Speeding Ticket Results In Cops Shooting Up A Minivan Full of Kids

[kcchiefs6465]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TS2TlHJmaHA

Full video:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJU3GhyF4e4

[Danke]

She (and/or her sons) might have been a member of Al Qaeda, you can never be sure these days.

[kcchiefs6465]

She (and/or her sons) might have been a member of Al Qaeda, you can never be sure these days.
Terrist or Merican.. the law.. is the law.

[Origanalist]

Where's Pa? If that was my family........

[JK/SEA]

looks like procedures were followed from what i can tell...

[kcchiefs6465]

looks like procedures were followed from what i can tell...
Did you see him plant his feet?

[He] was calm and collective in shooting at what was not even remotely a threat.

I want counts of attempted murder on account for every person in the vehicle.

Instead we have half-assed apologies of "one officer might be in some hot water." Anyone else would be without bail.

[oyarde]

Where is this at ?

[Christian Liberty]

"Under Investigation?" Wow... This is what the second amendment is for, folks. This is absolutely disgusting...

[kcchiefs6465]

While peaceful persons are persecuted routinely in what is called a "justice system."

What further evidence can be provided?

[kcchiefs6465]

Where is this at ?
New Mexico

[fr33]

Why We Should Not Forget Miriam Carey (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?430626-Why-We-Should-Not-Forget-Miriam-Carey)

It's the new template for cops. Kill 'em all.

There was a Miriam Carey topic where a couple of RPF members said cops should react as if every traffic stop involved IED's.

[oyarde]

New Mexico

Insane

[Christian Liberty]

Despite my normal once a week schedule, I felt compelled to make a post on this to my blog immediately. That's how much it disgusted me. Link below:

http://libertyandthegospel.wordpress.com/2013/11/17/police-brutality/

And honestly, I held back a little there, because I know my family reads what I write:p I could have come off much angrier than I did.

[Ender]

New Mexico

Ah, yes- the same state where cops illegally butt searched, and gave enemas and X-rays to 2 different men over and over again with no drugs to be found. All over minor traffic violations.

[kcchiefs6465]

Ah, yes- the same state where cops illegally butt searched, and gave enemas and X-rays to 2 different men over and over again with no drugs to be found. All over minor traffic violations.
It isn't as if any of the other 49 weren't viable candidates.

[alucard13mm]

So why did she moved her car during a traffic stop?

[kcchiefs6465]

So why did she moved her car during a traffic stop?
To have her children shot at, of course.

[Origanalist]

So why did she moved her car during a traffic stop?

Maybe she sensed danger?

[brushfire]

She just been served, annnnnd protected!

Gotta love that use of lethal force on a vehicle pulling away. Worthless human being right there. What favorable outcome could that moron possibly be expecting?

[Influenza]

She just been served, annnnnd protected!

Gotta love that use of lethal force on a vehicle pulling away. Worthless human being right there. What favorable outcome could that moron possibly be expecting?
Boom headshot?

[thoughtomator]

Miriam Carey redux.

[Dr.3D]

Ah, yes- the same state where cops illegally butt searched, and gave enemas and X-rays to 2 different men over and over again with no drugs to be found. All over minor traffic violations.
Maybe that's their motto, "When you are in New Mexico, your ass is ours."

[FindLiberty]

That family from TN that was taking an, "Educational road trip in NM" and certainly got one! (YouTube: 02:05 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieWB32FrbNs&t=02m05s) )

Young children catch on quickly and tend to remember vacations, especially if something unusual happens.
Maybe the kids will think about how/why their mom almost got them all killed... They're lucky
that the cop's three gun shots all missed hitting any of them. (I doubt if he opened fire on the
escaping van full of kids just to eliminate witnesses, or was afraid it might suddenly start backing up.)

I wonder what all those kids are thinking about (their mom' attitude towards authority,
deadly contempt of cop reaction, police, race) and just how they're dealing with the trauma
and/or nightmares about this "vacation".

I hope those kids were spared those NM, SOP body cavity searches, but wonder if mom got hers.

[tod evans]

Are the officers okay?




:mad:

[Snew]

scum. pure scum. attempted murder right there.

[aGameOfThrones]

Mom gets charged with child endangerment, but the cop who shot the minivan full of kids gets a heroes parade?




Fuck!

[phill4paul]

There's laws against this!!!!


New Mexico § 30-3-8. Shooting at Dwelling or Occupied Building; Shooting at or From a Motor Vehicle

B. Shooting at or from a motor vehicle consists of willfully discharging a firearm at or from a motor vehicle with reckless disregard for the person of another. Whoever commits shooting at or from a motor vehicle that does not result in great bodily harm to another person is guilty of a fourth degree felony. Whoever commits shooting at or from a motor vehicle that results in injury to another person is guilty of a third degree felony. Whoever commits shooting at or from a motor vehicle that results in great bodily harm to another person is guilty of a second degree felony.



Oh, wait. Some animals are more equal and all that jazz...



C. This section shall not apply to a law enforcement officer discharging a firearm in the lawful performance of his duties.

[acptulsa]

Mom gets charged with child endangerment, but the cop who shot the minivan full of kids gets a heroes parade?

Well, sure. Because lawmen are all brainless Pavlovian dogs who follow procedure even when taking a dump or servicing their significant others in bed, are trained only in ensuring compliance, and ignorance of the lawmen and their current sorry state of inhumanity is no excuse.

[PaulConventionWV]

Did you see him plant his feet?

That motherfucker was calm and collective in shooting at what was not even remotely a threat.

I want counts of attempted murder on account for every person in the vehicle.

Instead we have half assed apologies of "one officer might be in some hot water." Motherfucker.... anyone else would be without bail.

It looked to me like he was aiming for the tires when he fired, but that still gives those officers no excuse. What's scary to me is that it seems like they actually DID follow procedure, which, to me, means the system is broken and the laws are bad. The day I stoop as low as smashing in a window to get to a 14 year old kid who was trying to protect his mother and then firing at the vehicle in any way, that's the day I realize I need to turn my life around. I'd be willing to bet, however, that these officers, being the type of people who would become officers, had absolutely no remorse for their actions and are just trying to get out of "hot water."

[PaulConventionWV]

So why did she moved her car during a traffic stop?

I think she made a mistake and thought the stop was over when the police officer walked to his car. It was only after the violent attack by the officers that, true to her mother's instincts, she tried to run away. It's only natural to want to protect your FIVE children from such an attack, and yet we are all forced to disregard instinct and submit completely even in the face of severe danger because, well, the police will be obeyed regardless of the cost.

[WM_in_MO]

They will get vacation when they deserve a long fall with a short rope.

[WM_in_MO]

I think she made a mistake and thought the stop was over when the police officer walked to his car. It was only after the violent attack by the officers that, true to her mother's instincts, she tried to run away. It's only natural to want to protect your FIVE children from such an attack, and yet we are all forced to disregard instinct and submit completely even in the face of severe danger because, well, the police will be obeyed regardless of the cost.


"Officers" arent trained to de-escalate. They use whatever force they determine necessary to achieve their safety and your compliance (In that order).

War on Us.

[JK/SEA]

whatever happened to cops pulling you over for being a good driver?...i miss those Policeman Ball tickets they used to give out....

[AFPVet]

"Officers" arent trained to de-escalate. They use whatever force they determine necessary to achieve their safety and your compliance (In that order).

War on Us.

Back when I was a cop (in the early to mid 2000s'), we were still trained to de-escalate situations. This situation should have gone something like

1. polite mannerism: good afternoon, license, registration, and insurance please
2. do you know why I pulled you over? Do you have a legitimate reason for &^*&^&?
3. I'll be right back.
4. back in the car, running OLN for status, writing ticket
5. re-approach driver and issue citation, paperwork, and drive safe

All of this for "revenue generation"... makes me glad I'm not a cop anymore.

[torchbearer]

O, bountiful
the specious laws
e-lec-tric waves of pain.
For amber lamps and magistrates
the aftermath of raids.
AmeriKa, AmeriKa
God shed a tear for thee
The crowne is goode, blue brotherhood
From sea to shining sea.

[69360]

I think the cop who fired at the fleeing car is in a world of trouble. The rest of the will probably be exonerated as following procedure.

[torchbearer]

I think the cop who fired at the fleeing car is in a world of trouble. The rest of the will probably be exonerated as following procedure.

I'd be running scared too if a uniformed gang was looking to do bad things to me.

[PaulConventionWV]

I think the cop who fired at the fleeing car is in a world of trouble. The rest of the will probably be exonerated as following procedure.

I clearly saw another positioning to shoot, taking a rigid stance, etc, but I don't think he actually got to do it. I think they were trying to shoot the tires. There aren't any bullet holes in the windows or back of the vehicle, so I'm assuming they just tried to shoot the tires.

[AFPVet]

I clearly saw another positioning to shoot, taking a rigid stance, etc, but I don't think he actually got to do it. I think they were trying to shoot the tires. There aren't any bullet holes in the windows or back of the vehicle, so I'm assuming they just tried to shoot the tires.

You're never supposed to shoot at tires... that's the kind of shit they put into movies. Bullets can ricochet up into the vehicle. Some of these cops think they can do whatever the fuck they want to.

[PaulConventionWV]

You're never supposed to shoot at tires... that's the kind of shit they put into movies. Bullets can ricochet up into the vehicle. Some of these cops think they can do whatever the fuck they want to.

Don't the police actually do that, though?

[69360]

I'd be running scared too if a uniformed gang was looking to do bad things to me.

From my viewing, I think this woman's problem here was self inflicted. I didn't see any malicious actions toward her until she started running off. I don't know all the circumstances, but she probably could have just got a speeding ticket, maybe less if she asked for a warning or got a plea deal in court. It seemed like she started the trouble and the cops escalated with unjustified force.


I clearly saw another positioning to shoot, taking a rigid stance, etc, but I don't think he actually got to do it. I think they were trying to shoot the tires. There aren't any bullet holes in the windows or back of the vehicle, so I'm assuming they just tried to shoot the tires.

I though he fired. Hopefully I'm wrong and you're right.


You're never supposed to shoot at tires... that's the kind of shit they put into movies. Bullets can ricochet up into the vehicle. Some of these cops think they can do whatever the fuck they want to.

No they can't shoot tires or fire at a fleeing car. To fire they need to be in danger or be preventing danger. Just a drive off is not justification to use deadly force. A drive off trying to run over a cop is justification and sustained reckless driving putting others in danger could be justification to shoot tires. I didn't see any of that. If he really fired at the car he's in all sorts of trouble.

[69360]

Don't the police actually do that, though?

They can in some circumstances. Like to end a dangerous high speed pursuit that is putting others in danger. Not just for driving off from a traffic stop.

[Contumacious]

I think she made a mistake and thought the stop was over when the police officer walked to his car. It was only after the violent attack by the officers that, true to her mother's instincts, she tried to run away. It's only natural to want to protect your FIVE children from such an attack, and yet we are all forced to disregard instinct and submit completely even in the face of severe danger because, well, the police will be obeyed regardless of the cost.

During the initial stop the police officer was respectful. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw8a1munu4I)

I generally do not trust the pigs, but on this one I'm going to side with them.

.

[kcchiefs6465]

During the initial stop the police officer was respectful. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw8a1munu4I)

I generally do not trust the pigs, but on this one I'm going to side with them.

.
Side with them on what? Shooting into a car load of kids because a woman failed to stop?

[ClydeCoulter]

Video is not available, the account has been terminated

Thanks, KC, the new link works great!

[kcchiefs6465]

Video is not available, the account has been terminated
Fixed.

[Contumacious]

Side with them on what? Shooting into a car load of kids because a woman failed to stop?

I did not see any shattered windows nor any bullet holes on the vehicle , so they were shooting at the tires.

.

