.

It justifies stopping the vehicle and arresting the driver.


This is Con Law 101, people

The Constitution is a joke and I would hope by now you realize it.

If the constitution justifies killing an unarmed person who bumped into someone with a car then count me out.

(By that logic I can murder anyone who rear ends me.)

[GunnyFreedom]

This is Con Law 101, people

Con Law says that police and civilians are held to the same standard. A civilian shooting at someone who is retreating (except for Texas, I believe) goes to prison for murder. You may need to get a refund on that education.

[jkr]

It led her to doing what she did, and doing it with a 1 year old in the car. I'd consider that a pile of garbage.
you really dont know what the fuck she did garbage man

[jllundqu]

Con Law says that police and civilians are held to the same standard. A civilian shooting at someone who is retreating (except for Texas, I believe) goes to prison for murder. You may need to get a refund on that education.

Really?


Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (USSC)(1985)-The use of deadly force to stop a fleeing felon is not justified unless it is necessary to prevent the escape, and it complies with the following requirements. The officer has to have probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

[WM_in_MO]

Really?
BECAUSE THE COURTS ALWAYS GET IT RIGHT DON'T THEY.
(Fugitive slave law... Obamacare... Income tax...)

You know what? Fuck it. you're clearly one of two things:

1. A troll
2. Stupid

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/003/326/127814606985.jpg

[PaulConventionWV]

Sometimes people in the liberty movement disgust me.

While I think the standing ovation by congress was uncalled for, the actions of the police clearly were.

In this day and age of IED's I'm honestly surprised the police showed so much restraint. The easily were justified in stopping her by force long before any shots were fired.

Also if the car bumped, hit, rammed a barricade or not doesn't even matter. The actions following that were what drew the police to use force.

Actions like trying to drive away? How does that warrant the use of deadly force?

[jllundqu]

Con Law says that police and civilians are held to the same standard. A civilian shooting at someone who is retreating (except for Texas, I believe) goes to prison for murder. You may need to get a refund on that education.

And again Gunny...


Plakas v. Drinski, 19 F.3d 1143 (7th Cir. 1994)-If the actions of the suspect justifies the use of deadly force, the officer is not required to use less-than-lethal force before employing deadly force. The court noted that "...where deadly force is otherwise justified under the Constitution, there is no constitutional duty to use non-deadly alternatives first."

[EBounding]

I disagree. Basic constitutional law shows the use of deadly force was justified. The second the woman struck the Secret Service officer it became a deadly force encounter. The second she attempted to run over others escalated it. When an officer is reasonably in fear of death or serious bodily injury (ie getting run over) the use of deadly force is called for. See Graham V Connor, Tennesee V Garner

So if I get hit by a car and they drive off, I can start shooting at the driver?

[phill4paul]

So, was she in the car when shot or outside of it? According to USA today.


The driver made her way onto Constitution Avenue before eventually stopping in the 100 blocks of Maryland Avenue NE, near the Hart Senate Office Building.

Police then killed the driver after she got out of her vehicle and tried to flee.

[WM_in_MO]

And again Gunny...
http://www.rugusavay.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Lysander-Spooner-Quotes-1.jpg

[jllundqu]

So if I get hit by a car and they drive off, I can start shooting at the driver?

No... but if you are legally trying to stop a fleeing felon and they try to run you or another officer down, yes you can shoot.

[GunnyFreedom]

http://www.rugusavay.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Lysander-Spooner-Quotes-1.jpg

That just shows how delusional anybody is who expects a piece of paper to lift itself off of the table pick up a weapon and defend itself. :rolleyes:

[PaulConventionWV]

How many police chases end up with the driver being murdered? If it happened in any other city, she probably would still be alive today....albeit in jail, but still alive. Now we have a little girl who is going to grow up without a mother. Talk about a fine how do you do.

Well, quite a lot of car chases end like that, if the person fleeing doesn't crash first.

[GunnyFreedom]

And again Gunny...

So the courts are a higher authority than the Constitution itself now? Hmm.

ETA -- did they teach that in "Con Law 101?"

[WM_in_MO]

So the courts are a higher authority than the Constitution itself now? Hmm.

ETA -- did they teach that in "Con Law 101?"

They have been since they gave themselves the power of judicial review and nobody did a damn thing about it.

[brushfire]

I've witnessed people in a state of "fight or flight" and its really bizarre what people will do. When multiple guns are drawn on someone, an animal instinct can be triggered, and bizarre/unpredictable behavior can result.

That being said, I am really focusing on this - there are 2 tragedies that I can gather thus far. Obviously the killing of this woman, and the 1 year old that no longer has a mother. And the second being the news portrayal and sensationalization of the whole incident. I suppose what's really sad is that what's portrayed as the truth can never be trusted.

[Dr.3D]

Con Law says that police and civilians are held to the same standard. A civilian shooting at someone who is retreating (except for Texas, I believe) goes to prison for murder. You may need to get a refund on that education.
Suppose the civilian shooting at someone didn't hit his target. Would he still go to prison for murder? ;)

[jllundqu]

So the courts are a higher authority than the Constitution itself now? Hmm.

ETA -- did they teach that in "Con Law 101?"

