# News & Current Events > U.S. Political News >  School teacher killed by police for rolling up her car window

## hillbilly123069

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

----------


## Seraphim

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

----------


## Gary4Liberty

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

----------


## squarepusher

sad sad sad

----------


## Czolgosz

Cops are known liars.

----------


## libertyjam

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

----------


## Cabal

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

----------


## mrsat_98

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


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

http://www.google.com/search?q=fred+...ient=firefox-a

----------


## Brian Coulter

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

----------


## The Bavarian

Don't mess with the gestapo.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

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

----------


## Cyberbrain

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


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

----------


## noneedtoaggress

and a bonus:

----------


## camp_steveo

I would like to see the dash-cam video.

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

And yet another cop gets away with murder, literally.

----------


## Gary4Liberty

so what is this officers name who murdered this woman?

----------


## MooCowzRock

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

----------


## fisharmor

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


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

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

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

----------


## HOLLYWOOD

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


Appears to be happening in every country across the globe where there is unrest/peaceful protests.

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

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

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

----------


## youngbuck

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

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

----------


## TheBlackPeterSchiff

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

----------


## milo10

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


Very good point.  

This whole story is bizarre.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Crime?

Contempt of Cop.

Sentence?

Immediate on scene execution.

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





> "He was right next to the vehicle.  He had one hand on the door handle and one hand on his weapon.  And she was rolling the window up.  And they were exiting out of the parkng lot. 
> 
> The window was half way up he said 'stop or I'll shoot.'   I really didn't think he was going to do it.  But she got the window all the way up and that's when he shot.  And then she took a left out of the parking lot here *and he stepped out in the street and fired five more times," said Buchele*.
> 
> Buchele says the officer was not dragged and that he shot her before she drove away.  He says he didn't have his arm caught because the officer's left hand was on the door handle and right hand was holding a weapon.   Also, he says he distinctly saw her roll up the window all the way before the officer shot out the glass and killed her.


Now you know.

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




> "I'm angry, frustrated, sad, and fighting back  tears right now, " said Gary Cook, Pat's husband of eight years.  He  doesn't understand why a police officer would shoot his unarmed wife multiple times.
> 
> "Personally I think it may be an overreaction, maybe excessive force, but I can only surmise that," Cook said.

----------


## Gary4Liberty

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

----------


## bolil

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

----------


## Anti Federalist

See Something, Say Something.





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

----------


## Reason

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


That's what I was thinking...

----------


## NidStyles

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

----------


## JudgeNapFan

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

----------


## DamianTV

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


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

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

----------


## AFPVet

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

----------


## fisharmor

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


Those rules apply only to you, peasant.

----------


## Khun Jean

"just'us"
_Celente_

----------


## jmdrake

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

----------


## aGameOfThrones

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






> *‘That’s why I’m a cop, I can do whatever I want to do.’”*
> 
> 
> Off Duty cop executes man in bar for saying he "sucked at darts"


//

----------


## Hospitaller

> See Something, Say Something.


wow.

----------


## squarepusher

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

----------


## squarepusher

> See Something, Say Something.


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

----------


## DamianTV

> See Something, Say Something.


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

That would be the Something I have to Say.

----------


## Gary4Liberty

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


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

----------


## LibForestPaul

> I would like to see the dash-cam video.


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

----------


## TheTexan

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

----------


## Anti Federalist

bump

----------


## GraniteHills

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

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Cont...Washington.php

----------


## JK/SEA

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

Anyone up for a rousing abortion debate?

----------


## AGRP

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

----------


## Kylie

Any updates on this?

----------


## Gary4Liberty

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

----------


## Anti Federalist

> This story dropping into the deep dark abyss in 3..2..1...
> 
> Anyone up for a rousing abortion debate?


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

----------


## Gary4Liberty

"and nobody seems to care and nobody seems to notice"..... _george carlin_

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Any updates on this?


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

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



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

10:05 PM, Feb 14, 2012

http://wusa9.com/news/article/190763...olved-Shooting

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

WITNESS: OFFICER NOT DRAGGED BEFORE SHOOTING

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

"This is a residential area, he could've hit somebody else," says Buchele.
*
The Culpeper town spokesperson says the officer's cruiser did have a video camera, but that it was not working*. He also said the officer did not turn on his blue lights. If he had, it would've been a sign that he was detaining the person, says attorney and former Fairfax County Police officer Ted Sibert . 
*
If the person is not being detained, she should be free to go, Sibert says.*

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

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

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

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


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



*Widower to pursue lawsuit*

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

http://www2.starexponent.com/news/20...it-ar-1695343/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----------


## Anti Federalist

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




> Posted by sgt051267 on Feb. 17, 2012 - 1:19 a.m.
> 
> GC07008706-00 BUCHELE, KRISTOPHER M. 09/19/2007 10:30 AM BREAK AND ENTER
> GC07008707-00 BUCHELE, KRISTOPHER M. 09/19/2007 10:30 AM POSSESS CONT. SUBSTANCE
> 
> Posted by sgt051267 on Feb. 17, 2012 - 1:07 a.m.
> 
> Defendant:
> BUCHELE, KRISTOPHER M. Sex:
> ...


http://www2.starexponent.com/news/20...it-ar-1695343/

----------


## AFPVet

> The cops are leaning on the witness and claiming he changed his story. The eyewitness denies it.
> 
> Of course, the cop car's dashcam video was "not working".
> 
> 
> 
> *Va. State Police Say Kris Buchele Of Culpeper Changed His Story About Officer-Involved Shooting*
> 
> 10:05 PM, Feb 14, 2012
> ...


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

----------


## QuickZ06

> This story dropping into the deep dark abyss in 3..2..1...
> 
> Anyone up for a rousing abortion debate?


Sad.




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


But they are whats really important

----------


## Kylie

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

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Sad.
> 
> 
> 
> *But they are whats really important*


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

----------


## JK/SEA

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

----------


## Anti Federalist

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


Bunchies!

----------


## dillo

shes shoudnt have paid for that starbucks in cash

----------


## Lethalmiko

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

*FACTS*

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

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

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

4. Buchele is the *ONLY* witness so far.

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


*QUESTIONS*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----------


## heavenlyboy34

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





> Bunchies!



Bunchies FTW!!

----------


## Travlyr

What was her crime?




> Article the sixth [Amendment IV]
> 
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
> 
> Article the seventh [Amendment V]
> 
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
> 
> Article the eighth [Amendment VI]
> ...

----------


## Anti Federalist

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

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

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

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





> Sorry to say this, but all I am seeing here is mass hysteria. The officer has been declared guilty until proven innocent. Let us discuss the facts and a few questions.
> 
> *FACTS*
> 
> 1. Kris Buchele says that the vehicle was already in motion when Patricia Cook was rolling up the window and *BEFORE* the officer shot her.
> 
> 2. *AFTER* being shot, she continued driving away.
> 
> 3. Cook *DISOBEYED* a *DIRECT* order from a police officer.
> ...

----------


## Lethalmiko

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


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

----------


## Anti Federalist

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


Actually, it was sarcasm.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> What was her crime?


Contempt of cop.

----------


## azxd

> Sorry to say this, but all I am seeing here is mass hysteria. The officer has been declared guilty until proven innocent. Let us discuss the facts and a few questions.
> 
> *FACTS*
> 
> 1. Patricia Cook *DISOBEYED* a *DIRECT* order from a police officer.
> 
> 2. Kris Buchele says that the vehicle was already in motion when Cook was rolling up the window and *BEFORE* the officer shot her. She was told to stop *BEFORE* she was shot.
> 
> 3. *AFTER* being shot, she continued driving away.
> ...


I can hardly wait to hear your answer to your questions.

----------


## specsaregood

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


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

----------


## Travlyr

> Sorry to say this, but all I am seeing here is mass hysteria. The officer has been declared guilty until proven innocent. Let us discuss the facts and a few questions.
> 
> *FACTS*
> 
> 1. Patricia Cook *DISOBEYED* a *DIRECT* order from a police officer.
> 
> 2. Kris Buchele says that the vehicle was already in motion when Cook was rolling up the window and *BEFORE* the officer shot her. She was told to stop *BEFORE* she was shot.
> 
> 3. *AFTER* being shot, she continued driving away.
> ...





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


No. Not in a free society.




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


Yes. In a free society.




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


Yes. Under oath in court in front of a jury of his peers. 




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


There no excuse for anyone to stick their hand in the window of someone else's car.




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


No. Patricia Cook was deprived of her right to life under the law. Amendment V. 




> 6. Does an officer have the right to order someone to stop, even without blue lights on?


No. Amendment IV.




> Does ordering them to stop mean he wants to detain them?


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




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


She was probably afraid he would kill or rape her.




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


It is hard for dead people to put their foot on the brake, perhaps?




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


Yes, in a free society. No, not in a tyrannical police state.




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


Yes, this incident along with all the other known facts about police corruption the world over.




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


Let her drive and enjoy her life. In a free society, he has no right to order her to do anything unless he has a warrant for her arrest. Amendment IV.

----------


## Barrex

I agree with everything that* Travlyr* 	 wrote.

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

----------


## Danke

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

----------


## JK/SEA

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

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

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

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



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


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

----------


## eric_cartman

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

----------


## JK/SEA

cop watch.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Sorry to say this, but all I am seeing here is mass hysteria. The officer has been declared guilty until proven innocent. Let us discuss the facts and a few questions.
> 
> *FACTS*
> 
> 1. Patricia Cook *DISOBEYED* a *DIRECT* order from a police officer.


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

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

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




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


Why is this an issue?

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

Thus, she closed her window and drove away.




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


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

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




> 4. Buchele is the *ONLY* witness so far.


And?

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

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




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


Exactly.

Which is why this was murder.

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




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


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




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


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




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


Is there any reason we should not?




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


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




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


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




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


Not in a free society they don't.




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


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

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




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


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

Why is this relevant?




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


Does not appear so at this point.




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


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

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




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


Let her go.

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

----------


## Lethalmiko

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

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

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

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




> There no excuse for anyone to stick their hand in the window of someone else's car.


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




> No. Patricia Cook was deprived of her right to life under the law. Amendment V.


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




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


More nonsense. 




> *FOURTH AMENDMENT*
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against *unreasonable* searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


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




> She was probably afraid he would kill or rape her.


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




> It is hard for dead people to put their foot on the brake, perhaps?


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




> Yes, in a free society. No, not in a tyrannical police state.


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




> Yes, this incident along with all the other known facts about police corruption the world over.


Nothing in this incident proves corruption in the police force.




> Let her drive and enjoy her life. In a free society, he has no right to order her to do anything unless he has a warrant for her arrest. Amendment IV.


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




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


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

----------


## eric_cartman

> cop watch.


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

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

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> What?! I cannot believe what you guys are saying. Are you anarchists or something?
> 
> *Travlyr*, what you have written is nonsense. If we followed what you are saying, every criminal would simply drive away once an officer approached them and keep repeating this since the police would have no authority to stop them by force. Ditto for running away on foot. How long do you reckon it would take before anyone is arrested? Why would an innocent person be running away?
> 
> Imagine the police stops a guy they suspect of being a criminal. They tell him to put his hands in the air so that they can search him. In your so-called "free society", he simply ignores what they say, turns his back to them, starts running away and pulls out a gun from his pocket, turns round, crouches and shoots them to death. Don't you see how silly that is?
> 
> Buchele was talking to reporters and everyone in this thread believes what he was saying. He was not even under oath. And even if he was, people lie all the time in court. Moreover, eye-witness testimony from a single witness carries less weight than from two witnesses.
> 
> 
> ...


Wow.

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

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

----------


## Anti Federalist

Yah, that about sums it up for me.

Well done Gunny.

+rep




> Wow.
> 
> We clearly live in different universes.  In my universe, a government that obeys the Constitution is not 'anarchist.'  In my universe, police are not _supposed to be_ authorized to randomly gun down anybody that they don't know whether they are armed or not.  In my universe, every single American, including the Police, are supposed to be under the same law, and not different laws for different people.  "Everybody equal under the law" is the basis for a "Republican form of government" per US Constitution Article 4 Section 4.
> 
> Your acceptance and even defense of this blatant abrogation of our Constitutional form of government frankly frightens me.

----------


## Gary4Liberty

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

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

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

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

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


*QUESTIONS*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----------


## Lethalmiko

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


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





> If I'm ever shot, the first thing I'm going to do is stop moving so they can keep shooting me. I can't even believe you think that's a relevant fact, along with many others. None of your "facts" were reasons to kill that woman. That police officer is supposed to be protecting her, not killing her.


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





> He also said the officer did not turn on his blue lights. If he had, it would've been a sign that he was detaining the person, says attorney and former Fairfax County Police officer Ted Sibert .


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





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


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





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


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





> Why is this an issue?


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





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


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





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


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





> And? You know how many people are rotting away in prison based on the testimony of one witness? How many more are in prison based on the testimony of one cop witness?


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





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


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





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


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





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


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





> Is there any reason we should not?


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





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


But why do you believe Buchele? 





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


Nonsense. What if she had a gun?





> Not in a free society they don't.


Addressed above.





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


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





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


Explained above.





> Does not appear so at this point.


Based on what? Your imagination?





> Of course. Always. If government or one of its enforcers told me the sky was blue and sun rose in the east, I'd argue the point. The track record is long and grim enough that I don't believe a single word that they say, and when a case like this comes up, my default position is "the cops and the system are lying".


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





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


Disproved above.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Wow.
> 
> We clearly live in different universes.  In my universe, a government that obeys the Constitution is not 'anarchist.'  In my universe, police are not _supposed to be_ authorized to randomly gun down anybody that they don't know whether they are armed or not.  In my universe, every single American, including the Police, are supposed to be under the same law, and not different laws for different people.  "Everybody equal under the law" is the basis for a "Republican form of government" per US Constitution Article 4 Section 4.
> 
> Your acceptance and even defense of this blatant abrogation of our Constitutional form of government frankly frightens me.


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

----------


## Travlyr

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


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

----------


## GunnyFreedom

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


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

----------


## Lethalmiko

> Wow.
> 
> We clearly live in different universes. In my universe, a government that obeys the Constitution is not 'anarchist.' In my universe, police are not _supposed to be_ authorized to randomly gun down anybody that they don't know whether they are armed or not. In my universe, every single American, including the Police, are supposed to be under the same law, and not different laws for different people. "Everybody equal under the law" is the basis for a "Republican form of government" per US Constitution Article 4 Section 4.
> 
> Your acceptance and even defense of this blatant abrogation of our Constitutional form of government frankly frightens me.


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

----------


## GunnyFreedom

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


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

----------


## Anti Federalist

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


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

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

----------


## Travlyr

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


Right. County Sheriffs & Constables mostly. Night watchmen. 




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

----------


## Anti Federalist

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


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

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

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

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

----------


## GunnyFreedom

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


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

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

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

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

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

----------


## heavenlyboy34

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


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

If you haven't read it, you may be interested in Roger Roots' essay ARE COPS CONSTITUTIONAL?  Good day to you, sir!  /tips hat

----------


## mikeforliberty

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


You sir are a ridiculous human being.

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

----------


## Lethalmiko

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

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

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

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

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




> 1. Patricia Cook *DISOBEYED* a *DIRECT* order from a police officer.  SO ITS OK TO KILL HER?
> 
> 2. Kris Buchele says that the vehicle was already in motion when Cook was rolling up the window and *BEFORE* the officer shot her. She was told to stop *BEFORE* she was shot.   SO ITS OK TO KILL HER?
> 
> 3. *AFTER* being shot at, she continued driving away.  ITS REASONABLE TO DRIVE AWAY AS FAST AS YOU CAN FROM SOMEONE SHOOTING AT YOU FOR NO REASON
> 
> 4. Buchele is the *ONLY* witness so far.   IF THERE WAS NO WITNESS, THERE STILL IS NO REASON TO SHOOT THIS PERSON
> 
> 5. The officer could *NOT* have possibly known whether she was armed or not.  SO HE SHOT HER.  YOU CAN SAY THE SAME ABOUT ANYONE WALKING DOWN THE STREET.  SO ITS OK TO SHOOT ANYONE
> ...

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> "At the time of the Constitution's ratification, the office of sheriff was an appointed position, and constables were either elected or drafted from the community to serve without pay."
> 
> If you haven't read it, you may be interested in Roger Roots' essay ARE COPS CONSTITUTIONAL?  Good day to you, sir!  /tips hat


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

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

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

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

----------


## Lethalmiko

> I would rather a hundred guilty go free, than one innocent go to jail. Or in this case, be gunned down in the street for "contempt of cop".


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

----------


## Travlyr

> Honestly I don't need to read an essay, because I have an actual physical copy of the NC State Constitution in which Article 7 Section 2 directly requires elected County Sheriffs.
> 
> Indeed, in the North Carolina State Constitution of 1776, Article 2 Section 38 likewise requires a Sheriff or Constable in every county.
> 
> Given that there is nothing in the US Constitution barring the States from electing Sheriffs, and there are provisions in the several State Constitutions going back to 1776 requiring said Sheriffs in the Counties, then County Sheriffs are clearly Constitutional.
> 
> See, I don't need to read interpretations of Constitutions to tell me what is and is not Constitutional when I have the texts of the Constitutions themselves which are both clear and simple to read.


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

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

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



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

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





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


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

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Honestly I don't need to read an essay, because I have an actual physical copy of the NC State Constitution in which Article 7 Section 2 directly requires elected County Sheriffs.
> 
> Indeed, in the North Carolina State Constitution of 1776, Article 2 Section 38 likewise requires a Sheriff or Constable in every county.
> 
> Given that there is nothing in the US Constitution barring the States from electing Sheriffs, and there are provisions in the several State Constitutions going back to 1776 requiring said Sheriffs in the Counties, then County Sheriffs are clearly Constitutional.
> 
> See, I don't need to read interpretations of Constitutions to tell me what is and is not Constitutional when I have the texts of the Constitutions themselves which are both clear and simple to read.


Agreed.  The topic of Sheriffs is mentioned by Roots: 

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

----------


## mikeforliberty

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


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

----------


## Lethalmiko

> Police don't get to decide who is and is not a hard core criminal, that's why we have a judicial system and judicial warrants.  There are already rigid laws and rules for probable cause which you are simply ignoring.  The dead body in the trunk thing is something you are inventing whole-cloth in an attempt to justify this murder.  No weapon was found or seen on the victim.  You don't get to just make stuff up and then kill people for it, and neither do the police.
> 
> My assessment stands.  If you can invent dead bodies and invisible weapons and nonexistent threats as an excuse to kill a sunday school teacher minding her own business, then any number of things can be 'invented' to simply assassinate political opponents and claim they had an invisible gun and a fictitious body in the trunk and suddenly it's all perfectly OK.


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

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

----------


## GunnyFreedom

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


Correct.

----------


## mikeforliberty

> Your line of argument contains the huge fallacy of drawing conclusions about what the cop should have done *AFTER THE FACT*. I gave you that example to open your mind to the other side. Have you thought about all the cops who have been gunned down by criminals in the line of duty protecting your way of life because they took your approach? What if this had turned out the other way and the cop was shot dead? Would you go to his family with a straight face and tell them that he was okay to let the criminal drive away and shoot him?
> 
> You fail to grasp the simple point that in the situation, *NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING* was known about the woman or her intentions. You cannot as a cop know that she is "minding her business" as you approach the car and talk to her.


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

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

----------


## Lethalmiko

> lol.  No, it doesn't.  Firearms are to be used to stop threats from advancing.  She was clearly retreating and not an advancing threat. You must be having fun with this thread, because I find it hard to believe that even you believe some of the things you are saying. If phone booths were rocket ships, we could fly to the moon.  She drove off.  If she comes back after him, it is a completely different situation.  By your reasoning, cops can and should kill pretty much anyone they pull over.  Maybe they have a dead body in the trunk and they're thinking about getting out a gun.  Time to kill.


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




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


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

----------


## mikeforliberty

> In short, anyone who runs away should be allowed to, even if it allows him/her to then be in a position to pull out a gun? Please avoid strawman tactics. Cops cannot shoot at anyone they pull over. They shoot at people who drive off, disobeying a direct order to stop.
> 
> 
> Part of a police officer's training is to reduce the risk of being killed by taking commonsense precautions like adopting a more aggressive stance when someone disobeys you and runs away. Innocent people do not normally run away and understand that the scenario being played out with them may be happening elsewhere with a hardcore criminal.


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

----------


## Lethalmiko

> You can never know what someone's intentions are.  We can't have cops going around killing people because they don't comply with orders and cops don't "know their intentions".
> 
> This is just stupid.  Can we personally block people on these forums?  I'm more than happy to debate this idiocy elsewhere, but I come to RPF to take break from these statist supporters.


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

----------


## specsaregood

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


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

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Your line of argument contains the huge fallacy of drawing conclusions about what the cop should have done *AFTER THE FACT*. I gave you that example to open your mind to the other side. Have you thought about all the cops who have been gunned down by criminals in the line of duty protecting your way of life because they took your approach? What if this had turned out the other way and the cop was shot dead? Would you go to his family with a straight face and tell them that he was okay to let the criminal drive away and shoot him?
> 
> You fail to grasp the simple point that in the situation, *NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING* was known about the woman or her intentions. You cannot as a cop know that she is "minding her business" as you approach the car and talk to her.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----------


## mikeforliberty

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


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

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> In short, anyone who runs away should be allowed to, even if it allows him/her to then be in a position to pull out a gun? Please avoid strawman tactics. Cops cannot shoot at anyone they pull over. They shoot at people who drive off, disobeying a direct order to stop.
> 
> 
> Part of a police officer's training is to reduce the risk of being killed by taking commonsense precautions like adopting a more aggressive stance when someone disobeys you and runs away. Innocent people do not normally run away and understand that the scenario being played out with them may be happening elsewhere with a hardcore criminal.


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

----------


## mikeforliberty

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

----------


## GunnyFreedom

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


Winner.

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

----------


## mikeforliberty

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

Hint: Sarcasm.

----------


## mikeforliberty

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

----------


## AFPVet

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


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

----------


## FindLiberty

> In short, anyone who runs away should be allowed to, even if it allows him/her to then be in a position to pull out a gun? Please avoid strawman tactics. Cops cannot shoot at anyone they pull over. They shoot at people who drive off, disobeying a direct order to stop.
> 
> Part of a police officer's training is to reduce the risk of being killed by taking commonsense precautions like adopting a more aggressive stance when someone disobeys you and runs away. Innocent people do not normally run away and understand that the scenario being played out with them may be happening elsewhere with a hardcore criminal.


...NO  !

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

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

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

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

----------


## MelissaWV

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

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

Most of those things sound pretty friggin' wrong.

----------


## Birdlady

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


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

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

----------


## Anti Federalist

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


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

Successful troll is successful.

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

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

----------


## Anti Federalist

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


You must spread some reputation around....

----------


## Anti Federalist

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


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

I carry a firearm on a regular basis.

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

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

----------


## JK/SEA

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

thankyou.

----------


## MelissaWV

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

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

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

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Alright, now you're just trolling, good for you, you got a rise out of everybody.
> 
> Successful troll is successful.
> 
> But, just on the off chance you were serious, this is what is the matter with your thinking.
> 
> Without a clear indication of any crime being committed, the state, and by extension, their enforcer's, default position must *ALWAYS* be that a citizen is doing nothing wrong and that a cop does not have the right, by virtue of being a cop, to harass, impound, impede, detain, force, or kill somebody, until it becomes clear that some crime has been committed.


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

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

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> The policeman is putting his "life on the line" and getting paid for it.  He receives training to, in theory, minimize his exposure to situations where he is alone and faced with mortal peril.  He is armed with weaponry to help him stay alive, given non-lethal means of subduing people, provided with constant communication so that he can call for backup, is armored in many cases, and is given the authority of the law.  If you kill a police officer, your sentence will be greater than if you kill another person.  If a police officer kills an average Joe, their punishment will be less than if you did the same thing.  
> 
> All of that said, we are not discussing the worth of a life.  We are discussing what is reasonable.
> 
> If you believe every person you pull over is armed and has a bomb or a corpse or both in the trunk, then just save yourself the danger and shoot into the car before you even get out of yours.  That isn't how things are supposed to work, though.


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

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

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

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

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

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

----------


## JK/SEA

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


release the KRACKEN!!!...

----------


## mikeforliberty

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

----------


## Gary4Liberty

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


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

----------


## MelissaWV

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

----------


## Travlyr

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


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




> *Article. VI.*
> 
> *This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof*; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, *shall be the supreme Law of the Land*; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
> 
> *Amendment IV*
> 
> *The right of the people to be secure in their persons*, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, *shall not be violated*, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
> 
> *Amendment V.*
> ...





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


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




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


I'm thinking about 100 years. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was a criminal coup d'état and it is now 2012. Hopefully, we will waken enough people to put the criminals in jail next year.




> Why would an innocent person be running away?


Fear. Fear of being killed, beaten, or tasered.

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




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


 Sounds like a cop show on TV.




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


He is guilty of murder according the supreme law of the land if a trial by jury finds him guilty of murder. Of course he will not be charged by the illegitimate oligarchy.




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


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




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


What do you consider a weapon? A pencil? Somebody could stab you with a pencil.




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


See. Obeying the Constitution is considered an ideal anarchist society by the true statists. That's what I've been saying on this forum since December 2009. Obeying the constitution is a virtual voluntary society. Liberty, Peace, and Prosperity. It can be made much better by amending it.




> Nothing in this incident proves corruption in the police force.


Killing is corrupt.




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


Indeed it does sound sensible. It is part of the supreme Law of the Land
*Article IV.*  "_no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized._" Hold the judges feet to the fire.




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


Drivers are all a threat. The automobile is the most dangerous weapon in the world. If we would just kill all the drivers, then they wouldn't be a threat. Just like if we bomb Iran before they get a nuclear weapon, then we won't have to worry our dead heads about getting nuked by them.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Correct.  Thus 'probable cause.'  If the police officer has probable cause to believe that a serious crime has been committed or is in the process of commission, then they are given certain leeway under the premise of exigent circumstances.  A random guess that there 'could be' a weapon somewhere or there 'might be' a body in the trunk is not probable cause by any definition.
> 
> off topic -- someone around here is firing off some serious hardware.  At the very least a .300 WSM.  Sounds like a dam cannon or artillery piece   Mind you, where I live you can't go 24 hours without hearing rifles and handguns in the vicinity...but the last 3 days someone has been shooting a frelling cannon!  I'm telling you, .300 WSM at minimum, possibly something larger than .30


.50 BMG maybe.

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

Crack, crack, *crackBOOOOOM*.

I had to get me some of that.

----------


## phill4paul

> .50 BMG maybe.
> 
> I remember a few years back the fellow that owns the woods to the right of me, was out shooting some Tannnerite.
> 
> Crack, crack, *crackBOOOOOM*.
> 
> I had to get me some of that.


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

----------


## GunnyFreedom

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


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

----------


## Anti Federalist

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

Let me make a point on this one comment:




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


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

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

http://www.nleomf.org/assets/pdfs/re...ies_Report.pdf

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

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

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

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




> I get what you are saying in the thread, and I get that the common justification for 'special' legal protections for police are justified by the 'life on the line' rationalization.  My problem is that police officers are #300-something in ranking for dangerous professions, and that's only recently and due to the newer more aggressive posture putting them in more danger.  They used to be in the 400's in the ranking of dangerous professions back before there was this 'shoot first ask questions later' mentality.
> 
> If someone is a criminal and they know a cop is liable to shoot first and ask questions later, they are more apt to defend themselves.  Thus our more aggressive security state posture has led directly to the increasing danger in the police profession.
> 
> The reality, of course, is that policework is not now nor ever has been truly very dangerous.  That's really a myth contrived in order to justify special legal protections for police officers.  There are today at least 313 professions directly more dangerous than police work, and prior to 2001 there were at lease 450 professions directly more dangerous than police work.
> 
> So I get what you are saying, that in spite of all these special protections this particular shooting STILL appears unjustified.  Nevertheless, I wince whenever I hear that 'life on the line' thing to justify the unequal treatment, because it's really just a myth after all.
> 
> Mind you, if we continue current trends and keep militarizing the police and their ROE's there stands a chance one day that police work may break the top 100 dangerous jobs, and _then_ it could in fact become true.  When it does, however, it will be due to their increasingly aggressive posture, which we here are trying to stop.
> ...

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> .50 BMG maybe.
> 
> I remember a few years back the fellow that owns the woods to the right of me, was out shooting some Tannnerite.
> 
> Crack, crack, *crackBOOOOOM*.
> 
> I had to get me some of that.


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

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

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

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

----------


## heavenlyboy34

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


Jealous much?

----------


## sanssq

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



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

----------


## RiseAgainst

Obvious FBI troll is obvious.

----------


## TheBlackPeterSchiff

> In short, anyone who runs away should be allowed to, even if it allows him/her to then be in a position to pull out a gun? Please avoid strawman tactics. Cops cannot shoot at anyone they pull over. They shoot at people who drive off, disobeying a direct order to stop.
> 
> 
> Part of a police officer's training is to reduce the risk of being killed by taking commonsense precautions like adopting a more aggressive stance when someone disobeys you and runs away. Innocent people do not normally run away and understand that the scenario being played out with them may be happening elsewhere with a hardcore criminal.