[jclay2]

During the initial stop the police officer was respectful. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw8a1munu4I)

I generally do not trust the pigs, but on this one I'm going to side with them.

.

Seriously? Have you ever heard of de-escalating a situation? Why is it that the tiniest misstep is met with absolute authority and bullets/tazers? These men are not the Almighty! They are pathetic little steroid filled freaks, who likely lacked any skills to get a job that produces anything for society.

[WM_in_MO]

Seriously? Have you ever heard of de-escalating a situation? Why is it that the tiniest misstep is met with absolute authority and bullets/tazers? These men are not the Almighty! They are pathetic little steroid filled freaks, who likely lacked any skills to get a job that produces anything for society.

When? When "Because, FUCK YOU MUNDANE" became "Following procedure".

[phill4paul]

I just thought of an invention that would help to prevent drive-offs. I'll be damned if I'll share it with anyone other than these four walls.

[69360]

Side with them on what? Shooting into a car load of kids because a woman failed to stop?

I'd side with them in the fact they most likely did not intend for a routine traffic stop to go sideways like this.

But the woman ran and fought with them, she escalated first, then they escalated with an unjustified level of force.

When the cop pulled his gun to shoot at a fleeing woman and child they lost all respect.

[PaulConventionWV]

From my viewing, I think this woman's problem here was self inflicted. I didn't see any malicious actions toward her until she started running off. I don't know all the circumstances, but she probably could have just got a speeding ticket, maybe less if she asked for a warning or got a plea deal in court. It seemed like she started the trouble and the cops escalated with unjustified force.



I though he fired. Hopefully I'm wrong and you're right.



No they can't shoot tires or fire at a fleeing car. To fire they need to be in danger or be preventing danger. Just a drive off is not justification to use deadly force. A drive off trying to run over a cop is justification and sustained reckless driving putting others in danger could be justification to shoot tires. I didn't see any of that. If he really fired at the car he's in all sorts of trouble.

One of them definitely did fire. I saw a second one getting ready to.

[PaulConventionWV]

I'd side with them in the fact they most likely did not intend for a routine traffic stop to go sideways like this.

But the woman ran and fought with them, she escalated first, then they escalated with an unjustified level of force.

When the cop pulled his gun to shoot at a fleeing woman and child they lost all respect.

When you're expected to comply with all orders, justified or not, it's hard not to be the first one to escalate. However, the cops are almost always the ones that take it to a fight in situations like this.

[jclay2]

I'd side with them in the fact they most likely did not intend for a routine traffic stop to go sideways like this.

But the woman ran and fought with them, she escalated first, then they escalated with an unjustified level of force.

When the cop pulled his gun to shoot at a fleeing woman and child they lost all respect.

I say they escalated first when attempting to steal money from this woman for the non crime of speeding.

[Contumacious]

Seriously? Have you ever heard of de-escalating a situation? Why is it that the tiniest misstep is met with absolute authority and bullets/tazers? These men are not the Almighty! They are pathetic little steroid filled freaks, who likely lacked any skills to get a job that produces anything for society.


True.

So why the fuck antagonize them?!?!?!?!!?

Take the ticket and then go to court and challenge it.

.

[phill4paul]

If he really fired at the car he's in all sorts of trouble.

Now that is the funniest thing I've heard all day.

[Brian4Liberty]

Why We Should Not Forget Miriam Carey (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?430626-Why-We-Should-Not-Forget-Miriam-Carey)

It's the new template for cops. Kill 'em all.

There was a Miriam Carey topic where a couple of RPF members said cops should react as if every traffic stop involved IED's.

Very relevant comparison.

We were told that Miriam Carey was crazy, and that's why she tried to drive away from Police. This woman did the same thing. Was she crazy too?

A completely separate question (from gross Police negligence) must be asked here. Why are people running from the police? This is a simple traffic ticket. Why would someone flee? There are multiple possibilities. The least likely being that the person is armed and is fleeing a crime.

But how about the case of a person who is just plain stupid? The people that are truly no danger? Should they be treated the same way as a vehicle at an Iraqi checkpoint during a war?

[Contumacious]

I say they escalated first when attempting to steal money from this woman for the non crime of speeding.

Those defensive arguments are made during traffic court proceedings.

.

[PaulConventionWV]

Very relevant comparison.

We were told that Miriam Carey was crazy, and that's why she tried to drive away from Police. This woman did the same thing. Was she crazy too?

A completely separate question (from gross Police negligence) must be asked here. Why are people running from the police? This is a simple traffic ticket. Why would someone flee? There are multiple possibilities. The least likely being that the person is armed and is fleeing a crime.

But how about the case of a person who is just plain stupid? The people that are truly no danger? Should they be treated the same way as a vehicle at an Iraqi checkpoint during a war?

I'm pretty sure she wasn't trying to escape simply for getting a speeding ticket. She thought the stop was over when the police officer walked back to his car when it actually wasn't, and that's when he pulled her over the second time and tried to arrest her.

[Origanalist]

So the woman did something rather stupid. There is no justification for the brutal assault and potentially fatal shooting at a car full of kids that was driving AWAY. You could hardly call that a defensive, or defensible action.

[satchelmcqueen]

exactly
Mom gets charged with child endangerment, but the cop who shot the minivan full of kids gets a heroes parade?




Fuck!

[Contumacious]

I'm pretty sure she wasn't trying to escape simply for getting a speeding ticket. She thought the stop was over when the police officer walked back to his car when it actually wasn't, and that's when he pulled her over the second time and tried to arrest her.


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA

Yeah, right.

.

[Brian4Liberty]

I'm pretty sure she wasn't trying to escape simply for getting a speeding ticket. She thought the stop was over when the police officer walked back to his car when it actually wasn't, and that's when he pulled her over the second time and tried to arrest her.

She didn't understand "I'll be right back, go ahead and turn off your car for me"? This gets back to my main point. There are multiple possibilities that explain what she did. Feigning ignorance is another of many possibilities, often used by those who can claim language barriers. Sometimes it's true, sometimes it's a con. You never know.

[kcchiefs6465]

I did not see any shattered windows nor any bullet holes on the vehicle , so they were shooting at the tires.

.
Oh is that all?

And since when would you be able to see bullet holes on a cop's shitty CC camera? You are a special kind of apologist.

[PaulConventionWV]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA

Yeah, right.

.

Ok, what's your theory, genius? She thought she could outrun the cops in a minivan over a speeding ticket? That would make her even more stupid than if she thought the stop was over.

[Brian4Liberty]

We were told that Miriam Carey was crazy, and that's why she tried to drive away from Police. This woman did the same thing. Was she crazy too?

A completely separate question (from gross Police negligence) must be asked here. Why are people running from the police? This is a simple traffic ticket. Why would someone flee? There are multiple possibilities. The least likely being that the person is armed and is fleeing a crime.

But how about the case of a person who is just plain stupid? The people that are truly no danger? Should they be treated the same way as a vehicle at an Iraqi checkpoint during a war?

Let's looks at current American culture and society. Let's remove gender, ethnicity, language, and age from the mix. Now we have two genderless, American clones interacting.

Today's American media-driven culture emphasizes that we should all get what we want, whenever we want it. No one should impose upon us, no one should deny us, no one should disrespect us, no one should disagree with us. Now let's take one of those people and train them to be aggressive about this "cultural norm". If anyone does not give them everything they want, they should escalate and use violence immediately. Give them a badge, give them authority, give them permission and drill this training into their psyche.

Now the two are put into a adversarial situation. One has the law given "authority". One has the media granted authority. One is trained to be openly aggressive, the other can openly argue, but will probably be more passive-aggressive.

In that context, the OP story, as described, makes some sense.

[Origanalist]

Let's looks at current American culture and society. Let's remove gender, ethnicity, language, and age from the mix. Now we have two genderless, American clones interacting.

Today's American media-driven culture emphasizes that we should all get what we want, whenever we want it. No one should impose upon us, no one should deny us, no one should disrespect us, no one should disagree with us. Now let's take one of those people and train them to be aggressive about this "cultural norm". If anyone does not give them everything they want, they should escalate and use violence immediately. Give them a badge, give them authority, give them permission and drill this training into their psyche.

Now the two are put into a adversarial situation. One has the law given "authority". One has the media granted authority. One is trained to be openly aggressive. One can openly argue, but will probably be more passive-aggressive.

In that context, the OP story, as described, makes some sense.

That's a damn fine analysis.

[FriedChicken]

I almost positive he was aiming at the tires.
What is weird is that the story doesn't say he hit the tires through ... meaning he had extremely poor aim (the van wasn't very far when he pulled the trigger).

Of course I never count on the press/media to release all the details. Every single time I've known the full story locally it has never been reported accurately.
Its possible that he DID hit one of her tires and drove on the rim and they left that out because they were wanting the story to be more sensational.

She did some stupid stuff. Trying to drive off during a traffic stop is an 'all bets are off' situation. I don't blame her for trying to escape after the cop started busting out her window trying to get to her son though - all mothers I know of would hit the gas right about then regardless of what lead up to that situation. Who would ever stop the car after hearing gunshots also?


When the cop said "turn around and face the vehicle" I would think that to be a very chilling thing for the woman to hear. If a cop told my wife that I would hear it as "stand still while I put my hands all over you" and I would have refused to allow it.

[alucard13mm]

She didn't understand "I'll be right back, go ahead and turn off your car for me"? This gets back to my main point. There are multiple possibilities that explain what she did. Feigning ignorance is another of many possibilities, often used by those who can claim language barriers. Sometimes it's true, sometimes it's a con. You never know.

People are too quick to blame the cops when both parties are clearly at fault. The mother should not have assumed the stop was over and if it was not cleared, she should have stayed there or asked. As the main bad guy in the movie Under Siege 2 said... "Assumptions is the mother of all fuck ups".

The cop that did start shooting, I would assume he arrived on the scene not knowing what is going on (stupid pig if it makes some of you feel better) and was trigger happy.

[Danke]

I did not see any shattered windows nor any bullet holes on the vehicle , so they were shooting at the tires.

.

You know how inaccurate most shots are with a hand gun? Now multiply that by being under pressure/stress in a dynamic environment (not at a range) and shooting at a moving object. Unless the car is coming at you, why shoot with poor odds the bullets will hit the intended target, and worse knowing they could hit someone either in the car or anyone innocent outside beyond the car and even ricochet.

[kcchiefs6465]

I imagine those suggesting perhaps he was "just aiming at the tires" haven't seen the experiments Mythbusters conducted in which every conceivable test and way they aimed and shot at a car's tires, bullet fragments ricocheted into the vehicle. Shooting at someone's tires is not only against police procedure in all but the most extreme cases, it is considered a use of deadly force. So now what the apologists must ask themselves is, was deadly force justified? Now we can excuse all talk of how stupid she was or wasn't, of how she should have just listened but didn't and lay it out quite simply. Does the act of driving away from a traffic stop warrant deadly force?

[69360]

One of them definitely did fire. I saw a second one getting ready to.

Well that sucks.


When you're expected to comply with all orders, justified or not, it's hard not to be the first one to escalate. However, the cops are almost always the ones that take it to a fight in situations like this.

You can sit in the car roll the window down a bit, stick your paperwork out and wait for your ticket if you don't want to fight at the scene.


I say they escalated first when attempting to steal money from this woman for the non crime of speeding.

Yeah, well you are more extreme than I am. Speeding is presently against the law, if you want that changed then work towards it.


[/B]

True.

So why the fuck antagonize them?!?!?!?!!?

Take the ticket and then go to court and challenge it.

.

That's your best bet. You can almost always plead down a speeding ticket.


Now that is the funniest thing I've heard all day.

You really think a cop can shoot at a car of kids fleeing away from him with no repercussions at all? We haven't reached that point yet.


So the woman did something rather stupid. There is no justification for the brutal assault and potentially fatal shooting at a car full of kids that was driving AWAY. You could hardly call that a defensive, or defensible action.