The case precedents I'm citing draw their conclusions directly from the 4th amendment as the use of force is considered a "seizure"

You mean to tell me that if someone was trying to run you or your family over, you wouldn't use deadly force to protect? Are we looking at two different incidents here? Let me find the vid of her slamming into people with her car that, for me, makes it an open and shut case...

[GunnyFreedom]

They have been since they gave themselves the power of judicial review and nobody did a damn thing about it.

What is right and what is reality are often diametrically opposed to one another.

[PaulConventionWV]

I disagree with almost everyone in this thread.

She hit a Secret Service agent with her car and tried to run over others.... the use of deadly force was justified. If she tried to run me over, she would have gotten a .40cal hollow point to the gray matter.

If she had run over a couple kids, you would all be singing a different tune.

Cops did their job in this case, but for people who hate police and all they do (even the good cops) there is no convincing.

Proceed with the neg reps and BS replies.

IF she had run over a couple of kids (which she didn't), then yes, we probably would be singing a different tune... but she didn't.

[KingNothing]

Have you seen the video of her car surrounded by people on foot and then she slams forward forcing several officers onto the curb/sidewalk and onto her hood?

That is 100% the use of deadly force.

I understand your point from a legal perspective, but I disagree with the need for deadly force because I think the entire event should have been handled differently.

[jllundqu]

Suppose the civilian shooting at someone didn't hit his target. Would he still go to prison for murder? ;)

Not if the use of force was justified under the 4th amendment. If an officer misses his target and hits an innocent bystander, he is not criminally negligent but may be civilly liable. "You are responsible for every round fired down range" is what is preached at academies.

[GunnyFreedom]

The case precedents I'm citing draw their conclusions directly from the 4th amendment as the use of force is considered a "seizure"

You mean to tell me that if someone was trying to run you or your family over, you wouldn't use deadly force to protect? Are we looking at two different incidents here? Let me find the vid of her slamming into people with her car that, for me, makes it an open and shut case...

Nobody has a right to shoot someone who is fleeing. If you want to give the police that right, then you have to give citizens that right also. if you want to deny that to citizens, then you have to deny it to police also. Otherwise, we do not live in a 'republican form of government' and the Constitution stands in abrogation. The courts are more often wrong than right.

[Dr.3D]

Not if the use of force was justified under the 4th amendment. If an officer misses his target and hits an innocent bystander, he is not criminally negligent but may be civilly liable. "You are responsible for every round fired down range" is what is preached at academies.

I'm talking about the murder of the person he was shooting at but never hit. Say he didn't hit anybody.

[KingNothing]

I've witnessed people in a state of "fight or flight" and its really bizarre what people will do. When multiple guns are drawn on someone, an animal instinct can be triggered, and bizarre/unpredictable behavior can result.

That being said, I am really focusing on this - there are 2 tragedies that I can gather thus far. Obviously the killing of this woman, and the 1 year old that no longer has a mother. And the second being the news portrayal and sensationalization of the whole incident. I suppose what's really sad is that what's portrayed as the truth can never be trusted.

Don't forget the congressional standing ovation, which is ridiculous. The height of skill is winning without killing or using force. What these cops did, anyone could have done. It does not warrant applause.

[jllundqu]

I understand your point from a legal perspective, but I disagree with the need for deadly force because I think the entire event should have been handled differently.

I am inclined to agree with you! Then again, I don't have all the facts, but based on what I've seen and read:

1. Legally they had every right to shoot her since she engaged in deadly force first and continued to do so
2. The police could have used much more restraint and resolved the situation without the loss of life

[fisharmor]

No... but if you are legally trying to stop a fleeing felon and they try to run you or another officer down, yes you can shoot.

His argument is that constitutionally police and non-police are held to the same legal standard with respect to retreating felons.
All you've done is show SCOTUS cases that support the idea that police and non-police are in fact not held to the same legal standard.

Then there's the people here who just don't give a fuck, and choose to form our political opinions on moral axioms, as opposed to what nine men in black dresses think.
Gunny's position is closer to ours, in that he doesn't think there are castes of people with greater privileges than others.

[Lucille]

http://www.theburningplatform.com/2013/10/04/feinstein-we-must-ban-black-automatic-infinitys/


It sounds like our police state thugs are attempting to spin this story so they don’t come across as incompetent boobs who murdered a black woman for driving recklessly.

When did Post Postpartum Depression become a mental illness? Don’t millions of woman get this every year? I guess we should ban all women who have recently had a baby from driving cars.

We were told that the car rammed the front gate at the White House. Sorry. The video shows no ramming of anything. Her front end is not damaged in any way.

We were told the perpetrator had a gun and was shooting. Sorry. Another MSM bullshit lie. The only people firing guns were the donut eaters.

We were told that a police officer was injured by the suspect. Sorry. Barney Fife ran into his own police barrier at 70 miles per hour and destroyed his police car.

Shooting a black, unarmed, depressed, female with a baby in the backseat really rallies the country around our police state thugs. What would we do without them?

Poor Chris Matthews. He had gotten that old tingle up his leg hoping it was a white middle aged male Tea Party terrorist, related to Ron Paul, with an AK-47 trying to take out the black guy in the White House.

Maybe next time Chris.