----------


## Anti Federalist

LoL - Not in the least.

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




> Jealous much?

----------


## Anti Federalist

Never fails, this forum delivers, no doubt.

Hat Tip to AGameOfThones

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ping-on-Window

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

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

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

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

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

*DO NOT CALL THE COPS - DO NOT DIAL 911*




> "The evidence showed that Randle was not prevented from leaving the parking lot," Judge John M. Melanson wrote for the court. "The district court found that Randle could have backed up and driven away from the encounter without running over the officer because the officer was at Randle's driver's side window and the officer's vehicle was two car lengths behind Randle's."
> *
> "By approaching Randle's vehicle in the parking lot and tapping on the window, the officer did not restrict Randle's liberty to ignore the officer's presence and go about his business," Melanson wrote. "We conclude that, when the officer parked behind Randle's vehicle, left the patrol car's headlights on, approached Randle's vehicle and knocked on the window, such conduct would not have communicated to a reasonable person that he or she was not at liberty to ignore the officer's presence and go about his or her business*."

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> And people fear private security.   Government murder is so much more legitimate. /sarcasm


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

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Sorry to say this, but all I am seeing here is mass hysteria. The officer has been declared guilty until proven innocent. Let us discuss the facts and a few questions.
> 
> *FACTS*
> 
> 1. Patricia Cook *DISOBEYED* a *DIRECT* order from a police officer.
> 
> 2. Kris Buchele says that the vehicle was already in motion when Cook was rolling up the window and *BEFORE* the officer shot her. She was told to stop *BEFORE* she was shot.
> 
> 3. *AFTER* being shot at, she continued driving away.
> ...


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

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

----------


## RiseAgainst

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


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

----------


## Lethalmiko

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*SOURCE: 
*http://supreme.justia.com/cases/fede...71/1/case.htmlhttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...vol=471&page=1

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace ya'll.

----------


## JK/SEA

here...read this....

my home town,

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/201...WS01/706309796

----------


## Anti Federalist

> *EXTRA COMMENTS*
> Sorry to say this, but the reaction I have gotten on this forum several times proves that most of you in here are not true libertatians. Many of you seem to be more of conspiracy theorists living in a dream world and you behave exactly like people in a cult, never accepting dissenting views. There is too much dishonesty, hypocrisy and self-contradictions on these forums. For people that claim to follow Ron Paul and his teachings, many of you are so far away from his essential philosophy and constitutionalism.
> 
> You judge the police officer as guilty before hearing all the facts which is not a constitutional position nor philosophically sound. Many of you engage in _ad hominem_ and strawman attacks, endlessly speculate about my motives and call me a troll, something greater minds like Dr Paul would never do. You try to stifle honest debate but see no contradiction with the principle of free thought and free speech (of course within the rules of the forum). Many have this elitist attitude whereby they think they rule this forum because they have been here since 2007 and have thousands of contributions. They speak condescendingly towards "newbies" like me as if only they have superior knowledge and wisdom, and yet they spout endless fallacies that reveal minds not schooled in the process of logical thinking.
> 
> Not all is bad of course. There are some level-headed people here that I can have a respectful rational discussion, even when we disagree. I salute such people all and I hope to see more of you. Otherwise, no hard feelings guys. *As much as hypocrisy and dishonesty really tick me off, I have learned to be patient.*
> 
> Peace ya'll.


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

----------


## JK/SEA

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

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

----------


## Anti Federalist

You, or somebody close to you.

+rep




> and so we come full circle, and the best advice can be found on this forum:
> 
>  DO NOT CALL THE COPS FOR ANYTHING. Any contact with these gangsters can get you hurt...or killed.

----------


## AFPVet

> .50 BMG maybe.
> 
> I remember a few years back the fellow that owns the woods to the right of me, was out shooting some Tannnerite.
> 
> Crack, crack, *crackBOOOOOM*.
> 
> I had to get me some of that.


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

----------


## mikeforliberty

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


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

----------


## heavenlyboy34

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


this^^ qft and +rep

Rev9

----------


## RickyJ

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

----------


## Jonathanm

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

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

----------


## Lethalmiko

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


Presumption of innocence applies to a person accused of something and therefore cannot apply to Patricia Cook. 




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


Another strawman. Obviously the cardinal issue is that she drove away to escape, an action that is not mere disobedience. A person told to stand up by a cop who disobeys would not justfy being shot.




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


Because they are following the current law. Killing in and of itself is not wrong.




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


I think they are wrong because it makes law enforcement difficult.

*PaulConventionWV*

_1. No, the police officer has to have a reason to suspect the person in question of a crime. 
2. The officer must have evidence that a crime is about to take place. He can't just assume or suspect something._

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

_3.Because he has no reason to lie. Even if he did, his testimony would be just as good as the cop's._

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

_4. He says one hand was on the door handle and the other was on the gun and that the officer's hand never went through the window. The police officer never had the right to put his hand in the vehicle anyway. Also, it is suspect that he couldn't get his hand out of the window when everyone knows window's don't go up that fast._

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

_5. It proves he was lying, and that he was never in danger for his life._

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

_6. Yes, that's the whole point. If his blue lights are not on, then it is simply a casual confrontation and not an arrest or detainment so he doesn't have the right to force the person to do anything._

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

_7. That question is irrelevant. It doesn't justify deadly force. Citizens can't be suspected of a crime simply because they didn't want to talk to the police. That would be a massive invasion of privacy and human rights._ 

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

_8. Maybe the next five shots were the deadly ones. Did you read it? Also, it is only natural for a car that is in drive to keep moving if the driver is suddenly killed._

Already commented before.

_9. Under the law, yes. He was never justified to use force of any kind._

Which law?

_10. This story and the hundreds of others like it give me all the information I need to know, not to mention the principled stance against having state police force._

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

_11. He should have walked away and went about his own business._

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




> here...read this....


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

----------


## Travlyr

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


Yes, there is a logical reason. People have been effectively indoctrinated by government schools, media, and hollywood. The majority do not understand the difference between a right and a privilege. They have never read the constitution. They believe that the constitution is an outdated document that should be abandoned. They have very poor or no understanding of the difference between sound money and unsound currency. Whoever controls the money supply controls the people. The Khazars control the money supply. In fact, police officers are not allowed special circumstances. They are subject to grand jury investigation just like everybody else. The problem is getting 25 people together to form the grand jury. Common Law Grand Jury Rules

----------


## Travlyr

> Because they are following the current law.


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




> Killing in and of itself is not wrong.


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




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

----------


## Lethalmiko

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


I never said I agree with the law. I was only answering your question about _why_ an officer could possibly arrest a hemp grower.




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


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

Please tone down the strawman tactics.

----------


## Travlyr

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


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

----------


## Lethalmiko

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


*etc.*

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> And people fear private security.  Government murder is so much more legitimate. /sarcasm





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


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




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


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




> this^^ qft and +rep
> 
> Rev9


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> *etc.*


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

----------


## PaulConventionWV

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


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




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


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




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


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




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


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




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


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




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


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




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


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




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


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




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


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




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


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




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


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




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


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




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


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




> But why do you believe Buchele?


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




> Nonsense. What if she had a gun?


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




> Addressed above.


Refuted.




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


Irrelevant.




> Explained above.


Refuted.




> Based on what? Your imagination?


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




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


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




> Disproved above.


Refuted.

----------


## pcosmar

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


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

The *People* are supposed to be the only law ENFORCEMENT.

----------


## Danke

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

----------


## Travlyr

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


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

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> An elected Sheriff is NOT the same as police.. Not in any way, shape or form.
> 
> The *People* are supposed to be the only law ENFORCEMENT.


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

----------


## GunnyFreedom

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


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

----------


## Travlyr

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


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

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I tend to agree.  It seems to me that privatized police are more liable to serve the interests of the corporate entities that fund their budgets than the people who happen to live in their area of operations.  Thus you come into the danger of antiwar activists being assassinated by the Northrop-Grumman police forces because they endanger the interests of Northrop-Grumman.
> 
> 
> 
> No, a non-sequitur is a technical term in formal logic, and Paul is correct.  "A is bad, therefore B is good" is a non-sequitur.  It simply doesn't follow from the premise that "A is bad" that "B is good."  A and B are entirely different terms, and bad and good are entirely different terms.  No logical connection can be made from the premise to the conclusion, therefore it is a non-sequitur.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a pretty heavy assumption you are making, one which is called into doubt by existing real-world similes.  Blackwater/XE is a private military contractor, therefore if the argument followed that private is necessarily better than public, we would rather have Blackwater/XE than the US Army.  However in practice, the US Army both behaved better AND accomplished more in the illegitimate Iraq war than did Blackwater.
> ...


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

BTW, +rep

----------


## GunnyFreedom

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


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

----------


## PaulConventionWV

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

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

Just a thought.

----------


## azxd

> Wow.
> 
> We clearly live in different universes.  In my universe, a government that obeys the Constitution is not 'anarchist.'  In my universe, police are not _supposed to be_ authorized to randomly gun down anybody that they don't know whether they are armed or not.  In my universe, every single American, including the Police, are supposed to be under the same law, and not different laws for different people.  "Everybody equal under the law" is the basis for a "Republican form of government" per US Constitution Article 4 Section 4.
> 
> Your acceptance and even defense of this blatant abrogation of our Constitutional form of government frankly frightens me.


It shows me how unquestioning some can be toward what they view as authority.

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

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

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

----------


## azxd

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


LOL
As hard as this might be for you, I want you to imagine that she was a soccer mom who had never committed a crime.

*Why are you making excuses for this officer ?*

----------


## azxd

> I would rather a hundred guilty go free, than one innocent go to jail.
> 
> Or in this case, be gunned down in the street for "contempt of cop".


As would I !!!

----------


## azxd

> Police don't get to decide who is and is not a hard core criminal, that's why we have a judicial system and judicial warrants.  There are already rigid laws and rules for probable cause which you are simply ignoring.  The dead body in the trunk thing is something you are inventing whole-cloth in an attempt to justify this murder.  No weapon was found or seen on the victim.  You don't get to just make stuff up and then kill people for it, and neither do the police.
> 
> My assessment stands.  If you can invent dead bodies and invisible weapons and nonexistent threats as an excuse to kill a sunday school teacher minding her own business, then any number of things can be 'invented' to simply assassinate political opponents and claim they had an invisible gun and a fictitious body in the trunk and suddenly it's all perfectly OK.
> 
> What you are saying here sir, it's insane.  Americans are not created to cower in fear and submission to police and government authorities.  That's some new creation that has no place in the American tradition. You have been brainwashed by the security state, and that blind acceptance of the degradation of what makes America America is why our country is in so much trouble today.
> 
> I hope and pray that you will awaken from your slumber and help us reclaim the American way of life, as that is the only path to the peace and the prosperity we once knew.  As things stand, we are on the verge of a tyrannical police state, and you are acting it's patsy.
> 
> Government exists only to secure the blessings of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (often described as 'property'), and when any form of government becomes damaging to those ends it is the duty of the people to alter or abolish it.

----------


## Czolgosz

> 



Not sure that pr0n is allowed on RPF.

----------


## azxd

> Not sure that pr0n is allowed on RPF.


Pr0n ?

----------


## MRK

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

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

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

----------


## heavenlyboy34

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


Since Blackwater/XE was more of a GSE/fascist org, I don't think it's fair to use that in an argument against private security in general. (they got their money regardless of how badly they operated) Some good points though.

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

----------


## Anti Federalist

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


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

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

Done.

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

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

----------


## Danke

> Well, now with the new implanted chips that can dispense drugs, I can see no need for a missile strike at all.
> 
> Somebody steps out of line, just press the cyanide dispenser.
> 
> Done.
> 
> All you gotta do at that point is collect the body for processing at the Soylent Green plant.
> 
> (I'm only half kidding here. I really do weep for the future.)


Poison contaminates body for Soylent Green.

Better:

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Poison contaminates body for Soylent Green.
> 
> Better:


I see the link, that is not displaying.

"Scanners" head explosion FTW

----------


## azxd

> Well, now with the new implanted chips that can dispense drugs, I can see no need for a missile strike at all.
> 
> Somebody steps out of line, just press the cyanide dispenser.
> 
> Done.
> 
> All you gotta do at that point is collect the body for processing at the Soylent Green plant.
> 
> (I'm only half kidding here. I really do weep for the future.)


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

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

----------


## Danke

> Reading your words makes me wish I had not registered, and then stayed away for so looooooong.
> 
> *Someone tell me where the REP button is ... AF deserves a bit more !!!*


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

----------


## AGRP

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


This.  It's Monk Time.

Look at the height of a typical wrangler:



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

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

----------


## Lethalmiko

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

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

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

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

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




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


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

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

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

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

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

-----

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

----------


## MelissaWV

I was promised a short story.

----------


## Lethalmiko

> I was promised a short story.


The story ends in the first paragraph

----------


## azxd

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


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

----------


## phill4paul

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


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

----------


## azxd

> This.  It's Monk Time.
> 
> Look at the height of a typical wrangler:
> 
> 
> 
> You are going to be lifted into the air if someone rolls up the window on your arm or at least incapable of doing what he did. The cop would have been married to the jeep as it was moving, thus justified to shoot because his life would have been in danger.  
> 
> Conclusion: He was left behind as she was driving away.   His arm was in no way caught by the window for any justifiable time that warranted his choice to kill her.


Murder as a LE tactic does not need to be explained ... It will be dismissed as appropriate due to the circumstances.

----------


## azxd

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


Ahh,
 The things you can learn after a long hiatus 

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

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Let me tell you guys a short story. Some years ago, I had a discussion with some people over the existence of God. One guy gave what he considered irrefutable proof that God exists. I then pointed out fatal flaws in his "proof", upon which he went into a protracted diatribe denouncing me for being a fool for not believing in God and quoting zillions of Biblical passages. I waited for him to finish and then asked him a simple question. "At which point did I say anything about my position on the existence of God?" Needless to say, he looked rather embarrassed and quickly changed the subject.
> 
> The moral of the story is that ascribing to someone something they never said or drawing unsupported conclusions shows either dishonesty or poor comprehension. A strawman. It seems this carries the lion's share when it comes to fallacies by many of you. _Argumentum ad hominem_ follows in close second. Third is failing to focus on the core issues and failing to keep in mind the full context of the discussion. Getting to the matter at hand:
> 
> 1. Can any of you quote any statement I made that shows I am defending the officer or sympathizing with his action? If I give examples of possible explanations that may exonerate the officer, how does that prove I am taking his side? If I question the single eye-witness testimony, how does it follow logically that I believe the officer instead and think Buchele is lying?  [Strawman]
> 
> 2. How did I become a Statist or an unquestioning supporter of a tyrannical police state? Heck, why don't you just cut to the chase and call me a Communist? [_Argumentum ad hominem_]
> 
> 3. This is *NOT*, I repeat *NOT* a situation where a cop just randomly went after Patricia Cook. *He was responding to a tip-off from the public*. Is the huge significance of this cardinal fact impossible for you guys to comprehend? An officer acting on a tip-off has _reasonable suspicion_, especially when the subject then tries to escape from the scene of a possible crime scene, similar to the _Tennessee V. Garner_ case where the policeman arriving at the scene (after a tip off) saw the boy running away and shot him after he disobeyed the order to halt. In my view, the officer in that specific kind of situation should have the leeway to investigate and prevent any potential suspects from escaping until either satisfied that all is well or the crime (or potential crime) is stopped. [Focus/Context]
> ...


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

----------


## phill4paul

CONCLUSION:



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

----------


## Anti Federalist

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


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




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


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




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


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




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


Maybe he is, maybe he isn't.

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




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


No its not.

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

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I was promised a short story.


LOL

----------


## aGameOfThrones

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


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

....

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


**********

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

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

Before an officer can stop and frisk a citizen, she must have "reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person seized is engaged in criminal activity." Reid v. Georgia, 448 U.S. 438, 440 (1980). We recently warned against the Governments proffering "whatever facts are present, no matter how inno- cent, as indicia of suspicious activity" and noted that we were "deeply troubled by the way in which the Government attempts to spin . . . mundane acts into a web of deception." United States v. Foster, 634 F.3d 243, 248 (4th Cir. 2011). This concern is only heightened when the "mundane acts" emerge from the refusal to consent to a voluntary search. If the important limitations on the "stop and frisk" regime crafted by Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), are not to become dead letters, refusing to consent to a search cannot itself justify a nonconsensual search.

("[D]uring [initially consensual] police-citizen encounters, an officer is not entitled, without additional justi- fication, to conduct a protective search. To conduct such a protective search, an officer must first have reasonable suspi- cion supported by articulable facts that criminal activity may be afoot."); see also Terry, 392 U.S. at 32-33 (Harlan, J., con- curring) ("[I]f the frisk is justified in order to protect the offi- cer during an encounter with a citizen, the officer must first have constitutional grounds to insist on an encounter, to make a forcible stop. . . . If and when a policeman has a right . . . to disarm such a person for his own protection, he must first have a right not to avoid him but to be in his presence. That right must be more than the liberty . . . to address questions to other persons, for ordinarily the person addressed has an equal right to ignore his interrogator and walk away; he cer- tainly need not submit to a frisk for the questioners protec- tion.") (emphasis added).

*And about being in a church's parking lot while sitting inside your car...*

"An individuals presence in an area of expected criminal(*Religious*(ha!))activity, standing alone, is not enough to support a reasonable, particularized suspicion that the person is committing a crime." Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 124 (2000); see Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 52 (1979).*

*But*...

To hold otherwise would be to authorize general searches of persons on the street not unlike those conducted of old by the crown against the colonists. Allowing officers to stop and frisk any individuals in the neighborhood after even the most generic of anonymous tips would be tantamount to permitting a regime of general searches of virtually any individual residing in or found in high-crime neighborhoods, where "complaints" of "random gunfire" in the night are all too "usual[ ]." James Otis famously decried general searches as "instruments of slavery . . . and villainy," which "place[ ] the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer," warning against abuses by "[e]very man prompted by revenge, ill humor, or wantonness." Timothy Lynch, In Defense of the Exclusionary Rule, 23 Harv. J. L. & Pub. P. 711, 722 (2000) (quoting James Otis, Speech on the Writs of Assistance (1761)). The Fourth Amendment, and the courts' Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, is aimed at this evil. Without reasonable particularized suspicion of wrongdoing, such searches and seizures offend the Constitution.

----------


## mikeforliberty

> Let me tell you guys a short story. Some years ago, I had a discussion with some people over the existence of God. One guy gave what he considered irrefutable proof that God exists. I then pointed out fatal flaws in his "proof", upon which he went into a protracted diatribe denouncing me for being a fool for not believing in God and quoting zillions of Biblical passages. I waited for him to finish and then asked him a simple question. "At which point did I say anything about my position on the existence of God?" Needless to say, he looked rather embarrassed and quickly changed the subject.
> 
> The moral of the story is that ascribing to someone something they never said or drawing unsupported conclusions shows either dishonesty or poor comprehension. A strawman. It seems this carries the lion's share when it comes to fallacies by many of you. _Argumentum ad hominem_ follows in close second. Third is failing to focus on the core issues and failing to keep in mind the full context of the discussion. Getting to the matter at hand:
> 
> 1. Can any of you quote any statement I made that shows I am defending the officer or sympathizing with his action? If I give examples of possible explanations that may exonerate the officer, how does that prove I am taking his side? If I question the single eye-witness testimony, how does it follow logically that I believe the officer instead and think Buchele is lying?  [Strawman]
> 
> 2. How did I become a Statist or an unquestioning supporter of a tyrannical police state? Heck, why don't you just cut to the chase and call me a Communist? [_Argumentum ad hominem_]
> 
> 3. This is *NOT*, I repeat *NOT* a situation where a cop just randomly went after Patricia Cook. *He was responding to a tip-off from the public*. Is the huge significance of this cardinal fact impossible for you guys to comprehend? An officer acting on a tip-off has _reasonable suspicion_, especially when the subject then tries to escape from the scene of a possible crime scene, similar to the _Tennessee V. Garner_ case where the policeman arriving at the scene (after a tip off) saw the boy running away and shot him after he disobeyed the order to halt. In my view, the officer in that specific kind of situation should have the leeway to investigate and prevent any potential suspects from escaping until either satisfied that all is well or the crime (or potential crime) is stopped. [Focus/Context]
> ...


Are you still here *yawn*

You don't kill people who aren't trying to kill you... what is really so hard to understand about this?

----------


## Lethalmiko

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


This is just BS.

By saying "You think you're smart", you are engaging in _argumentum ad hominem_. Even if I think I am smart, so what? Does pointing that out mean you have disproved my arguments? Do you think it is a "smart" thing to attack someone personally in an effort to discredit anything they say?

If you knew anything about the constitution, you would know that even when _prima facie_ a person appears guilty, you cannot declare them guilty until you go through all the established facts. The constitution and the Supreme Court's ruling in the _Tennessee V. Garner_ case (and others) give some leeway to the police in cases of "reasonable suspicion" or "probable cause". These can only be determined by examining the officer's detailed explanation (under cross-examination) about why he shot her. He needs to be asked about alternative actions he could have taken and why he did not use them. We still have not even determined whether it is true or false that his hand was caught in the window. By rejecting that explanation before hearing all the details, you are contradicting the very constitution you are pretending to follow. This is evidenced in your statement "...all the *facts*, no matter whose story is true, point to the officer being in the wrong." One of the so-called "facts" is Buchele's testimony which has not yet been put under cross-examination.

So either you are being dishonest or you do not understand what presumption of innocence means. Take your pick.

----------


## Lethalmiko

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


What about _Terry v. Ohio_?




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


Previous cases are just a guide. There can be one crucial factor or unique combination of factors that changes the final judgement to go against earlier ones. You are still stuck on things that were established _after the fact_ but were not self-evident during the situation. I don't know what I have to say to get you to keep that context in mind. I even earlier quoted Judge O'Connor: "The clarity of hindsight cannot provide the standard for judging the reasonableness of police decisions made in *uncertain* and often dangerous circumstances."




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


Not sure what you mean here.




> Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. His witness testimony is as credible as anybody else's, including a cop.


This is yet to be determined.




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


Having "a pretty good idea" is no substitute for proving *beyond reasonable doubt*. Do you only follow the constitution when it suits you?

----------


## invisible

Damn.  Noticing that this thread seemed to have jumped in size by about 10 pages since last checking it yesterday, I was thinking that perhaps there was some new development in this case.  Instead, I end up wading through 10 pages of trolling by yet another police apologist.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> This is just BS.
> 
> By saying "You think you're smart", you are engaging in _argumentum ad hominem_. Even if I think I am smart, so what? Does pointing that out mean you have disproved my arguments? Do you think it is a "smart" thing to attack someone personally in an effort to discredit anything they say?
> 
> If you knew anything about the constitution, you would know that even when _prima facie_ a person appears guilty, you cannot declare them guilty until you go through all the established facts. The constitution and the Supreme Court's ruling in the _Tennessee V. Garner_ case (and others) give some leeway to the police in cases of "reasonable suspicion" or "probable cause". These can only be determined by examining the officer's detailed explanation (under cross-examination) about why he shot her. He needs to be asked about alternative actions he could have taken and why he did not use them. We still have not even determined whether it is true or false that his hand was caught in the window. By rejecting that explanation before hearing all the details, you are contradicting the very constitution you are pretending to follow. This is evidenced in your statement "...all the *facts*, no matter whose story is true, point to the officer being in the wrong." One of the so-called "facts" is Buchele's testimony which has not yet been put under cross-examination.
> 
> So either you are being dishonest or you do not understand what presumption of innocence means. Take your pick.


I have went through all the facts I need to know.  Based on the *officer's own testimony,* he was still in the wrong.  Regardless, it is plainly obvious that he had no authority or right to kill that woman.  

Take into account the window thing the cop mentioned.  Not only do windows not close that fast, but even if it was 90% closed, cops NEVER stick their hands in a window that is almost closed because they KNOW that's a major safety hazard.  That's not proper procedure, and it's not Constitutional to stick his hand in her car in the first place.  

Yeah, and I know what an ad hominem attack and all that is, so you can give the lecturing a rest.  You and I both know the cop was in the wrong.

The thing is, a woman died at the hands of a cop for obviously trite reasons, and you can't understand what the fuss is about?  Give me a break.

----------


## azxd

> This is just BS.
> 
> By saying "You think you're smart", you are engaging in _argumentum ad hominem_. Even if I think I am smart, so what? Does pointing that out mean you have disproved my arguments? Do you think it is a "smart" thing to attack someone personally in an effort to discredit anything they say?
> 
> If you knew anything about the constitution, you would know that even when _prima facie_ a person appears guilty, *you cannot declare them guilty until you go through all the established facts.* The constitution and the Supreme Court's ruling in the _Tennessee V. Garner_ case (and others) give some leeway to the police in cases of "reasonable suspicion" or "probable cause". These can only be determined by examining the officer's detailed explanation (under cross-examination) about why he shot her. He needs to be asked about alternative actions he could have taken and why he did not use them. We still have not even determined whether it is true or false that his hand was caught in the window. By rejecting that explanation before hearing all the details, you are contradicting the very constitution you are pretending to follow. This is evidenced in your statement "...all the *facts*, no matter whose story is true, point to the officer being in the wrong." One of the so-called "facts" is Buchele's testimony which has not yet been put under cross-examination.
> 
> So either *you are being dishonest or you do not understand what presumption of innocence means*. Take your pick.


The LEO didn't, but keep at it ... I find your desire to defend what you do not know, but hypothesize about, very entertaining.

The strawmen in the trunk defense was very good.
Now how about expanding your perspective and making the assumption that the woman was innocent.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> What about _Terry v. Ohio_?


Do you only cite precedent when it suits *you?*




> This is yet to be determined.


But if it was a cop making a statement, then we can assume his word is gold?




> Having "a pretty good idea" is no substitute for proving *beyond reasonable doubt*. Do you only follow the constitution when it suits you?


Ridiculous Straw Man is ridiculous.

How am not following the constitution?

I'm not trumping up false charges, like the cops do.

I'm not sweating a false confession out of this man, like the cops do.

I'm not saying this man should be stripped of his rights and, basically lynched, like government does.

By all means, he should be afforded every right to defense and privilege of due process, just like any other citizen should be, but many times, are not, denied by the very cops you are defending.

When does Patricia Cook get *her* day in court?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Are you still here *yawn*
> 
> You don't kill people who aren't trying to kill you... what is really so hard to understand about this?


Because there are some misguided folks out there that think government has the right to do just that, use deadly force whenever it feels like, to maintain "order".

Basically, to kill you for your own good.

----------


## Lethalmiko

> ....


*
aGameOfThrones*, yours is the most substantive response I have seen out of a sea of fallacies.

_United States v. Massenburg_

This case does not actually support your apparent argument that the officer had no justification for acting the way he did (even if it eventually turns out that way). There are _fundamental_ differences between the circumstances of this case and the Patricia Cook situation.

1. The four young men who were stopped were found *FOUR BLOCKS* away from the scene of the reported shooting. However, Cook was found at the scene described in the tip-off.

2. None of them was described in the anonymous tip-off to justify the officers reasonably suspecting them of any connection to the reported shooting. The vehicle Cook was in was identified by the officer as corresponding to the one described in the tip-off. So was the gender of the driver (female).

3. When the officers stopped the four guys to talk to them, they were cooperative. One of them showed his ID and two of them consented voluntarily to a body search, even though in this case, they could have reasonably refused like their fourth friend did. We do not yet know whether Cook was cooperative with the officer in his initial contact with her. The officer's statement is that while he was trying to get her ID, she refused to cooperate by closing the window and driving away.




> According to Virginia State Police, at approximately 10 a.m. Thursday, Culpeper Police got a call about a suspicious women sitting in a Jeep Wrangler in a church parking lot in the 300 block of North East Street. The officer started talking to Patricia A. Cook, 54, of Culpeper. State police say that for some reason, while the officer was trying to get her identification, Cook "suddenly closed her driver's side window trapping the officer's arm and started driving away dragging the officer alongside." Police say the officer repeatedly asked her to stop but the car kept going. Then shots were fired, and the Jeep wrecked in the 200 block of North East Street. Cook was shot by the officer and died at the scene.


4. Now, I want you to put her action in the context that the officer had _reasonable suspicion_ based on the fact that the details in the tip-off matched what he was seeing (the Jeep with a female driver). He was (with very high probability) talking to a suspect in a possible crime in progress (or one about to commence). Before he could even establish her identity, she tried to escape. This action, combined with all the antecedent events at that point would give any reasonable person justification to take a more aggressive stance towards her and _reasonable suspicion_ would begin leaning towards _probable cause_ because an innocent person in that circumstance who has been identified by the tip-off would reasonably be expected to cooperate. Instead, her actions were consistent with those of a criminal attempting to escape capture.

5. The case you have quoted is specific to searches and this is not what the officer was doing, according to his testimony. He was asking for her ID so whatever arguments and inferences can be made with respect to searching are therefore invalid.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> 4. Now, I want you to put her action in the context that the officer had _reasonable suspicion_ based on the fact that the details in the tip-off matched what he was seeing (the Jeep with a female driver). He was (with very high probability) talking to a suspect in a possible crime in progress (or one about to commence).