No it was an unjustified escalation by the cops and yes she was stupid to get herself into this.

[phill4paul]

You really think a cop can shoot at a car of kids fleeing away from him with no repercussions at all? We haven't reached that point yet.

"We" have...to standing ovation.

Miriam Carey. Google it if you're that far out of the loop.

I've already posted the relevant law and the reason why this will go nowhere. "Policy was followed." Officer exonerated. Even if there is a best case scenario he gets kicked off the force. The mayor and the city council compelled by public dissent will fire him. If kicked off the force he will be hired by another department. The P.B.A. will file a lawsuit against termination. The mayor and the city council will be forced to reinstate with back pay.

Wanna put a $25 dollar bet to our charity of choice?

[Ender]

Even with the video we don't know the woman's story.

Did she think it was over? Did she have a sick kid? Were her kids frightened?

[FriedChicken]

I imagine those suggesting perhaps he was "just aiming at the tires" haven't seen the experiments Mythbusters conducted in which every conceivable test and way they aimed and shot at a car's tires, bullet fragments ricocheted into the vehicle. Shooting at someone's tires is not only against police procedure in all but the most extreme cases, it is considered a use of deadly force. So now what the apologists must ask themselves is, was deadly force justified? Now we can excuse all talk of how stupid she was or wasn't, of how she should have just listened but didn't and lay it out quite simply. Does the act of driving away from a traffic stop warrant deadly force?

I'm not sure anyone has said "just aiming at tires". I don't think anyone thinks that was a responsible thing to do.
I think he WAS aiming at them, but definitely think it was wrong and I hope he faces criminal charges. (he won't).

I did not know that it was lawfully considered deadly force nor that it was against police procedure - good to know. Even still, he should definitely NOT have fired even if he somehow knew for certain that no one would be physically harmed.

No one here, that I've noticed, is taking blame away from the cops. If the woman hadn't tried to drive away initially then this wouldn't have happened but they should have better instincts for dealing with this type of situation.
I mean seriously ... a little boy rushes you and you chase him to the van, try to open the door and then try to bust out the window? What is the point?? Why is it so important to get the boy so urgently???

This was definitely amateur hour on the police force. Or worse ... maybe it wasn't.

recognizing the difference between aiming at a person and a tire doesn't make you an apologist.

[Origanalist]

This was definitely amateur hour on the police force. Or worse ... maybe it wasn't.

No, it wasn't. It's becoming SOP.

[Brian4Liberty]

402218387314462721

[kcchiefs6465]

I'm not sure anyone has said "just aiming at tires". I don't think anyone thinks that was a responsible thing to do.
I think he WAS aiming at them, but definitely think it was wrong and I hope he faces criminal charges. (he won't).

I did not know that it was lawfully considered deadly force nor that it was against police procedure - good to know. Even still, he should definitely NOT have fired even if he somehow knew for certain that no one would be physically harmed.

No one here, that I've noticed, is taking blame away from the cops. If the woman hadn't tried to drive away initially then this wouldn't have happened but they should have better instincts for dealing with this type of situation.
I mean seriously ... a little boy rushes you and you chase him to the van, try to open the door and then try to bust out the window? What is the point?? Why is it so important to get the boy so urgently???

This was definitely amateur hour on the police force. Or worse ... maybe it wasn't.

recognizing the difference between aiming at a person and a tire doesn't make you an apologist.
There are many apologists here.

Aiming at the tires, i.e. shooting at a downward trajectory towards asphalt, is going to cause the bullet to fragment and ricochet. Saying they're aiming at the car tire is nothing more than a redirection in an attempt to subtly or implicitly excuse the action, i.e. apologize. "I normally don't excuse the pigs, but this one..." Right. This one, where multiple lives were put in immediate danger for the simple act of driving away. If the police were so concerned about the citizenry and their safety, they would have put a bullet in the head of the pig haphazardly firing down range (I don't give a fuck what it appears (through nothing more than CC video definition) he is shooting at) Riddle me this, if you did what he did, where would you be? Either in the ground from the officers nearby taking a shot at you, or in prison held almost certainly without bond. There wouldn't be any, "well one man might be in some hot water" on the news, they'd be talking about every petty aspect of your life in their attempt to demonize your portrayal. And for this, people are, "Well, she should have just pulled over." Frankly how this discussion has turned is evidence of the sad state of affairs this country is in. So the fuck what if she should have just pulled over? So the fuck what if she is stupid? Does this excuse the attempted murder or at the very least aggravated felonious assault on every person in the car, the child endangerment charges, the discharging a firearm in city limits, the improperly handling a firearm? Perhaps I am just more prone to being annoyed by the implications of what this video demonstrated and by the attitudes displayed by people who I generally assume weren't dropped as a child.

And for what it's worth, it was more the general attitude of a few and not so much as to what you specifically said that I was commenting on. (This post and the previous post of mine that you quoted.)

[kcchiefs6465]

402218387314462721
Patricia Cook.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

When the cop said "turn around and face the vehicle" I would think that to be a very chilling thing for the woman to hear. If a cop told my wife that I would hear it as "stand still while I put my hands all over you" and I would have refused to allow it.

Agreed. There seems to be a gap in the video, but I did not see any reason whatsoever to cuff her. She was absolutely correct to walk away.

The brave boy was absolutely correct to defend his mother. If I met him, then I'd buy him a coke. I would be proud to have his valiant behavior in a son.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Pig was lucky the 14 year old was not bigger. Next time he might get his ass handed to him.

Looked at the video again. Other imbecile looks like he's over 60 feet away and he's still firing. A real Clint Eastwood. LOL.

[69360]

"We" have...to standing ovation.

Miriam Carey. Google it if you're that far out of the loop.

I've already posted the relevant law and the reason why this will go nowhere. "Policy was followed." Officer exonerated. Even if there is a best case scenario he gets kicked off the force. The mayor and the city council compelled by public dissent will fire him. If kicked off the force he will be hired by another department. The P.B.A. will file a lawsuit against termination. The mayor and the city council will be forced to reinstate with back pay.

Wanna put a $25 dollar bet to our charity of choice?

Different situation. She breached a security perimeter and drove her car at the cops. This woman drove away from the cops.

I can assure you policy is not to shoot at traffic stop drive away. This isn't TV.

[Mani]

The video cuts off as she starts to drive away the first time, but she didnt seem to be flooring it as if she flee the police. I didnt see squeeling tires and rapid acceleration. Its unknown if she was trying to sneak away or just stupid or didnt understand or what. But if shes trying to getaway, it was a pretty slow escape...

As others pointed out. Regardless of her stupidity or motive, use of deadly force is not acceptable. Either is smashing windows, WTF, way to cause more mayhem and cause more panic. Let me shatter some windows and make a women acting irrational and frightened even more stressed with the sound of 5 kids screaming as glass shatters all over them... That will surely fix the situation....WTF.

[muh_roads]

edit: nvm on 2nd page.

[phill4paul]

Different situation. She breached a security perimeter and drove her car at the cops. This woman drove away from the cops.

I can assure you policy is not to shoot at traffic stop drive away. This isn't TV.

$25 dollars to yours or mine favorite charity?


New Mexico § 30-3-8. Shooting at Dwelling or Occupied Building; Shooting at or From a Motor Vehicle

B. Shooting at or from a motor vehicle consists of willfully discharging a firearm at or from a motor vehicle with reckless disregard for the person of another. Whoever commits shooting at or from a motor vehicle that does not result in great bodily harm to another person is guilty of a fourth degree felony. Whoever commits shooting at or from a motor vehicle that results in injury to another person is guilty of a third degree felony. Whoever commits shooting at or from a motor vehicle that results in great bodily harm to another person is guilty of a second degree felony.

C. This section shall not apply to a law enforcement officer discharging a firearm in the lawful performance of his duties.

[69360]

$25 dollars to yours or mine favorite charity?

I'm very sure departmental policy and regulations don't allow shooting at a traffic stop drive away.

[kcchiefs6465]

I'm very sure departmental policy and regulations don't allow shooting at a traffic stop drive away.
But they do allow it.

What definition of punishment would satisfy you in this case? Phil has stated what most surely will happen. That is, nothing, aside from perhaps a firing, a PBA appeal, a reinstatement to another department with back pay and this being lost down the memory hole in the countless list of police abuses and atrocities.

While their departmental policies may have been violated, nothing will substantively change. It wouldn't matter if they killed one of the kids. Nothing (in any relation to true actuality) procedurally will change.

[muh_roads]

People just want to be left alone. That kid looked so angry. Was willing to die for his family.

This country is an over-regulated, over-taxed, over-inflated, globalized job sucked away piece of shit. People can't afford things and this is the beginning of people coming to their wits end.

We all seriously need to start thinking about getting the fuck out of Dodge.

[ClydeCoulter]

People just want to be left alone. That kid looked so angry. Was willing to die for his family.

This country is an over-regulated, over-taxed, over-inflated, globalized job sucked away piece of shit. People can't afford things and this is the beginning of people coming to their wits end.

We all seriously need to start thinking about getting the fuck out of Dodge.

No, at least not in my case.
I'm thinking of how to allow people to survive. I've been saving seed from my heirloom plants. I have thousands.
I have land, and if they will work it, they can use it and I will give them seed and teach them to can.
I want to help, where I can.

[PaulConventionWV]

They can in some circumstances. Like to end a dangerous high speed pursuit that is putting others in danger. Not just for driving off from a traffic stop.

Apparently they can. I doubt this is the first time that's happened. Someone must have set a precedent for them to respond that way so quickly.

[PaulConventionWV]

During the initial stop the police officer was respectful. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw8a1munu4I)

I generally do not trust the pigs, but on this one I'm going to side with them.

.

Oh, because the pig was "respectful" during the initial stop? Never mind what happened afterward because the pig was respectful at first. That just explains everything. Thanks, Einstein.

[ClydeCoulter]

Oh, because the pig was "respectful" during the initial stop? Never mind what happened afterward because the pig was respectful at first. That just explains everything. Thanks, Einstein.

I'm sure you just convinced Contumacious to reconsider his/her position. Good job.

[PaulConventionWV]

You know how inaccurate most shots are with a hand gun? Now multiply that by being under pressure/stress in a dynamic environment (not at a range) and shooting at a moving object. Unless the car is coming at you, why shoot with poor odds the bullets will hit the intended target, and worse knowing they could hit someone either in the car or anyone innocent outside beyond the car and even ricochet.

Because achieving compliance is totally worth the risk.

[kcchiefs6465]

I'm very sure departmental policy and regulations don't allow shooting at a traffic stop drive away.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?421212-Taking-Away-the-Badge-Fired-Officers-Often-Return-to-Duty

[PaulConventionWV]

Well that sucks.

Yes. Now that's what I call a sticky situation!


You can sit in the car roll the window down a bit, stick your paperwork out and wait for your ticket if you don't want to fight at the scene.

Yes, I suppose you could just bend over and take it. It becomes increasingly difficult, but it's still never impossible to just let it happen. That's good thinking.


Yeah, well you are more extreme than I am. Speeding is presently against the law, if you want that changed then work towards it.

I wonder if you understand just how rigged the system is. Long gone are the days when we could just say, "Do something about it!" if there was a law we didn't like. Example, Obamacare. You can't fight it. The best reaction is to quietly submit and HOPE for CHANGE (Wait, Obama's already been elected!)


You really think a cop can shoot at a car of kids fleeing away from him with no repercussions at all? We haven't reached that point yet.

Oh, just you watch. Why don't you keep track of that for us and let us know when he gets a jail sentence or even gets fired?


No it was an unjustified escalation by the cops and yes she was stupid to get herself into this.

Stupid mundane, freedom is for the enforcer class!

[Christian Liberty]

Mom gets charged with child endangerment, but the cop who shot the minivan full of kids gets a heroes parade?