You can rest easy now. We are safe from depressed black female dental hygienist terrorists.

[jllundqu]

Don't forget the congressional standing ovation, which is ridiculous. The height of skill is winning without killing or using force. What these cops did, anyone could have done. It does not warrant applause.

I agree. This was disgusting. A tragic incident to be sure. No one, especially elected 'officials' should applaud the loss of life, especially since she was obviously disturbed. I can't believe the House did that.

[angelatc]

When did she become a felon?


Really?

The officer has to have probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

Well, since we are all potential terrorists now, I guess it's open season.

What probable cause did he have? She didn't have a gun. She wasn't intentionally targeting anybody with her car.

[jllundqu]

This is a well-written article about the incident:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/04/opinion/weinblatt-capitol-shooting/


(CNN) -- The images filled the screen. A black car hitting barricades at the White House and on Capitol Hill, marked police cars being rammed, and the popping sounds of shots fired. More images rolled in, of heavily armed United States Capitol Police officers and of tourists running with scared and confused expressions.

In the aftermath of the scene that unfolded Thursday, a Connecticut woman is dead and a 1-year-old girl is in protective custody. The natural question people are asking is: Was it necessary for the police to shoot?

Washington Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy Lanier said that, yes, officers of the Capitol Police and Secret Service acted within commonly accepted use-of-force policies and practices in reaction to an intentional series of violent acts.


Richard WeinblattBut some have wondered whether police overreacted in this case. This is a question that comes up every time there is a shooting by police.

In fact, many studies have found that police use force less often than the public realizes. For example, a 12-month study by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics found that only 1.4% of people who had contact with the police had force used or threatened to be used against them.

I certainly concede that sometimes bad officers do bad things, and occasionally good officers do bad things accidentally. However, I also have found that most officers are honorable men and women making split-second decisions while trying to serve their communities.

So how should you judge the use of force by law enforcement officers?

Consider reasonableness: Police officers are trained to quickly assess possible threats. Force, particularly deadly force (with firearms, in this case), may be used if officers can explain their perception of the physical threats that put them and/or others at substantial risk of serious bodily injury or death. We can't Monday-morning quarterback the officers based on information that comes out later. We can only look at what a reasonable officer knew or should have known, and did or should have done, in a given situation.



Photojournalist of Capitol chase speaks Departmental policies and police training in the United States reflect the "objective reasonableness" principle put forth in the U.S. Supreme Court's 1989 Graham v. Connor decision, which applies a three-part test to assess the seriousness of the offense, the suspect threat, and the suspect's resistance or evasiveness.

And let's also consider facts, not emotional spin. Even though at first blush it appears to be a justified shooting, there should be no rush to final judgment in either direction before an examination of the facts in a fair and impartial investigation. As Lanier indicated in her press conference Thursday night, the Metropolitan Police will be investigating, with support from the Capitol Police and Secret Service.

In the wake of last month's Naval Yard shooting, and with the specter of other past violent acts -- such as the shooting of two heroic U.S. Capitol Police officers by a man who breached security in July 1998 -- law enforcement in Washington has been on heightened alert.

Cars can be used for delivering explosive devices. And let's not forget, as at least two injured federal officers experienced in this incident: The car itself is a 2,000-pound weapon that can cause serious injury or death when used as a battering ram.

Would a reasonable officer -- faced suddenly with a driver trying to ram barricades at high-profile targets like the White House, ramming police cars and injuring uniformed officers repeatedly -- perceive a serious offense, threat, or evasiveness?

Whether the driver was mentally ill was not a factor that the officers had the luxury of contemplating as they quickly assessed the threat and decided on a course of action.

Pending the final facts, it appears that all three prongs of the "objective reasonableness" standard were present.

[jllundqu]

When did she become a felon?




Well, since we are all potential terrorists now, I guess it's open season.

What probable cause did he have? She didn't have a gun. She wasn't intentionally targeting anybody with her car.

I disagree. I think she did intentionally target officers with her car.

[kahless]

Nobody has a right to shoot someone who is fleeing. If you want to give the police that right, then you have to give citizens that right also. if you want to deny that to citizens, then you have to deny it to police also. Otherwise, we do not live in a 'republican form of government' and the Constitution stands in abrogation. The courts are more often wrong than right.

+1 You must spread some reputation around before giving it to GunnyFreedom again.

[PaulConventionWV]

I disagree. Basic constitutional law shows the use of deadly force was justified. The second the woman struck the Secret Service officer it became a deadly force encounter. The second she attempted to run over others escalated it. When an officer is reasonably in fear of death or serious bodily injury (ie getting run over) the use of deadly force is called for. See Graham V Connor, Tennesee V Garner

I don't think he was in any danger of being run over. That car runs pretty low to the ground. At worst he would have gotten a couple bruises.

[jllundqu]

When did she become a felon?




Well, since we are all potential terrorists now, I guess it's open season.

What probable cause did he have? She didn't have a gun. She wasn't intentionally targeting anybody with her car.

And it's not open season... if you don't want to get shot by police, don't ram your car into the white house, run over a secret service officer, try to run over others.