So now, with no evidence, no testimony to that fact, no weapon, no prior criminal record, acco0rding to you, this woman was committing, or about to commit, a crime, just for sitting in public parking lot in broad daylight?




> Before he could even establish her identity, she tried to escape. This action, combined with all the antecedent events at that point would give any reasonable person justification to take a more aggressive stance towards her and _reasonable suspicion_ would begin leaning towards _probable cause_ because an innocent person in that circumstance who has been identified by the tip-off would reasonably be expected to cooperate. Instead, her actions were consistent with those of a criminal attempting to escape capture.


Leaving the presence of a cop is not a crime.

Nor should it ever be taken as "reasonable suspicion".

She did *not* attempt to "escape" as she was not under arrest.

----------


## Lethalmiko

> Based on the *officer's own testimony,* he was still in the wrong.  Regardless, it is plainly obvious that he had no authority or right to kill that woman.


How did you arrive at this conclusion?




> Take into account the window thing the cop mentioned.  Not only do windows not close that fast, but even if it was 90% closed, cops NEVER stick their hands in a window that is almost closed because they KNOW that's a major safety hazard.  That's not proper procedure, and it's not Constitutional to stick his hand in her car in the first place.


All this is pure speculation based on nothing. I am not even sure about your last statement. If the officer looks at your ID for example, and then hands it back to you by partially putting his hand through your window, he has violated the constitution? Which clause, considering that cars did not exist in 1789?




> You and I both know the cop was in the wrong.


Speak for yourself. I don't know that for a fact at this time because I have no irrefutable evidence to base such a conclusion on, but since you do, please share.




> The thing is, a woman died at the hands of a cop for obviously trite reasons, and you can't understand what the fuss is about?  Give me a break.


Again, baseless speculation. I hope you and other like-minded people never ever serve as a juror in any trial.




> The LEO didn't, but keep at it ... I find your desire to defend what you do not know, but hypothesize about, very entertaining.


This person said "How much more do you need to know before making a judgment? How much more can you know?" Does this not sound like someone passing judgement based on half-baked facts?




> Now how about expanding your perspective and making the assumption that the woman was innocent.


When you arrive at a possible crime scene, it would be foolhardy to make any assumptions about anything or *anyone*. Not unless you want to wind up dead.




> Do you only cite precedent when it suits *you?*


Explain.




> But if it was a cop making a statement, then we can assume his word is gold?


Did I say that? Please quote.




> How am not following the constitution?


Okay, strictly speaking, there is nothing unconstitutional you have _done_ here. My only point was that declaring the officer guilty until proven innocent means you do not really believe in the principle of presumption of innocence and you therefore cannot make any pretensions about believing in the constitution.




> I'm not trumping up false charges, like the cops do.....


Relevance?




> When does Patricia Cook get *her* day in court?


Never. She has not been accused of anything.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Never. She has not been accused of anything.


And that should pretty much end the debate.

She wasn't then, she isn't now, she won't be in the future.

She didn't do anything wrong, other than committing the crime of "contempt of cop".

And it got her dead. 

No judge, no jury, no due process, no constitutional rights, no nothing, other than summary, street side, execution.

And in a free country, that should not happen, *ever.*

Period.

----------


## azxd

Still entertaining

----------


## Lethalmiko

> So now, with no evidence, no testimony to that fact, no weapon, no prior criminal record, acco0rding to you, this woman was committing, or about to commit, a crime, just for sitting in public parking lot in broad daylight?


This is just dishonest. How would it be possible for an officer to get evidence/testimony, know there was a weapon, or check someone's criminal record in such a situation? You are obfuscating the issue by using a red herring. Based on the tip-off, there was _reasonable suspicion_ that a crime MIGHT be in progress or was about to. Whether she was just sitting in her car or not is immaterial because you are committing the fallacy of judging the officer's actions in hindsight which Judge O'Connor clearly showed is illogical.




> Leaving the presence of a cop is not a crime. Nor should it ever be taken as "reasonable suspicion". She did *not* attempt to "escape" as she was not under arrest.


Again, you are dropping the context of the tip-off and how it gave the officer _reasonable suspicion_. When an officer has _reasonable suspicion_, an attempt to leave by an identified suspect in a possible crime (before anything is established) takes things in the direction of attempting to avoid getting caught, even if the specific crime has not yet been identified.

Can you categorically state whether a tip-off from the public with very specific details that are confirmed at the scene constitutes a basis for _reasonable suspicion_ or not?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

I'd really like to know: how in God's Holy Name is "driving away" justification in your mind for gunning someone down?  Do you not recognize NUMEROUS steps this cop could have taken to avoid taking this woman's life?  

What is wrong with you?

----------


## Lethalmiko

> And that should pretty much end the debate. She wasn't then, she isn't now, she won't be in the future. She didn't do anything wrong, other than committing the crime of "contempt of cop". And it got her dead. No judge, no jury, no due process, no constitutional rights, no nothing, other than summary, street side, execution. And in a free country, that should not happen, *ever.* Period.


This is ridiculous! 

This whole debate is about *whether the officer was justified in shooting her or not*. You say "No" based on nothing but speculation and emotional feelings. I say "I am not sure yet because not all the facts and evidence have been examined in detail" and I explain in detail other possibilities. I then make the point that the officer needs to have his day in court for this to happen and your response is to argue that Patricia Cook will not get her day in court. How is that even remotely related to this discussion? And then you go on to focus on this emotion-based red herring without addressing my points. You even boldly assert that this was an execution!

Unbelievable!

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

A private citizen can not legally shoot a fleeing person, no matter what the circumstances.  This is typically the same for police officers.  The cop probably lied about being dragged because he knew this.  The witness likely had no reason to lie.  Since the cop killed the woman (this is not in dispute), you have the word of the cop versus the word of the witness.  With the witness having no reason to lie, I find the witness more credible.

Good luck with your future lawyering, lethalmiko.

----------


## Lethalmiko

> I'd really like to know: how in God's Holy Name is "driving away" justification in your mind for gunning someone down?  Do you not recognize NUMEROUS steps this cop could have taken to avoid taking this woman's life?  
> 
> What is wrong with you?


You are also engaging in the same context-dropping fallacy I have pointed out. This was someone whose car and gender had been described in a phone call to the police who then sent someone to investigate a possible crime in progress. Only when you put everything into context can you see that the simple action of driving away takes on a new meaning. Imagine a criminal who has just robbed a bank gets into his car and is told to stop by an officer at the scene. If he is shot as he drives away, can you make the same useless argument that "how in God's Holy Name is 'driving away' justification in your mind for gunning someone down?" *Context of the action* is important.

I have no quarrel with the idea that he could have possibly taken other steps to stop her without necessarily shooting her. But even this argument depends on whether his life was threatened or not and that has not been established beyond doubt. You have implicitly decided to disregard his testimony, which a court of law does not have the luxury to do.

In my own view, the police should have the option *as a very last resort* to gun down a clearly identified suspect trying to get away in a situation where they have reasonable suspicion.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> A private citizen can not legally shoot a fleeing person, no matter what the circumstances.


I was about to post something along these lines.  Lethalmiko may not be defending the cop, per se, but he is going farther than he needs to in "holding judgment"; granted, the cop deserves his day in court, but as with anyone else, someone who has admittedly shot someone in the back (for all intents and purposes) is going to experience a fair amount of pre-judgment... and rightfully so.

Allowing Lethalmiko's contention that this cop harbored some suspicions about this women, the cop is not judge, juror, and executioner (tho' it seems many are coming to believe that's exactly what they are).

It's a sad day when a so-called Ron Paul supporter goes to bat on behalf of summary execution.

----------


## Travlyr

See.... this is why Andy only gave Barney one bullet and he had to keep it in his shirt pocket.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> You are also engaging in the same context-dropping fallacy I have pointed out. This was someone whose car and gender had been described in a phone call to the police who then sent someone to investigate a possible crime in progress. Only when you put everything into context can you see that the simple action of driving away takes on a new meaning. Imagine a criminal who has just robbed a bank gets into his car and is told to stop by an officer at the scene. If he is shot as he drives away, can you make the same useless argument that "how in God's Holy Name is 'driving away' justification in your mind for gunning someone down?" *Context of the action* is important.
> 
> I have no quarrel with the idea that he could have possibly taken other steps to stop her without necessarily shooting her. But even this argument depends on whether his life was threatened or not and that has not been established beyond doubt. You have implicitly decided to disregard his testimony, which a court of law does not have the luxury to do.
> 
> In my own view, the police should have the option *as a very last resort* to gun down a clearly identified suspect trying to get away in a situation where they have reasonable suspicion.


NO.  Stop with that.  Driving AWAY is BY DEFINITION not a threat to the cop's life.  It is not acceptable in a supposedly free society to gun someone down on "suspicion".  It would have been very simple to obtain her address and show up with a lawful warrant.

----------


## Lethalmiko

> A private citizen can not legally shoot a fleeing person, no matter what the circumstances.  This is typically the same for police officers.  The cop probably lied about being dragged because he knew this.  The witness likely had no reason to lie.  Since the cop killed the woman (this is not in dispute), you have the word of the cop versus the word of the witness.  With the witness having no reason to lie, I find the witness more credible.


A police officer who is bound by an oath to uphold law and order is NOT in the same class as a citizen with respect to shooting. For example, in a gunfire exchange with criminals, a citizen is only allowed to shoot in *self-defense* until the threat is eliminated. In the same situation, an officer is mandated to shoot not only in self-defense, but to ensure successful capture of the criminals because that is part of this job. He is authorized to pursue and if necessary shoot them until they are subdued if they attempt to run away. A civilian doing that would likely get into trouble with the law. You need to show me which case or law prohibits the police from shooting a "fleeing person, no matter what the circumstances". I doubt that you will, because it would mean police pursuing a criminal in a high speed car chase cannot shoot at his car.

And your deductions about the high likelihood of the cop lying are baseless. You do not even know anything about his character or that of the witness but you are confidently making presumptuous statements.




> Lethalmiko may not be defending the cop, per se, but he is going farther than he needs to in "holding judgment"; granted, the cop deserves his day in court, but as with anyone else, someone who has admittedly shot someone in the back (for all intents and purposes) is going to experience a fair amount of pre-judgment... and rightfully so. Allowing Lethalmiko's contention that this cop harbored some suspicions about this women, the cop is not judge, juror, and executioner (tho' it seems many are coming to believe that's exactly what they are). It's a sad day when a so-called Ron Paul supporter goes to bat on behalf of summary execution.


So in your view, a guy who is arrested for murder on the strength of the testimony of three witnesses in a case of *mistaken identity* deserves "a fair amount of pre-judgment... and rightfully so"? I find it more sad that people who claim to follow the constitution are ready to ignore one of its core principles based on emotions.

The only thing I am vehemently defending is the constitutional principle of _presumption of innocence_, regardless of how "slum-dunk" the evidence appears to be initially (I frankly don't give a toss what happens to that cop). In the same way, I will defend the right of everyone to free speech, even if I vehemently disagree with everything they say (this is why for example I disagree with stopping bigots from speaking in derogatory terms about gays, blacks or Jews). What most of you are saying leads me to conclude that many of you on RPF do not really understand what liberty and libertarianism means, though you love to pontificate about how the American sheeple are not ready for freedom because they do not understand it.




> NO.  Stop with that.  Driving AWAY is BY DEFINITION not a threat to the cop's life.  It is not acceptable in a supposedly free society to gun someone down on "suspicion".  It would have been very simple to obtain her address and show up with a lawful warrant.


Please apply your logic to my bank robber example. Secondly, you are also disregarding the testimony of the officer. Thirdly, what if the car she was in was stolen?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> In the same situation, an officer is mandated to shoot not only in self-defense, *but to ensure successful capture of the criminals because that is part of this job.*


Officers have no such obligation.  There have been several court decisions about this, and no court has held that cops are required to defend anyone.  AF has voluminous literature on the subject close at hand.  I have some, but it'll take some digging around on my hard drive to find it.

----------


## fisharmor

> The only thing I am vehemently defending is the constitutional principle of _presumption of innocence_, regardless of how "slum-dunk" the evidence appears to be initially (I frankly don't give a toss what happens to that cop).


I think you should do what AF suggested, and *apply that logic to Patricia Cook.*
But then again, you've already argued that cops are our social betters, playing by different rules than we do.

I honestly hope that one day you see how wrong that is.
I also honestly hope it's not because something like this happens to someone you care about.
Until then, you can expect a lot of knockback on this forum.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> So in your view, a guy who is arrested for murder on the strength of the testimony of three witnesses in a case of *mistaken identity* deserves "a fair amount of pre-judgment... and rightfully so"? I find it more sad that people who claim to follow the constitution are ready to ignore one of its core principles based on emotions.


What?  This cop admittedly shot a woman in the back.




> The only thing I am vehemently defending is the constitutional principle of _presumption of innocence_, regardless of how "slum-dunk" the evidence appears to be initially (I frankly don't give a toss what happens to that cop). In the same way, I will defend the right of everyone to free speech, even if I vehemently disagree with everything they say (this is why for example I disagree with stopping bigots from speaking in derogatory terms about gays, blacks or Jews). What most of you are saying leads me to conclude that many of you on RPF do not really understand what liberty and libertarianism means, though you love to pontificate about how the American sheeple are not ready for freedom because they do not understand it.


I have my issues with some of the folks around here, as well; but at the end of the day they're for the most part well-intended people who put a philosophy of individual liberty at the forefront of their interpretation of current events, etc.  They generally impart the spirit of folks who said things like, "give me liberty, or give me death", and "better 100 guilty men go free than one wrongly imprisoned."  

I have to admit, I'm woefully unfamiliar with an interpretation of libertarianism which advocates under any circumstances the shooting in the back of "suspects".  




> Please apply your logic to my bank robber example. Secondly, you are also disregarding the testimony of the officer. Thirdly, what if the car she was in was stolen?


I didn't see your bank robber example, but speaking from a philosophical perspective I would not advocate police shooting fleeing bank robbers, either.

If the car was stolen, the cop should have known it before he walked up to the car.

You are aware that we plebes are supposedly granted the presumption of innocence until our guilt is proven, aren't you?  Thus, it is consistent with the concept of libertarianism to not advocate for summary executions.

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> A police officer who is bound by an oath to uphold law and order is NOT in the same class as a citizen with respect to shooting. For example, in a gunfire exchange with criminals, a citizen is only allowed to shoot in self-defense until the threat is eliminated. In the same situation, an officer is mandated to shoot not only in self-defense, but to ensure successful capture of the criminals because that is part of this job. He is authorized to pursue and if necessary shoot them until they are subdued if they attempt to run away.



An officer is not "mandated" to shoot fleeing criminals, and certainly not fleeing suspects.  Most departments have policies against chasing a fleeing car, let alone shooting at fleeing cars.  Let's see you back up your assertions there with case law.  I'm not the one playing pretend lawyer in a hornet's nest.  





> And your deductions about the high likelihood of the cop lying are baseless. You do not even know anything about his character or that of the witness but you are confidently making presumptuous statements.


They're not baseless.  I just gave you the reasoning.  I also said nothing about "high likelihood."  I said "With the witness having no reason to lie, I find the witness more credible."  Deal with that if you like, but stop putting words in my mouth.

----------


## Lethalmiko

I have realized two important issues that have helped me understand the confusion I am seeing in here.

*1. PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE MISAPPLICATION*

Presumption of Innocence does *NOT* apply to law enforcement. It applies only in legal cases where there is an accuser and an accused (Hence the "_X Vs Y_" format of legal cases). The principle therefore does not apply to Patricia Cook but applies to the officer once he is accused of something. It is based on a more general principle in philosophy about positive and negative statements.

_Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit. ---_ "The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof."




> The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of fact, who is restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused is to be acquitted.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

*2. MALEVOLENT PREMISE*

The government has certainly become more tyrannical in nature over the decades and they often abuse law enforcement systems to sort out people. The system is certainly messed up a lot. My point however is that regardless of how messed up the system is, foundational principles can still apply. So most of you will have a negative knee-jerk reaction to any unfortunate deaths at the hands of the police, even if the officers in question were innocent in their actions.

----------


## Travlyr

Out of curiosity... how did you happen to come up with the name... Lethal miko?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

What's clear is that you will go to unusual lengths to undermine the principle of individual liberty.  

Most of us around here are nowhere near as comfortable as you are with defending the right of the state to kill.  Perhaps that is at odds with some obscure legal posturing; it is wholly consistent with the principles and values espoused by the namesake of this forum, however.

Cheers.

----------


## fisharmor

> *1. PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE MISAPPLICATION*
> 
> Presumption of Innocence does *NOT* apply to law enforcement.


Then what need have we of courts at all?  If officers of the law are free to assume guilt of whomever they are dealing with, what purpose do courts have?

----------


## Lethalmiko

> An officer is not "mandated" to shoot fleeing criminals, and certainly not fleeing suspects.  Most departments have policies against chasing a fleeing car, let alone shooting at fleeing cars.  Let's see you back up your assertions there with case law.  I'm not the one playing pretend lawyer in a hornet's nest.


First off, I use "mandated" in the "authorized" or "allowed" sense. Secondly, there is legal precedent for this and I gave it in an earlier post. Thirdly, it is justified philosophically for reasons I have already stated.

"This case requires us to determine the constitutionality of the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed suspected felon. We conclude that such force may not be used *unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others*."
Justice Byron R. White, _Tennessee v. Garner_, 471 U.S. 1, 105 S. Ct. 1694, 85 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1985)




> They're not baseless.  I just gave you the reasoning.  I also said nothing about "high likelihood."  I said "With the witness having no reason to lie, I find the witness more credible."  Deal with that if you like, but stop putting words in my mouth.


I am putting words in your mouth? Really? Didn't you say "The cop *probably* lied about being dragged because he knew this. The witness likely had no reason to lie." Need I remind you the meaning of "probably"? It means "with considerable certainty; without much doubt; easy to believe on the basis of available evidence". My contention is that you cannot state with any level of certainty anything about the validity of the two opposing testimonies. You have absolutely no way of knowing if Kris Buchele is a habitual liar, or loves to make things up for fun. You do not similarly know anything about the officer. Just because you cannot conceive a reason why Buchele would lie does not prove it is any less likely than the officer lying. If there was a second independent witness who said the same thing, then I would agree with you.

----------


## Lethalmiko

> Out of curiosity... how did you happen to come up with the name... Lethal miko?


It was a nick-name given to me by a friend who thought I was "lethal" with the ladies 




> What's clear is that you will go to unusual lengths to undermine the principle of individual liberty. Most of us around here are nowhere near as comfortable as you are with defending the right of the state to kill.  Perhaps that is at odds with some obscure legal posturing; it is wholly consistent with the principles and values espoused by the namesake of this forum, however.


If you are honest enough to read my posts with an objective mind, you would not conclude this.




> Then what need have we of courts at all?  If officers of the law are free to assume guilt of whomever they are dealing with, what purpose do courts have?


Officers are not allowed nor obliged to make *ANY* assumptions about the guilt or innocence of people they deal with during law enforcement. They simply follow established rules and apply laid down principles to the best of their ability. The rules they operate under take care of any issues to do with liberty. So there are rules against shooting anyone anyhow for example. There are rules about how evidence can legally be obtained that will be admissible in court. 

In short, you cannot apply a correct principle to the wrong situation.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> This is ridiculous! 
> 
> This whole debate is about *whether the officer was justified in shooting her or not*. You say "No" based on nothing but speculation and emotional feelings. I say "I am not sure yet because not all the facts and evidence have been examined in detail" and I explain in detail other possibilities. I then make the point that the officer needs to have his day in court for this to happen and your response is to argue that Patricia Cook will not get her day in court. How is that even remotely related to this discussion? And then you go on to focus on this emotion-based red herring without addressing my points. You even boldly assert that this was an execution!
> 
> Unbelievable!


If the state had any credible evidence, or even faked up some, they would have brought it forward instantly, to discredit Cook and put the whole issue to bed. 

They have not.

*Executed.*

----------


## Anti Federalist

> In my own view, the police should have the option *as a very last resort* to gun down a clearly identified suspect trying to get away in a situation where they have reasonable suspicion.


Suspected *OF WHAT?*

What crime was committed, or alleged to have been committed, prior to "contempt of cop"?

But this says a lot, it really does, about where you are coming from.

Answered all my questions.

You think that cops can gun down unarmed, un-arrested people in the back.

I do not, and there is *no* argument that you can make that will convince me otherwise.

----------


## Lethalmiko

> I have to admit, I'm woefully unfamiliar with an interpretation of libertarianism which advocates under any circumstances the shooting in the back of "suspects".


A very dishonest strawman.




> I didn't see your bank robber example, but speaking from a philosophical perspective I would not advocate police shooting fleeing bank robbers, either.


So what about the guy who goes on a shooting rampage on a school campus and flees? We should just let him take off and blow a few more brains out?




> If the car was stolen, the cop should have known it before he walked up to the car.


Even if he happened to be patrolling nearby and got to the scene in 30 seconds?




> You are aware that we plebes are supposedly granted the presumption of innocence until our guilt is proven, aren't you?  Thus, it is consistent with the concept of libertarianism to not advocate for summary executions.


In short, the officer is guilty until proven innocent for an action that he may be able to successfully explain?

----------


## Lethalmiko

> Suspected *OF WHAT?* What crime was committed, or alleged to have been committed, prior to "contempt of cop"?


A person that flees a possible crime scene does not need to be accused of anything first for the police to try and stop him.




> You think that cops can gun down unarmed, un-arrested people in the back. I do not, and there is *no* argument that you can make that will convince me otherwise.


And how would you know in the situation that they are not armed? And why are they fleeing in the first place?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> A police officer who is bound by an oath to uphold law and order is NOT in the same class as a citizen with respect to shooting. For example, in a gunfire exchange with criminals, a citizen is only allowed to shoot in *self-defense* until the threat is eliminated. In the same situation, an officer is mandated to shoot not only in self-defense, but to ensure successful capture of the criminals because that is part of this job. He is authorized to pursue and if necessary shoot them until they are subdued if they attempt to run away. A civilian doing that would likely get into trouble with the law. You need to show me which case or law prohibits the police from shooting a "fleeing person, no matter what the circumstances". I doubt that you will, because it would mean police pursuing a criminal in a high speed car chase cannot shoot at his car.


You ought to read your posts, instead of just throwing up clouds of legal jargon without knowing what it means or does.

*You* cited Tennessee v. Garner:



> In the United States this [use of deadly force by police] is governed by Tennessee v. Garner, which said that "deadly force...*may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."*


Just "fleeing" *IS NOT* justification for use of lethal force by itself.

There must be the reasonable suspicion that the fleeing person will also be an imminent and immediate threat to others.

Based on what has been presented so far, there is none.

*Executed.*

----------


## Lethalmiko

Another implication of allowing a suspect to flee the scene of a crime is that he may destroy evidence that ties him to the crime (blood stains, hairs from a victim, etc).

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> A very dishonest strawman.


It simply is not consistent with a philosophy of individual liberty to make the amount of room you are making for this.  Sorry.   




> So what about the guy who goes on a shooting rampage on a school campus and flees? We should just let him take off and blow a few more brains out?


I wouldn't see a problem if the perpetrator was in the act of killing other people; it is not in accordance with individual liberty to grant police the authority to shoot "suspects".  




> Even if he happened to be patrolling nearby and got to the scene in 30 seconds?


Don't cops have those computer thingys in their cars where they can look up things like that?  A quick run of the plates would put that info in his hands...




> In short, the officer is guilty until proven innocent for an action that he may be able to successfully explain?


Talk about dishonest strawmen.  I've already agreed that the cop is due his day in court.  Hopefully he stands trial!  But the fact remains that, as I said earlier, it looks bad for the guy, given that he shot her (for all intents and purposes) in the back.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Another implication of allowing a suspect to flee the scene of a crime is that he may destroy evidence that ties him to the crime (blood stains, hairs from a victim, etc).


Yes, it's definitely better to run the risk of blowing an innocent person away... :shock:

----------


## Anti Federalist

> And how would you know in the situation that they are not armed? And why are they fleeing in the first place?


Because they were not under arrest.

Leaving when you are not under arrest is not "fleeing".

It's a free person leaving the area.

You *are* having problem understanding that, aren't you?

----------


## jmdrake

> This is ridiculous! 
> 
> This whole debate is about *whether the officer was justified in shooting her or not*. You say "No" based on nothing but speculation and emotional feelings. I say "I am not sure yet because not all the facts and evidence have been examined in detail" and I explain in detail other possibilities. I then make the point that the officer needs to have his day in court for this to happen and your response is to argue that Patricia Cook will not get her day in court. How is that even remotely related to this discussion? And then you go on to focus on this emotion-based red herring without addressing my points. You even boldly assert that this was an execution!
> 
> Unbelievable!


This cop would agree with you.




And sorry.  I've read Terry v. Ohio.  It doesn't get you where you are trying to go.  It's about the exclusionary rule, not about the justification of deadly force.

In fact Tennessee v. Gardner *KILLS* your argument.  (No pun intended).  From that case:

_Held:

The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Pp. 7-22._

So even by statute an officer cannot given license to kill someone just because they are fleeing.  

Now here is the "leeway" your were trying to argue.

_It is not, however, unconstitutional on its face. Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where [471 U.S. 1, 12]   feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster._ 

Sorry, but the facts don't lend itself to your gross misinterpretation of the law.  There's been no mention of a weapon.  No mention of the woman trying to run over anyone with her car.  The "I was being drug down the street" seems to be B.S.  The law presumes all witnesses to be truthful and there seems to be no motive for the witness who said the officer's hand was not caught in the glass to lie.  The officer will probably not testify.  Now yes, he does have the presumption of innocence.  His defense team will need to try to tear apart a credible eyewitness and somehow paint the victim, an upper middle aged, middle class *white* woman, as someone who would try to drag a police officer to death rather than someone just irritated by a rude police officer and wishing to leave.  Sorry for emphasizing race, but it will play a factor against the officer.  If this was some young black male the officer would likely be able to find a juror who might believe his story.  The officer better hope for a D.A. willing to go against overwhelming public opinion and offer him something of a deal.  

But to argue that this officer somehow had a right to shoot this woman because she was leaving the seen *what wasn't even reported as a crime* is just laughable.  If any court ever buys such a cockamamie argument then this country has already gone to hell and we might as well be on the lookout for trucks to take us to FEMA camps.

If you are a defense attorney this is what you're up against:




To go into court arguing some kind of constitutional protection for the officer if the officer wasn't actually being drug down the street should count as legal malpractice.  Tell your stupid client to take any deal short of the death penalty and be happy.

----------


## AFPVet

> A private citizen can not legally shoot a fleeing person, no matter what the circumstances.  This is typically the same for police officers.  The cop probably lied about being dragged because he knew this.  The witness likely had no reason to lie.  Since the cop killed the woman (this is not in dispute), you have the word of the cop versus the word of the witness.  With the witness having no reason to lie, I find the witness more credible.
> 
> Good luck with your future lawyering, lethalmiko.


There is one situation where a citizen may shoot a fleeing felon—that is if the fleeing felon retains the means to continue to inflict serious harm or loss of life. One example of this would be where the perp is making a "tactical retreat".  

—Indiana Law Enforcement Academy.

----------


## Lethalmiko

> Just "fleeing" *IS NOT* justification for use of lethal force by itself. There must be the reasonable suspicion that the fleeing person will also be an imminent and immediate threat to others. Based on what has been presented so far, there is none.


I agree with your first and last statements. But bear in mind that fleeing in the *CONTEXT* of _reasonable suspicion_ changes the picture dramatically. Secondly, I was quoting this case to answer a specific question about legal precedent for shooting fleeing suspects.

I personally disagree with the ruling in the case and I side with the 3 judges who dissented. I believe nothing should be off the table if the police have identified themselves and the suspect has been told to stop and warned that he will be shot if he does not stop. There should preferably be warning shots fired as well and all other options exhausted before shooting him. In some circumstances time is so short that some of these steps are skipped.

Ultimately, technology will solve this problem. In future, we shall have Star Trek guns that you can set to just stun someone from a long distance without killing them. Then we shall all be happy and in agreement.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I believe nothing should be off the table if the police have identified themselves and the suspect has been told to stop and warned that he will be shot if he does not stop.


Yes, you've made yourself clear on this point already.  As I've said, this is not consistent with libertarianism.




> Ultimately, technology will solve this problem. In future, we shall have Star Trek guns that you can set to just stun someone from a long distance without killing them. Then we shall all be happy and in agreement.


Uh, no.  I think not.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Ultimately, technology will solve this problem. In future, we shall have Star Trek guns that you can set to just stun someone from a long distance without killing them. Then we shall all be happy and in agreement.


It already has.

The implanted at birth, drug dispensing microchip, will have a dose of tranquilizer or cyanide, either of which will be able to be triggered by LEOs remotely as the situation warrants.

If they zap you with the cyanide dose, all that remains at that point is to collect your body for processing at the Soylent Green plant.

Yay! Future!

----------


## pcosmar

> Officers are not allowed nor obliged to make *ANY* assumptions about the guilt or innocence of people they deal with during law enforcement. They simply follow established rules and apply laid down principles to the best of their ability. The rules they operate under take care of any issues to do with liberty.