Fuck!

It wouldn't surprise me at all, but I'd love something concrete to show my friends and family. My dad, who is not a libertarian, and does not agree with me that speeding laws are immoral as such, completely understood and agreed with my rage here.

I pointed out to my dad that the cop would likely get a paid vacation. I'd love to be able to prove it.

So, if you have a link that concretely proves either that the mother was punished, that the cop was given any kind of a parade (Or even just let off) or both, I'd give you a rep.





As for the rest of this thread.... I prayed for a couple minutes before posting because I was absolutely, totally ticked off. I expected ignorance from the world at large. I honestly would have guessed around 70-80% of the country would defend the police even after seeing the video.

I did not expect to see it here.

I get that we have some different opinions on certain things. Some people here are ancap Rothbardians, while others are conservative paleocons. I get that some people hold that speed limits laws are immoral, and that others don't. I get that people have different views on civil disobedience, or on the merits of the use of defensive violence against the government in certain cases. I get that Ron Paul was a constitutionalist as well as a libertarian, so I get that we're going to see different views on whether state laws against certain "traditionally" immoral actions are OK or not. I could go on with this. I get that we don't agree on everything,

I draw my line in the sand here. And I've calmed myself down for at least a few minutes at this point. I am perfectly clear of mind when I am posting this. I don't care if its unpopular.

If you support the police here, after watching the video, you are a worthless excuse for a human being, and should screw off and die. Seriously, just die. The world would be better off without you.

Or better yet, repent of your wickedness, repent of the dung that is your disgusting, worthless existence, and thank God that he shed his blood so that worthless dung like you could be saved.

And yes, I understand that calling these apologists "Dung" is very, very offensive to human excrement. I also realize that my own existence was worthless before coming to Christ. Now that I'm thinking about it, I might have even defended something like this 3-4 years ago. I hope I wasn't that bad, but I honestly don't know. My comments above would apply to what I once was as well.

And finally, I'd like to address the moderators. I strongly believe that the apologists here should be permanently banned from the forum. Now, I get that its Bryan's forum, so only he gets to make that decision, but frankly, I don't see how anyone here who believes this is helping the liberty message in any way. Now, I understand that the mission statement is somewhat vague, and that we can differ on how exactly to attain a peaceful society that may or may not result in direct compliance with the wording of the mission statement, while holding to its general principles. I get that some here are anarchists, some are minarchists, some are constitutionalists, and some are some degree of mixture between conservative and libertarian stances, etc. I get that some people are mostly libertarian but have a few quirks in their philosophy. I get that, as strongly opinionated as I am for one side of this debate, that there will be debate over when exactly life begins. I get that there's going to be different views on punishment theory. Heck, even on foreign policy I get that there are going to be some nuances there. I don't have a problem with any of that. In some cases, I hold strongly enough to a position where I'd say the other side is "absolutely wrong" but even then, I think those topics are worth debating to refine our views on what a peaceful, voluntary society looks like, and related questions.

I don't honestly see how this is fruitful in any way. I don't see how giving the apologists a platform to speak their dung is helping the forum in any way. I mean, I get that there could be debate over what the officer's "Intent" was. I get that. But actually DEFENDING this kind of dung? I don't see how there's anything fruitful about that. You might as well give John McCain a platform here. Or Fred Phelps, for that matter. Maybe the fact that I'm a Calvinistic Baptist already is throwing me off here:p but these people disgust me just as much as Fred Phelps does. Yes, they have a right to speak their wickedness, but why on a liberty minded forum?

[Christian Liberty]

I wonder if you understand just how rigged the system is. Long gone are the days when we could just say, "Do something about it!" if there was a law we didn't like. Example, Obamacare. You can't fight it. The best reaction is to quietly submit and HOPE for CHANGE (Wait, Obama's already been elected!)

Its one thing to say that speeding is the law and thus to defend the officer for pulling them over and giving them a ticket. I don't agree that that's OK, but I'd be willing to have that debate. And besides, its possible that private roads would have speed limits (Even if I don't necessarily think they would be necessary.) That would be kind of like the immigration debate, I guess, there's a debate over what the "Least bad" scenario is under statist control, and what should be done about it. I can see that here. If someone wants to argue that a cop is not acting immorally when he pulls someone over and gives them a ticket, that's a discussion I'd be willing to have.

But to say that the cops had a right to shoot at them (I don't think this particular poster said that, but at least one poster did (I don't remember his name off the top of my head, but I don't care, since I literally view him as a piece of human excrement at this point)), that's another level entirely. That's absolutely disgusting. Its even worse in my mind than the people who want to execute homosexuals. At least with homosexuality we're talking about an absolute sin, and at least those people will usually allow a trial first. There's absolutely no place for this on a "liberty" forum.

[PaulConventionWV]

I'm not sure anyone has said "just aiming at tires". I don't think anyone thinks that was a responsible thing to do.
I think he WAS aiming at them, but definitely think it was wrong and I hope he faces criminal charges. (he won't).

I did not know that it was lawfully considered deadly force nor that it was against police procedure - good to know. Even still, he should definitely NOT have fired even if he somehow knew for certain that no one would be physically harmed.

No one here, that I've noticed, is taking blame away from the cops. If the woman hadn't tried to drive away initially then this wouldn't have happened but they should have better instincts for dealing with this type of situation.
I mean seriously ... a little boy rushes you and you chase him to the van, try to open the door and then try to bust out the window? What is the point?? Why is it so important to get the boy so urgently???

This was definitely amateur hour on the police force. Or worse ... maybe it wasn't.

recognizing the difference between aiming at a person and a tire doesn't make you an apologist.

Police officers are used to acting out their rage. If someone makes them angry, they will stop at nothing to bring them down and get their way. Hence, chasing kids into cars, tazing 10 year old boys at daycare centers, shooting senile veterans in a nursing home, etc. They don't even recognize it as rage. That concept doesn't even apply to them anymore because they are police officers and they are supposed to use force to achieve maximal compliance. If they can't, then they will become extremely destructive just to make sure their adversary doesn't win.

[PaulConventionWV]

There are many apologists here.

Aiming at the tires, i.e. shooting at a downward trajectory towards asphalt, is going to cause the bullet to fragment and ricochet. Saying they're aiming at the car tire is nothing more than a redirection in an attempt to subtly or implicitly excuse the action, i.e. apologize. "I normally don't excuse the pigs, but this one..." Right. This one, where multiple lives were put in immediate danger for the simple act of driving away. If the police were so concerned about the citizenry and their safety, they would have put a bullet in the head of the pig haphazardly firing down range (I don't give a fuck what it appears (through nothing more than CC video definition) he is shooting at) Riddle me this, if you did what he did, where would you be? Either in the ground from the officers nearby taking a shot at you, or in prison held almost certainly without bond. There wouldn't be any, "well one man might be in some hot water" on the news, they'd be talking about every petty aspect of your life in their attempt to demonize your portrayal. And for this, people are, "Well, she should have just pulled over." Frankly how this discussion has turned is evidence of the sad state of affairs this country is in. So the fuck what if she should have just pulled over? So the fuck what if she is stupid? Does this excuse the attempted murder or at the very least aggravated felonious assault on every person in the car, the child endangerment charges, the discharging a firearm in city limits, the improperly handling a firearm? Perhaps I am just more prone to being annoyed by the implications of what this video demonstrated and by the attitudes displayed by people who I generally assume weren't dropped as a child.

And for what it's worth, it was more the general attitude of a few and not so much as to what you specifically said that I was commenting on. (This post and the previous post of mine that you quoted.)

Dood, there are no apologists here. Get over it. And yes, aiming at the tires REALLY IS DIFFERENT than aiming at an actual person. You can talk about the risk involved all you want, but the intent is not the same. Pointing out the difference does not make anyone an apologist.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Oh, because the pig was "respectful" during the initial stop? Never mind what happened afterward because the pig was respectful at first. That just explains everything. Thanks, Einstein.

The woman should have known the encounter wasn't over because the pig didn't say "Have a nice day."

LOL.

[PaulConventionWV]

I'm sure you just convinced Contumacious to reconsider his/her position. Good job.

Ok...? Why the sudden nihilism? And why aim it toward me? You could say that about anything.

[Christian Liberty]

Dood, there are no apologists here. Get over it. And yes, aiming at the tires REALLY IS DIFFERENT than aiming at an actual person. You can talk about the risk involved all you want, but the intent is not the same. Pointing out the difference does not make anyone an apologist.

There's at least one.


During the initial stop the police officer was respectful. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw8a1munu4I)

I generally do not trust the pigs, but on this one I'm going to side with them.

.

Anyone who can't see that this man is absolutely evil is not on my side. If I'm all alone in this, so be it. You ("Contumacious") and everyone who tolerates you should fall down on your faces and repent for being the disgusting dung that you are.

[Christian Liberty]

I'm sure you just convinced Contumacious to reconsider his/her position. Good job.

You know, I was much, much more of a "jerk" (I believe its righteous, not sinful, anger in this case, but nonetheless.) I stopped just short of telling him to go burn in Hell (Which I don't want, I want him to repent). If anything, you should be calling me out here. I not only want nothing to do with him, I don't want anything to do with anyone who defends him either. And yes, I understand there's a difference of degree between shooting the tires and shooting the windows (Although either way I think they should be hanged in the middle of the street as an example, as I have said before, ANY crime committed in a State uniform should be punished by death) but he didn't say anything about that. He said he "Sided with" the pigs. That shows three things:

1. He doesn't believe speed limits are immoral (This is the least serious of my accusations against him. I'm willing to associate with people that don't agree with me on speed limits. That's the minor issue.)

2. He thinks that shooting at a car for a traffic violation is justifiable.

3. He thinks that shooting at a car with children in it is OK for any reason.

As I said, I'm willing to have a civil debate over #1. But #2-3 shows that he is a wicked man.

I don't care if he's convinced or not. He's evil, and he needs to be made to feel worthless and wicked. Maybe that will cause him to fall on his face and repent. I can't help him, Only God can. Either God will show him how pathetically wicked he is and how much he needs Christ, or else he's going to have to answer for this along with his other sins on judgment day. The Bible also says (I am putting some interpretation in here, this isn't an ad verbatim quote, but I can fairly easily prove it) that while ignorance is no excuse, the severity of one's punishment in Hell is based to some extent on knowledge. And being on this forum, he's clearly not ignorant. The fact that he posts here shows me he isn't ignorant.

[kcchiefs6465]

Dood, there are no apologists here. Get over it. And yes, aiming at the tires REALLY IS DIFFERENT than aiming at an actual person. You can talk about the risk involved all you want, but the intent is not the same. Pointing out the difference does not make anyone an apologist.
What do you mean?

Should I bring the thread back where a cop let his dog over the fence, it mauled an 86 year old man, he died from his wounds and a particular poster said it was his family's or the hospital's fault for not properly dressing the wounds?

The countless posts of AZXD?

There are no apologists here? Then why and the hell are people discussing her stupidity, the fact she should have just pulled over, or that she escalated the situation if not than to provide excuse or sanction of the officer's actions?

FWIW, I was referring to apologists at RPF in general, not specifically this thread, though there are a few here as well. There is at least one in every thread created. "Well, they could have just done this or that" I can hear them now. You've been here long enough, and in fact have insulted many who drone on about such nonsense. I'm a little confused that you question whether police apologists visit and chime in here.