[angelatc]

One of her sisters is a cop. God help me.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2442703/Miriam-Carey-Dental-hygienist-shot-dead-Capitol-Hill-suffered-postpartum-depression.html

[angelatc]

And it's not open season... if you don't want to get shot by police, don't ram your car into the white house, run over a secret service officer, try to run over others.

trust me - when that day comes for me, I won't be the only fatality.

[PaulConventionWV]

Have you seen the video of her car surrounded by people on foot and then she slams forward forcing several officers onto the curb/sidewalk and onto her hood?

That is 100% the use of deadly force.

Not necessarily. At the range that that occurred, what are the chances of anyone getting seriously injured? Not very good, from what I can tell. Deadly force isn't justified just by the fact that she pointed a car in their general direction and went forward. There has to be some realistic possibility of SERIOUS injury.

[PaulConventionWV]

This is Con Law 101, people

You flunked out, person.

[fisharmor]

And it's not open season... if you don't want to get shot by police, don't ram your car into the white house, run over a secret service officer, try to run over others.

"Hello, I'm a guy who believes everything I hear on TV despite there being ample and obvious evidence to the contrary, and despite having had it pointed out directly multiple times in the conversation. RESPECT MY OPINION!!!!"

[jllundqu]

You flunked out, person.

Wow.... personal attacks and everything. I would expect this from liberal retards, but ad hominem means you can't argue with logic and reason.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Funny that there is another thread on here that has some of the same characteristics. A motorist is involved in a traffic mishap. He feels threatened. He runs from those he feels are threatening his, and his child's, safety running one over in the process.
What would you think had the "bikers" pulled out guns and shot him down? Justified? Standing ovation?

Needed to be re-quoted.


The last pic the car is clearly in contact with the barrier and a cop car. Multiple eyewitnesses say she hit a cop and if you watch the video, she clearly backed up into a cop car and drove at another cop who jumped behind the barrier out of her way. None of this is up for argument, it happened.

Perhaps ram was too strong of an adjective used by the media, but she definitely put her car in contact with the barriers and a cop car.

We need to know the motivation for her actions before rushing to judgement. But generally speaking, driving a car at cops with guns drawn is justification to fire.

She backed into the pig squad when they fucking pulled guns on her. She was attempting to flee for her life.

[EBounding]

Let's pretend the Dear Leader's White House is just a regular house. You have some unstable person ramming their car against your fence. You run out to try and stop them, and the driver swipes you with the car, knocking you down. The driver is trying to get away. Do you have the right to shoot the fleeing driver?

[kathy88]

Typical. Not that a drill was happening, or that Alex Jones YET AGAIN refuses to believe that some random thing could possibly happen, but that you post something completely worthless and stupid.

So you don't think that it's really really odd that in almost every incident the MSM goes batshit over, whether it be a school shooting, "terrorist attack" incident involving metro cops, etc..... that there's without fail some sort of drill nearby?

as an aside, I initially spelled batshit "batship" and when i right clicked for the options to correct the spelling batshit wasn't on the list. Bath salts, however was :)

[jllundqu]

Let's pretend the Dear Leader's White House is just a regular house. You have some unstable person ramming their car against your fence. You run out to try and stop them, and the driver swipes you with the car, knocking you down. The driver is trying to get away. Do you have the right to shoot the fleeing driver?

Based on that exact scenario, no, but one must look at the totality of the circumstances as they were known to the officer AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT (not hindsight).

What did the officers know?
1. A car had rammed the white house and attempted breaching security
2. A uniformed officer had been hit and injured by her fleeing car
3. The driver continued to be assaultive when confronted by surrounding officers
4. The driver made several attempts to hit other officers

Unknowns that officers factor into use of force decisions:
1. Did this woman have a gun?
2. Would this driver hurt bystanders if not stopped asap?
3. Did she have a bomb in the car?
4. Did she want "suicide by cop?"

There'a a lot of unknowns here. They didn't know she was mentally ill. tough call.

[PaulConventionWV]

Wow.... personal attacks and everything. I would expect this from liberal retards, but ad hominem means you can't argue with logic and reason.

How was that a personal attack? Either you don't know what ad hominem means, or you think a roundabout way of saying you got it wrong is some kind of personal attack. Either way, you're wrong again.

[phill4paul]

This is a well-written article about the incident:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/04/opinion/weinblatt-capitol-shooting/

No, it is an opinion piece full of police worship donkey drool. Written by....a former Police Chief.

[kathy88]

No... but if you are legally trying to stop a fleeing felon and they try to run you or another officer down, yes you can shoot.

Define felon. Wouldn't one have to be convicted or something to be a felon?

[jllundqu]

How was that a personal attack? Either you don't know what ad hominem means, or you think a roundabout way of saying you got it wrong is some kind of personal attack. Either way, you're wrong again.

And how is telling me I "flunked out person" arguing with logic and reason? That is attacking the person and not the argument. You're obviously emotional about it or you wouldn't be trying so hard to point out "I'm wrong again!"

[jllundqu]

Define felon. Wouldn't one have to be convicted or something to be a felon?

To be considered a convicted felon, yes. But if a felony is committed in an officer's presence, and runs, they are considered fleeing felons.

[jllundqu]

Man the hatred for police here runs deep. I've said my peace. I wish the officers could have resolved the issue without resorting to use deadly force, but agree that legally it was justified.