That is so completely full of $#@! I do not know where to begin.

What bizarre fantasy world do you live in?

----------


## jmdrake

> I personally disagree with the ruling in the case and I side with the 3 judges who dissented. I believe nothing should be off the table if the police have identified themselves and the suspect has been told to stop and warned that he will be shot if he does not stop. There should preferably be warning shots fired as well and all other options exhausted before shooting him. In some circumstances time is so short that some of these steps are skipped.


Please bring this up if you are ever being nominated as a judge so that the rest of us who are sane can oppose you.  




> Ultimately, technology will solve this problem. In future, we shall have Star Trek guns that you can set to just stun someone from a long distance without killing them. Then we shall all be happy and in agreement.


You mean like Tasers?  Such technology is already here.  And sometimes police abuse that power too and kill people.  Sometimes the one that got away is just the one that got away.  The officer could have taken this woman's take, called out an APB and she would have been caught eventually.

----------


## jmdrake

> That is so completely full of $#@! I do not know where to begin.
> 
> What bizarre fantasy world do you live in?


You mean what FEMA region is he located in?  Sadly his "fantasy" world isn't too far removed from rapidly approaching reality.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> His defense team will need to try to tear apart a credible eyewitness and somehow paint the victim, an upper middle aged, middle class *white* woman, as someone who would try to drag a police officer to death rather than someone just irritated by a rude police officer and wishing to leave.  Sorry for emphasizing race, but it will play a factor against the officer.  If this was some young black male the officer would likely be able to find a juror who might believe his story.


Glaring truth is glaring.

----------


## TheTexan

> I believe nothing should be off the table if the police have identified themselves and the suspect has been told to stop and warned that he will be shot if he does not stop.


You've got to be kidding me.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> How did you arrive at this conclusion?


If the officer was sticking his hand through a 90% closed window and it got stuck in there, I doubt he was just handing her her ID or anything like that.  In fact, the ID thing never took place, so we can safely assume he was trying to stop her or grab her when he had no authorization to stop her from doing anything, nor did he have the right to search her.  This is all black and white in the Constitution, and any law professor will tell you he did not have the authorization to do it at that point.  The reason I said you think you're smart is that you can cite liberal supreme court precedents until you're blue in the face, but you don't know the first thing about how the 4th amendment is understood or should be understood, let alone what it plainly says.  The thing is, I took Constitutional law classes and I am well on my way to receiving my degree in political science.  Everyone I studied with, including the professor, agreed on the standards for reasonable suspicion and probable cause, and yet you don't even know what they mean.  If you did, you wouldn't use them like you do.  You also clearly don't understand the presumption of innocence because you fail to apply it to the victim in this case.  




> Speak for yourself. I don't know that for a fact at this time because I have no irrefutable evidence to base such a conclusion on, but since you do, please share.


I know what the cop testified and I know what the Constitution says about unreasonable searches and seizures.  It's as simple as that.




> Again, baseless speculation. I hope you and other like-minded people never ever serve as a juror in any trial.


Argumentum ad hominem.  Practice what you preach.




> This person said "How much more do you need to know before making a judgment? How much more can you know?" Does this not sound like someone passing judgement based on half-baked facts?


Talk about baseless claims and assumptions.  I don't think it sounds like anything except someone asking sincere questions.




> When you arrive at a possible crime scene, it would be foolhardy to make any assumptions about anything or *anyone*. Not unless you want to wind up dead.


Oh, so the presumption of innocence doesn't apply to mundane citizens, I see.




> Okay, strictly speaking, there is nothing unconstitutional you have _done_ here. My only point was that declaring the officer guilty until proven innocent means you do not really believe in the principle of presumption of innocence and you therefore cannot make any pretensions about believing in the constitution.


A woman died without committing a crime.  That's on him.  He has to explain himself.  He also has to explain his fishy testimony and the testimony of another eyewitness that contradicts his story.  We're not taking away the presumption of innocence.  That's pretty much just to insure that an innocent person doesn't go to jail, but we're not locking him up, we're just saying we know what happened and it ain't pretty.  Did you think OJ was innocent just because the court said so?  The presumption of innocence has its place, and it applies here, but that doesn't mean we can't have reasonable suspicion that the cop did something wrong.  Either way, considering the fact that a woman died without committing a crime should be enough for you to understand the outrage.  We see cases in which cops commit acts of violence for no reason all the time, and they always get away with it.  




> Never. She has not been accused of anything.


Like AF said, this says it all.  She died and yet she has not been accused of anything except for driving away from a scene where she was not obligated to be.  You act like non-cooperation is a cause for reasonable suspicion, but don't you see the catch 22 in that?  If gets searched, her liberties have been taken away, but if she tries to protect those liberties, she can be held under suspicion.  It's a paradox that you support that is not supported in the Constitution.  Again, I know this because I studied it.  You clearly have not.  You have to presume innocence even if the person isn't cooperating with the police because they have the right to.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I personally disagree with the ruling in the case and I side with the 3 judges who dissented. I believe nothing should be off the table if the police have identified themselves and the suspect has been told to stop and warned that he will be shot if he does not stop. There should preferably be warning shots fired as well and all other options exhausted before shooting him. In some circumstances time is so short that some of these steps are skipped.


Ok, and you believe it's ok if there's "not enough time" to exhaust all other options, it is appropriate to just shoot the guy in the interest of efficiency and time?




> Ultimately, technology will solve this problem. In future, we shall have Star Trek guns that you can set to just stun someone from a long distance without killing them. Then we shall all be happy and in agreement.


Technology can't solve this problem.  It is a problem with the police themselves and the policy, not the things they use or the technical stuff.  You're like someone who thinks guns kill people when only people can kill people.  I know that's not what you're saying, but it's the same principle.  I wouldn't be happy with being stunned without provocation either, so speak for yourself.  I will never be satisfied with having my liberties and freedoms eroded just because it's more convenient to be stunned rather than killed.  I don't support police abuse no matter how good the technology is.  It boggles the mind that you can't see why this is.

----------


## Travlyr

> I agree with your first and last statements. But bear in mind that fleeing in the *CONTEXT* of _reasonable suspicion_ changes the picture dramatically. Secondly, I was quoting this case to answer a specific question about legal precedent for shooting fleeing suspects.
> 
> I personally disagree with the ruling in the case and I side with the 3 judges who dissented. I believe nothing should be off the table if the police have identified themselves and the suspect has been told to stop and warned that he will be shot if he does not stop. There should preferably be warning shots fired as well and all other options exhausted before shooting him. In some circumstances time is so short that some of these steps are skipped.
> 
> Ultimately, technology will solve this problem. In future, we shall have Star Trek guns that you can set to just stun someone from a long distance without killing them. Then we shall all be happy and in agreement.


Just like the Gestapo. 

This is why Americans must NEVER give up their guns. The second amendment was a brilliant addition by the Anti-Federalists.

----------


## Gary4Liberty

has anyone heard any reports of someone killing a police officer and it was judged justifiable?  I dont think i have ever heard of that?  Is there even one story of a cop killing a person and going to jail for it?

----------


## pcosmar

> has anyone heard any reports of someone killing a police officer and it was judged justifiable?  I dont think i have ever heard of that?  Is there even one story of a cop killing a person and going to jail for it?


Rare.
And Cops that are convicted usually get light sentences.

----------


## azxd

> This is just dishonest. *How would it be possible for an officer to get evidence/testimony, know there was a weapon, or check someone's criminal record in such a situation?* You are obfuscating the issue by using a red herring. Based on the tip-off, there was _reasonable suspicion_ that a crime MIGHT be in progress or was about to. Whether she was just sitting in her car or not is immaterial because you are committing the fallacy of judging the officer's actions in hindsight which Judge O'Connor clearly showed is illogical.
> 
> 
> Again, you are dropping the context of the tip-off and how it gave the officer _reasonable suspicion_. When an officer has _reasonable suspicion_, an attempt to leave by an identified suspect in a possible crime (before anything is established) takes things in the direction of attempting to avoid getting caught, even if the specific crime has not yet been identified.
> 
> Can you categorically state whether a tip-off from the public with very specific details that are confirmed at the scene constitutes a basis for _reasonable suspicion_ or not?


I really hope there are not many with your perspective.

Basically you seem to hold the belief that if I call the cops on you, because you're parked in a parking lot, and the cops show up ... You've done something wrong.

Amazingly scary !!!

----------


## JK/SEA

> has anyone heard any reports of someone killing a police officer and it was judged justifiable?  I dont think i have ever heard of that?  Is there even one story of a cop killing a person and going to jail for it?


got close on this one.

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/201...WS01/706309796

----------


## azxd

> You are also engaging in the same context-dropping fallacy I have pointed out. This was someone whose car and gender had been described in a phone call to the police who then sent someone to investigate a possible crime in progress. Only when you put everything into context can you see that the simple action of driving away takes on a new meaning. *Imagine a criminal who has just robbed a bank gets into his car and is told to stop by an officer at the scene. If he is shot as he drives away, can you make the same useless argument that "how in God's Holy Name is 'driving away' justification in your mind for gunning someone down?" Context of the action* is important.
> 
> I have no quarrel with the idea that he could have possibly taken other steps to stop her without necessarily shooting her. But even this argument depends on whether his life was threatened or not and that has not been established beyond doubt. You have implicitly decided to disregard his testimony, which a court of law does not have the luxury to do.
> 
> In my own view, the police should have the option *as a very last resort* to gun down a clearly identified suspect trying to get away in a situation where they have reasonable suspicion.


I don't know whether to ask you to stop, or continue ... Your mentality to accuse others of red herrings is only equaled by your ability to toss strawmen around.

I still like the POTENTIAL body in the trunk excuse ... That is a classic in my book.

----------


## azxd

> I was about to post something along these lines.  Lethalmiko may not be defending the cop, per se, but he is going farther than he needs to in "holding judgment"; granted, the cop deserves his day in court, but as with anyone else, someone who has admittedly shot someone in the back (for all intents and purposes) is going to experience a fair amount of pre-judgment... and rightfully so.
> 
> Allowing Lethalmiko's contention that this cop harbored some suspicions about this women, the cop is not judge, juror, and executioner (tho' it seems many are coming to believe that's exactly what they are).
> 
> *It's a sad day when a so-called Ron Paul supporter goes to bat on behalf of summary execution*.


Bingo, and *I agree* !!!

----------


## azxd

> See.... this is why Andy only gave Barney one bullet and he had to keep it in his shirt pocket.


LOL ... Citizens Arrest.

----------


## Butchie

> I am putting words in your mouth? Really? Didn't you say "The cop *probably* lied about being dragged because he knew this. The witness likely had no reason to lie." Need I remind you the meaning of "probably"? It means "with considerable certainty; without much doubt; easy to believe on the basis of available evidence". My contention is that you cannot state with any level of certainty anything about the validity of the two opposing testimonies. You have absolutely no way of knowing if Kris Buchele is a habitual liar, or loves to make things up for fun. You do not similarly know anything about the officer. Just because you cannot conceive a reason why Buchele would lie does not prove it is any less likely than the officer lying. If there was a second independent witness who said the same thing, then I would agree with you.


Yaknow what Lethal I got into a similar argument on this board awhile back and it's a no win situation. Bottom line most of these guys just hate cops, I didn't read this story of this woman, know nothing about it so not going to jump into that, but you are right, whenever it's a cop story on this board the presumption of innocence goes right out the window.

The whole reason I left the DailyPaul was because everyday it was a cop bashing fest, came here and people seemed a little less "rage against the machine", but anymore it's getting just a bad.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> has anyone heard any reports of someone killing a police officer and it was judged justifiable?  I dont think i have ever heard of that?  Is there even one story of a cop killing a person and going to jail for it?


It does happen, just rarely in both cases.

The cop who executed Oscar Grant went to jail for a while.

And the survivors of the Branch Davidian church murders in Waco were all acquitted of killing federal agents.

The jurors ruled it was justified.

----------


## azxd

> Originally Posted by A Son of Liberty
> 
> 
> NO.  Stop with that.  Driving AWAY is BY DEFINITION not a threat to the cop's life.  It is not acceptable in a supposedly free society to gun someone down on "suspicion".  It would have been very simple to obtain her address and show up with a lawful warrant.
> 
> 
> Please apply your logic to my bank robber example. Secondly, you are also disregarding the testimony of the officer. Thirdly, what if the car she was in was stolen?


Why ?
There is no evidence that she was a bank robber ... Another strawman.

Just admit that you think it is perfectly acceptable for a cop to kill someone based on a call of suspicious activety, and be done with it ... Your excuses for such actions are a joke.

----------


## Travlyr

> LOL ... Citizens Arrest.


Indeed. "_Citizens Arrest... Citizens Arrest_."



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9efgLHgsBmM

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Yaknow what Lethal I got into a similar argument on this board awhile back and it's a no win situation. Bottom line most of these guys just hate cops, I didn't read this story of this woman, know nothing about it so not going to jump into that, but you are right, whenever it's a cop story on this board the presumption of innocence goes right out the window.


An average citizen is a a distinct disadvantage when confronted by a state enforcer.

The cop has the weight of the entire system behind him, the citizen is, as was demonstrated accurately in this thread, automatically assumed to be a lying criminal deviant if what they say contradicts the cop's word.

Thus the citizens are to defended aggressively.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Indeed. "_Citizens Arrest... Citizens Arrest_."


Try *that*, even when it is perfectly legal and just, and it will get a beat down in the street.

Not by the perp, by the "real" cops that will eventually show up.

----------


## pcosmar

> Bottom line most of these guys just hate cops,.


I believe you are wrong there. and as one of the "usual suspects" I will try to explain.

I hate the very concept of Police (not individuals who may be employed)
I hate Authoritarianism, as the polar opposite of Liberty.

I hate the very concept of State Enforcers. They are the Standing Army that the founders warned about.
And there is more evidence of this fact every day.

----------


## azxd

> If you are honest enough to read my posts with an objective mind, you would not conclude this.


That's how I entered this thread, and then I became scared that there are more people with your mentality than people who value freedom, and the proper application of law.

Seriously,
What makes you believe this officer did no wrong ?
What makes you believe that the woman's death was justified ?

Please don't give me another dead body in the trunk, bank robber, or any other unknown to justify your mentality toward this situation ... Just tell the truth, and leave the strawmen for another forum.

Truth be told, I thought I knew, but you've tossed enough excuse to justify death around, that I really don't know what you are using to justify this, except to say the officer deserves the benefit of the doubt, but the woman has no right to life

----------


## Kylie

> And that should pretty much end the debate.
> 
> She wasn't then, she isn't now, she won't be in the future.
> 
> She didn't do anything wrong, other than committing the crime of "contempt of cop".
> 
> And it got her dead. 
> 
> No judge, no jury, no due process, no constitutional rights, no nothing, other than summary, street side, execution.
> ...



Word.

----------


## azxd

> A very dishonest strawman.
> 
> 
> So what about the guy who goes on a shooting rampage on a school campus and flees? We should just let him take off and blow a few more brains out?
> 
> 
> Even if he happened to be patrolling nearby and got to the scene in 30 seconds?
> 
> 
> In short, the officer is guilty until proven innocent for an action that he may be able to successfully explain?


Perhaps when you are determined to be the suspect, who was not given chase, but instead confronted because of a phone call ... Perhaps then you will understand what presumption of innocence actually is.

If you don't survive, you can always blame yourself for promoting NON-Liberty.

----------


## azxd

> A person that flees a possible crime scene does not need to be accused of anything first for the police to try and stop him.
> 
> 
> And how would you know in the situation that they are not armed? And why are they fleeing in the first place?


This is only true if the suspect is fleeing the scene of a crime that was witnessed by the officer ... Another strawman failure !!!

----------


## azxd

> Another implication of allowing a suspect to flee the scene of a crime is that he may destroy evidence that ties him to the crime (blood stains, hairs from a victim, etc).


Strawman ... Please cite from the OP where it states the officer pursued this woman into the parking lot.

----------


## Butchie

> An average citizen is a a distinct disadvantage when confronted by a state enforcer.
> 
> The cop has the weight of the entire system behind him, the citizen is, as was demonstrated accurately in this thread, automatically assumed to be a lying criminal deviant if what they say contradicts the cop's word.
> 
> Thus the citizens are to defended aggressively.


If I believe in the presumption of innocence then I don't "automatically assume" anyone to be a "lying criminal deviant if what they say contradicts the cop's word." Just because I say I'm not going to judge the cop guilty doesn't mean I'm judging the citizen guilty either, I am not doing either one, I am merely remaining neutral until I've been in that courtroom, heard all the evidence/testimony, etc, then I will make a decision, I certainly am not going to find anyone guilty of murder based on a news article on some website that has been proven to be bias against cops.

For people who see so clearly the way stories can be twisted I find it very ironic that so many of you are so quick to pounce on someone when you weren't there, don't know the person, and have only an article written by the all to often biased media to go on.




> I believe you are wrong there. and as one of the "usual suspects" I will try to explain.
> 
> I hate the very concept of Police (not individuals who may be employed)
> I hate Authoritarianism, as the polar opposite of Liberty.
> 
> I hate the very concept of State Enforcers. They are the Standing Army that the founders warned about.
> And there is more evidence of this fact every day.


Well, you are honest about your position then atleast and I will agree you are not a hypocrite, I disagree with you, but atleast you are honest.

----------


## azxd

> Because they were not under arrest.
> 
> Leaving when you are not under arrest is not "fleeing".
> 
> It's a free person leaving the area.
> 
> You *are* having problem understanding that, aren't you?


AF,
You just need to look at this differently 

Getting pulled over for a busted taillight, receiving your ticket, then being told you can leave = Your word against their word.

But you're dead, so you get no word, nor day in court ... That's the mentality permeating this thread, and I hope someone can get this guy to think, because I feel most anything I write might be taken as a personal attack, rather than a though provoking jolt.

Best of luck with this one ... But I smell a topic troll.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> 4. Now, I want you to put her action in the context that the officer had _reasonable suspicion_ based on the fact that the details in the tip-off matched what he was seeing (the Jeep with a female driver). He was (with very high probability) talking to a suspect in a possible crime in progress (or one about to commence). Before he could even establish her identity, she tried to escape. This action, combined with all the antecedent events at that point would give any reasonable person justification to take a more aggressive stance towards her and _reasonable suspicion_ would begin leaning towards _probable cause_ because an innocent person in that circumstance who has been identified by the tip-off would reasonably be expected to cooperate. Instead, her actions were consistent with those of a criminal attempting to escape capture.


Sit tight because I am about to rain some truth down on you.

Lethalmiko, you do not know what reasonable suspicion means as it applies to the Constitution.  The same is true about the term probable cause.  This is clear because you demonstrate a lack of understanding of how these things have been applied and how the Supreme Court has held.  Reasonable suspicion doesn't just mean the officer can be suspicious and use it to justify anything.  There have to be concrete facts that cause the suspicion.  And no, reports don't count as facts.  That is just other people's suspicion which, as far as the officer knows, is not based on anything either.  The officer himself has to have facts on which to base his suspicion.  The only thing that he can Constitutionally do is walk up to her and talk to her casually.  He can't force her to stay and keep talking, and he can't search her or detain her.  The context of reasonable suspicion was set in Terry v. Ohio, in which the suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts."  The actual case was about two people whom a police officer watched for twenty minutes as they strolled back and forth in front of a jewelry store (?) without buying anything or going inside.  Instead, the two people would go to the corner and talk after they passed by the store and looked inside.  This case is nothing like what happened here, and it is clear under these guidelines taht reasonable suspicion does not apply here.  They can't be detained just from the fact that they are walking away.  That would completely nullify the whole standard of reasonable suspicion because that would mean the officer could detain them for no reason other than that they didn't want to be detained.  These are not concrete and specific facts.  You have demonstrated your complete ignorance of Constitutional standards such as reasonable suspicion.

It's pretty useless to say you can't detain someone without reasonable suspicion if they can't move without GIVING the officer reasonable suspicion.  If they can't move, they are effectively being detained anyway.

This is also the same case that declared the "stop and frisk" procedure Constitutional _only if there is reasonable suspicion and there are witnesses to attest to the facts surrounding this suspicion_.

After the pair in the case were frisked by the officer, a gun was found on them which gave him probable cause to believe they were about to rob the store and arrest them.  Searches and detainment can only happen with reasonable suspicion and usually not without the suspect's consent.  Arrests or potentially violent acts can only be made once there is probable cause.  It is clear under these facts, which any professor will tell you are correct, that no justification for what the officer did exists.

----------


## azxd

> Bottom line most of these guys just hate cops


Most likely a very poor assumption.

----------


## pcosmar

> Well, you are honest about your position then atleast and I will agree you are not a hypocrite, I disagree with you, but atleast you are honest.


It gets me in trouble all the time.. I blame my Mother.
It is not that I am an "anarchist" because I am not. I have posted this and it seems that few take the time to read and consider it,,
but it is the best I have found.

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

We need to take the law into our own hands,, where it belongs.

----------


## Czolgosz

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


Is this the extent of the evidence regarding the victim?

----------


## Travlyr

> Is this the extent of the evidence regarding the victim?


Yep. Suspicious Sunday School Teacher in the parking lot of the Church. See Something - Say Something. Kill Her!

----------


## sparebulb

> ............ I am merely remaining neutral until I've been in that courtroom, heard all the evidence/testimony, etc, then I will make a decision,.................


You know damn well that this cop will NEVER see the inside of a criminal court for his actions.

----------


## azxd

911 Operator: What is your emergency ?
Concerned Citizen: Yes, there is a guy reading the Constitution in his living room.
911 Operator: Thank You, I'll send someone out to investigate.

911 Operator: Dispatch, we have a CODE C alert, mobilize SWAT.

----------


## AFPVet

> Try *that*, even when it is perfectly legal and just, and it will get a beat down in the street.
> 
> Not by the perp, by the "real" cops that will eventually show up.


They like to be the only ones with the power. They will say they don't want people making citizens' arrests because they fear that the citizen might make procedural errors; however, the real reason is the fact that these guys don't want mundanes going around actually exercising their rightsincluding the right of arrest.

----------


## Butchie

> You know damn well that this cop will NEVER see the inside of a criminal court for his actions.


No I don't, and neither do you.

----------


## Travlyr

> No I don't, and neither do you.


I will publicly wager, as long as it is not illegal and doesn't justify getting me killed in my own home, $20 that that cop doesn't get any any fines or indictment. Real dollars.

----------


## sparebulb

> No I don't, and neither do you.


Yes, I do know.  Evidently, I overestimated your ability to apply the past history of similar events to the one of topic.

----------


## sparebulb

> Yaknow what Lethal I got into a similar argument on this board awhile back and it's a no win situation. Bottom line most of these guys just hate cops, I didn't read this story of this woman, know nothing about it so not going to jump into that, but you are right, whenever it's a cop story on this board the presumption of innocence goes right out the window.
> 
> The whole reason I left the DailyPaul was because everyday it was a cop bashing fest, came here and people seemed a little less "rage against the machine", but anymore it's getting just a bad.


I didn't catch this one.  I wish I would have read it before feeding the SPLC operative.

----------


## Czolgosz

So somebody calls the cops about a "suspicious" person, cop shows up, and a lady is ultimately shot dead by said cop - right?  

Some people here have built a 29+ page thread, cited Latin, used maxim and buzzwords de jeur to build some sort of foundation as to why this cop may not be in the wrong.  Is that correct?

If so.  Holy fcuk.

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> There is one situation where a citizen may shoot a fleeing felon—that is if the fleeing felon retains the means to continue to inflict serious harm or loss of life. One example of this would be where the perp is making a "tactical retreat".  
> 
> —Indiana Law Enforcement Academy.


Is a fleeing felon different from a fleeing suspect?  And does that mean that you just witnessed them committing a felony?  

I suspect LethalMiko is a law student or aspiring law student who is here for mental exercise.  He's getting plenty of it.  

I am quite interested in what you think here.  Any thoughts this lady was making a tactical retreat?  And what makes a tactical retreat?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> 911 Operator: What is your emergency ?
> Concerned Citizen: Yes, there is a guy reading the Constitution in his living room.
> 911 Operator: Thank You, I'll send someone out to investigate.
> 
> 911 Operator: Dispatch, we have a CODE C alert, mobilize SWAT.


Pretty close to what happened here.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I will publicly wager, as long as it is not illegal and doesn't justify getting me killed in my own home, $20 that that cop doesn't get any any fines or indictment. Real dollars.


I'll take a piece of that.

In fact, I'll up the ante.

Butchie, (or whomever else wants to get in on this) I will donate $100 to the Law Enforcement Memorial Fund ( http://www.nleomf.org/ ) if: 

This cop is ever convicted of any *criminal* charge, regardless of how minor or in what court, and does at *least* 1 day in prison. 

NOTE: *Civil* judgements against the cop or the town or the county *DO NOT COUNT*.

If he does not, you will donate $100 to The National Police Misconduct Statistics and Reporting Page. ( http://www.injusticeeverywhere.com/ )

I trust everybody on the forums will keep us both honest, as this will take a while.

----------


## Travlyr

> I trust everybody on the forums will keep us both honest, as this will take a while.


Even if it takes years. I am good for it ... and I trust AF is too. Let us know.

----------


## Czolgosz

> Pretty close to what happened here.


Violation of First amendment; life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (right to travel)
Kidnapping
Assault
Theft
etc. etc.

----------


## Danke

> Violation of First amendment; life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (right to travel)
> Kidnapping
> Assault
> Theft
> etc. etc.


I disagree.  She evidently registered (surrendered her title to that vehicle to the state).  It doesn't belong to her anymore. 

A freeman on the land does not do that.

See "Your Right to Travel."  \/

----------


## Czolgosz

> I disagree.  She evidently registered (surrendered her title to that vehicle to the state).  It doesn't belong to her anymore. 
> 
> A freeman on the land does not do that.
> 
> See "Your Right to Travel."  \/



Who is "she?"   ;-)

----------


## Danke

> Who is "she?"   ;-)


Exactly.  We know her strawman's name.

----------


## azxd

> Pretty close to what happened here.


LOL
I lost track of that video, long ago ... Thanks !!

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Pretty close to what happened here.


I really want to know what happened to that woman.  Did she get fined?  Did she fight it and win?  Lose?  I need to know that.

----------


## fisharmor

> It was a nick-name given to me by a friend who thought I was "lethal" with the ladies


  Oh.... I get it!  "Lethal with the ladies"?  And you're defending the murder of this woman?
  You're the cop who killed Patricia Cook, aren't you!





> The whole reason I left the DailyPaul was  because everyday it was a cop bashing fest, came here and people seemed  a little less "rage against the machine", but anymore it's getting just  a bad.


 Yeah, you know, I sat by and wondered why all  these crazy people were against the wars for like three years.  Then a  buddy came home from Iraq and showed me pictures of young Iraqi men with  holes in their heads, just lying dead in the street.
 Maybe if we got to see what mid-fifties-housewife Patricia Cook looked  like right after your innocent always-plays-by-the-rules constable got  done with her, you'd change your mind about this, too.




> I believe you are wrong there. and as one of the "usual suspects" I will try to explain.
> 
>  I hate the very concept of Police (not individuals who may be employed)
>  I hate Authoritarianism, as the polar opposite of Liberty.
> 
>  I hate the very concept of State Enforcers. They are the Standing Army that the founders warned about.
>  And there is more evidence of this fact every day.


And  it's a rare occasion that I don't line up 100% with him on this issue - I  will go so far as to say he speaks for me, and likely many others here.




> No I don't, and neither do you.


Yes, I do.  There's no video evidence.  Therefore it's his word vs.... nobody's.
If  the public decides to make a big enough stink about it, he'll be laid  off, and will have to move to a different state to start doing the same  thing over again.
This is what happens.  This is the case history.

----------


## Butchie

> I will publicly wager, as long as it is not illegal and doesn't justify getting me killed in my own home, $20 that that cop doesn't get any any fines or indictment. Real dollars.


That's not what was said, maybe read it again.




> I'll take a piece of that.
> 
> In fact, I'll up the ante.
> 
> Butchie, (or whomever else wants to get in on this) I will donate $100 to the Law Enforcement Memorial Fund ( http://www.nleomf.org/ ) if: 
> 
> This cop is ever convicted of any *criminal* charge, regardless of how minor or in what court, and does at *least* 1 day in prison. 
> 
> NOTE: *Civil* judgements against the cop or the town or the county *DO NOT COUNT*.
> ...


See what I said above.

----------


## Travlyr

> That's not what was said, maybe read it again.


Are you taking me up on my offer?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I really want to know what happened to that woman.  Did she get fined?  Did she fight it and win?  Lose?  I need to know that.


According to court documents I scanned on the web, she was found guilty of driving without a license, and operating an unregistered vehicle.  Her complaints against the police ant the judiciary were ruled moot and denied because police and judges have "absolute immunity."

----------


## Butchie

> Are you taking me up on my offer?


Am I going to enter in a bet against you - taking the side of something that I didn't say? Umm, that would be a negative.

----------


## Travlyr

> Am I going to enter in a bet against you - taking the side of something that I didn't say? Umm, that would be a negative.


That bet was not aimed at you. That was an open bet for anyone. Since you copied it and posted, then I wanted to make sure of your intentions. Thank you.