A difference in degree of severity of this officer's crimes would be determined by the intent, yes. A negligible difference in this case (considering I'd imagine the mitigating circumstances under New Mexican law would have the average person facing the football numbers comparable to if they had attempted murder). Aside from the fact it isn't even clear what he was aiming at, shooting towards the asphalt at that trajectory, the bullet is going to skip. It is against departmental policy, against common sense, and is in fact a crime under the law. THAT would be the point. Not whether he was hypothetically shooting at this or hypothetically aiming for that, or whether she should have just stopped, or what her intelligence is in fact... the entire point is, he fired multiple rounds down range towards multiple people having no rational semblance of fear for his life. I mean, isn't it? (the point)

[Christian Liberty]

Dood, there are no apologists here. Get over it. And yes, aiming at the tires REALLY IS DIFFERENT than aiming at an actual person. You can talk about the risk involved all you want, but the intent is not the same. Pointing out the difference does not make anyone an apologist.

I'm honestly kind of upset right now, so I don't have all my marbles here like I could, but in the rest of your posts you seem to be taking a strong position against the enforcers. This post seems contrary to everything else you posted in this thread. Am I missing something?

[Contumacious]

You know how inaccurate most shots are with a hand gun? Now multiply that by being under pressure/stress in a dynamic environment (not at a range) and shooting at a moving object. Unless the car is coming at you, why shoot with poor odds the bullets will hit the intended target, and worse knowing they could hit someone either in the car or anyone innocent outside beyond the car and even ricochet.

I do not believe the amount of bullshit that is being dished out.

Did she think that the gun fire was a 21 gun salute? So she simply kept on trucking?

Was it the officers' sole responsibility to ensure the children safety?

Again, stop, get the ticket and then let your attorney dispute it in TRAFFIC FUCKING COURT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

[Christian Liberty]

I do not believe the amount of bullshit that is being dished out.

Did she think that the gun fire was a 21 gun salute? So she simply kept on trucking?

Was it the officers' sole responsibility to ensure the children safety?

Again, stop, get the ticket and then let your attorney dispute it in TRAFFIC FUCKING COURT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.


Wow..

Go to Hell you Satanist dog. Maybe if a cop sends you exactly there you'll learn something in the afterlife...

You are a pathetic, worthless, subhuman piece of crap.

And anyone who has actually read your posts and does not understand that you are a worthless piece of crap (Whether they will say it or not) is no more a libertarian than John McCain.

[PaulConventionWV]

There's at least one.



Anyone who can't see that this man is absolutely evil is not on my side. If I'm all alone in this, so be it. You ("Contumacious") and everyone who tolerates you should fall down on your faces and repent for being the disgusting dung that you are.

Well, okay, yes, but the main point is that pointing out the difference between firing at a person and at the tires does not make one an apologist. There always is at least one, but they seem to be pretty minimal this time.

[PaulConventionWV]

What do you mean?

Should I bring the thread back where a cop let his dog over the fence, it mauled an 86 year old man, he died from his wounds and a particular poster said it was his family's or the hospital's fault for not properly dressing the wounds?

The countless posts of AZXD?

There are no apologists here? Then why and the hell are people discussing her stupidity, the fact she should have just pulled over, or that she escalated the situation if not than to provide excuse or sanction of the officer's actions?

FWIW, I was referring to apologists at RPF in general, not specifically this thread, though there are a few here as well. There is at least one in every thread created. "Well, they could have just done this or that" I can hear them now. You've been here long enough, and in fact have insulted many who drone on about such nonsense. I'm a little confused that you question whether police apologists visit and chime in here.

A difference in degree of severity of this officer's crimes would be determined by the intent, yes. A negligible difference in this case (considering I'd imagine the mitigating circumstances under New Mexican law would have the average person facing the football numbers comparable to if they had attempted murder). Aside from the fact it isn't even clear what he was aiming at, shooting towards the asphalt at that trajectory, the bullet is going to skip. It is against departmental policy, against common sense, and is in fact a crime under the law. THAT would be the point. Not whether he was hypothetically shooting at this or hypothetically aiming for that, or whether she should have just stopped, or what her intelligence is in fact... the entire point is, he fired multiple rounds down range towards multiple people having no rational semblance of fear for his life. I mean, isn't it? (the point)

Never mind. I'm not the bad guy here. I'm certainly no cop apologist.

[Christian Liberty]

"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)







Yet what does the poster do? He attacks freedom every chance he gets, and defends the pigs.

In this case his "pro-choice" viewpoints were only a symptom of a greater problem. Absolute hatred for liberty. I don't even think my grandmother would defend this one, and George W. Bush is her hero...

[kcchiefs6465]

I do not believe the amount of bullshit that is being dished out.

Did she think that the gun fire was a 21 gun salute? So she simply kept on trucking?

Was it the officers' sole responsibility to ensure the children safety?

Again, stop, get the ticket and then let your attorney dispute it in TRAFFIC FUCKING COURT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.
You really would stop and wait if the police are firing rounds towards your vehicle? I know what you will say before you'll say it, "I would have just gotten the ticket and protested it in court." That's well and good..... though totally missing the point. (as is the rest of your post)

[PaulConventionWV]

I'm honestly kind of upset right now, so I don't have all my marbles here like I could, but in the rest of your posts you seem to be taking a strong position against the enforcers. This post seems contrary to everything else you posted in this thread. Am I missing something?

It's your marbles. I'm just as against the enforcers as ever, or as anyone. I think it's in your head.

My main point was that making such and such a point about the situation does not automatically make one an apologist. That goes the same for my post, which you quoted. There is absolutely nothing in that post to suggest that I am defending the pigs.

[Christian Liberty]

Well, okay, yes, but the main point is that pointing out the difference between firing at a person and at the tires does not make one an apologist. There always is at least one, but they seem to be pretty minimal this time.

I understand that.

There are some cases where I can at least understand the "Apologists" even if I don't agree. If "Traditional Conservative" is apologizing for the cops in a given case, I can usually understand where he's coming from, even though as a natural rights libertarian I often disagree.

There's literally no excuse whatsoever for this one. None at all. Absolutely none. To the point where I would say that defending the cops makes you in opposition to the mission statement, and warranting a permaban. And I would certainly never knowingly associate with anyone who defended these psychopaths. (and I count the defenders of the psychopaths as psychopaths too.)

This wasn't even a case of law enforcement. What the cops did was illegal as well as immoral in this case.


Never mind. I'm not the bad guy here. I'm certainly no cop apologist.

I know you aren't. But I wish you'd stop being so nice to the ones who are. We need all the reasonable people here to attack (verbally of course, not physically) those who defend the scumbags.

[PaulConventionWV]

I do not believe the amount of bullshit that is being dished out.

Did she think that the gun fire was a 21 gun salute? So she simply kept on trucking?

Was it the officers' sole responsibility to ensure the children safety?

Again, stop, get the ticket and then let your attorney dispute it in TRAFFIC FUCKING COURT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

The officer certainly could have prevented the kids ever being put into harm's way in that situation, yes.

As for the gunfire, I am guessing she reacted as most people would when they are being shot at. Can you honestly say you would act differently, especially knowing the amount of people that are wantonly shot and killed by police officers for no reason. You do know, don't you?

[Contumacious]

Wow..

Go to Hell you Satanist dog. Maybe if a cop sends you exactly there you'll learn something in the afterlife...

You are a pathetic, worthless, subhuman piece of crap.

And anyone who has actually read your posts and does not understand that you are a worthless piece of crap (Whether they will say it or not) is no more a libertarian than John McCain.

Excuse me Dingle Berry?

When did it become the Libertarian Policy to place oneself UNNECESSARILY in harms' way?


.

[Christian Liberty]

It's your marbles. I'm just as against the enforcers as ever, or as anyone. I think it's in your head.

My main point was that making such and such a point about the situation does not automatically make one an apologist. That goes the same for my post, which you quoted. There is absolutely nothing in that post to suggest that I am defending the pigs.

OK, I get what you're saying now. At first I thought you were saying that there were absolutely no apologists in the thread (Which I showed you, and you conceded, is not the case. There is at least one). Now I understand that you were saying that simply arguing over what they were shooting at does not in and of itself entail apologism. You weren't apologizing. I get that. Thanks:)

I'm seriously just annoyed right now. I wasn't trying to accuse you. As I said, you seem solidly against what happened here. Sorry if you thought I was accusing you:)

[PaulConventionWV]

I understand that.

There are some cases where I can at least understand the "Apologists" even if I don't agree. If "Traditional Conservative" is apologizing for the cops in a given case, I can usually understand where he's coming from, even though as a natural rights libertarian I often disagree.

There's literally no excuse whatsoever for this one. None at all. Absolutely none. To the point where I would say that defending the cops makes you in opposition to the mission statement, and warranting a permaban. And I would certainly never knowingly associate with anyone who defended these psychopaths. (and I count the defenders of the psychopaths as psychopaths too.)

This wasn't even a case of law enforcement. What the cops did was illegal as well as immoral in this case.



I know you aren't. But I wish you'd stop being so nice to the ones who are. We need all the reasonable people here to attack (verbally of course, not physically) those who defend the scumbags.

Why do you think that would help? Why is it bad for me to keep my head on my shoulders and commendable for me to burst into fits of rage?

[ClydeCoulter]

I do not believe the amount of bullshit that is being dished out.

Did she think that the gun fire was a 21 gun salute? So she simply kept on trucking?

Was it the officers' sole responsibility to ensure the children safety?

Again, stop, get the ticket and then let your attorney dispute it in TRAFFIC FUCKING COURT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

First, I'm sure the gunfire was not taken as a 21 gun salute by her. It probably was exactly the kind of thing she was afraid of.

Second, yes the safety of everyone there was of first responsibility of the officer. To hell with a ticket (not really important compared to life and limb of anybody).

Apparently, there was some sort of "I'm black and they are white officers" kind of thing going on, from the very beginning. "Mom, just go, get the hell out of here" was probably going on during the first encounter, or why did she drive off? (Oh, maybe they had money on them or drugs?) Was anything found?

When you take the job as a LEO, you should consider it a dangerous job, one that you may give your life for in order to protect and serve, otherwise join the marines (where there may be a designated enemy) or become a janitor.

[PaulConventionWV]

Excuse me Dingle Berry?

When did it become the Libertarian Policy to place oneself UNNECESSARILY in harms' way?


.

I don't think there is any "Libertarian Policy" on that (capital L and capital P). People can do as they please. Who is one to say whether such an action is necessary or unnecessary? You?

[PaulConventionWV]

OK, I get what you're saying now. At first I thought you were saying that there were absolutely no apologists in the thread (Which I showed you, and you conceded, is not the case. There is at least one). Now I understand that you were saying that simply arguing over what they were shooting at does not in and of itself entail apologism. You weren't apologizing. I get that. Thanks:)

I'm seriously just annoyed right now. I wasn't trying to accuse you. As I said, you seem solidly against what happened here. Sorry if you thought I was accusing you:)

It's ok, we can still be friends. It will take some time to mend the pieces of my broken heart, but in time...

[Christian Liberty]

Excuse me Dingle Berry?

When did it become the Libertarian Policy to place oneself UNNECESSARILY in harms' way?


.

I did not say that, you scumbag. Personally, I would have pulled over rather than flee and risk the consequences for fleeing. But that's not the point here, you sick, twisted man. You're acting like the woman was somehow actually responsible for the pig shooting at her kids, as well as defending the pigs.

If someone said "She probably should have avoided the trouble and pulled over" while still saying that the cops were responsible for attempting murder, I wouldn't flay them like I'm flaying you right now.

Stop playing dumb. You are here. Thus, you know exactly what you are defending. You know what liberty is, and you hate it. Not only that, you hate basic morality too. "The law" is your god.

I don't even have words to describe just how much you are disgusting me right now. You're even worse than the cops themselves, because you post here. You know exactly how wicked this is.

Now, as to everyone else, I have no idea why this wicked scumbag is here. It wouldn't surprise me if he was working for the government. But I don't care. Wickedness deserves to be condemned, even if it might get us in trouble someday.

[Contumacious]

You really would stop and wait if the police are firing rounds towards your vehicle? I know what you will say before you'll say it, "I would have just gotten the ticket and protested it in court." That's well and good..... though totally missing the point. (as is the rest of your post)

Listen Bud, I have a lead foot. I've Gotten a gazillion traffic tickets . I am 65 years old.