I'm out.

[PaulConventionWV]

Based on that exact scenario, no, but one must look at the totality of the circumstances as they were known to the officer AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT (not hindsight).

What did the officers know?
1. A car had rammed the white house and attempted breaching security
2. A uniformed officer had been hit and injured by her fleeing car
3. The driver continued to be assaultive when confronted by surrounding officers
4. The driver made several attempts to hit other officers

Unknowns that officers factor into use of force decisions:
1. Did this woman have a gun?
2. Would this driver hurt bystanders if not stopped asap?
3. Did she have a bomb in the car?
4. Did she want "suicide by cop?"

There'a a lot of unknowns here. They didn't know she was mentally ill. tough call.

The unknowns don't matter. If the endangerment to their person has passed, then they are not justified to keep shooting. You can't shoot someone based on the mere idea that "they might have a bomb in the car." Wild conjecture does not justify anything.

As for the known variables, the first two are not justification, as the risk of serious injury had already passed once she was fleeing. "Assaultive" is not a word, and you're simply using it to evoke an emotional reaction. As for the fourth known variable, that she made serveral attempts to hit other officers, is that talking about the same instance as in #2, or are you talking about some new threat? You have to be specific here because those four things you listed just don't cut it in terms of justifying deadly force. Did they shoot her as she was attempting, and had the ability to, kill or seriously maim someone, or did they simply react after the fact?

[angelatc]

So you don't think that it's really really odd that in almost every incident the MSM goes batshit over, whether it be a school shooting, "terrorist attack" incident involving metro cops, etc..... that there's without fail some sort of drill nearby?

I think it is pretty likely that we have so many different layers of law enforcement that there are training missions practically every day.

Far more likely than every single event that happens is being orchestrated by powerful entities too stupid to not schedule their plots on the same day they schedule their drills, really.

[PaulConventionWV]

And how is telling me I "flunked out person" arguing with logic and reason? That is attacking the person and not the argument. You're obviously emotional about it or you wouldn't be trying so hard to point out "I'm wrong again!"

It was a joke. You ended your statement by saying "people" in a condescending manner, so I used "person" in the singular in order to copy your style of argumentation. It was not an attack on anything. Does everything have to be an attack to you? I'm not emotional about it. I'm just saying you're wrong. You put the exclamation point in there, not me.

Also, that was my second post directed toward you. How am I "trying so hard" based on that?

[Brett85]

And what you're steadfastly refusing to recognize is that it's equally clear that her only fault was to disobey.

So you think you have some kind of "natural right" to run through a barricade and terrorize people around the Capitol building?

[DGambler]

Man the hatred for police here runs deep. I've said my peace. I wish the officers could have resolved the issue without resorting to use deadly force, but agree that legally it was justified.

I'm out.

Perhaps it has something to do with this: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?391854-List-of-killings-by-law-enforcement
Or this: https://www.google.com/search?q=cops+kill+dog&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=cops+kill+dog&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=nws
Or this: http://www.copblock.org/cb-writings/
Or this: https://www.google.com/search?q=police+tasering+innocent&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=police+tasering+innocent&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=vid

But I'm sure those are isolated cases and not an indicator that the whole profession is rotting from the inside.

[phill4paul]

Man the hatred for police here runs deep. I've said my peace. I wish the officers could have resolved the issue without resorting to use deadly force, but agree that legally it was justified.

I'm out.

If there is an antipathy for police here then rest assured that it has come about through the rise of a militarized police state. One can only see so many acts of police injustice and the lack of accountability by the perpetrators of these injustices before one adopts a mentality of antipathy.

[angelatc]

Based on that exact scenario, no, but one must look at the totality of the circumstances as they were known to the officer AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT (not hindsight). tough call.


And there you have the problem. Civilians should always get the benefit of that doubt.

[Brett85]

yeah yeah, whatever....how are the 2 cops injured in this jihad attack?

Because the woman hit them with her car.

[PaulConventionWV]

To be considered a convicted felon, yes. But if a felony is committed in an officer's presence, and runs, they are considered fleeing felons.

No, actually they are a suspect until they have had a trial. You should know that since you are so knowledgeable of the law. Fleeing felons is not a legal term, it's police jargon.

[coastie]

Man the hatred for police here runs deep. I've said my peace. I wish the officers could have resolved the issue without resorting to use deadly force, but agree that legally it was justified.

I'm out.

My hatred started while I was one of them, so yeah, it runs pretty deep.

[EBounding]

Based on that exact scenario, no, but one must look at the totality of the circumstances as they were known to the officer AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT (not hindsight).

What did the officers know?
1. A car had rammed the white house and attempted breaching security
2. A uniformed officer had been hit and injured by her fleeing car
3. The driver continued to be assaultive when confronted by surrounding officers
4. The driver made several attempts to hit other officers



Is 3 & 4 true? They didn't start firing at her until after she sped away toward the Capitol.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/police-lock-down-capitol-after-shots-fired/2013/10/03/48459e0e-2c5a-11e3-8ade-a1f23cda135e_story_1.html

[69360]

Because the woman hit them with her car.

She hit one and the other crashed into a barrier.

