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

[pcosmar]

[/SIZE][/B]

No, I am $#@!ing 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

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-...s/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-tu...opstories.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...

[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 $#@! cop was shooting at a van full of kids.

[phill4paul]

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

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 $#@! 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]

..

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/abq...hase-case.html

[kcchiefs6465]

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

Full video:

[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

[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



Judge Paternoster, Oriana Farrell, a Smoking Gun? and a Gap in the Tape | Taos Friction

[Anti Federalist]

And, Justified.

Move the $#@! along now.


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

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop...urt-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.