Yet amazingly, the fuzz has never had to fire at my vehicle to get me to stop.

But it appears that the Libertarian Party Retarded Caucus is well represented here..

.

[kcchiefs6465]

It's your marbles. I'm just as against the enforcers as ever, or as anyone. I think it's in your head.

My main point was that making such and such a point about the situation does not automatically make one an apologist. That goes the same for my post, which you quoted. There is absolutely nothing in that post to suggest that I am defending the pigs.
What FriedChicken quoted me as saying, I wasn't directing at him. My post in response to his was more of a general rambling towards the attitude that is often times shown here, by at least one or two people, but more prevalently shown by those I speak to in the day to day. I wasn't trying to be insulting to him or you or anyone really, I was just annoyed how some people are conditioned to think. (not you, or him)

I find the talk of what he was shooting at to be secondary to his primary action... that is, the shooting. Whether he was shooting at the van (attempted murder) or shooting at the tires (aggravated felonious assault) would be something the courts should decide. If the situation was reversed, whether shooting at the tires or not, we all know it would be 100 years plus probably. To me a main issue is the disconnect between what is lawful for those sanctioned and dressed up, to the average person. A lot of my "anti-cop" postings aren't so much as they are anti-cop, just that Laws are Laws and should be respected as such. In any case, if I offended anyone, I apologize. I generally agree with both you and Fried.

[Christian Liberty]

Listen Bud, I have a lead foot. I've Gotten a gazillion traffic tickets . I am 65 years old.


Have you been as wicked as you are for 65 years?

You have a lot of sins on your head. I'll be praying that Christ paid for them. Because otherwise, you've got a lot to answer for.



Yet amazingly, the fuzz has never had to fire at my vehicle to get me to stop.

But it appears that the Libertarian Party Retarded Caucus is well represented here..


They are indeed represented quite well. But are they represented by me? kcchiefs6465? PaulConventionWV? No.

They are represented by you.

But the fact that you post here, and have done so since 2008, proves that you aren't just an ignorant sheep. You are evil.

Nobody is even discussing what she should have done. We're talking about the pigs you defend. And I'm talking about you.

[kcchiefs6465]

Listen Bud, I have a lead foot. I've Gotten a gazillion traffic tickets . I am 65 years old.

Yet amazingly, the fuzz has never had to fire at my vehicle to get me to stop.

But it appears that the Libertarian Party Retarded Caucus is well represented here..

.
But if they did... you would find a reasonable course of action to stop and say.. "Please stop." (or any other combination of words that may fit your vernacular)

You are the last of the dying breed, sir. Most people tend to flee projectiles being lobbed their way.

Whether or not she could have handled the situation better is not the question, do you understand that?

[Danke]

I do not believe the amount of bullshit that is being dished out.

Did she think that the gun fire was a 21 gun salute? So she simply kept on trucking?

Was it the officers' sole responsibility to ensure the children safety?

Again, stop, get the ticket and then let your attorney dispute it in TRAFFIC FUCKING COURT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

Let us say she was in the wrong driving away from a traffic stop. Why and the hell would anyone fire a hand gun at her vehicle? Really, why?
To save a hypothetical life, as to what she may do in the futures if not apprehended right now or stopped? There of course are many ways to stop her vehicle without shooting at it.

[Christian Liberty]

But if they did... you would find a reasonable course of action to stop and say.. "Please stop." (or any other combination of words that may fit your vernacular)

You are the last of the dying breed, sir. Most people tend to flee projectiles being lobbed their way.

Whether or not she could have handled the situation better is not the question, do you understand that?

No, he isn't. I bet at LEAST half the country would defend this. What I wonder is how many of those have as much knowledge a he does. I doubt he's the only one.

And, I'm sure he understands it just fine. He's not simply mentally deficient. He is proactively evil.

[Contumacious]

I did not say that, you scumbag. Personally, I would have pulled over rather than flee and risk the consequences for fleeing. But that's not the point here, you sick, twisted man. You're acting like the woman was somehow actually responsible for the pig shooting at her kids, as well as defending the pigs.

If someone said "She probably should have avoided the trouble and pulled over" while still saying that the cops were responsible for attempting murder, I wouldn't flay them like I'm flaying you right now.

Stop playing dumb. You are here. Thus, you know exactly what you are defending. You know what liberty is, and you hate it. Not only that, you hate basic morality too. "The law" is your god.

I don't even have words to describe just how much you are disgusting me right now. You're even worse than the cops themselves, because you post here. You know exactly how wicked this is.

Now, as to everyone else, I have no idea why this wicked scumbag is here. It wouldn't surprise me if he was working for the government. But I don't care. Wickedness deserves to be condemned, even if it might get us in trouble someday.

Listen Fucktard, I , and Irwin Schiff, fought against IRS tyranny since 1961.

But we never recommended to fight IRS tyranny by physically confronting armed IRS agents.

I met Ron Paul in NYC during one of Irwin's meetings, circa 1971. Violent confrontation was never considered.

[69360]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?421212-Taking-Away-the-Badge-Fired-Officers-Often-Return-to-Duty

I think you are grasping at straws now. Again I am very positive that the department's policy is not to shoot traffic stop drive away.

[69360]

Listen Fucktard, I , and Irwin Schiff, fought against IRS tyranny since 1961.

But we never recommended to fight IRS tyranny by physically confronting armed IRS agents.

I met Ron Paul in NYC during one of Irwin's meetings, circa 1971. Violent confrontation was never considered.

Just FYI, you are dealing with a kid of about 17 or so.

[ClydeCoulter]

Listen Fucktard, I , and Irwin Schiff, fought against IRS tyranny since 1961.

But we never recommended to fight IRS tyranny by physically confronting armed IRS agents.

I met Ron Paul in NYC during one of Irwin's meetings, circa 1971. Violent confrontation was never considered.

I'm glad you have a history of activism.

The problem most of us have with this is: The person with the most authority should be the person with the most understanding and wisdom. This case does not demonstrate that to be the case.

Scared people should not be shot on the spot by those that have authority and thus should have more understanding and wisdom on how (or not) to handle such a case.

[Danke]

Listen Fucktard, I , and Irwin Schiff, fought against IRS tyranny since 1961.

But we never recommended to fight IRS tyranny by physically confronting armed IRS agents.

I met Ron Paul in NYC during one of Irwin's meetings, circa 1971. Violent confrontation was never considered.

"Listen Fucktard" Do you suck cock?

Met Irwin and Ron Paul in 1971, you are full of shit.

[Contumacious]

I don't think there is any "Libertarian Policy" on that (capital L and capital P). People can do as they please. Who is one to say whether such an action is necessary or unnecessary? You?

If violent confrontation is your cup of tea then knock yourself out.

I am merely stating what I would have done in a similar situation.

.

[kcchiefs6465]

I think you are grasping at straws now. Again I am very positive that the department's policy is not to shoot traffic stop drive away.
I have said as much. I am not grasping for anything or attempting to defend any position that isn't already impeccably Just. People might argue whether there was a better course of action, but I am stating that even if there was, shooting at her tires, her car, her person was not remotely, IS not remotely, justifiable.

The thread I posted was more because the search function actually worked for me. (for once. though the thread is related to the topic) I've bumped a few threads of mine recently. If you haven't read that thread, I'd recommend it. You'd understand the pessimism Phil or I may have. Departmental policy has little to do with a game of politicized checkers. This isn't the first unlawful shooting, after all.

[heavenlyboy34]

Wow. :eek: Mega cop fail. :mad: Even assuming the lady was wrong, the cops only escalated the situation. The raional thing to do (assuming it's a legitimate stop, and I'm not sure this one was) would be to just follow her till she doesn't have anywhere to go and make an arrest there. It seems they don't teach common fucking sense to cops...or they choose not to use it. /facepalm

[Christian Liberty]

Listen Fucktard, I , and Irwin Schiff, fought against IRS tyranny since 1961.

But we never recommended to fight IRS tyranny by physically confronting armed IRS agents.

I met Ron Paul in NYC during one of Irwin's meetings, circa 1971. Violent confrontation was never considered.

Are you suggesting this woman used violence? Lol.

Use your pretty little brain and tell me who used violence here.

Regarding violence against IRS agents, I wouldn't recommend that either, but if it was done to protect against having one's money stolen, I wouldn't pretend the IRS somehow wasn't the aggressor. But that's not what we're talking about here. The woman didn't use violence. You are unbelievably dense.

I think you are grasping at straws now. Again I am very positive that the department's policy is not to shoot traffic stop drive away.

Maybe not, but it happened nonetheless. Will they be punished? I doubt it.


Just FYI, you are dealing with a kid of about 17 or so.

18. And you're resorting to my age rather than engaging the issue just proves you're a moron.

If violent confrontation is your cup of tea then knock yourself out.

I am merely stating what I would have done in a similar situation.

.

Nobody is saying running away is PRAGMATIC, at most we're saying its not wrong, and really the only point we've been making is that it doesn't warrant SHOOTING at them.

Wow.

You're a demon.

[69360]

18. And you're resorting to my age rather than engaging the issue just proves you're a moron

The human brain is not fully developed until age 22. You are not yet fully capable of a rational argument and it shows.

[Contumacious]

Are you suggesting this woman used violence? Lol.

Use your pretty little brain and tell me who used violence here.

Regarding violence against IRS agents, I wouldn't recommend that either, but if it was done to protect against having one's money stolen, I wouldn't pretend the IRS somehow wasn't the aggressor. But that's not what we're talking about here. The woman didn't use violence. You are unbelievably dense.


Maybe not, but it happened nonetheless. Will they be punished? I doubt it.



18. And you're resorting to my age rather than engaging the issue just proves you're a moron.


Nobody is saying running away is PRAGMATIC, at most we're saying its not wrong, and really the only point we've been making is that it doesn't warrant SHOOTING at them.

Wow.

You're a demon.

Video at 00:005

"Madam you were doing 71 at a 55 MPH zone. I WILL BE RIGHT BACK TURN VEHICLE OFF.

You are one deaf motherfucker.

.

[Mani]

Wow. :eek: Mega cop fail. :mad: Even assuming the lady was wrong, the cops only escalated the situation. The raional thing to do (assuming it's a legitimate stop, and I'm not sure this one was) would be to just follow her till she doesn't have anywhere to go and make an arrest there. It seems they don't teach common fucking sense to cops...or they choose not to use it. /facepalm


Agreed, they choose not to use it because they don't need to use it.

Its' pretty clear the cops have permission to use violence to solve ALL situations.

Person not listening? USE VIOLENCE, TAZER....
Person not moving out of the way? USE VIOLENCE, Pepper Spray.
Person giving attitude? USE VIOLENCE, Subject to ass rape/cavity search.
Person "fleeing" in vehicle? USE VIOLENCE, Smash Windows and Shoot up minivan...shoot church lady...etc.
Person Giving dirty look? USE VIOLENCE, Beat the shit out of them, then arrest them.


See a pattern? Common sense is not needed when you have been licensed to use VIOLENCE for all situations.

[heavenlyboy34]

The human brain is not fully developed until age 22. You are not yet fully capable of a rational argument and it shows.
Pretty sure the male brain takes an extra 3 years. ;) :D lolz

[pcosmar]

But it appears that the Libertarian Party Retarded Caucus is well represented here..

.
Anyone that thinks it is OK to shoot at a vehicle full of kids for any reason whatsoever,, (let alone something as trivial as a speeding ticket) Has the truly serious Mental Retardation issue.

[Contumacious]

Anyone that thinks it is OK to shoot at a vehicle full of kids for any reason whatsoever,, (let alone something as trivial as a speeding ticket) Has the truly serious Mental Retardation issue.