[angelatc]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2443721/Troopers-dashcam-captures-dramatic-moment-father-taking-kids-road-trip-shoots-officer-returns-kills-him.html

The story in the above link is a justifiable shooting. The guy got pulled over for speeding. While the cop is sitting in his cruiser, the driver gets out and starts walking up to the cop with his hand behind his back.

(If you think the cop had the right to open fire at that moment, then we have nothing in common.)

The driver ignored the cop's instructions to return to his vehicle, pulled out a gun and started firing. When the gun came out is when the cop had the right to shoot.

But because this can happen, the police claim the right to assume that it will always happen. And thats not right.

[donnay]

And there you have the problem. Civilians should always get the benefit of that doubt.


"Civilians?" That's one of those words that make me cringe when I hear it or see it used. It is the divide word to create the "Us against them" mentality. I am not a subject, consumer, or terrorists. I am a CITIZEN! Those clowns in costumes are civil SERVANTS!

[Brett85]

It justifies stopping the vehicle and arresting the driver.

How do you "stop" a vehicle where the driver won't stop and is trying to run over people? "Just say, please pull over lady?"

[angelatc]

So you think you have some kind of "natural right" to run through a barricade and terrorize people around the Capitol building?

No, but I do have the right to a jury trial before I face the firing squad.

[coastie]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2443721/Troopers-dashcam-captures-dramatic-moment-father-taking-kids-road-trip-shoots-officer-returns-kills-him.html

The story in the above link is a justifiable shooting. The guy got pulled over for speeding. While the cop is sitting in his cruiser, the driver gets out and starts walking up to the cop with his and behind is back.

(If you think the cop had the right to open fire at that moment, then we have nothing in common.)

The driver ignored the cop's instructions to return to his vehicle, pulled out a gun and started firing. When the gun came out is when the cop had the right to shoot.

But because this can happen, the police claim the right to assume that it will always happen. And thats not right.

+rep


Spot fucking on! As a former LE officer, this is 100% correct.

[angelatc]

How do you "stop" a vehicle where the driver won't stop and is trying to run over people? "Just say, please pull over lady?"

They do it all the time. Stop sticks.

And stop with the "trying to run over people" nonsense. She did not intentionally drive the vehicle into a crowd of people.

[Brett85]

Man the hatred for police here runs deep. I've said my peace. I wish the officers could have resolved the issue without resorting to use deadly force, but agree that legally it was justified.

I'm out.

Yeah, there's "hatred" for the police until people actually need them. I suppose that all of the people here who hate the police and want to abolish them will refuse to ever accept any help from the police if they get robbed or if their daughter gets kidnapped?

[Brett85]

No, but I do have the right to a jury trial before I face the firing squad.

I disagree and agree with what Rand said in his filibuster. You don't have a right to a jury trial and the right to not be fired on if you're actually posing an imminent threat to others. If someone is in the act of hurting others, the police can't simply refuse to use deadly force in order to make sure that the person gets tried by a jury.

[EBounding]

I disagree and agree with what Rand said in his filibuster. You don't have a right to a jury trial and the right to not be fired on if you're actually posing an imminent threat to others. If someone is in the act of hurting others, the police can't simply refuse to use deadly force in order to make sure that the person gets tried by a jury.

So if someone hit me with a car and drove off, I would have the right to pursue and shoot them?

[phill4paul]

Does a police officer have the right to shoot someone after they have dropped their weapon? Possibly her vehicle wasn't moving anywhere. Therefore her vehicle wasn't a threat.
I realize that this is a witness account. If there is truth to it then at this point her "weapon" would appear to have been neutralized.


Then he saw a black car whiz past. It abruptly turned left, as if to make a U-turn, and lodged itself on a grassy divide.

“That’s where it got pinned,” he said. “At that point, we heard five to six rounds of gunfire and my wife and I dropped to the ground. We were hoping not to get in the way of a stray bullet — we just lay down as low as possible. We even smelled the gunpowder in the air.”

The final shots were fired on that median. Police said they were not sure how many officers had fired or how many times the woman was shot.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/police-lock-down-capitol-after-shots-fired/2013/10/03/48459e0e-2c5a-11e3-8ade-a1f23cda135e_story_1.html

[Brett85]

So if someone hit me with a car and drove off, I would have the right to pursue and shoot them?

If they kept going with the purpose and intention of hitting other people and infringing on the liberties and property rights of other people, then you would absolutely have the right to shoot them.

[tod evans]

How do you "stop" a vehicle where the driver won't stop and is trying to run over people? "Just say, please pull over lady?"

Why you pull out your trusty Sig and go "Plew-plew-plew" until the driver stops twitching of course..:rolleyes:

The broad was trying to get away in the video I watched....How dare she!

"Terrorizing" is yet another fine choice of words used to describe fleeing in a panic...

Thank God the cops made it home for supper..:mad:

[Brett85]

Does a police officer have the right to shoot someone after they have dropped their weapon? Possibly her vehicle wasn't moving anywhere. Therefore her vehicle wasn't a threat.
I realize that this is a witness account. If there is truth to it then at this point her "weapon" would appear to have been neutralized.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/police-lock-down-capitol-after-shots-fired/2013/10/03/48459e0e-2c5a-11e3-8ade-a1f23cda135e_story_1.html

If the police were actually firing at the woman after the car was stopped, then I would agree that was unnecessary and shouldn't have happened. (Although the police may have believed that the woman had a weapon or a bomb) Like I said, there are different reports and I wasn't there to witness it.