----------


## jmdrake

> Yaknow what Lethal I got into a similar argument on this board awhile back and it's a no win situation. Bottom line most of these guys just hate cops, *I didn't read this story of this woman, know nothing about it so not going to jump into that*, but you are right, whenever it's a cop story on this board the presumption of innocence goes right out the window.


So let me get this straight.  You didn't even freaking read the story yet you're ready to presume others just "hate cops"?

Watch this video before you respond further in this thread.




This ain't Rodney King hopped up on PCP and having led police on a high speed chase and getting beaten with flashlights.  This is the equivalent of aunt Bee getting ticked at Barney Fife, driving off and then getting shot.

Hey, are you going to automatically defend this too just to support the "thin blue line"?  (Cop harassing and assaulting an ambulance driver on the way to taking someone to the hospital).




The constitution was written to protect the *people* from the *government*.  Using it as a shield to protect the government from criticism when it is abusing the people is a perversion of its original intent.  If this was a video about some street punk gangbanger killing an innocent person would you be jumping to the defense so hard?  And while he still deserves his day in court, stupid constitutional argument is still stupid.

----------


## Butchie

> So let me get this straight.  You didn't even freaking read the story yet you're ready to presume others just "hate cops"?
> 
> Watch this video before you respond further in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This ain't Rodney King hopped up on PCP and having led police on a high speed chase and getting beaten with flashlights.  This is the equivalent of aunt Bee getting ticked at Barney Fife, driving off and then getting shot.
> 
> ...


Wow, all of you continue to prove just the point I'm making, you go ahead and highlight one little sentence I said then write a whole novel about it. Yes, when you take that one sentence out of context as you did you might have a point, but if you read my entire statement then your argument becomes completely null. 

But that is what I've been trying to say all along and you proved it, so many of you are just chomping at the bit to tell some "bad cop" story and vent your anger at the police that you see what you want to see. My statement was never even about the police at all, it was about the presumption of innocence, which EVERYONE, even cops, are entitled to.

----------


## jmdrake

> If I believe in the presumption of innocence then I don't "automatically assume" anyone to be a "lying criminal deviant if what they say contradicts the cop's word." Just because I say I'm not going to judge the cop guilty doesn't mean I'm judging the citizen guilty either, I am not doing either one, I am merely remaining neutral until I've been in that courtroom, heard all the evidence/testimony, etc, then I will make a decision, I certainly am not going to find anyone guilty of murder based on a news article on some website that has been proven to be bias against cops.


That's a cop out.  Sorry, but it is.  Unless you are part of the jury pool  you have no reason to remain "neutral".  That's simply the truth.  The "presumption of innocence" only applies in the courtroom.  Those outside the courtroom have a right, and in some cases a *duty* to make judgments based on the publicly available information.  (I'll explain more about that later).  If this goes to trial (and unlike others here I think this cop will either go to trial or be forced to take a plea based on the nature of the victim) *you* will most likely never see all of the evidence because the trial will most likely *not* be televised.  But you can see the testimony of one obvious prosecution witness right here.




As a juror you would be instructed to presume that all witnesses tell the truth.  Sure the defense could attempt to attack his credibility.  I'm sure some defense attorney has already run a complete background check on this guy.  They know if he was ever convicted of anything, especially a crime involving dishonesty.  They know if this lady was ever his Sunday School teacher.  They know if he even *goes* to Sunday School.  If they find anything negative they will try to get it admitted into evidence.  The prosecution will try to limit this getting into evidence.  For example, if the witness was a convicted rapist that would *not* be admissible by the defense.  If on the other had he was convicted of kiting checks that would be admissible.  So you'd have to ask yourself this question.  "If I was a juror and I knew the witness had kited checks would that so ruin his credibility in my eyes that I would believe he would likely perjure himself to falsely accuse someone of murder?"

Now on to the *duty* of people in society at large to make judgments even if they don't see the "courtroom" evidence.  That's because incidents like this affect, or should affect, public policy.  Lethaldicko was making the argument that even if the cop wasn't being drug down the street, he should be able to use lethal force to stop a fleeing suspect because their *might* be a "body in the trunk".  Does that make sense to you?  If the body in the trunk is dead, then killing the suspect doesn't help it.  If the body in the trunk is alive, then shooting at the fleeing suspect could cause the death of the person in the trunk.  (Bullet goes astray.  After driver dies she crashes into another vehicle and the impact kills the person in the trunk etc.)  Really it's this "We must give the government the benefit of the doubt" misapplication of "innocent until proven guilty" that has our country screwed up.  The 9/11 attacks were at best negligence that rose to a level of being criminal.  But because we're not willing to hold anyone in government accountable for anything we collectively punished people in a number of other nations.  (I've lost count at this point).  Hey, here's another example.  R. Kelly has never been found "guilty" of pedophilia.  Would you let your underage daughter attend his music camp?

----------


## phill4paul

> My statement was never even about the police at all, it was about the presumption of innocence, which EVERYONE, even cops, are entitled to.


  As has been shown to be the truth many times over regarding the presumption of innocence between L.E. and citizenry...

  "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

----------


## jmdrake

> Wow, all of you continue to prove just the point I'm making, you go ahead and highlight one little sentence I said then write a whole novel about it. Yes, when you take that one sentence out of context as you did you might have a point, but if you read my entire statement then your argument becomes completely null. 
> 
> But that is what I've been trying to say all along and you proved it, so many of you are just chomping at the bit to tell some "bad cop" story and vent your anger at the police that you see what you want to see. My statement was never even about the police at all, it was about the presumption of innocence, which EVERYONE, even cops, are entitled to.


No.  You're proving yourself to be uninformed.  The argument you jumped into wasn't about whether this particular cop was "guilty" but rather under what constitutional standard lethal force is justified.  And the presumption of innocence *only* applies in the courtroom.  If you disagree, then let R. Kelly babysit your daughter.  If I was assigned this cops case I would defend him *in court* to the best of my ability.  (Really I'd tell him to take the first decent deal smoking, but if he insisted on going to trial I would defend him).  But that does *not* mean that he is entitled to jack in a forum discussion.  Your claim otherwise just shows you don't understand the meaning or purpose of the term "presumption of innocence".

----------


## jmdrake

> As has been shown to be the truth many times over regarding the presumption of innocence between L.E. and citizenry...
> 
>   "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."


And in court L.E. are "more equal" than the rest of us animals.  But in the court of public opinion there *is no presumption of innocence*.  Michael Jackson would have never been allowed to babysit my kids.  I wouldn't advise any woman I cared about to date O.J. Simpson.

----------


## sanssq

> release the KRACKEN!!!...


LOL

----------


## Butchie

> No.  You're proving yourself to be uninformed.  The argument you jumped into wasn't about whether this particular cop was "guilty" but rather under what constitutional standard lethal force is justified.  And the presumption of innocence *only* applies in the courtroom.  If you disagree, then let R. Kelly babysit your daughter.  If I was assigned this cops case I would defend him *in court* to the best of my ability.  (Really I'd tell him to take the first decent deal smoking, but if he insisted on going to trial I would defend him).  But that does *not* mean that he is entitled to jack in a forum discussion.  Your claim otherwise just shows you don't understand the meaning or purpose of the term "presumption of innocence".


Which is why I clearly stated my comment was not directed at the article or any particular poster, merely at the general attitude of many forum members when it comes to cops, yes, ofcourse you are correct everyone is free to read a news article and form an opinion, in fact, it's next to impossible not to, but I also know that alot of people are just as guilty as the MSM we rail against when it comes to "reporting" these alleged cop abuses, I've seen videos that are heavily edited, stories that contain completely false statements (one I know of personally because it happened in Detroit and I live near there and the stories being passed around on the internet we so far off), I also speak out because the anger and outrage is not being focused on the individual officer but rather on the entire police force, which is wrong.

Further, this board is supposed to be about Ron Paul and right now I would say the main goal is getting him elected right? So tell me, if some curious conservative, or even a police officer comes on here and sees daily cop bashing, how does that help us? Most Rep voters I know support their local police. I know several police officers who I'm trying to get to vote for Paul but I know I could never send them here that's for sure. How about you guys go start a seperate anti-cop website and go vent there, wouldn't that make more sense?

----------


## JK/SEA

there are no good cops if there are any bad cops.

we pay their salaries, and i for one would like to see ALL persons who want to be cops and people who are cops, go through drug testing, and on duty surprise, random drug testing for ...steroids, and uppers and whatever else is relevant in these people having un-contested authority over the rest of us. 

Also, i've never read anywhere if cops involved in lethal traffic stops like this one, getting a drug test, like say a trucker who had a wreck.

----------


## jmdrake

I can't imagine a police officer coming to the defense of the idea that it's okay to shoot a fleeing suspect without any indication that the suspect posed a threat to the officer or anyone else in question.  And to your last question, the ultimate goal of the board is to change public policy.  Ron Paul getting elected is a means to effecting that change.  But it's not the only means.  Maybe there are other threads with gratuitous "cop bashing", but this doesn't seem to be one of them.  Again, watch the video I posted of the witness in this case.  Yes most republican voters support the police, but most republican voters support their local Sunday School teachers as well.  I don't think criticism of police in *this* thread would turn said voter off.  And if it would, then after hearing Ron Paul criticize the raid against OBL (saying it could have been done better if coordinated with the police and we should have taken OBL alive) then would such a voter consider voting for Paul anyway?




> Which is why I clearly stated my comment was not directed at the article or any particular poster, merely at the general attitude of many forum members when it comes to cops, yes, ofcourse you are correct everyone is free to read a news article and form an opinion, in fact, it's next to impossible not to, but I also know that alot of people are just as guilty as the MSM we rail against when it comes to "reporting" these alleged cop abuses, I've seen videos that are heavily edited, stories that contain completely false statements (one I know of personally because it happened in Detroit and I live near there and the stories being passed around on the internet we so far off), I also speak out because the anger and outrage is not being focused on the individual officer but rather on the entire police force, which is wrong.
> 
> Further, this board is supposed to be about Ron Paul and right now I would say the main goal is getting him elected right? So tell me, if some curious conservative, or even a police officer comes on here and sees daily cop bashing, how does that help us? Most Rep voters I know support their local police. I know several police officers who I'm trying to get to vote for Paul but I know I could never send them here that's for sure. How about you guys go start a seperate anti-cop website and go vent there, wouldn't that make more sense?

----------


## jmdrake

> there are no good cops if there are any bad cops.
> 
> we pay their salaries, and i for one would like to see ALL persons who want to be cops and people who are cops, go through drug testing, and on duty surprise, random drug testing for ...steroids, and uppers and whatever else is relevant in these people having un-contested authority over the rest of us. 
> 
> Also, i've never read anywhere if cops involved in lethal traffic stops like this one, getting a drug test, like say a trucker who had a wreck.


Good points.  Especially the drug testing one.

----------


## Butchie

> I can't imagine a police officer coming to the defense of the idea that it's okay to shoot a fleeing suspect without any indication that the suspect posed a threat to the officer or anyone else in question.  And to your last question, the ultimate goal of the board is to change public policy.  Ron Paul getting elected is a means to effecting that change.  But it's not the only means.  Maybe there are other threads with gratuitous "cop bashing", but this doesn't seem to be one of them.  Again, watch the video I posted of the witness in this case.  Yes most republican voters support the police, but most republican voters support their local Sunday School teachers as well.  I don't think criticism of police in *this* thread would turn said voter off.  And if it would, then after hearing Ron Paul criticize the raid against OBL (saying it could have been done better if coordinated with the police and we should have taken OBL alive) then would such a voter consider voting for Paul anyway?


I generally don't tell people Ron's position on OBL for that very reason. What does the campaing tell us "When you've made a sale STOP TALKING, because the next thing you say may lose that voter", I agree with that advice, I don't lie, but there's no need to always blurt out every last thought I have either. I stick to the issues that matter to that person, leave the rest alone.

----------


## jmdrake

> I generally don't tell people Ron's position on OBL for that very reason. What does the campaing tell us "When you've made a sale STOP TALKING, because the next thing you say may lose that voter", I agree with that advice, I don't lie, but there's no need to always blurt out every last thought I have either. I stick to the issues that matter to that person, leave the rest alone.


I don't either.  And for that very reason I don't direct *anyone* to RPF to "learn about Ron Paul.  This forum is a place for committed activists.  And many activists are passionate about issues that may turn this or that voter off.  And?  Anybody so gung ho about finding everything they can about Ron Paul that they spend time on a forum will likely find out stuff about Ron Paul that you might wish they didn't know.  That's just life.  Saying folks should "go start a cop hating forum" (and this isn't really a "cop hating" thread any more than a thread about terrorism is an "Islam hating" thread) is really rather pointless.  If you have an issue with a particular thread you can always report it to a moderator in the hopes that it gets moved to a subforum.

----------


## phill4paul

> I also speak out because the anger and outrage is not being focused on the individual officer but rather on the entire police force, which is wrong.


  Which is were individuals like yourself, police state apologists, and individuals that are tired of the abuses differ. The police 'force' (your own word) is a standing army that is rapidly becoming militarized through DHS both through equipment grants and training tactics.

----------


## sanssq

Hmmmmmm..........   The officer should have the benefit of the same presumption of innocence as anyone else. BUT unless there was a reasonable expectation of a threat to the officer involved, there can be no justification of the use of lethal force here.   

Point:   The call of a suspicious car in a parking lot is hardly the same as "shots fired" or a crime being reported (robbery or assault).   There is no indication that the area is prone to violent crimes either.   Although the officer had the right to display caution, there could have been no reasonable expectation that he was in danger.  The claim of his hand being caught in the window of the car was the rational used to justify lethal force being applied.  That raises a number of questions:

1.  Why was the officers hand in the car?   Reports say that the officer was asking for ID.  That makes no sense.  Anyone who has been stopped and asked for ID will know that the officer _never_ places his hand within the vehicle through a window.  

2.  If the above did happen, why has the officer failed to explain why?  And why did the officer not remove his hand from the window if the lady was raising the window?   

3.  If the officers claim is true, one shot would have shattered the window.  Removing the threat to the officer.   Why were more shots fired?  

His story does not add up.

----------


## fisharmor

> Saying folks should "go start a cop hating forum" (and this isn't really a "cop hating" thread any more than a thread about terrorism is an "Islam hating" thread) is really rather pointless.


......But this_ is_ a thread about terrorism.

----------


## jmdrake

> ......But this_ is_ a thread about terrorism.


It's only terrorism when a "towel head" does it.

----------


## jmdrake

> Hmmmmmm..........   The officer should have the benefit of the same presumption of innocence as anyone else. BUT unless there was a reasonable expectation of a threat to the officer involved, there can be no justification of the use of lethal force here.   
> 
> Point:   The call of a suspicious car in a parking lot is hardly the same as "shots fired" or a crime being reported (robbery or assault).   There is no indication that the area is prone to violent crimes either.   Although the officer had the right to display caution, there could have been no reasonable expectation that he was in danger.  The claim of his hand being caught in the window of the car was the rational used to justify lethal force being applied.  That raises a number of questions:
> 
> 1.  Why was the officers hand in the car?   Reports say that the officer was asking for ID.  That makes no sense.  Anyone who has been stopped and asked for ID will know that the officer _never_ places his hand within the vehicle through a window.  
> 
> 2.  If the above did happen, why has the officer failed to explain why?  And why did the officer not remove his hand from the window if the lady was raising the window?   
> 
> 3.  If the officers claim is true, one shot would have shattered the window.  Removing the threat to the officer.   Why were more shots fired?  
> ...


^Thread winner!  I haven't read every post in this thread.  For the sake of argument, let's say there were some "All cops are pigs!" posts.  That still doesn't justify the "If you are questioning this cop's actions you must hate cops" attitude of some.  His story simply *doesn't* add up.  Some want to talk about probable cause?  Well there is probable cause to arrest this officer and charge him for manslaughter at least.  Why does "innocent until proven guilty" = "put him on paid administrative leave" in these cases?  Really, if we're talking about treating officers as well as the general public is treated....?

----------


## Butchie

> Which is were individuals like yourself, police state apologists, and individuals that are tired of the abuses differ. The police 'force' (your own word) is a standing army that is rapidly becoming militarized through DHS both through equipment grants and training tactics.


Sure they are. How about you come to a barbeque at my house this summer and actually talk to some cops because I know just about every cop in my town as well as many in surrounding towns and the picture you are trying to paint of them is the most rediculous thing I've ever heard. Answer me this: Why does no one attack our military? Maybe because they donate so much to Ron and they are good PR for us? Our soldiers murder innocents on a scale police could only dream of, and if martial law is ever enacted it will not be your local patrol officer rounding you up it will be our military, if I'm afraid of anyone it's our soldiers who blindly point and shoot whenever they are told.

----------


## fisharmor

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...pected-burglar

Oh, the delicious irony.....

----------


## Kylie

> Sure they are. How about you come to a barbeque at my house this summer and actually talk to some cops because I know just about every cop in my town as well as many in surrounding towns and the picture you are trying to paint of them is the most rediculous thing I've ever heard. Answer me this: Why does no one attack our military? Maybe because they donate so much to Ron and they are good PR for us? Our soldiers murder innocents on a scale police could only dream of, and if martial law is ever enacted it will not be your local patrol officer rounding you up it will be our military, if I'm afraid of anyone it's our soldiers who blindly point and shoot whenever they are told.


And I am on the opposite side of the fence. I trust our military NOT to shoot upon us, because I truly dont think they will. But to say that the cops wont do the same is being intellectually dishonest with yourself because they do everyday. EVERYFRIGGINDAY. If you trust your cop friends, then good for you. I dont.

Perpective is the mother of all $#@!ers, isnt it?

----------


## fisharmor

> And I am on the opposite side of the fence. I trust our military NOT to shoot upon us, because I truly dont think they will. But to say that the cops wont do the same is being intellectually dishonest with yourself because they do everyday. EVERYFRIGGINDAY. If you trust your cop friends, then good for you. I dont.
> 
> Perpective is the mother of all $#@!ers, isnt it?


Yeah - the military murders people every day on our behalf.  If they start murdering us they have to reconcile the fact that they're destroying the thing they're supposed to protect, the whole reason for their existence.
Cops, on the other hand, only exist to do the sort of thing we're talking about.  Take away beating up, jailing, and murdering citizens, and there's no job.

----------


## phill4paul

> Sure they are. How about you come to a barbeque at my house this summer and actually talk to some cops because I know just about every cop in my town as well as many in surrounding towns and the picture you are trying to paint of them is the most rediculous thing I've ever heard. Answer me this: Why does no one attack our military? Maybe because they donate so much to Ron and they are good PR for us? Our soldiers murder innocents on a scale police could only dream of, and if martial law is ever enacted it will not be your local patrol officer rounding you up it will be our military, if I'm afraid of anyone it's our soldiers who blindly point and shoot whenever they are told.


  No thank you. I've known cops. Even considered some to be be friends. I know their kind and how they speak to each other and how they have an us vs. them mentality. That is why I've had to let these friendships go in good conscience. 
  As far as standing Armies go you'll not find fandom from me. I'm a personal believer in an armed citizenry. I am ESPECIALLY concerned when there is co-operative involvement between the two.

----------


## kathy88

Some of the commenters are totally defending the cop. Amazing.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> See what I said above.


So, you will *not* be taking my wager, either, correct?

Duly noted.

----------


## bolil

Not all cops are pigs, not all pigs are cops.  There does seem to be, however, a disproportionate number of squealing cops compared to the number average citizens... that squeal.  Perhaps we hear the cops squeals more acutely because we PAY them to squeal.  A cop turned pig may squeal in a variety of ways.  The murder of an unarmed woman is a rather loud squeal from a rather fat pig... now what are we to do with fat pigs?...

... think bacon.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Sure they are. How about you come to a barbeque at my house this summer and actually talk to some cops because I know just about every cop in my town as well as many in surrounding towns and the picture you are trying to paint of them is the most rediculous thing I've ever heard. Answer me this: Why does no one attack our military? Maybe because they donate so much to Ron and they are good PR for us? Our soldiers murder innocents on a scale police could only dream of, and if martial law is ever enacted it will not be your local patrol officer rounding you up it will be our military, if I'm afraid of anyone it's our soldiers who blindly point and shoot whenever they are told.


Of course it would appear ridiculous to you.

You are part of the inner circle.

There are three types of people in the world to cops:

A) Cops

B) Cop's family and friends.

C) Scumbags

You're in group B.

The rest of us are in group C

----------


## Butchie

> And I am on the opposite side of the fence. I trust our military NOT to shoot upon us, because I truly dont think they will. But to say that the cops wont do the same is being intellectually dishonest with yourself because they do everyday. EVERYFRIGGINDAY. If you trust your cop friends, then good for you. I dont.
> 
> Perpective is the mother of all $#@!ers, isnt it?


Oh really, seems to me there was a minor little event at a collge called...what was it again, where troops fired on unarmed citizens. What about Waco? You really think soldiers would disobey orders? I was in the Army, trust me, 90% of those guys are complete idiots who will follow orders no matter what, murder is murder, whether it's an Iraqi or an American, they drone striked that Muslim Cleric even tho he was an American didn't they, they will be fed some BS story about how whoever they are being asked to kill is somehow "bad" and they will follow through with it.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Oh really, seems to me there was a minor little event at a collge called...what was it again, where troops fired on unarmed citizens. What about Waco? You really think soldiers would disobey orders? I was in the Army, trust me, 90% of those guys are complete idiots who will follow orders no matter what, murder is murder, whether it's an Iraqi or an American, they drone striked that Muslim Cleric even tho he was an American didn't they, they will be fed some BS story about how whoever they are being asked to kill is somehow "bad" and they will follow through with it.


To be honest, Waco was federal cops. Army troops were standing by, and military equipment was used, but it was FBI and ATF doing the killing and burning.

But I happen to agree with you here to an extent.

Which is why I am *NOT* happy with the current trend to equip and train cops to act just like those "complete idiots" you mentioned.

----------


## bolil

> Oh really, seems to me there was a minor little event at a collge called...what was it again, where troops fired on unarmed citizens. What about Waco? You really think soldiers would disobey orders? I was in the Army, trust me, 90% of those guys are complete idiots who will follow orders no matter what, murder is murder, whether it's an Iraqi or an American, they drone striked that Muslim Cleric even tho he was an American didn't they, they will be fed some BS story about how whoever they are being asked to kill is somehow "bad" and they will follow through with it.


I guess Military on civ violence will come down to whether or not a Virginian will/does feel as though Montana is another country.  (They will cross deploy, so that the soldiers of one region serve in one very far away)

This is not about the military.  This is about police perpetrated murder of the people they are supposed to protect and serve... oh wait now those people have become simply prey for Law Enforcement.

 It is admirable that you strive to defend your friends, proving your loyalty at the cost of your integrity.

For the record 4 students were killed at Kent state... how many people have been murdered by the pigs since then? http://policemurdersusa.blogspot.com/ ... and I doubt that list is comprehensive.  Maybe your friends are cops, maybe they are pigs... only they and the people they have been in contact with know the truth.

PS Montana is a great state, police out here are still police.  Not a pig in sight.

----------


## jmdrake

> Sure they are. How about you come to a barbeque at my house this summer and actually talk to some cops because I know just about every cop in my town as well as many in surrounding towns and the picture you are trying to paint of them is the most rediculous thing I've ever heard. Answer me this: Why does no one attack our military? Maybe because they donate so much to Ron and they are good PR for us? Our soldiers murder innocents on a scale police could only dream of, and if martial law is ever enacted it will not be your local patrol officer rounding you up it will be our military, if I'm afraid of anyone it's our soldiers who blindly point and shoot whenever they are told.


Ummmm....what makes you think nobody here has ever verbally attacked the military?  There have been more "If members of the military were honorable they would resign" posts than I care to count.  And yes, active duty military standing with Dr. Paul when it comes to donations is a good sign.  Also some police officers are highly respected by all here.  Sheriff Mack comes immediately to mind.  Many Oathkeepers are LEOs.  I don't see Sheriff Mack or an Oathkeeper LEO shooting someone because they chose to drive away.  Further can you find *one* example of where someone posted a story about someone in the military killing innocent civilians and most people here saying "Don't criticize him.  Innocent until proven guilty.  He must get the benefit of the doubt"?  In the Chris Kyle sniper thread most showed disdain for Kyle seemingly "enjoying" this kills.

That said, I did see a definite "anti-cop / pro-military" bent on a martial arts forum once that was overrun by neocons.  I think the issue is people are more likely to be upset about the killing of a Sunday School teacher on a peaceful street than they are a potential insurgent in the middle of a war zone.  One it's just easier for people in America to relate to other....well...*Americans*.  Wrong?  Maybe.  But that's just the facts.  Two is the fact that most soldiers in a hot war zone for any significant period of time have seen somebody killed and in the case of asymmetrical warfare from an insurgent that looked "innocent".  There's a scene in the movie "The Hurt Locker" where some soldiers are freaking out because they see a shopkeeper about to dial on his cell phone.  Considering the environment such fear is justified.  Nothing in this particular story so far has even *approached* such a justifiable level of fear.  That said, you won't find a lot of sympathy here for what happened at Abu Graib or Falluja or with the Apache gun ship that shot up a couple of reporters in Iraq and then shot a van filled with kids that tried to go save them or any other "screw up" in these godawful wars and *certainly* you won't find any sympathy for the government when it comes to Waco.

----------


## Gary4Liberty

> Some of the commenters are totally defending the cop. Amazing.


  they are trolls. just trying to get reactions.

----------


## Butchie

> I guess Military on civ violence will come down to whether or not a Virginian will/does feel as though Montana is another country.  (They will cross deploy, so that the soldiers of one region serve in one very far away)
> 
> This is not about the military.  This is about police perpetrated murder of the people they are supposed to protect and serve... oh wait now those people have become simply prey for Law Enforcement.
> 
>  It is admirable that you strive to defend your friends, proving your loyalty at the cost of your integrity.
> 
> For the record 4 students were killed at Kent state... how many people have been murdered by the pigs since then? http://policemurdersusa.blogspot.com/ ... and I doubt that list is comprehensive.  Maybe your friends are cops, maybe they are pigs... only they and the people they have been in contact with know the truth.
> 
> PS Montana is a great state, police out here are still police.  Not a pig in sight.


Defend my friends against what? What have they done that I need to defend them against? Was your last comment meant as sarcasm or are you serious? You also overlook the fact that killing innocent civilians in other lands draws no distinction in my book, murder is murder, so if you truly want to count the numbers soldiers have killed far more innocents than police, my example was merely to dispute the comment that soldiers would refuse to fire on American citizens since they clearly will not.

----------


## Kylie

> Oh really, seems to me there was a minor little event at a collge called...what was it again, where troops fired on unarmed citizens. What about Waco? You really think soldiers would disobey orders? I was in the Army, trust me, 90% of those guys are complete idiots who will follow orders no matter what, murder is murder, whether it's an Iraqi or an American, they drone striked that Muslim Cleric even tho he was an American didn't they, they will be fed some BS story about how whoever they are being asked to kill is somehow "bad" and they will follow through with it.



I don't disagree with what you're saying. What I do disagree with is the perception that someone in the military who signed up to kill(that's the job of the military, to kill) is the same as a cop(whose job is to uphold law, not kill). While both are a monopoly on force, there have been very, very few encounters with the US military and US citizens(and those were dead wrong too). 

In my mind, I am much more likely to die by the hand of a local or state cop than a US military soldier. Reason being, they've got our military busy killing brown people in other countries, while our homeland military force(i.e; cops) are here $#@!ing up our citizens on a daily basis.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I don't disagree with what you're saying. What I do disagree with is the perception that someone in the military who signed up to kill(that's the job of the military, to kill) is the same as a cop(whose job is to uphold law, not kill). While both are a monopoly on force, there have been very, very few encounters with the US military and US citizens(and those were dead wrong too). 
> 
> In my mind, I am much more likely to die by the hand of a local or state cop than a US military soldier. *Reason being, they've got our military busy killing brown people in other countries, while our homeland military force(i.e; cops) are here $#@!ing up our citizens on a daily basis*.


Plus, unlike soldiers, cops have NO legal duty to protect anyone.  ("To Protect And Serve" is just a motto, not a policy)

----------


## Butchie

> I don't disagree with what you're saying. What I do disagree with is the perception that someone in the military who signed up to kill(that's the job of the military, to kill) is the same as a cop(whose job is to uphold law, not kill). While both are a monopoly on force, there have been very, very few encounters with the US military and US citizens(and those were dead wrong too). 
> 
> In my mind, I am much more likely to die by the hand of a local or state cop than a US military soldier. Reason being, they've got our military busy killing brown people in other countries, while our homeland military force(i.e; cops) are here $#@!ing up our citizens on a daily basis.


So let's send the cops over there and bring the military home, think that would solve it? They'd just switch roles, if the govt turns on us there will be someone there to do their bidding regardless of the name or uniform you give them, what's ironic is I know if anything did happen the cops in my neighborhood would be on my side, can't say the same about the military.

----------


## AFPVet

Let's examine the facts.