Unfortunately, from the cops standpoint , felony resisting arrest , for something as trivial as a speeding ticket, means that they are concealing something else.

.

[pcosmar]

Unfortunately, from the cops standpoint , felony resisting arrest , for something as trivial as a speeding ticket, means that they are concealing something else.

.
And yet another reason why they should NOT FUCKING EXIST.

And should not be tolerated.

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

This article marshals extensive historical and legal evidence to show that modern policing is in many ways inconsistent with the original intent of America's founding documents. The author argues that the growth of modern policing has substantially empowered the state in a way the Framers would regard as abhorrent to their foremost principles.

And from a cops standpoint,, shooting kids for any or no reason is acceptable.
So their standpoint means less than nothing and should not be considered a valid argument.

[Christian Liberty]

Video at 00:005

"Madam you were doing 71 at a 55 MPH zone. I WILL BE RIGHT BACK TURN VEHICLE OFF.

You are one deaf motherfucker.

.

No, I know what the man in the uniform said. How does this in any way mean the woman used violence?



The human brain is not fully developed until age 22. You are not yet fully capable of a rational argument and it shows.







I'm "capable" but it would be an offense to my dignity. You might as well ask me why raping a child is wrong, or why Ted Bundy was immoral. If someone asked you why that was the case, would you give them a "rational argument" as to why, or would you simply call him a scumbag?
You aren't two years old, you know why this was wrong. So just shut up.




Anyone that thinks it is OK to shoot at a vehicle full of kids for any reason whatsoever,, (let alone something as trivial as a speeding ticket) Has the truly serious Mental Retardation issue.

I don't think they're mentally retarded. I think they are evil.


Unfortunately, from the cops standpoint , felony resisting arrest , for something as trivial as a speeding ticket, means that they are concealing something else.

.

And you're defending the "Cops standpoint"?

[pcosmar]

I don't think they're mentally retarded. I think they are evil.



Evil retards the rational thinking process.

[Contumacious]

And yet another reason why they should NOT FUCKING EXIST.

And should not be tolerated.

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

And I agree with you 100%.

I know that the courts are corrupt to their core.

But unfortunately , that is how they expect us to proceed.

But resisting arrest while you have children in the vehicle is a demonstration of extremely poor judgment.

.

[Contumacious]

No, I know what the man in the uniform said. How does this in any way mean the woman used violence?



I'm "capable" but it would be an offense to my dignity. You might as well ask me why raping a child is wrong, or why Ted Bundy was immoral. If someone asked you why that was the case, would you give them a "rational argument" as to why, or would you simply call him a scumbag?
You aren't two years old, you know why this was wrong. So just shut up.

[/B]



I don't think they're mentally retarded. I think they are evil.



And you're defending the "Cops standpoint"?

No, I am fucking telling you to face R-E-A-L-I-T-Y.

.

[Christian Liberty]

But resisting arrest while you have children in the vehicle is a demonstration of extremely poor judgment.

I understand that, but that's not justification for what the cops did.

And this is not in any way "Her fault." its the fault of the uniformed scum who aggressed against her.

[kcchiefs6465]

//

[heavenlyboy34]

Putting this here per kcchiefs' request.


RPFs got a memtion in one of Eric's comment sections! :cool: http://ericpetersautos.com/2013/11/15/dont-cops-ever-enforce-even-know-law/

David (http://libertyandthegospel.wordpress.com/)November 16, 2013 at 11:12 pm
I guess the only question now is, what do we “mere mundanes” do about it?
As long as we still have 99% of the voting population voting “Team R” or “Team D” things aren’t going to get anywhere. And while I get that some principled libertarians don’t vote because of their libertarianism, the vast, vast majority of non-voters are just apathetic… if they did vote it would probably be with the 99% of voters.
So, I think we’re still losing.
Even some of the people on Ron Paul Forums absolutely make me cringe sometimes. The average statist clown is just never going to wake up.

How can we win this game? Can we win?
You cringe-worthy people know who you are. Knock it teh fuck off! :P

[pcosmar]

[/SIZE][/B]

No, I am fucking telling you to face R-E-A-L-I-T-Y.

.

I prefer to avoid certain realities.
When I face them,, or am forced to face them,, things are going to get messy.

I have never resisted arrest. And I have looked down the barrels of plenty of guns while doing nothing wrong.
I have been arrested for an actual crime,, and for no crime and because a lying cop.

Things are getting worse on a daily basis.
The time is coming.

[Brian4Liberty]

Is there anyone who believes that the Police firing shots in this situation was justified? Just checking...

[Christian Liberty]

Putting this here per kcchiefs' request.

That was my comment. And yes, the cringe worthy people know who they are. Although I'm pretty sure I posted that BEFORE this thread became a train wreck.

Is there anyone who believes that the Police firing shots in this situation was justified? Just checking...

Contumacious (Aka. "Living dung") thinks so. He said "I side with the pigs."

[Christian Liberty]

Putting this here per kcchiefs' request.

After seeing this thread I probably would change what I said. The worst of RPF is actually far, far worse than an "average" statist clown.

[kcchiefs6465]

right

[Christian Liberty]

right
Hey, just out of curiosity, did you know that post on EpAutos was me when you asked for it to be repeated here?

[jmdrake]

Why We Should Not Forget Miriam Carey (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?430626-Why-We-Should-Not-Forget-Miriam-Carey)

It's the new template for cops. Kill 'em all.

There was a Miriam Carey topic where a couple of RPF members said cops should react as if every traffic stop involved IED's.

Well you see the cops that killed Miriam Carey were protected the first black president from...well...nothing. So it's okay.

[jmdrake]

Is there anyone who believes that the Police firing shots in this situation was justified? Just checking...

I've seen people defend worse shootings. Just sayin'.

[aGameOfThrones]

You want to read something interesting? I read this case a couple of years ago and in fits this thread.


HERE:

On September 6, 2003, Officer Matthew Myers, a Clinton County Deputy Sheriff and Town of Mulberry Police Officer, noticed a red, white and blue truck proceeding down a road in a rural area of Clinton County, Indiana.   Myers knew that Shane owned the truck and that an arrest warrant had been issued due to an alleged violation of Shane's probation.

Officer Myers initiated a stop just as Shane turned onto a county road in Tippecanoe County.   Although Myers parked at least fifty feet behind Shane's truck, he heard Shane's protesting scream and immediately confirmed Shane's identity.   Shane, appearing nervous and agitated, told Officer Myers, “Let me go, or I'm going to run.”   Officer Myers jogged to the truck as Shane started to pull away, and Shane stopped the truck.   Officer Myers then requested that Shane put the truck in park, turn off the engine, and exit the vehicle so the two could talk.   Shane partially complied by putting the truck in park.

Shane then stated that this would be the day he (Shane) would die if Officer Myers persisted in taking him to jail.   Shane asked Officer Myers to “give him a break and let him go,” and Officer Myers informed him that he could not do so.   At some point during the conversation, Officer Myers, who had recently talked to Shane's parents about the arrest warrant, remarked, “fifty-seven days left,” to indicate the amount of time left on the warrant.   Shane's truck started “to roll again,” but Shane applied the brakes when Officer Myers told him to do so.   Shane then became very agitated and began to cry.

Mulberry Town Marshall Glenn Wilson soon arrived and walked up to the truck while Officer Myers continued to talk to Shane.   When Shane saw Wilson, he said, “Let me go, Glenn.”   Transcript at 23.   Wilson responded, “Shane, you know you've got to go to jail today.”   Shane then began yelling that he couldn't go to jail.

At this point, the State's evidence is conflicting.   Officer Myers and Wilson testified that Shane started to pull away at a high rate of speed, and then both officers began shooting at the truck's tires. Clinton County Deputy Sheriff Jared Blacker testified that just before he turned a corner near the scene he heard the shots, and as he turned the corner he observed the truck's tires spinning as it began to “take off.”   Transcript at 97.

Wilson flattened the truck's left rear tire by firing two shots from his handgun.   Wilson then tried to shoot the right rear tire but hit the license plate instead.   Officer Myers fired seven shots at the truck as it moved away from the scene.   Some of the shots hit the truck's bed, and one shot passed through the back driver's window and out the front windshield, resulting in a head injury to Shane.   Shane proceeded a quarter mile down the road, where he jumped out of the truck and ran to a nearby barn.   He surrendered to the officers without further incident.

Shane was subsequently charged with and found guilty of resisting arrest by fleeing.   Officer Myers and Wilson both were charged with criminal recklessness, but neither had been tried at the time of Shane's trial.   Shane was sentenced to three years' imprisonment with one year suspended.   He now appeals.


**********

Here, Shane initially proposed “Defendant’s Tendered Final Instruction 1,” which
stated:
4
The law does not allow a peace officer to use more force than necessary to
effect an arrest, and if he does use such unnecessary force, he thereby
becomes a trespasser, and an arrestee therefore may resist the arrester’s use
of excessive force by the use of reasonable force to protect himself against
great bodily harm or death. If you find that Officer’s (sic) Myer (sic) and
Wilson used more force than necessary to effectuate the arrest, then Shane
Wilson was permitted to resist the arrest to such an extent as necessary to
protect himself from great bodily harm or death, and you must find him not
guilty of resisting law enforcement. Plummer v. State, 135 Ind. 308, 34
N.E. 968 (1893); Casselman v. State, 472 N.E.2d 1310 (Ind.App. 1985);
Wise v. State, 401 N.E.2d 65 (Ind.App. 1980); Heichelbech v. State, 258
Ind. 334, 281 N.E.2d 102 (1972); Birtsas v. State, 156 Ind.App. 587, 297
N.E.2d 864 (1973).


The initial statement of the law in the instruction is based upon our supreme
court’s holding in Plummer. The trial court refused to give the proposed instruction and
also refused to allow trial counsel to edit the instruction to reflect the statement in Wise
that when officers use excessive force in making an arrest an arrestee may resist the law
enforcement to prevent great bodily harm or death. The trial court rejected the
instruction on the basis that the right to resist an unlawful arrest, as that right is expressed
in Plummer, “has all gone by the way side.” Transcript at 135. The trial court concluded
that “[i]f you’re going to be arrested, your complaint about an unlawful arrest is not to
resist it. Your right [is] to bring an action later, but that doesn’t give you the right to
resist the arrest.” Transcript at 135-36. Shane’s counsel responded to the court’s
reasoning by pointing out that a defendant who is killed by arresting officers’ excessive
force would be unable to pursue a civil court action. The trial court acknowledged
defense counsel’s statement but ultimately refused to give the instruction, both as initially
proposed and also in its redacted or edited version.


In his closing argument, the deputy prosecutor reminded the jury members that
they had “taken an oath to follow the instructions by the judge” and that they should
notice that the instructions given to them did not state “that if the officer is shooting your
tire, that gives you the license to take off. There is not going to be anything that even
resembles that in the instructions.” Transcript at 161. This argument emphasized the
trial court’s erroneous decision to not give the proposed instruction. Had the instruction
been given, the jury would have been properly informed of a defendant’s right to protect
himself against great bodily harm or death and could have made a well-informed decision
as to whether the right was available to Shane. The trial court’s failure to give the
instruction was not harmless error.

" The trial court erred in refusing to give the proposed instruction. We reverse and
remand with instructions that the trial court vacate Shane’s conviction. Reversed and remanded."


http://caselaw.findlaw.com/in-court-of-appeals/1398315.html

[kcchiefs6465]

Hey, just out of curiosity, did you know that post on EpAutos was me when you asked for it to be repeated here?
no

[Christian Liberty]

I've seen people defend worse shootings. Just sayin'.

Did it come accompanied with a VIDEO though? I mean, its one thing if this was the woman's account of what happened, and the "apologists" were denying that it really happened the way she described. That would be one thing. But we have a freaking video here.


You asked me once who I have a hard time loving. You can probably find your answer in this thread.