[69360]

So if someone hit me with a car and drove off, I would have the right to pursue and shoot them?

No, they had a right to pursue her to apprehend her for the crimes she committed. When she used her car as a deadly weapon they had the right to respond with deadly force to an imminent threat.

[coastie]

Yeah, there's "hatred" for the police until people actually need them. I suppose that all of the people here who hate the police and want to abolish them will refuse to ever accept any help from the police if they get robbed or if their daughter gets kidnapped?

Ha, the few times I thought the police were "needed" in my life, they turned the situation much worse for everyone involved.

I've only been attempted to be robbed twice. First time, dude got shit stomped and left there bleeding.

Second time, the guy was staring down the barrel of my .45. In other words, the police were not needed either time.

As far as my daughter being kidnapped(god forbid), I'm not really sure what you really think your hero boys in blue are gonna do for me? I'll tell you what, next to nothing. Kidnapped children are almost NEVER found by the police, if they are ever found at all. Fuck, people were calling the police on the house where that crazy guy was recently caught with those two women slaves, and they didn't do shit for years, and this isn't the first time it's happened.

Unlike you, I'm not gonna hope something bad happens to you while you sit patiently waiting on the police to materialize to rescue you.

Hope I cleared that up for you, since you called out the "cop haterz'.

[Brett85]

Why you pull out your trusty Sig and go "Plew-plew-plew" until the driver stops twitching of course..:rolleyes:

The broad was trying to get away in the video I watched....How dare she!

"Terrorizing" is yet another fine choice of words used to describe fleeing in a panic...

Thank God the cops made it home for supper..:mad:

So you think that you have some kind of legal right to run through a barricade at the Capitol and run over police officers?

[69360]

If the police were actually firing at the woman after the care was stopped, then I would agree that was unnecessary and shouldn't have happened. (Although the police may have believed that the woman had a weapon or a bomb) Like I said, there are different reports and I wasn't there to witness it.

At that point she had been boxed in and smashed her way out once already and hit a cop. I think it was reasonable to assume she would continue to evade and put more people at risk.

[liveandletlive]

No, but I do have the right to a jury trial before I face the firing squad.

she lost her right to a jury trial driving recklessly and endangering others with a 3000 pound hunk of metal.

[EBounding]

If they kept going with the purpose and intention of hitting other people and infringing on the liberties and property rights of other people, then you would absolutely have the right to shoot them.

But that didn't happen in this case...they fired missed shots as she was fleeing (after knocking 1 officer over). She eventually crashed, was pinned, and the officers opened fire again.

[kathy88]

I think it is pretty likely that we have so many different layers of law enforcement that there are training missions practically every day.

Far more likely than every single event that happens is being orchestrated by powerful entities too stupid to not schedule their plots on the same day they schedule their drills, really.

Ok. Conspiracy theories aside. What I was getting at is that these trainings are ongoing all over. They are pumping these guys up to be these paramilitary animals. An incident occurs nearby and they always go in full out rambo mode, often injuring innocent bystanders, etc. Someone ALWAYS ends up dead. Always. My point in bringing this up is that these people are actually being trained to just kill people, because no repercussions will befall them. They want us to be afraid.

[jllundqu]

Does a police officer have the right to shoot someone after they have dropped their weapon? Possibly her vehicle wasn't moving anywhere. Therefore her vehicle wasn't a threat.
I realize that this is a witness account. If there is truth to it then at this point her "weapon" would appear to have been neutralized.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/police-lock-down-capitol-after-shots-fired/2013/10/03/48459e0e-2c5a-11e3-8ade-a1f23cda135e_story_1.html

If that indeed is what happened, and the car was "neutralized" as in "immobile" then the police had NO LEGAL JUSTIFICATION to fire. However, if that car was still able to move and she was moving toward officers, different story.

[angelatc]

Yeah, there's "hatred" for the police until people actually need them. I suppose that all of the people here who hate the police and want to abolish them will refuse to ever accept any help from the police if they get robbed or if their daughter gets kidnapped?

Like they actually show up if you get robbed...much less investigate. If there's no money in it, they have no interest.

[phill4paul]

(Although the police may have believed that the woman had a weapon or a bomb) Like I said, there are different reports and I wasn't there to witness it.

At this point it would be presumption and would not justify a shooting.

[Brett85]

But that didn't happen in this case...they fired missed shots as she was fleeing (after knocking 1 officer over). She eventually crashed, was pinned, and the officers opened fire again.

Like 69360 said, when she was pinned the 2nd time, don't you think the police officers were afraid that she would do what she did before and try to run them over? They also didn't know if the woman had a gun or had bombs in her car.

[coastie]

she lost her right to a jury trial driving recklessly and endangering others with a 3000 pound hunk of metal.


It can be argued that I lose my right to a jury trial every time I get behind the wheel then.
You should really change your screen name.

[phill4paul]

Like they actually show up if you get robbed...

Oh, they'll file a report. That's about it. Everyone around here knows that the only way to recover stolen items is to peruse the pawn shops looking for your stuff.