1. Thug initiated a Terry stop on a "suspicious vehicle" (mom picking up her kids) Fracking joke. 
2. Mom rolled down the window to talk to the officer.
3. Mom rolled the window up.
4. Thug ordered her to stop rolling up the window (arm not caught inside).
5. Thug attempted to gain access to vehicle and was unable to.
6. Thug used unjustified use of deadly force because mom was passive resistant.
7. Mom tried to drive away and get help.
8. Thug fired several additional rounds committing murder. 

That's my professional observation.

----------


## Kylie

> So let's send the cops over there and bring the military home, think that would solve it? They'd just switch roles, if the govt turns on us there will be someone there to do their bidding regardless of the name or uniform you give them, what's ironic is I know if anything did happen the cops in my neighborhood would be on my side, can't say the same about the military.


That's sad really and shows the state of our world today. 

You have friends who are cops, so you'd be safe if SHTF and you'd probably have supplies at the ready. 

Unfortunately, those supplies will be from my house after those same friends of yours break in and kill me and mine for them. So the only reason you're okay with the cops is because they're your friends, so you will get special privileges, as opposed to me and mine, who are the mundanes to be treated with suspicion and disgust.

I thank the good lord I don't have cops living in my neighborhood, or people like you(those with unending trust for someone who wears a badge).

----------


## Butchie

> That's sad really and shows the state of our world today. 
> 
> You have friends who are cops, so you'd be safe if SHTF and you'd probably have supplies at the ready. 
> 
> Unfortunately, those supplies will be from my house after those same friends of yours break in and kill me and mine for them. So the only reason you're okay with the cops is because they're your friends, so you will get special privileges, as opposed to me and mine, who are the mundanes to be treated with suspicion and disgust.
> 
> I thank the good lord I don't have cops living in my neighborhood, or people like you(those with unending trust for someone who wears a badge).


That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard, once again, way to make broad assumptions about people you don't know. For your info, my friends would not be taking anything from you, we have our own supplies that we bought with money we earned from working, and in a world gone to $#@! anyone hungry and armed would be just as dangerous to you as the next, badge or no, and in case you're unaware there are millions of Americans who are not cops that are armed in this country, many of them better armed than the police.

----------


## fisharmor

> Plus, unlike soldiers, cops have NO legal duty to protect anyone.  ("To Protect And Serve" is just a motto, not a policy)


If a soldier kills someone he shouldn't have, he gets a court martial, he gets drummed out, and he gets a spot on his resume that is going to exclude him from lots of employment opportunities.

If a cop kills someone he shouldn't have, well, first of all, he has broad leeway for who needs to be killed, and second, the rest of the force is going to come to his defense, no matter how absurd it is to defend him.

Cops never, ever, ever eat their own.
Soldiers live under the knowledge that if they $#@! up in the slightest, they're gonna get eaten.
I think that's the fundamental difference.

Call me crazy, but a group of people that are ordered to slaughter a Sunday School teacher by people who have been ready to eat them alive for their entire career... well, I think mutiny is a real possibility.

----------


## Kylie

> That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard, once again, way to make broad assumptions about people you don't know. For your info, my friends would not be taking anything from you, we have our own supplies that we bought with money we earned from working, and in a world gone to $#@! anyone hungry and armed would be just as dangerous to you as the next, badge or no, and in case you're unaware there are millions of Americans who are not cops that are armed in this country, many of them better armed than the police.



I know dude. I made broad assumptions, unlike you(OH WAIT. YEAH, YOU DID) You and your buddies couldnt take my $#@! even if you tried. Man, and they talk about us women getting our panties in a bind. But then remember what happened in NO after Katrina. Yeah, cops would never kill people and steal their $#@!. 

Your friends are the same as any soldier. First and foremost, they are individuals. If they do something wrong, they should pay the price just like anyone else. But therein lies the problem. Just like in the case this thread is about, Ill wager money that this cop will never see the inside of a jail cell for what he did, let alone any disciplinary action. And that is what has caused the rift you see with the populace against the cops. There is very little to no accountability.

----------


## Danke

> If a soldier kills someone he shouldn't have, he gets a court martial, he gets drummed out, and he gets a spot on his resume that is going to exclude him from lots of employment opportunities.
> 
> If a cop kills someone he shouldn't have, well, first of all, he has broad leeway for who needs to be killed, and second, the rest of the force is going to come to his defense, no matter how absurd it is to defend him.
> 
> Cops never, ever, ever eat their own.
> Soldiers live under the knowledge that if they $#@! up in the slightest, they're gonna get eaten.
> I think that's the fundamental difference.
> 
> Call me crazy, but a group of people that are ordered to slaughter a Sunday School teacher by people who have been ready to eat them alive for their entire career... well, I think mutiny is a real possibility.


And if a mundane kills someone (especially if it is a cop) they go to jail (if they survive the immediate retribution).
No paid vacation like a cop gets during the "investigation."

----------


## azxd

> Which is why I clearly stated my comment was not directed at the article or any particular poster, merely at the general attitude of many forum members when it comes to cops, yes, ofcourse you are correct everyone is free to read a news article and form an opinion, in fact, it's next to impossible not to, but I also know that alot of people are just as guilty as the MSM we rail against when it comes to "reporting" these alleged cop abuses, I've seen videos that are heavily edited, stories that contain completely false statements (one I know of personally because it happened in Detroit and I live near there and the stories being passed around on the internet we so far off), I also speak out because the anger and outrage is not being focused on the individual officer but rather on the entire police force, which is wrong.
> 
> Further, this board is supposed to be about Ron Paul and right now I would say the main goal is getting him elected right? So tell me, if some curious conservative, or even a police officer comes on here and sees daily cop bashing, how does that help us? Most Rep voters I know support their local police. I know several police officers who I'm trying to get to vote for Paul but I know I could never send them here that's for sure. How about you guys go start a seperate anti-cop website and go vent there, wouldn't that make more sense?


Considering that I spoke to a criminal justice instructor this morning about this case ... All I can say is that you continue to be wrong about a few things.

Perhaps you should have stopped with the "they all hate cops" comment.

But I do understand why you'd now want to change the subject and get back to electing RP ... All you have to do is stop posting in this thread, and your wish will be yours

----------


## Lethalmiko

> Lethalmiko, you do not know what reasonable suspicion means as it applies to the Constitution. The same is true about the term probable cause. This is clear because you demonstrate a lack of understanding of how these things have been applied and how the Supreme Court has held. Reasonable suspicion doesn't just mean the officer can be suspicious and use it to justify anything. There have to be concrete facts that cause the suspicion. And no, reports don't count as facts. That is just other people's suspicion which, as far as the officer knows, is not based on anything either. The officer himself has to have facts on which to base his suspicion. The only thing that he can Constitutionally do is walk up to her and talk to her casually. He can't force her to stay and keep talking, and he can't search her or detain her. The context of reasonable suspicion was set in Terry v. Ohio, in which the suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts."... This case is nothing like what happened here, and it is clear under these guidelines taht reasonable suspicion does not apply here. They can't be detained just from the fact that they are walking away. That would completely nullify the whole standard of reasonable suspicion because that would mean the officer could detain them for no reason other than that they didn't want to be detained. These are not concrete and specific facts. You have demonstrated your complete ignorance of Constitutional standards such as reasonable suspicion.


I would caution you about making bold assertions about complex legal matters. After all your learning (which does not necessarily mean you can make good logical arguments), I would expect you to perhaps be a little sober. The issues here require immense precision which you assume is a given on your part.

Someone called the police to report what they *OBSERVED* to be suspicious behaviour by Patricia Cook. The police after getting the report also judged that it was worth looking into based on what they were told (ie, if they had been told someone was eating a doughnut, they would have ignored it as a prank call). They dispatched the officer who on arrival confirmed all the "specific and articulable facts" as per tip-off.

Based on what he *OBSERVED*, the officer decided to speak to Cook and find out what she was doing there and who she was. I am not sure what exactly about being in the car was judged by the caller and police/officer as suspicious. At this point, I would ask you whether the officer had reasonable suspicion of a crime in progress or about to happen (please answer). 

Let us assume he did not and she had no obligation to cooperate. According to him, he then asks for her ID, presumably after identifying himself as an officer and stating that he was investigating a tip-off. According to him, she refuses to cooperate and after a heated argument (according to Kris Buchele), she starts driving away (I would like to know whether her engine was already running or she started it afterwards). 

 At this point in the sequence of events (assuming they are all true), there is a case for Reasonable Suspicion to be made because of her flight and refusal to cooperate. In _Illinois v. Wardlow_ (2000), "in a 5-4 decision, the Court held that police may consider a suspect's unprovoked flight as *one* factor contributing to 'reasonable suspicion' justifying an investigatory stop. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote for the majority." State courts have been deeply divided over whether running after seeing a police officer is enough to create reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

In this case, the court considered other factors such as the high incidence of crime in the area in question. In Cook's case, this may be irrelevant but I contend that the combination of factors adds a lot of weight to resonable suspicion. ie the suspicious-activity tip-off; the confirmation of the facts reported in the tip-off;  the refusal to cooperate with a request for identification; subsequent flight; refusal to stop after a direct order from the officer which itself followed the flight.

Add to all this the officer's testimony that his life was endangered by Cook and the fact that there is only *ONE* eye-witness to this incident (Buchele) and his testimony contradicts the officer's. If you are honest, you should see by now that it is not a straight-forward case.

Could the officer have acted differently? Maybe. When the officer is cross-examined, the entire sequence of events will be reconstructed and we can render a sound judgement. He needs to answer why his hand was in the window, (if at all), why he did not withdraw it quickly enough when the window was being closed, why he didn't just break it without having to shoot her in the process, what may have led him to believe that she may be about to commit a crime, etc. 

Unlike almost all of you, I am not yet ready to conclude the officer is a trigger happy cowboy.




> Searches and detainment can only happen with reasonable suspicion and usually not without the suspect's consent. Arrests or potentially violent acts can only be made once there is probable cause. It is clear under these facts, which any professor will tell you are correct, that no justification for what the officer did exists.


The issue of search or seizure does not apply here.







> In fact, the ID thing never took place, so we can safely assume he was trying to stop her or grab her when he had no authorization to stop her from doing anything, nor did he have the right to search her. This is all black and white in the Constitution, and any law professor will tell you he did not have the authorization to do it at that point.... You also clearly don't understand the presumption of innocence because you fail to apply it to the victim in this case.


You are speculating with no evidence. "You also clearly don't understand the presumption of innocence" applies *ONLY* in court, not to law enforcement.




> Argumentum ad hominem. Practice what you preach.


I concede that I was a little harsh here and hereby withdraw the statement you are referring to.




> Did you think OJ was innocent just because the court said so?  The presumption of innocence has its place, and it applies here, but that doesn't mean we can't have reasonable suspicion that the cop did something wrong. Either way, considering the fact that a woman died without committing a crime should be enough for you to understand the outrage. We see cases in which cops commit acts of violence for no reason all the time, and they always get away with it.


I understand sadness when someone is killed unecessarily. But I do not understand guilty verdicts based on emotions. There are dirty cops that murder but that does not mean every killing should be viewed with that lens.




> *Lethaldicko* was making the argument that....


I was going to respond to you until you made this very stupid and insulting personal attack against me.




> Technology can't solve this problem. It is a problem with the police themselves and the policy, not the things they use or the technical stuff. You're like someone who thinks guns kill people when only people can kill people. I know that's not what you're saying, but it's the same principle. I wouldn't be happy with being stunned without provocation either, so speak for yourself. I will never be satisfied with having my liberties and freedoms eroded just because it's more convenient to be stunned rather than killed. I don't support police abuse no matter how good the technology is. It boggles the mind that you can't see why this is.


The problem I was referring to was the death of innocent people at the hands of the police. What you are saying is another matter.

*IMPORTANT NOTES*
I have not addressed silly and/or stupid comments and will only address comments from people that  give a substantive critique of my position without engaging in personal attacks. Many comments have already been addressed earlier so I have not touched on them. Any statements covered in the following examples will be ignored henceforth.

1. You are a troll.
2. I am so shocked that you believe this.
3. So you think it is okay to kill an unarmed person?
4. Yawn. Boring.
5. You are a statist who supports the police state.
6. What planet do you live on?
7. You are justifying police brutality. You think it is OK for the police to kill innocent people.
8. Why are you supporting the cop? You are defending a murderer.
9. This is rubbish. [with no explanation given]
10. You are joking right?
11. Patricia Cook did not deserve to die. Therefore the cop is guilty.

----------


## azxd

> I don't either.  And for that very reason I don't direct *anyone* to RPF to "learn about Ron Paul.  This forum is a place for committed activists.  And many activists are passionate about issues that may turn this or that voter off.  And?  Anybody so gung ho about finding everything they can about Ron Paul that they spend time on a forum will likely find out stuff about Ron Paul that you might wish they didn't know.  That's just life.  Saying folks should "go start a cop hating forum" (and this isn't really a "cop hating" thread any more than a thread about terrorism is an "Islam hating" thread) is really rather pointless.  If you have an issue with a particular thread you can always report it to a moderator in the hopes that it gets moved to a subforum.


Sending someone here to learn about Ron is like saying listen to me, but vote for someone else ... The man has a presence, and we are not it, even if we support him.

To be honest,
It's not about RP (for me) ... *It's about principles ... Period !!!*
If someone else were more aligned with the principles I value, I'd not cast a vote for Ron.

----------


## azxd

> Hmmmmmm..........   The officer should have the benefit of the same presumption of innocence as anyone else. BUT unless there was a reasonable expectation of a threat to the officer involved, there can be no justification of the use of lethal force here.   
> 
> Point:   The call of a suspicious car in a parking lot is hardly the same as "shots fired" or a crime being reported (robbery or assault).   There is no indication that the area is prone to violent crimes either.   Although the officer had the right to display caution, there could have been no reasonable expectation that he was in danger.  The claim of his hand being caught in the window of the car was the rational used to justify lethal force being applied.  That raises a number of questions:
> 
> 1.  Why was the officers hand in the car?   Reports say that the officer was asking for ID.  That makes no sense.  Anyone who has been stopped and asked for ID will know that the officer _never_ places his hand within the vehicle through a window.  
> 
> 2.  If the above did happen, why has the officer failed to explain why?  And why did the officer not remove his hand from the window if the lady was raising the window?   
> 
> 3.  If the officers claim is true, one shot would have shattered the window.  Removing the threat to the officer.   Why were more shots fired?  
> ...


No his story does not add up, and if it were you or I, we'd be behind bars if we couldn't make bail.

----------


## azxd

> ^Thread winner!  I haven't read every post in this thread.  For the sake of argument, let's say there were some "All cops are pigs!" posts.  That still doesn't justify the "If you are questioning this cop's actions you must hate cops" attitude of some.  His story simply *doesn't* add up.  Some want to talk about probable cause?  Well *there is probable cause to arrest this officer and charge him for manslaughter at least.*  Why does "innocent until proven guilty" = "put him on paid administrative leave" in these cases?  Really, if we're talking about treating officers as well as the general public is treated....?


BINGO !!!

----------


## azxd

> Sure they are. How about you come to a barbeque at my house this summer and actually talk to some cops because I know just about every cop in my town as well as many in surrounding towns and the picture you are trying to paint of them is the most rediculous thing I've ever heard. Answer me this: Why does no one attack our military? Maybe because they donate so much to Ron and they are good PR for us? *Our soldiers murder innocents on a scale police could only dream of*, and if martial law is ever enacted it will not be your local patrol officer rounding you up it will be our military, if I'm afraid of anyone it's our soldiers who blindly point and shoot whenever they are told.


Please cite for this prior service member all the deaths that have occurred by our military when they were not under orders to commit acts of aggression against an enemy, real or imagined ... I'll wait !!

If you can't produce the citation, I'll just categorize your words as another strawman attempt that is failing.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I would caution you about making bold assertions about complex legal matters.


You're making it complex, throwing up clouds of rhetoric and walls o' text to try and get around, what appears right now to be, an insurmountable account of the facts.

No crime is alleged to have been committed.

The woman was not under arrest.

Leaving the scene while not under arrest *DOES NOT* justify the use of deadly force, legally or morally.

This woman was executed for "contempt of cop".

The end.

----------


## azxd

> Defend my friends against what? What have they done that I need to defend them against? Was your last comment meant as sarcasm or are you serious? You also overlook the fact that killing innocent civilians in other lands draws no distinction in my book, murder is murder, so if you truly want to count the numbers soldiers have killed far more innocents than police, *my example was merely to dispute the comment that soldiers would refuse to fire on American citizens since they clearly will not*.


If they receive orders to do this, you and I will both have to choose sides ... I'll be standing with over 100 million guns owners.
You ?

----------


## azxd

> I don't disagree with what you're saying. What I do disagree with is the perception that someone in the military who signed up to kill(that's the job of the military, to kill) is the same as a cop(whose job is to uphold law, not kill). While both are a monopoly on force, there have been very, very few encounters with the US military and US citizens(and those were dead wrong too). 
> 
> In my mind, I am much more likely to die by the hand of a local or state cop than a US military soldier. Reason being, they've got our military busy killing brown people in other countries, while our homeland military force(i.e; cops) are here $#@!ing up our citizens on a daily basis.


huge stereotype going on here ... I fixed planes when on active duty, and never had a gun in my hand except in boot camp.

----------


## Danke

> You're making it complex, throwing up clouds of rhetoric and walls o' text to try and get around, what appears right now to be, an insurmountable account of the facts.
> 
> No crime is alleged to have been committed.
> 
> The woman was not under arrest.
> 
> Leaving the scene while not under arrest *DOES NOT* justify the use of deadly force, legally or morally.
> 
> This woman was executed for "contempt of cop".
> ...


If I suspect a cop of something, can I shoot at them if they drive away?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> If I suspect a cop of something, can I shoot at them if they drive away?


If I didn't like you, I'd say, "Sure, absolutely!"

----------


## azxd

> I would caution you about making bold assertions about complex legal matters.


Are you threatening people ?

----------


## azxd

> Originally Posted by Danke
> 
> 
> If I suspect a cop of something, can I shoot at them if they drive away?
> 
> 
> If I didn't like you, I'd say, "Sure, absolutely!"


LOL

----------


## JK/SEA

damn..when is REV 9 getting out?

and frankly, he should be immune from prosecution for violating certain TOS rules...

----------


## phill4paul

> damn..when is REV 9 getting out?


  Should already be out of stir. It was a 7 day period. He may just be taking some time off. Wouldn't blame him.

----------


## Lethalmiko

> You're making it complex, throwing up clouds of rhetoric and walls o' text to try and get around, what appears right now to be, an insurmountable account of the facts. No crime is alleged to have been committed. The woman was not under arrest. Leaving the scene while not under arrest *DOES NOT* justify the use of deadly force, legally or morally. This woman was executed for "contempt of cop". 
> 
> The end.


I shall add this to my list of ignored comments. Useless repetition without addressing any of my arguments. It may help you to read a little about the enormous complexities of interpreting the constitution correctly in light of a concrete case in a particular context.

----------


## Lethalmiko

> Are you threatening people ?


What leads you to infer this, when the context in which I made it is clear from all the supporting statements that follow?

----------


## Butchie

> I know dude. I made broad assumptions, unlike you(OH WAIT. YEAH, YOU DID) You and your buddies couldnt take my $#@! even if you tried. Man, and they talk about us women getting our panties in a bind. But then remember what happened in NO after Katrina. Yeah, cops would never kill people and steal their $#@!. 
> 
> Your friends are the same as any soldier. First and foremost, they are individuals. If they do something wrong, they should pay the price just like anyone else. But therein lies the problem. Just like in the case this thread is about, Ill wager money that this cop will never see the inside of a jail cell for what he did, let alone any disciplinary action. And that is what has caused the rift you see with the populace against the cops. There is very little to no accountability.


OK, you are obviously in a completely different conversation here, there is nothing you are saying that even remotely relates to what I was talking about.

----------


## Butchie

> Please cite for this prior service member all the deaths that have occurred by our military when they were not under orders to commit acts of aggression against an enemy, real or imagined ... I'll wait !!
> 
> If you can't produce the citation, I'll just categorize your words as another strawman attempt that is failing.


So if you're ordered to murder someone by some guy with stripes it's suddenly OK? - and are you seriously suggesting there are no instances of where soldiers killed innocent people without orders to do so? I served too FYI.

----------


## Kylie

> huge stereotype going on here ... I fixed planes when on active duty, and never had a gun in my hand except in boot camp.



Oh I know. I was trying to get the point across to boobus above that one is made for killing(military) the other for the rule of law at home(cops). I know that not everyone is a killing machine in the military, my brother was in admin. while he was active.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I shall add this to my list of ignored comments. Useless repetition without addressing any of my arguments. It may help you to read a little about the enormous complexities of interpreting the constitution correctly in light of a concrete case in a particular context.


If you're answering me, how can you be ignoring it?

----------


## Danke

> If I didn't like you...


I'll try harder...

----------


## Lethalmiko

*ORNELAS et al. v. UNITED STATES (1996)*
Articulating precisely what "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" mean is not possible. They are commonsense, nontechnical conceptions that deal with " `the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act.' " Illinois v. Gates, 462 U. S. 213, 231 (1983) (quoting Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160, 176 (1949)); see United States v. Sokolow, 490 U. S. 1, 7-8 (1989). As such, the standards are "not readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal rules." Gates, supra, at 232. We have described reasonable suspicion simply as "a particularized and objective basis" for suspecting the person stopped of criminal activity, United States v. Cortez, 449 U. S. 411, 417-418 (1981), and probable cause to search as existing where the known facts and circumstances are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable prudence in the belief that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found, see Brinegar, supra, at 175-176; Gates, supra, at 238. 

We have cautioned that these two legal principles are not "finely-tuned standards," comparable to the standards of proof beyond a reasonable doubt or of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. Gates, supra, at 235. They are instead fluid concepts that take their substantive content from the particular contexts in which the standards are being assessed. Gates, supra, at 232; Brinegar, supra, at 175 ("The standard of proof [for probable cause] is . . . correlative to what must be proved"); Ker v. California, 374 U. S. 23, 33 (1963) ("This Cour[t] [has a] long-established recognition that standards of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment are not susceptible of Procrustean application"; "[e]ach case is to be decided on its own facts and circumstances" (internal quotation marks omitted)); Terry v. Ohio, supra, at 29 (the limitations imposed by the Fourth Amendment "will have to be developed in the concrete factual circumstances of individual cases").

http://openjurist.org/517/us/690

----------


## azxd

> What leads you to infer this, when the context in which I made it is clear from all the supporting statements that follow?


Attempting to see if you're paying attention to more than 2 people in this thread.

----------


## azxd

> So if you're ordered to murder someone by some guy with stripes it's suddenly OK? - and are you seriously suggesting there are no instances of where soldiers killed innocent people without orders to do so? I served too FYI.


Good !!!
Then you probably understand how outlandish your comments were.

----------


## azxd

> Oh I know. I was trying to get the point across to boobus above that one is made for killing(military) the other for the rule of law at home(cops). I know that not everyone is a killing machine in the military, my brother was in admin. while he was active.


I Kind of figured you were trying to make a point, but ... In all honesty, the tunnel vision of a few leads me to believe that selective reading is now combined with selective judgement and Constitutional guidance.

I'm kind of surprised, but thankful that the MOD's are letting this thread run it's course ... On most forums, the trolls would be gone, and the thread locked.

Glad that hasn't happened here, yet !!

----------


## azxd

> *ORNELAS et al. v. UNITED STATES (1996)*
> Articulating precisely what "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" mean is not possible. They are commonsense, nontechnical conceptions that deal with " `the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act.' " Illinois v. Gates, 462 U. S. 213, 231 (1983) (quoting Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160, 176 (1949)); see United States v. Sokolow, 490 U. S. 1, 7-8 (1989). As such, the standards are "not readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal rules." Gates, supra, at 232. We have described reasonable suspicion simply as "a particularized and objective basis" for suspecting the person stopped of criminal activity, United States v. Cortez, 449 U. S. 411, 417-418 (1981), and probable cause to search as existing where the known facts and circumstances are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable prudence in the belief that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found, see Brinegar, supra, at 175-176; Gates, supra, at 238. 
> 
> We have cautioned that these two legal principles are not "finely-tuned standards," comparable to the standards of proof beyond a reasonable doubt or of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. Gates, supra, at 235. They are instead fluid concepts that take their substantive content from the particular contexts in which the standards are being assessed. Gates, supra, at 232; Brinegar, supra, at 175 ("The standard of proof [for probable cause] is . . . correlative to what must be proved"); Ker v. California, 374 U. S. 23, 33 (1963) ("This Cour[t] [has a] long-established recognition that standards of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment are not susceptible of Procrustean application"; "[e]ach case is to be decided on its own facts and circumstances" (internal quotation marks omitted)); Terry v. Ohio, supra, at 29 (the limitations imposed by the Fourth Amendment "will have to be developed in the concrete factual circumstances of individual cases").
> 
> http://openjurist.org/517/us/690


Isn't it fun finding ways to crush what little freedom still exists within this country /sarcasm.

----------


## Lethalmiko

My assertion that a fleeing suspect at the scene of a possible crime should be stopped has been called into question although so far, I have not seen a convincing argument against it. Liberty demands zero tolerance to criminal activity. Law enforcement is there to deal with and prevent crime where possible. Until someone can persuade me otherwise, there is no justifiable cause for flight from officers even under the 4th amendment.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> According to court documents I scanned on the web, she was found guilty of driving without a license, and operating an unregistered vehicle.  Her complaints against the police ant the judiciary were ruled moot and denied because police and judges have "absolute immunity."


At least she defeated those made-up charges of "resisting arrest" and assaulting a police officer and "obstruction of justice."  Those were such BS.  It's still BS that they can just drag her out of her vehicle for standing up for her rights and get charged with this mundane stuff.  And yeah, it makes me so mad that the officers, who were in clear violation of the Constitution, get nothing for it.  It just reinforces their bad behavior.

----------


## azxd

> My assertion that a fleeing suspect at the scene of a possible crime should be stopped has been called into question although so far, I have not seen a convincing argument against it. Liberty demands zero tolerance to criminal activity. Law enforcement is there to deal with and prevent crime where possible. Until someone can persuade me otherwise, there is no justifiable cause for flight from officers even under the 4th amendment.


How about just putting yourself in this woman's position.

You're parked, an officer walks up and starts asking you questions, and you don't like the questions ... What do you do ?

Step 1 :Ask if you are under arrest
Step 2: Ask if you are free to go
Step three is based on the response to step 2

What do you do ?

Do you give up your rights, just because someone is wearing a uniform, or do you understand your rights well enough to defend them ?

What do you do ?

What would you do if someone, anyone was shooting at you, and you felt you had done *no* wrong ?
What would you do if someone, anyone was shooting at you, and you felt you had done wrong ?

Take your assertions and toss them off a bridge, because you haven't been open-minded and honest with yourself, and it does show within this thread ... Either that, or you have no real idea of what liberty actually is about.

Which is it, and what do you do, lethal-one ?

----------


## azxd

> Until someone can persuade me otherwise, there is no justifiable cause for flight from officers even under the 4th amendment.


OOPS !!
Missed this ... How about (theoretically) I go buy a uniform, impersonate an officer, and start shooting at you ?
What do you do ?

Criminals impersonate officers all the time, and that's all the justification I need ... You, on the other hand, must decide for yourself what is the right thing, and I can guarantee you IT WILL be circumstantial.

I don't pull over for unmarked cars, and if I think I'm not dealing with a LEO ... I'm leaving the area, and possibly shooting back with one hand while dialing 911 with the other, and steering with my knees.

Does that make any sense to you ?

----------


## phill4paul

> My assertion that a fleeing suspect at the scene of a possible crime should be stopped has been called into question although so far, I have not seen a convincing argument against it. Liberty demands zero tolerance to criminal activity. Law enforcement is there to deal with and prevent crime where possible. *Until someone can persuade me otherwise, there is no justifiable cause for flight from officers even under the 4th amendment.*


  Fearing for ones life? And neither 'reasonable suspicion' nor 'probable cause' are justification for homicide.

----------


## azxd

And to be clear to the reading masses,
I'm pro LE, but anti-BAD COP ... If that's not clear enough, take a course in reading comprehension.

----------


## Kylie

> I Kind of figured you were trying to make a point, but ... In all honesty, the tunnel vision of a few leads me to believe that selective reading is now combined with selective judgement and Constitutional guidance.
> 
> I'm kind of surprised, but thankful that the MOD's are letting this thread run it's course ... On most forums, the trolls would be gone, and the thread locked.
> 
> Glad that hasn't happened here, yet !!




Yeah, free speech kicks ass if you ask me too!

----------


## Butchie

> I Kind of figured you were trying to make a point, but ... In all honesty, the tunnel vision of a few leads me to believe that selective reading is now combined with selective judgement and Constitutional guidance.
> 
> I'm kind of surprised, but thankful that the MOD's are letting this thread run it's course ... On most forums, the trolls would be gone, and the thread locked.
> 
> Glad that hasn't happened here, yet !!