[Snew]

The video cuts off as she starts to drive away the first time, but she didnt seem to be flooring it as if she flee the police. I didnt see squeeling tires and rapid acceleration. Its unknown if she was trying to sneak away or just stupid or didnt understand or what. But if shes trying to getaway, it was a pretty slow escape...

As others pointed out. Regardless of her stupidity or motive, use of deadly force is not acceptable. Either is smashing windows, WTF, way to cause more mayhem and cause more panic. Let me shatter some windows and make a women acting irrational and frightened even more stressed with the sound of 5 kids screaming as glass shatters all over them... That will surely fix the situation....WTF.
completely agree...

[Mani]

This story reached Yahoo:

http://gma.yahoo.com/minivan-stop-turns-wild-chase-mom-kids-233648112--abc-news-topstories.html


Look at what we have to deal with....Cops are trained marksmen? They are knights in shining armor according to some people.

"These officers did nothing wrong completely justifiable. The son attacked the officer which made him break the window to get to the kid. Plus no one knows what he might have seen or thought he had seen. The other officer was shooting at the tires any person who is a trained marksman knows that; the stance the officer was doing was to get the best accuracy to shoot out the tires nothing more and nothing less. ABC News and everyone else who thinks the Police are in the wrong are complete idiots..."

"This cop did everything he was trained to do. He enforced the law. The suspect was not compliant. He did not start off shooting. He took less violent methods to try to stop her. That's when the 2nd cop intervened and did his DUTY. This is what they are trained to do. I feel bad for the children. They didn't put themselves in that situation. The police surely didn't put them in that situation. Their OWN MOTHER put them in that situation. She is a criminal. Anyone in their right mind would comply with a police officer, happy or not."


It's like 80% anti-lady, and few actually commenting on cops shooting at a van full of kids.


I'm not sure what is more disturbing the first comment saying the cops are 100% justified, or the second comment saying the cop did what he was trained to do, enforce the law.

[aGameOfThrones]

You see, this guy was shooting at the tires...



http://www.blackbluedog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/State_cop_shoots_at_minivan_full_of_kids.jpg

[pcosmar]

You see, this guy was shooting at the tires...



And did he hit them?

the answer is no.. the van drove to a safe location and then stopped.

So this can't shoot for shit cop was shooting at a van full of kids.

[phill4paul]

You see, this guy was shooting at the tires...



http://www.blackbluedog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/State_cop_shoots_at_minivan_full_of_kids.jpg

HERO.

[aGameOfThrones]

HERO.

I was going to meme it, but too lazy right now.

[kcchiefs6465]

And did he hit them?

the answer is no.. the van drove to a safe location and then stopped.

So this can't shoot for shit cop was shooting at a van full of kids.
Is it any wonder why someone might drive away?

[Pericles]

Unfortunately, from the cops standpoint , felony resisting arrest , for something as trivial as a speeding ticket, means that they are concealing something else.

.
Time for the infamous New Mexico butt inspection, eh? Maybe they wanted to take her to Deming to go up periscope on her ass.

[enhanced_deficit]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw8a1munu4I
..

It says "video unavailable becuase youtoob account has been terminated", is it same incidence posted in other thread later.

[aGameOfThrones]

Charges dropped against boy in Taos van chase case

After a restorative justice circle was held for about three hours on Wednesday, charges of battery and assault on a peace officer were dropped against a teenager whose mother led police on a chase caught on video in October.

Hezekiah Farrell had struggled with officers along with his mother Oriana Farrell, after she left the scene of two traffic stops with State Police for speeding allegations. In the second chaotic stop, an officer breaks the van’s window with a baton as children scream inside and another officer fires at Farrell’s van and was later dismissed from the force. She is charged with aggravated fleeing from a police officer and child abuse.

“We entered into an agreement with the defense to do a restorative justice circle,” said 8th Judicial District Attorney Donald Gallegos. He said the boy, 14, had been home-schooled and had a good future and it is not the intent of the Children’s Code to merely punish. The youth was evaluated by juvenile probation, Gallegos said.

“We wanted the opportunity to have a dialogue with the child in a restorative justice circle,” Gallegos said. Those circles are often used after convictions in which those convicted meet with victims and try to come to some form of consensus over what transpired.

“We are not out to drag any child through the mud, so to speak,” said Gallegos. Asked if charges would be dropped against Oriana Farrell, Gallegos responded, “this has nothing to do with that. There are always possibilities but we are ready to go to trial.”

http://www.abqjournal.com/388714/abqnewsseeker/charges-dropped-against-boy-in-taos-van-chase-case.html

[kcchiefs6465]

http://i.imgur.com/58qvEvV.png?1



Posted: Thursday, May 8, 2014 7:00 pm | Updated: 11:29 pm, Thu May 8, 2014.

TAOS — A Taos judge rejected a motion Thursday calling for the court to quash a grand jury’s indictment of Oriana Farrell, the Tennessee woman whose vehicle was fired upon as she fled a New Mexico State Police officer with her five children during a traffic stop near Taos on Oct. 28, 2013.

Her attorneys argued that the case should be dismissed because a sister of the patrolman who shot at Farrell served on the grand jury. Prosecutors replaced her without the consulting the court, they said, after she raised the potential conflict prior to deliberations.

It was known to staff from the 8th Judicial District Attorney’s Office that a sibling of since-terminated officer Elias Montoya was part of the grand jury, according to Farrell’s lawyers.

The Tennessee woman was indicted on charges of aggravated fleeing, child abuse and possession of drug paraphernalia.

Prosecutors maintained that dismissing the juror ensured fairness in the grand jury process, but Farrell’s attorneys argued Thursday it was the court’s duty to excuse the woman.

“It’s a slippery slope to allow the district attorney to take over here or there,” defense attorney Kathryn Hardy told the court.

In dramatic terms, Hardy also argued that Farrell may not have been indicted at all had she testified before the grand jury.

The Tennessee woman feared for her life and the lives of her children during the roadside incident, Hardy told the court, and a grand jury might have considered her decision to flee officers appropriate had Farrell testified.

“It is not a clear-cut situation,” Hardy told the court. “It escalated and it became a situation where Ms. Farrell believed her children were in danger.”

The motion filed by Farrell’s lawyers alleged she was not served adequate notice of the grand jury proceeding against her, which occurred while she was in custody at the Taos County jail. Instead, the only testimony was provided by the state police officer who arrested Farrell.

District Court Judge John Paternoster rejected the arguments by Farrell’s attorneys.

Prosecutors presented records indicating she was served adequate notice of the grand jury proceedings against her, and Paternoster said he had been offered little reason to doubt the evidence.

There was also little to suggest the grand jury would have reached different conclusions had Farrell testified before them, Paternoster added.

Farrell’s attorneys indicated they may appeal Paternoster’s ruling to the New Mexico Court of Appeals.

Farrell is free on bond. She was accompanied in court Thursday by two of her children, including her 15-year-old son who also was charged in the incident. The case against him was dropped last month.

The Taos News is a sister paper of The Santa Fe New Mexican.

hxxp://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/judge-charges-stand-against-mom-in-taos-minivan-shooting/article_b82d4d3e-3411-58f2-86c2-78824642e08a.html


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TS2TlHJmaHA

Full video:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJU3GhyF4e4

[aGameOfThrones]

Her attorneys argued that the case should be dismissed because a sister of the patrolman who shot at Farrell served on the grand jury.

[TonySutton]

So much wrong with this situation if you look at the raw footage.

It is important to limit unscheduled interaction with law enforcement as much as possible.

The lady may or may not have been speeding but all she needed to do was sign the ticket and select either pay or go to court. Very simple options, she could have been on her way mostly unmolested.

At the same time, why does New Mexico force drivers to choose pay or go to court at the moment they are being cited?

[rambone]

Trooper opens fire on minivan full of kids; faces no charges - Police State USA (http://www.policestateusa.com/2014/cop-shoots-at-minivan-full-of-kids/)

[Thor]

Wait, wat?


In dramatic terms, Hardy also argued that Farrell may not have been indicted at all had she testified before the grand jury.

The Tennessee woman feared for her life and the lives of her children during the roadside incident, Hardy told the court, and a grand jury might have considered her decision to flee officers appropriate had Farrell testified.

“It is not a clear-cut situation,” Hardy told the court. “It escalated and it became a situation where Ms. Farrell believed her children were in danger.”

The motion filed by Farrell’s lawyers alleged she was not served adequate notice of the grand jury proceeding against her, which occurred while she was in custody at the Taos County jail. Instead, the only testimony was provided by the state police officer who arrested Farrell.

District Court Judge John Paternoster rejected the arguments by Farrell’s attorneys.

Prosecutors presented records indicating she was served adequate notice of the grand jury proceedings against her, and Paternoster said he had been offered little reason to doubt the evidence.

There was also little to suggest the grand jury would have reached different conclusions had Farrell testified before them, Paternoster added.

"I was in jail and did not know about the proceedings against me. I could not attend."

"Doesn't matter. Guilty."

JustUs and Freedumb.

[HOLLYWOOD]

JUST-US SYSTEM eh? It truly is a Lawless government...

People have learned and must pass it around that, attorney teams must vet 3 degrees of separation, every sing;e person on grand juries, trial juries, and judges.

Any background check/vetting/historical data on this District Court Judge John Paternoster?

I found this local article

http://kwout.com/cutout/n/yc/b6/t94_bor.jpg (http://www.taosfriction.com/?p=8292)

Judge Paternoster, Oriana Farrell, a Smoking Gun? and a Gap in the Tape | Taos Friction (http://www.taosfriction.com/?p=8292)

[Anti Federalist]

And, Justified.

Move the fuck along now.


Cop Shoots into Minivan Full of Unarmed Children—Court Says It’s Justified

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop-shoots-minivan-court-justified/

A federal court has just handed down an insulting decision by claiming that a cop shooting at a fleeing minivan full of children does not violate their rights.

By Matt Agorist - December 28, 2017

Taos County, NM — Oriana Farrell, 39, of Memphis, was bringing her children across the country on a family road trip when things took a turn for the worse. A stop for a minor speeding infraction escalated to Farrell driving away from police as one of them fired off three shots at the minivan full of her five children.

Now, after a years-long battle of trying to hold the officer accountable for shooting at a minivan full of children, Farrell has learned just how big a failure the system is. A federal court, this week, has sided with the officer who opened fire on the family, claiming he did not violate their constitutional rights when he endangered all their lives by opening fire on the minivan—over a speeding ticket.

[Danke]

Why does the media always bring in children? It doesn’t matter, he fired on a vehicle driving away. Anyone could have been killed or injured over a stupid speeding violation where no one was endangered. They have the plates, just settle it in a civil court proceedings.

[Schifference]

It appears a fleeing vehicle is subject to being shot at just like a stopped vehicle. A few weeks ago I saw a thread that seemed to insinuate that sometimes it might be better or safer to flee. I also know that you cannot be on your knees crying and begging for your life trying to crawl with your legs crossed while trying to comply with confusing orders and be safe from execution.

[Anti Federalist]

It appears a fleeing vehicle is subject to being shot at just like a stopped vehicle. A few weeks ago I saw a thread that seemed to insinuate that sometimes it might be better or safer to flee. I also know that you cannot be on your knees crying and begging for your life trying to crawl with your legs crossed while trying to comply with confusing orders and be safe from execution.

That was me.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?517431-Chancing-it-when-to-run-from-cops&highlight=eric

[Swordsmyth]

Why does the media always bring in children? It doesn’t matter, he fired on a vehicle driving away. Anyone could have been killed or injured over a stupid speeding violation where no one was endangered. They have the plates, just settle it in a civil court proceedings.

In this case the children are relevant, even if the kop was justified in endangering the drivers life over a speeding ticket (a repulsive thought) there was NO way that the children who had no choice in the matter should have been endangered over such a trivial matter.