[asurfaholic]

Justified or not, there is something morally dysfunctional about anyone who applauds a death of someone else.

A child's mother was just shot and killed. Who can stand up and clap?

[angelatc]

Ok. Conspiracy theories aside. What I was getting at is that these trainings are ongoing all over. They are pumping these guys up to be these paramilitary animals. An incident occurs nearby and they always go in full out rambo mode, often injuring innocent bystanders, etc. Someone ALWAYS ends up dead. Always. My point in bringing this up is that these people are actually being trained to just kill people, because no repercussions will befall them. They want us to be afraid.

Sure they are. Couple that with the fact that an increasing number of them are ex-military. They are trained to view us as enemy combatants.

[Brett85]

Like they actually show up if you get robbed...much less investigate. If there's no money in it, they have no interest.

I've never heard of a situation where the police didn't respond in a situation where someone called 9-1-1. They don't have the legal authority to just ignore 9-1-1 calls.

[liveandletlive]

It can be argued that I lose my right to a jury trial every time I get behind the wheel then.
You should really change your screen name.

depends if you are trying to ram people and public or private propery with it.

[69360]

If that indeed is what happened, and the car was "neutralized" as in "immobile" then the police had NO LEGAL JUSTIFICATION to fire. However, if that car was still able to move and she was moving toward officers, different story.

I think that's right. She had already smashed her way out once hitting a cop on foot. If she was in the car and it was running, they were justified in believing she would do it again and shooting her to stop an imminent threat. If the car was off and/or she was out of the car the shooting was not justified.

[phill4paul]

They also didn't know if the woman had a gun or had bombs in her car.

You cannot justify shooting another under the defense of presumption.

[Brett85]

It can be argued that I lose my right to a jury trial every time I get behind the wheel then.
You should really change your screen name.

No, his screen name just implies that people should be allowed to do whatever they want to do as long as they don't hurt others. He believes in limited government, not anarchy and allowing people to hurt others.

[kathy88]

Sure they are. Couple that with the fact that an increasing number of them are ex-military. They are trained to view us as enemy combatants.

So you don't think it's plausible that occasionally these events ARE staged to publicize their show of force?

[jllundqu]

Ok. Conspiracy theories aside. What I was getting at is that these trainings are ongoing all over. They are pumping these guys up to be these paramilitary animals. An incident occurs nearby and they always go in full out rambo mode, often injuring innocent bystanders, etc. Someone ALWAYS ends up dead. Always. My point in bringing this up is that these people are actually being trained to just kill people, because no repercussions will befall them. They want us to be afraid.

Keep in mind that the vast majority of cops I know are waiting for the curtain to go up on this corrupt government. Feds,military, Deputies, locals, all the guys I know are patriots and oathkeepers. We will want them on our side when the truly evil bastards descend upon us.

[tod evans]

So you think that you have some kind of legal right to run through a barricade at the Capitol and run over police officers?

Quit asking me about my legal rights, the issue here is was killing a panicked broad with a baby in the car the "right" thing to do.

I don't believe it was, I think the cops spooked her and then murdered her in cold blood because she had the temerity to flee from them.

All this behavior is doing is cementing the "Us-vs-Them" mentality on both sides.

This chest puffing BS is going to come to a head, some triggerhappy cop is going to kill the wrong person and it'll go off like a flash fire, it's been brewing for quite a while...

[angelatc]

Oh, they'll file a report. That's about it. Everyone around here knows that the only way to recover stolen items is to peruse the pawn shops looking for your stuff.

In a lot of cities you have to go to the station to fill out the report.

[Brett85]

You cannot justify shooting another under the defense of presumption.

You can justify shooting someone if they pose an imminent threat to the lives of other people. This woman had showed that she posed an imminent threat to other's safety after she tried to run over people in her path, and actually ran over a police officer.

[coastie]

I've never heard of a situation where the police didn't respond in a situation where someone called 9-1-1. They don't have the legal authority to just ignore 9-1-1 calls.

:eek::eek::eek::confused::confused:

Google "police ignore 911 calls"

About 1,540,000 results (0.34 seconds)

[jllundqu]

Justified or not, there is something morally dysfunctional about anyone who applauds a death of someone else.

A child's mother was just shot and killed. Who can stand up and clap?

+rep

Exactly

[phill4paul]

In a lot of cities you have to go to the station to fill out the report.

I did not know that. Lol. That's sure some "service" they perform there. SMFH.

[angelatc]

So you don't think it's plausible that occasionally these events ARE staged to publicize their show of force?

No, I don't think they need to stage a crime to publicize their show of force.

[Brett85]

Quite asking me about my legal rights, the issue here is was killing a panicked broad with a baby in the car the "right" thing to do.

I don't believe it was, I think the cops spooked her and then murdered her in cold blood because she had the temerity to flee from them.

All this behavior is doing is cementing the "Us-vs-Them" mentality on both sides.

This chest puffing BS is going to come to a head, some triggerhappy cop is going to kill the wrong person and it'll go off like a flash fire, it's been brewing for quite a while...

She was mentally unstable and out of control. She started the whole incident by running through a barricade and trying to make her way to the Capitol. This wasn't some situation that was just started by the police for no reason.