So anyone who doesn't agree with your view is a troll? Interesting.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Which is why I clearly stated my comment was not directed at the article or any particular poster, merely at the general attitude of many forum members when it comes to cops, yes, ofcourse you are correct everyone is free to read a news article and form an opinion, in fact, it's next to impossible not to, but I also know that alot of people are just as guilty as the MSM we rail against when it comes to "reporting" these alleged cop abuses, I've seen videos that are heavily edited, stories that contain completely false statements (one I know of personally because it happened in Detroit and I live near there and the stories being passed around on the internet we so far off), I also speak out because the anger and outrage is not being focused on the individual officer but rather on the entire police force, which is wrong.
> 
> Further, this board is supposed to be about Ron Paul and right now I would say the main goal is getting him elected right? So tell me, if some curious conservative, or even a police officer comes on here and sees daily cop bashing, how does that help us? Most Rep voters I know support their local police. I know several police officers who I'm trying to get to vote for Paul but I know I could never send them here that's for sure. How about you guys go start a seperate anti-cop website and go vent there, wouldn't that make more sense?


Don't give us that line.  You're not arguing here out of concern for the priority of the current election.  You're arguing because you have an opinion on this subject and you're using the election thing as an excuse to take the moral high ground.  If you really were here because you didn't want us to waste valuable time, then you wouldn't be wasting valuable time knowing you're not convincing anyone.  You know you're not here to stop us from wasting time, so stop pretending.  Either quit this discussion or admit you have a dog in this fight.

----------


## jmdrake

> My assertion that a fleeing suspect at the scene of a possible crime should be stopped has been called into question although so far, I have not seen a convincing argument against it. Liberty demands zero tolerance to criminal activity. Law enforcement is there to deal with and prevent crime where possible. Until someone can persuade me otherwise, there is no justifiable cause for flight from officers even under the 4th amendment.


Straw man fallacy.  Nobody is claiming that officers shouldn't attempt to stop a fleeing suspect.  He can call in an APB, get in his own vehicle and try to chase it down, have other cops put down "spike" strips in front of the vehicle etc.  As for your comment "Liberty demands zero tolerance to criminal activity"....that's just *stupid*.  Zero tolerance to criminal activity = no bill of rights.  After all the bill of rights demands that officers can't go from house to house kicking in doors and doing random searches just because there's a "hunch" that somebody in the neighborhood is doing something illegal.

As for your last sentence, here's a justifiable cause from flight from an officer.  You are an ambulance driver trying to take someone to the hospital in an emergency and some stupid cop with a bad attitude is trying to pull you over instead of doing the right thing and helping clear traffic for you.

----------


## Butchie

> Don't give us that line.  You're not arguing here out of concern for the priority of the current election.  You're arguing because you have an opinion on this subject and you're using the election thing as an excuse to take the moral high ground.  If you really were here because you didn't want us to waste valuable time, then you wouldn't be wasting valuable time knowing you're not convincing anyone.  You know you're not here to stop us from wasting time, so stop pretending.  Either quit this discussion or admit you have a dog in this fight.


Ofcourse I have an opinion on this subject and I stated it very clearly, when I was ever saying otherwise? Who is "us" by the way? Am I in some "outsider" club now just because I don't join in on the cop bashing?

----------


## jmdrake

> Ofcourse I have an opinion on this subject and I stated it very clearly, when I was ever saying otherwise? Who is "us" by the way? Am I in some "outsider" club now just because I don't join in on the cop bashing?


 Common use of the English language is that if you are talking to a group of other people on another side of the issue they can refer to themselves as "us" without inferring that you aren't part of the greater "we".  Don't be silly.  And everyone that you are arguing against is *not* "cop bashing".  I certainly haven't been.  Not unless you can't fathom someone stating the obvious that based on all available evidence *this* particular cop went way over the line without somehow "cop bashing".  If I said the Sunday School teacher was wrong would I be Sunday School teacher bashing?  Give me a break!

----------


## sparebulb

> *Our soldiers murder innocents on a scale police could only dream of*....


The truth was here all along.  Butchie admits that the police dream of committing murder against the innocent.

As if we didn't know.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I would caution you about making bold assertions about complex legal matters. After all your learning (which does not necessarily mean you can make good logical arguments), I would expect you to perhaps be a little sober. The issues here require immense precision which you assume is a given on your part.
> 
> Someone called the police to report what they *OBSERVED* to be suspicious behaviour by Patricia Cook. The police after getting the report also judged that it was worth looking into based on what they were told (ie, if they had been told someone was eating a doughnut, they would have ignored it as a prank call). They dispatched the officer who on arrival confirmed all the "specific and articulable facts" as per tip-off.


These are not facts.  This is personal suspicion.  The cop must have these facts for HIMSELF, and not get them from third party sources.  What specific and articulable facts did he confirm?  Why were they not brought up in the testimony?  There were no specific and articulable facts.  There was a woman sitting in a car.  There was absolutely no reason for suspicion.




> Based on what he *OBSERVED*, the officer decided to speak to Cook and find out what she was doing there and who she was. I am not sure what exactly about being in the car was judged by the caller and police/officer as suspicious. At this point, I would ask you whether the officer had reasonable suspicion of a crime in progress or about to happen (please answer).


You're still trying to build this up as a an issue of _personal_ suspicion rather than a suspicion based on actual facts.  It doesn't matter what the cop thought at the time.  It matters what the facts were.  My answer to your question is: No, why would there be?  Observation doesn't count as a facttual suspicion unless the officer actually observed suspicious behavior based on real facts.  If he observed the woman and thought to himself that it looked suspicious just because of a gut feeling, it still doesn't count as_reasonable suspicion._  Again, EVERYONE I studied with, including the professor, agreed on this.  That's how it was taught, and that's how it's been explained bythe Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio.  That's how it's been applied ever since.  I know for an ever-loving fact that the facts in the case of Patricia Cook do not add up to reasonable suspicion.  




> Let us assume he did not and she had no obligation to cooperate. According to him, he then asks for her ID, presumably after identifying himself as an officer and stating that he was investigating a tip-off. According to him, she refuses to cooperate and after a heated argument (according to Kris Buchele), she starts driving away (I would like to know whether her engine was already running or she started it afterwards).


What does this have to do with anything?  That doesn't make it okay to disobey these Constitutional premises.

 At this point in the sequence of events (assuming they are all true), there is a case for Reasonable Suspicion to be made because of her flight and refusal to cooperate. In _Illinois v. Wardlow_ (2000), "in a 5-4 decision, the Court held that police may consider a suspect's unprovoked flight as *one* factor contributing to 'reasonable suspicion' justifying an investigatory stop. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote for the majority." State courts have been deeply divided over whether running after seeing a police officer is enough to create reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

It cannot be used as an excuse to detain that suspect unless they have OTHER reasons to believe there was a crime being committed that follow the same standards set out in Terry v. Ohio.  Again, if simply leaving the scene can be used as reasonable suspicion, then there is no point for disallowing detaining the suspect because leaving would automatically allow them to detain the suspect.  It contradicts itself.




> In this case, the court considered other factors such as the high incidence of crime in the area in question. In Cook's case, this may be irrelevant but I contend that the combination of factors adds a lot of weight to resonable suspicion. ie the suspicious-activity tip-off; the confirmation of the facts reported in the tip-off;  the refusal to cooperate with a request for identification; subsequent flight; refusal to stop after a direct order from the officer which itself followed the flight.
> 
> Add to all this the officer's testimony that his life was endangered by Cook and the fact that there is only *ONE* eye-witness to this incident (Buchele) and his testimony contradicts the officer's. If you are honest, you should see by now that it is not a straight-forward case.


Buchele's testimony is a bonus for the case I'm making against the officer.  You can't just use contradiction to say it muddies the waters of clarity.  That's not how it works.  The cop has a reason to lie, and much more so than Buchele at any rate because he could be convicted of murder, so there is a clear motivation for him to lie.  Once again, there ARE NO FACTS that contribute to reasonable suspicion here.  Simply leaving the scene cannot be used.  What good is the right to leave if it allows you to be considered a suspect?  Why even give us the liberty to disobey orders from the police if it automatically makes us a suspect and allows the police to detain us?  It makes absolutely no sense.




> Could the officer have acted differently? Maybe. When the officer is cross-examined, the entire sequence of events will be reconstructed and we can render a sound judgement. He needs to answer why his hand was in the window, (if at all), why he did not withdraw it quickly enough when the window was being closed, why he didn't just break it without having to shoot her in the process, what may have led him to believe that she may be about to commit a crime, etc.


Now you're starting to get it.  Maybe my truth bombs were not in vain.  From these facts, yo ucan already tell that the case is not looking good for the officer (assuming the trial was fair and the sentence just).  There are a lot of things he has to explain.  




> Unlike almost all of you, I am not yet ready to conclude the officer is a trigger happy cowboy.


Okay, but that doesn't mean we are wrong for taking sides.  We can evaluate the facts and perhaps change our perception as it goes along, but barring any major change sin the story, it doesn't loo good for the cop.  You have to at least admit that.  If we were actually on the jury, yes, we would be required to give him the benefit of the doubt despite our own personal misgivings just to be on the safe side in the defense of liberty, but even then, the facts so far point to a probable conviction of the cop with knowledge that, basedon his own testimony, he was in violation of the Constitution (again, assuming that the judiciary is fair in its assessment of a cop).




> The issue of search or seizure does not apply here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are speculating with no evidence. "You also clearly don't understand the presumption of innocence" applies *ONLY* in court, not to law enforcement.


The issue of search and seizure most definitely appplies here considering the fact that the cop wanted to detain her without the Constitutional authority to do so.  He had no right to stick his arm through her window, considering that she clearly didn't give him permission to do so.

The fact that the presumption of innocence applies only in court is exactly my point.  I am not required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in my mind before heavily suspecting the cop of wrongdoing.  




> I concede that I was a little harsh here and hereby withdraw the statement you are referring to.


Good.




> I understand sadness when someone is killed unecessarily. But I do not understand guilty verdicts based on emotions. There are dirty cops that murder but that does not mean every killing should be viewed with that lens.


IF there was ever a time to heavily suspect the cop of wrong doing, this is one of those cases.  Also, I don't understand your sentence about guilty verdicts.  I cannot make a guilty verdict, but I can make a rational decision without having affect the verdict.  I would actually have to be a member of the jury for that to apply.





> The problem I was referring to was the death of innocent people at the hands of the police. What you are saying is another matter.


Okey doke.

I think we made progress here.  I think I have been able to cause you to think more critically about law and morality and admit the shortcomings of your own case.  I don't believe anyone is hopeless, and you have made a good case for that.  Logic and facts (I hate the dogmatic way in which that phrase is used by some, but I digress) might yet win you over to what I believe is a very reasonable view to hold of police and actions such as this.  I still think you are a bit more ignorant on constitutional law precedents than you let on, but alas, I still consider this progress.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> At least she defeated those made-up charges of "resisting arrest" and assaulting a police officer and "obstruction of justice."  Those were such BS.  It's still BS that they can just drag her out of her vehicle for standing up for her rights and get charged with this mundane stuff.  And yeah, it makes me so mad that the officers, who were in clear violation of the Constitution, get nothing for it.  It just reinforces their bad behavior.


Oh no, she got hit with the obstruction of justice charge too.  sorry.    She did beat the resisting and assaulting though

----------


## Butchie

> Common use of the English language is that if you are talking to a group of other people on another side of the issue they can refer to themselves as "us" without inferring that you aren't part of the greater "we".  Don't be silly.  And everyone that you are arguing against is *not* "cop bashing".  I certainly haven't been.  Not unless you can't fathom someone stating the obvious that based on all available evidence *this* particular cop went way over the line without somehow "cop bashing".  If I said the Sunday School teacher was wrong would I be Sunday School teacher bashing?  Give me a break!


Fair enough, but if you had read my initial post in all of this, which I realize not everyone has, you would see my comment was never about this particular cop or this article, nor have I at anytime spoken on that issue, yet everyone wants to keep using it against me.




> The truth was here all along.  Butchie admits that the police dream of committing murder against the innocent.
> 
> As if we didn't know.


Seriously? What grade are you in.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Ofcourse I have an opinion on this subject and I stated it very clearly, when I was ever saying otherwise? Who is "us" by the way? Am I in some "outsider" club now just because I don't join in on the cop bashing?


Us is everyone who does engage in what you perceive to be "cop-bashing."

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Oh no, she got hit with the obstruction of justice charge too.  sorry.    She did beat the resisting and assaulting though


Wow.  What justice was she obstructing?  Unless they consider simply the act of stopping random people on the highway to be "justice."  What perversion of reality.

----------


## sparebulb

> Seriously? What grade are you in.


Seriously, why don't you take responsibility for the stupid (psychopathic) things that you say?

You wrote it.  Man up and own it.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I shall add this to my list of ignored comments. Useless repetition without addressing any of my arguments. It may help you to read a little about the enormous complexities of interpreting the constitution correctly in light of a concrete case in a particular context.


Mr. Lethal, might I add that you have been guilty of at leats of a few things you claim are worthy of your ignore list?  Why don't you ignore your own arguments, then?  This seems like a double standard.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> So if you're ordered to murder someone by some guy with stripes it's suddenly OK? - and are you seriously suggesting there are no instances of where soldiers killed innocent people without orders to do so? I served too FYI.


This is such a straw man, it is not even funny.  I suspect you knew this, though, and are avoiding the issue.  The point is to make a distinction between the purpose of military violence, and the purpose of police violence, not to decide if it's ok to do violence of any kind.

----------


## tod evans

Jesus Christ!
10 pages arguing about whether or not some cop is justified shooting an unarmed civilian.
There is no call for this behavior period!
In a just "system" this cop would be publicly executed after being convicted by a jury of the civilians peers.

----------


## aGameOfThrones

> *Fearing for ones life*? And neither 'reasonable suspicion' nor 'probable cause' are justification for homicide.


*Interesting. Let's see what the court of appeals in Indiana thinks.*


Wilson v. State:

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."

----------


## Butchie

> This is such a straw man, it is not even funny.  I suspect you knew this, though, and are avoiding the issue.  The point is to make a distinction between the purpose of military violence, and the purpose of police violence, not to decide if it's ok to do violence of any kind.


There is no distinction to the person on the other end of the gun. Seems your only tactic here is to keep saying I'm making "strawman arguments", how about you prove me wrong, or better yet how about you explain how that was in anyway a strawman to being with. Seems you're the one avoiding the issue.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> My assertion that a fleeing suspect at the scene of a possible crime should be stopped has been called into question although so far, I have not seen a convincing argument against it. Liberty demands zero tolerance to criminal activity. Law enforcement is there to deal with and prevent crime where possible. Until someone can persuade me otherwise, there is no justifiable cause for flight from officers even under the 4th amendment.


Your assertion that liberty demands zero tolerance is a completely made-up standard that you came up with on your own.  I have already delivered a damning argument to this concept of flight equalling suspicion.  If we are to protect the right of the individual to not be detained, then we can't allow the very act of them exercising that right to make them a supsect.  That completely defeats this purpose.  Please tell me you understand this.  If someone is running late for a meeting and doesn't want to stick around and argue with the police, it can't be considered as suspicious.  The act of simply exercising one's right to move about freely without unprovoked obstruction from state officials cannot possibly be considered as a nullification of the very right they are exercising.  That is absurd.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> There is no distinction to the person on the other end of the gun. Seems your only tactic here is to keep saying I'm making "strawman arguments", how about you prove me wrong, or better yet how about you explain how that was in anyway a strawman to being with. Seems you're the one avoiding the issue.


That doesn't make any sense.  You can't say I'm avoiding the issue if I point out logical errors in your argument.  That is automatically NOT avoiding the issue.  In fact, it is directly addressing the issue because it has an effect on the outcome of the argument.  Your whole post is a non-sequitur anyway. 

Also, how can you accuse me of having a tactic if I have only responded to you once?  If you know what a straw man is, then you will admit htat what you said is, in fact, a straw man argument because it misrepresents the position of the person you are arguing with.  Also, the burden of proof is on you.  The guy asked for evidence that military personnel commit this kind of aggression against citizens like cops do.  If you are so right, then delivering the evidence should be no problem for you.

----------


## aGameOfThrones

> It cannot be used as an excuse to detain that suspect unless they have OTHER reasons to believe there was a crime being committed that follow the same standards set out in Terry v. Ohio.  Again, if simply leaving the scene can be used as reasonable suspicion, then there is no point for disallowing detaining the suspect because leaving would automatically allow them to detain the suspect.  It contradicts itself.



*Let's see what the 10th circuit of appeals thought about reasonable suspicion by refusing to a search.*




> Any other rule would make a mockery of the reasonable suspicion and probable cause requirements, as well as the consent doctrine.These legal principles would be considerably less effective if citizens' insistence that searches and seizures be conducted in conformity with constitutional norms could create the suspicion or cause that renders their consent unnecessary.-UNITED STATES v. HUNNICUTT

----------


## aGameOfThrones

What suspicions does the anonymous tipster raise? A woman is sitting inside her car at a Parking lot. Now, the initial encounter with the cop is consensual and she is not under arrest or detained... she can ignore his questions and leave. What is the officer's basis to detain her? Not providing ID? Did she have to provide ID? Does Virginia have a "Stop and ID" statute(which reasonable suspicion of a crime must be present to Demand ID)? 

************

*Let's see what the 4th circuit thought about tipster:*




> As the district court noted, the officers were responding to "a vague report of shots fired." J.A. 73. This report was not only "vague"—indicating only that eight shots were "possi- bly" fired two blocks south of a certain intersection, J.A. 77—it was also anonymous. Reliance on an anonymous tip may be reasonable where, "suitably corroborated, [it] exhibits sufficient indicia of reliability." Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 270 (2000). Yet here corroboration did not exist until one of Massenburg’s companions reported hearing shots fired—which cannot be said to increase reasonable suspicion of the companion’s own party, especially since he also reported that the shots were fired from a moving car (by unknown parties) several blocks away. Like the tip of illegal gun possession held unreliable in J.L., the tip here "provided no predictive information and therefore left the police without means to test the informant’s knowledge or credibility." Id. at 271. The tipster here disclosed her basis of knowledge—she heard the shots herself—but little else. Though that disclosure "enhance[s] the tip’s reliability," United States v. Perkins, 363 F.3d 317, 322 (4th Cir. 2004), we have held that even a "nearly contemporaneous report" of a drug transaction the tip- ster reportedly saw was unreliable in the absence of "[s]ome corroboration," since "a fraudulent tipster can fabricate her basis of knowledge," United States v. Reaves, 512 F.3d 123, 127-28 (4th Cir. 2008). Cf. Perkins 363 F.3d at 322, 327-28 (anonymous tip held sufficiently reliable where contempora- neous viewing was corroborated by presence of a known drug user in front of a known drug house and where tipster, though she did not explicitly identify herself, was reasonably assumed to be a known, reliable informant).2
> 
> Furthermore, the poor match between the vague tip and the individuals encountered substantially undermines reliance on the tip for reasonable particularized suspicion of Massenburg. The tip contained no physical description of the perpetrators or any other outward identifying features; the only link between the tip and Massenburg’s group was the group’s rough proximity to the alleged site of the gunfire. The tipster reported hearing shots two blocks south of the intersection of Hull and 14th Streets; Massenburg and his friends were encountered four blocks west of that intersection.
> 
> 2Though the threat of harassment that occupied the Court in J.L. may seem substantially lessened here, where the tipster provided no physical description or any other identifying information concerning the allegedly armed person(s), this threat always exists in cases where the information given by an anonymous tip is sufficiently specific to identify individuals. See J.L., 529 U.S. at 272 (warning that an "automatic firearm exception to our established reliability analysis would . . . enable any person seeking to harass another to set in motion an intrusive, embarrassing police search of the targeted person"). Since, for this issue to arise, individuals must have been singled out on the basis of an anonymous tip, the possibility of targeted harassment always exists, no matter how generic the tip itself may appear. Just as the anonymous tipster in J.L. likely knew that there was only one "young black male . . . wearing a plaid shirt" at the indicated bus stop, id. at 268, the tipster here might well have known that the streets in the indicated area were empty except for Massenburg and his friends.
> 
> We also note that in Reaves, where we held an anonymous tip unreli- able, the threat of harassment also appeared minimal. There the tipster, who notified police after she saw what appeared to be a drug deal and guided police as she followed the car of the alleged drug dealer for several blocks, ceased pursuit when it came time to turn onto another street to reach the market, where she was traveling on an errand. Reaves, 512 F.3d at 125.

----------


## azxd

> So anyone who doesn't agree with your view is a troll? Interesting.


Nope, the actions speak much louder than the words, and thus far all I see is a few people begging for some attention, and doing very little to resolve or understand what the majority who are aligned with the Constitution and Bill of Rights are saying.

----------


## fisharmor

> Liberty demands zero tolerance to criminal activity.


This is the most absurd thing you've written so far.
The fact that you consider sitting in a parked car in a church parking lot criminal activity means you really don't understand what is going on with this whole liberty idea in the slightest.
And I'm really not sure why everyone continues to dialog with you.




> Law enforcement is there to deal with and prevent crime where possible. Until someone can persuade me otherwise, there is no justifiable cause for flight from officers even under the 4th amendment.


I understand you're a fan of citing case law, so:
Deshaney vs. Winnebago County
Warren vs. District of Columbia
Two supreme court cases that _say precisely that the police have no duty to protect you or prevent crime._

Stop making this more complicated than it needs to be.
You are still suffering from the Stockholm Syndrome you had programmed into you by public school.
It's making you spout reams of technobabble that you think support the idea that it's ok for cops to murder people.
It's not.
It never was and it never will be.
We're not buying.  
You and Butchie can give up.

----------


## Butchie

> That doesn't make any sense.  You can't say I'm avoiding the issue if I point out logical errors in your argument.  That is automatically NOT avoiding the issue.  In fact, it is directly addressing the issue because it has an effect on the outcome of the argument.  Your whole post is a non-sequitur anyway. 
> 
> Also, how can you accuse me of having a tactic if I have only responded to you once?  If you know what a straw man is, then you will admit htat what you said is, in fact, a straw man argument because it misrepresents the position of the person you are arguing with.  Also, the burden of proof is on you.  The guy asked for evidence that military personnel commit this kind of aggression against citizens like cops do.  If you are so right, then delivering the evidence should be no problem for you.


No, it does not, that person said murdering innocent civilians was different for soldiers because they were under orders, I countered it made no difference. Where is the straw man in that? If you were not the person who previously accussed me of the straw man you have my apologies for accussing you of doing it twice.

This was not the conversation however where I was asked for proof where the military kills innocent civilians, that was another post and I DID give several examples and I can give more if you like, or you can simply Youtube it yourself.

I would just like to know if you can tell me what point it is tho you feel I'm trying to make in the first place that you disagree with, seems I keep getting attacked for things I never even said, and where did you point out logical errors, you just said I used a straw man argument, how did that point out anything?

----------


## Danke

> And I'm really not sure why everyone continues to dialog with you.


Me neither.

----------


## pcosmar

I remember similar arguments about the New Orleans Bridge murders, and the Grandmother in Atlanta that was murdered and attempted to be framed by police.

There are always several that will try to defend the indefensible.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> There are always several that will try to defend the indefensible.


Meh, they usually have skin in the game.

Cops.

Family of cops.

Friends of cops.

----------


## low preference guy

> Meh, they usually have skin in the game.
> 
> Cops.
> 
> Family of cops.
> 
> Friends of cops.


I found something similar. Those who defend protectionism and trade barriers also tend to have skin in the game.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Liberty demands zero tolerance to criminal activity.


Channeling The Ghoul I see:




> "What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be," he said at the forum, sponsored by The New York Post. "Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."

----------


## mikeforliberty

She seems to be a well-liked lady

http://www2.starexponent.com/news/20...ne-ar-1702078/

----------


## pcosmar

> Liberty demands zero tolerance to criminal activity.


Another one with no concept of who the men that founded this country were.
And apparently very little understanding of Liberty or of Law enforcement as envisioned by the founders.
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm



> The Constitution contains no explicit provisions for criminal law enforcement. Nor did the constitutions of any of the several states contain such provisions at the time of the Founding. *Early constitutions enunciated the intention that law enforcement was a universal duty that each person owed to the community,* rather than a power of the government. Founding-era constitutions addressed law enforcement from the standpoint of individual liberties and placed explicit barriers upon the state.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> She seems to be a well-liked lady
> 
> http://www2.starexponent.com/news/20...ne-ar-1702078/


Here lies John Rambo, war hero, awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, survivor of countless excursions behind enemy lines.

Killed in Jerkwater USA for vagrancy.



*'A little light that shone'*

http://www2.starexponent.com/news/20...ne-ar-1702078/

An ashen sky punctuated Sunday’s somber memorial service for Patricia Ann Cook, a Culpeper resident and churchgoer remembered for her wit, creativity, gentleness, kindness and servant’s heart.

The untimely observance was held at Culpeper United Methodist, where Mrs. Cook was active in the children’s ministry, quilters’ guild and in the church kitchen, where she would try out new dishes to serve to fellow parishioners on Wednesday nights.

“She always called me kid,” said church member Lori Davis, remembering Cook’s recipes, cooked with a lot of love, she said. “Pat was very eager to help.”

Everyone else was “hon,” others recalled.

But her passion was children, said Davis, who like others recalled Cook’s Sunday School crafts and special treats. Childless herself, Cook gave endlessly to the children at church and in her own neighborhood.

“There was a little light that shone through Pat,” Davis said. “It was God’s light.”

A picture emerged at the memorial service of a faithful homemaker, loving wife and loyal friend who loved to read her Bible, collect seashells and give to others. This portrait, repeated time and again, made it even more difficult to comprehend the manner of Cook’s death.

Just two days after she turned 54, the retired cosmetologist, originally from Illinois, was shot dead February 9 in a reported physical altercation with a Culpeper Police officer on East Street.

Virginia State Police say the unidentified officer had his arm trapped in the driver’s side window of Cook’s Jeep and was being dragged alongside the vehicle as she pulled away from the parking lot of Epiphany Catholic School. The officer was called to the scene for a report of a suspicious person.

It remains unknown why Cook was in the school parking lot that morning or exactly what happened to cause her violent death. An eyewitness has said the officer’s arm was never trapped, and that he was not being dragged.

The VSP has not released any new information since the days following the tragic incident that has left the Culpeper community angered and stunned.

Cook left behind a husband of nearly eight years, Gary Cook, and a brother and mother, both residents of New Jersey.

The Rev. Randy Orndorff, pastor at Culpeper United Methodist, acknowledged the mixture of emotions surrounding Cook’s sudden passing – rage, anger, sadness and grief – and that there remained more questions than answers. In addition, he spoke of love, compassion and forgiveness in a message, “Weave Us Together, Lord.”

Orndorff asked for prayers for Mr. Cook and Mrs. Cook’s brother, in attendance Sunday, and her mother, who was not there. The reverend also said, “We do pray for the police officer and his family and everybody involved.”

“There is still much to work through,” Orndorff said. “We have to find ways to move forward.”

A palatable sense of disbelief permeated the sanctuary Sunday, where examples of Cook’s simple works were displayed. Her quilts decorated the altar, and at the entrance were her crafts and crafts made for her by the church’s children – a butterfly of tissue paper and a clothespin, a dragonfly of popsicle sticks and glitter.

Photographs of Mrs. Cook showed her surrounded by children, including a large image projected at the front in which she had her arms raised as if in song.

“To be such a petite woman, Pat had a tremendous heart,” said Davis.

She had a sense of humor too, noted Pastor Nancy Palmer, saying what she most remembered about the fellow parishioner was when she would complement Cook on her meals.

“She would always say, ‘Well, kiss the cook,’” Palmer said.

Pat always tried to make others feel special, Orndorff said, and her passing leaves a lot of hurt.

“How do we handle it? Through our faith,” the pastor said.

Patricia Cook made the most of her 54 years, Orndorff went on, sharing a lesson he knows from experience having lost his teenaged daughter in a car accident: “Be careful not to focus on what you lost, and I know you lost a lot. Focus on what you had.”

In addition to church friends and family, several town government officials attended Sunday’s service including Culpeper Mayor Chip Coleman and Culpeper Police Chief Chris Jenkins.

----------


## sparebulb

> She seems to be a well-liked lady


That is irrelevant, Mike.

Butchie and his buddy "Lethal" won't be happy until you, me, and the rest of society hate this woman and applaud the hero cops for putting her down like a rabid skunk.  They don't see her as even being a human being.

----------


## azxd

> Here lies John Rambo, war hero, awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, survivor of countless excursions behind enemy lines.
> 
> Killed in Jerkwater USA for vagrancy.

----------


## Lethalmiko

> I still think you are a bit more ignorant on constitutional law precedents than you let on, but alas, I still consider this progress.


Frankly, this sort of comment is a little irritating because it adds no value to the discussion and this is not the first time you are doing this. I don't see why you see it fit to keep commenting about my supposed ignorance on anything when it is more constructive to just stick to the arguments. If you prove me wrong, I will admit as much. I shall respond to your critique later, suffice to say that there are gaps in your arguments I shall highlight.

----------


## azxd

Gaps ... We need more bodies in trunks to fill the void, and perpetuate this insanity.

----------


## Jonathanm

> Your assertion that liberty demands zero tolerance is a completely made-up standard that you came up with on your own.  I have already delivered a damning argument to this concept of flight equalling suspicion.  *If we are to protect the right of the individual to not be detained, then we can't allow the very act of them exercising that right to make them a suspect.*  That completely defeats this purpose.  Please tell me you understand this.  If someone is running late for a meeting and doesn't want to stick around and argue with the police, it can't be considered as suspicious.  The act of simply exercising one's right to move about freely without unprovoked obstruction from state officials cannot possibly be considered as a nullification of the very right they are exercising.  That is absurd.


Winner of thread.  

Please, Lethalmiko, respond to the bold. Perhaps I've missed it, but I don't remember seeing any response from you on PaulConventionWV's point, here.

For what it's worth, I tried to approach this thread from an objective viewpoint. I have a bias against the police, I'll admit, but disregarding my own feelings, I cannot objectively support what this officer chose to do. You don't shoot people who are running from you, unless of course they're murdering people, and making a tactical retreat. And, frankly, the court could rule that police officers are allowed to do this, and I'd _still_ consider it immoral. It's a matter of principle: Don't shoot people when there are other viable alternatives. Can you honestly state, with a straight face, that the only option this officer had was to shoot the suspect dead?

As to the whole arm-dragging argument, I'm sorry, but I just can't believe that. You'd have to be unbelievably slow of reaction to allow your arm to get stuck in a vehicle's window, and this cop was obviously fast enough to pull out his gun and shoot her to death before she 'escaped' (read: legally exited) a _possible_ crime scene.

----------


## Butchie

> That is irrelevant, Mike.
> 
> Butchie and his buddy "Lethal" won't be happy until you, me, and the rest of society hate this woman and applaud the hero cops for putting her down like a rabid skunk.  They don't see her as even being a human being.


No, I'd be happy if you had the reading and comprehension skills found in any 4th grader. If you can show me where at any point I was trying to get anyone to "hate this woman and applaud the hero cops for putting her down like a rabid skunk" I'll send you two silver rounds for free. If you actually had read anything I said you would clearly see I never made one single comment about this article or the people in it, ironically, what I was talking about tho - you guys continue to prove my point with just about every word you say.

----------


## Travlyr

This is why everybody who believes in freedom must work diligently for sound money, fully redeemable. We have to eliminate the cop mentality of superiority and immunity. That's what a constitutional militia and sheriff department does. While sound money starves the military industrial beast. The sooner the better.

The Purse & The Sword by Dr. Edwin Vieira Jr.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> No, it does not, that person said murdering innocent civilians was different for soldiers because they were under orders, I countered it made no difference. Where is the straw man in that? If you were not the person who previously accussed me of the straw man you have my apologies for accussing you of doing it twice.
> 
> This was not the conversation however where I was asked for proof where the military kills innocent civilians, that was another post and I DID give several examples and I can give more if you like, or you can simply Youtube it yourself.
> 
> I would just like to know if you can tell me what point it is tho you feel I'm trying to make in the first place that you disagree with, seems I keep getting attacked for things I never even said, and where did you point out logical errors, you just said I used a straw man argument, how did that point out anything?


The straw man IS a logical error.  It is a term that applies to the logical fallacy of misrepresenting a person's position and then attacking that position when, in fact, what you are attacking is not  your opponent's position in the first place.  That is what you did.  Go back and read it.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Channeling The Ghoul I see:


He said that?  How does he get away with calling THAT freedom?  It's inconceivable that anyone could actually believe what they are saying if they say something like that.  Basically, what he's saying is that freedom is giving up your freedom to authority.  That is the OPPOSITE OF FREEDOM!  ARGHHHHH!

----------


## Anti Federalist

> This is why everybody who believes in freedom must work diligently for sound money, fully redeemable. We have to eliminate the cop mentality of superiority and immunity. That's what a constitutional militia and sheriff department does. While sound money starves the military industrial beast. The sooner the better.
> 
> The Purse & The Sword by Dr. Edwin Vieira Jr.


Also recommended by Edwin Vieira

*Constitutional Homeland Security: A Call for Americans to Revitalize the Militia of the Several States. Volume I, The Nation in Arms* 

http://www.amazon.com/Constitutional.../dp/0967175925

----------


## Anti Federalist

> He said that?  How does he get away with calling THAT freedom?  It's inconceivable that anyone could actually believe what they are saying if they say something like that.  Basically, what he's saying is that freedom is giving up your freedom to authority.  That is the OPPOSITE OF FREEDOM!  ARGHHHHH!


Yes he did, it was a while ago, but I'll dig up the source.

Here's the whole thing, in context, and its even worse, basically saying that when you lose homogenous ideals, you better have an authoritarian police state in place to keep all the competing factions in check and under your thumb.



*'Freedom Is About Authority': Excerpts From Giuliani Speech on Crime*

Published: March 20, 1994

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/03/20/ny...-on-crime.html

Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani was among the speakers on Wednesday at a forum about crime in the cities, sponsored by The New York Post. The Mayor discussed how crime and law enforcement had changed in New York over several decades, and how society had changed. Here is an excerpt, as transcribed by The New York Times.

We constantly present the false impression that government can solve problems that government in America was designed not to solve. Families are significantly less important in the development of children today than they were 30 or 40 years ago. Religion has less influence than it did 30 or 40 years ago. Communities don't mean what they meant 30 or 40 years ago.

As Americans, we're not sure we share values. We're sometimes even afraid to use the word values. We talk about teaching ethics in schools -- people say, "What ethics? Whose ethics? Maybe we can't." And they confuse that with teaching of religion. And we are afraid to reaffirm the basics upon which a lawful and a decent society are based. We're almost embarrassed by it.

*We look upon authority too often and focus over and over again, for 30 or 40 or 50 years, as if there is something wrong with authority. We see only the oppressive side of authority. Maybe it comes out of our history and our background. What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.
*
[ Interruption by someone in the audience. ]

You have free speech so I can be heard.

[ Another interruption. ]

At the core the struggle is philosophical. There are many, many things that can be done in law enforcement to protect us better. There are many things that can done to create a government that is more responsive and more helpful. The fact is that we're fooling people if we suggest to them the solutions to these very, very deep-seated problems are going to be found in government. . . .

The solutions are going to be found when we figure out as a society what our families are going to be like in the next century, and how maybe they are going to be different. They are going to have to be just as solid and just as strong in teaching every single youngster their responsibility for citizenship. We're going to find the answer when schools once again train citizens. Schools exist in America and have always existed to train responsible citizens of the United States of America.

If they don't do that, it's very hard to hold us together as a country, because it's shared values that hold us together. We're going to come through this when we realize that it's all about, ultimately, individual responsibility. That in fact the criminal act is about individual responsibility and the building of the respect for the law and ethics is also a matter of individual responsibility.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Frankly, this sort of comment is a little irritating because it adds no value to the discussion and this is not the first time you are doing this. I don't see why you see it fit to keep commenting about my supposed ignorance on anything when it is more constructive to just stick to the arguments. If you prove me wrong, I will admit as much. I shall respond to your critique later, suffice to say that there are gaps in your arguments I shall highlight.


No, I can't prove you wrong if you don't know what you're talking about.  You won't admit it because you have a different understanding of the subject than I do.  If I were to talk with someone I studied with, then I would be able to prove something to them by showing them relevant facts and using them within the guidelines of the Constitutional framework that we both know.  You, however, do not even use the same definitions that I do, so I can't prove anything to you unless you first admit that these terms and precedents do not mean what you think they mean because to you they are subjective and volatile.  They are not.  The only reason I even said you were ignorant is because I couldn't help but notice your lack of knowledge of what many Constitutional terms even mean.  These are standards that are accepted in the legal community, and you didn't even let it be known why you disagree with these definitions, so I had to conclude that you didn't know how they were used in the first place.  Your oversimplification of Constitutional concepts in order to justify something that has always been accepted as unconstitutional, to me, proves your ignorance of said Constitutional concepts.

I don't care if you think it is wrong of me to call you ignorant.  That's what I observed, so I'm going to calls it like I sees it.

----------


## sparebulb

> No, I'd be happy if you had the reading and comprehension skills found in any 4th grader. If you can show me where at any point I was trying to get anyone to "hate this woman and applaud the hero cops for putting her down like a rabid skunk" I'll send you two silver rounds for free. If you actually had read anything I said you would clearly see I never made one single comment about this article or the people in it, ironically, what I was talking about tho - you guys continue to prove my point with just about every word you say.


Your hate and obfuscations are obvious.  Your credibility is shot with your worthless, deadbeat wagers.  Now, you are starting to become trite and testy.

I'm very happy that the MODS are keeping this thread open.  There is a growing evil in this country that needs to be studied and confronted.

----------


## Travlyr

> Also recommended by Edwin Vieira
> 
> *Constitutional Homeland Security: A Call for Americans to Revitalize the Militia of the Several States. Volume I, The Nation in Arms* 
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Constitutional.../dp/0967175925


That is really good. Thanks. I have not seen that before.
From a review,



> How in the world can the citizens of these 50 sovereign States, return to the liberty and self-government that we supposedly assured ourselves when "We the People" assented to the U.S. Constitution as our means of limiting the Leviathan State? 
> 
> In this trenchant little guidebook for American citizens, constitutional scholar Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr leads us back to the rule of law, step by constitutional step! What an erudite, plain-speaking, and eminently "do-able" plan the author presents!

----------


## azxd

> Your hate and obfuscations are obvious.  Your credibility is shot with your worthless, deadbeat wagers.  Now, you are starting to become trite and testy.
> 
> I'm very happy that the MODS are keeping this thread open.  There is a growing evil in this country that needs to be studied and confronted.


The evil may someday be confronted as people develop their own system of methods to deal with those the system is willing to protect.

----------


## jmdrake

> Fair enough, but if you had read my initial post in all of this, which I realize not everyone has, you would see my comment was never about this particular cop or this article, nor have I at anytime spoken on that issue, yet everyone wants to keep using it against me.


Oh I'm pretty sure I read your initial post.  This is it right?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4200562



> Yaknow what Lethal I got into a similar argument on this board awhile back and it's a no win situation. Bottom line most of these guys just hate cops, I didn't read this story of this woman, know nothing about it so not going to jump into that, but you are right, whenever it's a cop story on this board the presumption of innocence goes right out the window.
> 
> The whole reason I left the DailyPaul was because everyday it was a cop bashing fest, came here and people seemed a little less "rage against the machine", but anymore it's getting just a bad.


If I'm wrong, please correct me.  Now according to the "7 habits of highly effective people" one should seek to understand in order to be understood.  I think I understand you.  I just strongly think what you did was in bad form.  You wanted to get your point out that people shouldn't just blindly "bash cops".  So you engaged a thread where you thought people were "bashing cops" without taking the time to *understand* what was going on.  It's a free world.  You can do that.  But you shouldn't be at all surprised by the result.  Lethalmiko, the person you "sided" with when you entered the thread, was in the middle of making a ridiculous cockamamie argument that even if what the witness said happened in fact did happen, the cop should still get off because cops should constitutionally be allowed to use lethal force against someone who was fleeing without any direct or even indirect evidence that this person posed a violent threat to anybody.  Your response, and where it was placed, put you on *his* side of the argument whether you meant to or not.

Here's what everyone in this thread can and should agree on.

1) Cops don't have, and shouldn't have, legal protection for using lethal force against someone just because they are fleeing even if the cop feels that he *might* pose a threat.  The perceived threat must be articuable.  (Cop sees car bearing down on pedestrian for example.)

2) Not all cops are bad.  (Sheriff Mack and various members of "Oathkeepers" for example).

3) Anyone deserves his day in court.

4) Public opinion is not court.  There is no "presumption of innocence" when it comes to discourse about something.  

Applying the above, what I believe to be reasonable, premises to this case, if the cop in question was lying about being drug down the street he should go to prison if for nothing else than obstruction of justice and possibly (in my opinion probably) manslaughter.  (Yes I would count this as a "heat of passion" crime).  If he's telling the truth then there's still the question of why he had his arm in the car in the first place.

Last point.  You don't like people bashing cops?  Well defending cops, either in general or in particular, in the context of a case that seems as black and white as this one actually leads to more bashing and to more people disliking cops.  Why?  Because people start to think, rightly or wrongly, that no matter *what* a cop may do, some people are going to defend him.  That leads to greater resentment of the police in general.  Something to think about.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Oh I'm pretty sure I read your initial post.  This is it right?
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4200562
> 
> 
> If I'm wrong, please correct me.  Now according to the "7 habits of highly effective people" one should seek to understand in order to be understood.  I think I understand you.  I just strongly think what you did was in bad form.  You wanted to get your point out that people shouldn't just blindly "bash cops".  So you jumped into a thread where you thought people were "bashing cops" *without taking the time to understand what was going on* and decided to insert your opinion.  It's a free world.  You can do that.  But you shouldn't be at all surprised by the result.  Lethalmiko, the person you "sided" with when you jumped in, was in the middle of making a ridiculous cockamamie argument that even if what the witness said happened in fact did happen, the cop should still get off because cops should constitutionally be allowed to use lethal force against someone who was fleeing without any direct or even indirect evidence that this person posed a violent threat to anybody.  Your response, and where it was placed, put you on *his* side of the argument whether you meant to or not.
> 
> Here's what everyone in this thread can and should agree on.
> 
> ...


Correct on all points.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I remember similar arguments about the New Orleans Bridge murders, and the Grandmother in Atlanta that was murdered and attempted to be framed by police.
> 
> There are always several that will try to defend the indefensible.


+a bunch

----------


## Butchie

> Oh I'm pretty sure I read your initial post.  This is it right?
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4200562
> 
> 
> If I'm wrong, please correct me.  Now according to the "7 habits of highly effective people" one should seek to understand in order to be understood.  I think I understand you.  I just strongly think what you did was in bad form.  You wanted to get your point out that people shouldn't just blindly "bash cops".  So you engaged a thread where you thought people were "bashing cops" without taking the time to *understand* what was going on.  It's a free world.  You can do that.  But you shouldn't be at all surprised by the result.  Lethalmiko, the person you "sided" with when you entered the thread, was in the middle of making a ridiculous cockamamie argument that even if what the witness said happened in fact did happen, the cop should still get off because cops should constitutionally be allowed to use lethal force against someone who was fleeing without any direct or even indirect evidence that this person posed a violent threat to anybody.  Your response, and where it was placed, put you on *his* side of the argument whether you meant to or not.
> 
> Here's what everyone in this thread can and should agree on.
> 
> ...


The quote of his I replied to contained no outrageous claims, I did read some of his other posts and on that point I'd agree with you, he did go to far, atleast further than I would, and in those post yes, HE was defending this particular officer, I was not. If people think I was defending this cop that is their misguided opinion and is not my fault. As for the court of public opinion, I already conceded that people have every right to form an opinion of their own outside the courtroom, but having a "trial by media" is disgusting and frightening and something our founders never would have apporved of. 

Next you claim no one here was cop bashing? Let's just look at a few replies, heck, wait, just look at the title itself "School teacher killed by police for rolling up her car window" - no bias there:

by Seraphin
_TPTB have trained cops to be animals - they WANT a war. It's that simple._ 

by Czolgosz
_"Cops are known liars."_

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

by The Bavarian
_"Don't mess with the gestapo."_

This was all just on the first page, should I go on? Maybe most importantly, your statements of how you justify that I get lumped into a category by association pretty much blends into my whole point. This is Ron Paul board, Ron Paul and his supporters are people who get smeared and misrepresented all the time by the media, and how many people scream bloody murder about it and even moreso at the "sheeple" who are too stupid to see through it, yet you turn around then and tell me it's my fault if these same Ron Paul supporters put words in my mouth and attack me for things I didn't say. A bit hypocritical isn't it? 

As for sticking up for cops, I will defend any group of people who are being unfairly lumped into some category and being blamed for things someone else did, in those user quotes I have above how about you replace the word cop with blacks, whites, women, Muslims, you name it, wouldn't you say something? Hey, I liked you post, unlike most on here you actually took 5 sec to read what I said, likely we wouldn't agree on most things regarding the police but atleast you are capable of a real discussion.

----------


## osan

> *We look upon authority too often and focus over and over again, for 30 or 40 or 50 years, as if there is something wrong with authority. We see only the oppressive side of authority. Maybe it comes out of our history and our background. What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.*


Once again we run into a problem of linguistics.  Depending on the definitions of selected terms this statement takes on differing meanings both in color and hue.

As the statement stands, above, it means absolutely NOTHING.  Read that last sentence several millions of times until it sinks in.  The statement above, which appears to say so much, actually says NOTHING AT ALL.  Analysis: no definitions of "authority", "oppressive",  "freedom", "lawful authority", "great deal", and "discretion".  Terms that have no meaning as written above: "too often", "there is something wrong", "oppressive side of authority".

Rewriting the paragraph using equally meaningless terms, we obtain this:

"*We look upon blugga too often and focus over and over again, for 30 or 40 or 50 years, as if there is something blah with blugga. We see only the blih side of blugga. Maybe it comes out of our history and our background. What we don't see is that blurf is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Blurf is about blugga. Blurf is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to bloffet blugga a great deal of bloorhee about what you do.

*
In the strictest linguistic and philosphical senses, the rewritten paragraph holds PRECISELY the same meaning as the original.  The two paragraphs are semantically and syntactically isomorphic, which is to say that they are identical.  In other words, we have absolutely ZERO idea of what Roothead's opinions are on the issue in question, based on the paragraph.  We do not, in fact, even know with any reasonable precision what the real issue is.  Virtually all of the meaning we extract from such passages comes to us via inference based on ASSUMED MEANINGS of terms.  This is a _catastrophic_ error in communication, the extent and significance of which would be difficult to overstate where conversations of this general nature are concerned.  Roothead said it himself, above, that the issue is fundamentally _philosophical_ in nature.  I agree completely, and that means that there must be NO SUCH THING AS CASUAL DISCOURSE.  Every sentence must be understood sufficiently, which means every term must be defined.  This is VERY cumbersome work when done properly.  It is very rarely, indeed almost never, done properly.  Communication is a devilishly tricky affair under the best circumstances.  It becomes a colossal cluster copulation under lesser conditions.  I keep beating this horse in the hopes that the people here come to "get" it and start spreading the news.  Yes, doing it right slows things way down, a most unwelcome result by today's standards of fast everything.  Slowing down, however, is the best thing we can do when entering into discourse such as this because flawed results UNIVERSALLY lead to injustice and profound and widespread death and misery.  We have a good eight thousands of years of written history that backs my assertion like a thousand mile thick block of reinforced, ultra-hard concrete.

Unfortunately, people are generally too lax in their habits, wanting the superficially satisfactory punchlines right here, right now.  This bodes not well for the world.

----------


## mikeforliberty

I love my ignore list

----------


## GunnyFreedom

The notion that actions like the one described in the OP are technically allowed is an easy one to follow.  Of course, I disagree vehemently for reasons already stated dozens of times.  Nevertheless, even if for the sake of argument we accept as true that police are technically allowed to kill anybody who refuses to obey their commands, the argument is irrelevant.  Remember at Nuremberg it was settled as international law that technical authority, including the obedience to direct orders that would otherwise get the person killed, was not sufficient justification for the commission of atrocities.

Technical authority is not good enough.  "I was only following orders" is not good enough.  Murder is murder, and when said murder takes place simply on account of a bruised ego from 'failure to obey,' it becomes an atrocity.

----------


## Lethalmiko

Sorry I took long to respond as I really got busy with work. This will be an essay.

*ERRORS OF JUDGEMENT*
The biggest error most of you have made is failing to consider the “totality of the circumstances”. Most of you have tended to focus on one issue and blown it up to make it look like what I am saying is ridiculous. For example, some argue that Cook got shot just for rolling up her window. This is false because that action has to be examined in the light of all the other factors such as the tip-off, the officer's assessment at the scene, her apparent refusal to cooperate and her taking off.

The second error is to assume that he was illegally detaining Cook. It is not clear so far whether he did attempt to detain her or not. Virginia does not yet have a "stop and identify law" so she had no obligation to identify herself and had no obligation to cooperate with the officer without reasonable suspicion. However, it is not that simple because some states have laws against resisting, obstructing, or delaying a peace officer conducting an investigation. 

Depending on what the Virginia laws say, the officer may argue that he was using one of those laws in questioning her and asking for her ID. Her resistance and subsequent flight amounted to "resisting, obstructing, or delaying a peace officer." Her action can possibly constitute not only reasonable suspicion, but an actual breaking of a law for which he was then empowered to arrest her and use force if necessary to stop her. Moreover, officers during consensual conversations attempt to elicit information that can then constitute reasonable suspicion. So even if there was absolutely no resonable suspicion against Cook, her answers and action during an initially voluntary conversation could be the basis for reasonable suspicion from then onwards.




> It is not universally agreed that, absent a “stop and identify law”, there is no obligation for a detainee to identify himself. For example, as the U.S. Supreme Court noted in Hiibel, California’s “stop and identify” statute was voided in Kolender v. Lawson. But in People v. Long, decided four years after Kolender, a California appellate court found no constitutional impropriety in a police officer’s demand for written identification from a detainee. The issue before the Long court was a request for suppression of evidence uncovered in a search of the defendant’s wallet, so the issue of refusal to present identification was not directly addressed; however some cite Long in maintaining that refusal to present written identification constitutes obstructing an officer. Others disagree, and maintain that persons detained by police in California cannot be compelled to identify themselves. Some courts, e.g., State v. Flynn (Wis. 1979) and People v. Loudermilk (Calif. 1987) have held that police may perform a search for written identification if a suspect refuses to provide it; a later California decision, People v. Garcia (2006) strongly disagreed.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes

The third error concerns the officer. I have said it before in passing but nobody has addressed it. What is the probability that a trained officer would execute a woman at ten in the morning in a place where he can be easily seen by witnesses? It seems more likely to me that he did what he knew was defendable in court according to the circumstances. He may be wrong but to paint him as an eager executionist is stretching it.

*THE CREDIBILITY OF KRIS BUCHELE*
According to the Culpeper Star Exponent, he changed his story after 24 hours.




> At the scene within an hour after the shooting, eyewitness Kris Buchele told the Star-Exponent the officer’s arm was in the window as Cook started to “roll it up.”
> 
> He never said the officer’s arm was trapped as the VSP reported.
> 
> “The officer yelled ‘stop, stop or I’m going to shoot,’” Buchele said.
> 
> That’s when the officer fired the first time at Cook – at point blank range, the witness said.
> 
> A CSE reporter on scene overheard Buchele say the same to police, who interviewed him extensively.
> ...


http://www2.starexponent.com/news/20...fe-ar-1687358/

*REASONABLE SUSPICION*
*PaulConventionWV* argues that there were no "specific and articulable facts", only personal suspicion. However, the Culpeper Star Exponent further reports:




> But why she was in the nearby parking lot of the middle school at Epiphany Catholic Thursday morning remains a mystery to many, including Michael Watts of Culpeper, whose children attend the small private school that fronts on Main Street.
> 
> *“As a parent, I have questions about what the woman was doing at our school. Why was she walking around the middle school and why wouldn’t she leave when asked by school staff?” he said.*
> 
> Watts said he appreciated the routine safety precautions in place at Epiphany and seeing them smoothly implemented during Thursday’s shooting, including putting school facilities on lockdown.
> 
> “I’m glad the staff has been trained to be aware of potential security threats and that the police were so quick to respond to a call from the school,” he said. “Like everyone else, I wonder exactly what happened once the police officer got there and why it required a shooting to resolve.”


So you might want to reconsider your bold assertions in the light of this since it was not just a simple case of someone sitting in their car doing nothing. Whoever tipped off the police reasonably judged her actions to be suspicious (as noted above) and the police station judged the report to be worthy of investigation. Cook's behaviour was similar to someone scoping out a place for a hit later on. This is strengthened by the fact that the car was unfamiliar to people who saw it in a small town. Please note that the statement released by the police so far is just a summary.

Another factor nobody has considered is that laws pertaining to a person in a vehicle are different from one on the street. Officers can normally demand for your driver's license (thereby knowing your name even if you do not want to tell them who you are). Presumably, they are empowered to do this so that they are able to immediately arrest an unlicensed driver who is considered a danger to other motorists. If the officer had the legal right to demand for her licence and she refused, that may have meant she was breaking a law that prohibits refusal to show your driver's licence. 

Therefore, depending on the full facts, there may have been a case for an arrest, in which case the officer has no reason to lie about why he shot her since she broke the law and he was attempting to arrest her which she resisted.

*ZERO TOLERANCE TO CRIMINAL ACTIVITY*
I said "Liberty demands zero tolerance to criminal activity." Some of you sharply disagree, which means that you tolerate a little crime. A little bit of rape, murder, theft and arson here and there hurts nobody right? Are you serious? Or do you not know what "criminal activity" is by definition?

And then:




> Your assertion that liberty demands zero tolerance is a completely made-up standard that you came up with on your own. I have already delivered a damning argument to this concept of flight equalling suspicion. If we are to protect the right of the individual to not be detained, then we can't allow the very act of them exercising that right to make them a supsect. That completely defeats this purpose.


This is a very huge strawman. The biggest so far. You say "...liberty demands zero tolerance is a completely made-up standard..." Zero tolerance to WHAT? Without mentioning what I am referring to, you then proceed to implicitly claim I am talking about zero tolerance to citizens refusing to cooperate with the police, and since you have "already delivered a damning argument to this concept of flight equalling suspicion", you then attempt to show that you have disproved my argument. Rather disingenuous, don't you think?

*MISC*



> Simply leaving the scene cannot be used. What good is the right to leave if it allows you to be considered a suspect? Why even give us the liberty to disobey orders from the police if it automatically makes us a suspect and allows the police to detain us? It makes absolutely no sense.


As I said at the beginning, you are not considering the “totality of the circumstances”. You are reducing everything to "simply leaving the scene" when as I have shown, there numerous other dynamics at play, one of which could be the officer demanding to see her licence. A person who refuses to show their licence or state their name and then drives off should look pretty suspicious even to you.




> Now you're starting to get it. Maybe my truth bombs were not in vain. From these facts, you can already tell that the case is not looking good for the officer (assuming the trial was fair and the sentence just). There are a lot of things he has to explain.


I was already aware of all these possibilitites from the time I entered the thread. There are other critical things that need explanation. I read somewhere that her husband says her windows were manual so there was no way she could have rolled up the window fast enough. Buchele says "... she was rolling the window up and they were exiting out of the parking lot..." It seems a little odd that she was rolling up a manual window while simultaneously driving out. If her aim was just to leave, why did she roll up her window when it was not necessary for the purpose of getting away?




> Okay, but that doesn't mean we are wrong for taking sides. We can evaluate the facts and perhaps change our perception as it goes along, but barring any major change sin the story, it doesn't loo good for the cop. You have to at least admit that. If we were actually on the jury, yes, we would be required to give him the benefit of the doubt despite our own personal misgivings just to be on the safe side in the defense of liberty, but even then, the facts so far point to a probable conviction of the cop with knowledge that, basedon his own testimony, he was in violation of the Constitution (again, assuming that the judiciary is fair in its assessment of a cop).


You are not "wrong" for taking sides but my point is that if you believe in the principle itself of presumption of innocence, you would not be too hasty to pass judgement prematurely. Secondly, if your judgement is based on emotions or faulty reasoning and someone like me points that out, you should be ready to reconsider in the spirit of intellectual honesty.




> The issue of search and seizure most definitely appplies here considering the fact that the cop wanted to detain her without the Constitutional authority to do so. He had no right to stick his arm through her window, considering that she clearly didn't give him permission to do so.


Speculation. How do you know he wanted to detain her?




> I think we made progress here. I think I have been able to cause you to think more critically about law and morality and admit the shortcomings of your own case. I don't believe anyone is hopeless, and you have made a good case for that. Logic and facts (I hate the dogmatic way in which that phrase is used by some, but I digress) might yet win you over to what I believe is a very reasonable view to hold of police and actions such as this. I still think you are a bit more ignorant on constitutional law precedents than you let on, but alas, I still consider this progress.


I hope from the foregoing I make you think more critically about your leaning towards guilt.




> You're parked, an officer walks up and starts asking you questions, and you don't like the questions ... What do you do ?
> 
> Step 1 :Ask if you are under arrest
> Step 2: Ask if you are free to go
> Step three is based on the response to step 2
> 
> What do you do ?
> 
> Do you give up your rights, just because someone is wearing a uniform, or do you understand your rights well enough to defend them ?
> ...


If an officer asks me reasonable questions, I would fully cooperate. If he overdoes the questions, I would then ask if I am being detained and for what. I would never be shot at because I would not just drive away from an officer anyhow without closure one way or the other.




> Missed this ... How about (theoretically) I go buy a uniform, impersonate an officer, and start shooting at you ?
> What do you do ?
> 
> Criminals impersonate officers all the time, and that's all the justification I need ... You, on the other hand, must decide for yourself what is the right thing, and I can guarantee you IT WILL be circumstantial.
> 
> I don't pull over for unmarked cars, and if I think I'm not dealing with a LEO ... I'm leaving the area, and possibly shooting back with one hand while dialing 911 with the other, and steering with my knees.
> 
> Does that make any sense to you ?


A person impersonating an officer is unlikely to just shoot at someone for nothing. I would never allow it to reach to that.




> Fearing for ones life? And neither 'reasonable suspicion' nor 'probable cause' are justification for homicide.


What possible reason would Cook fear for her life in this situation? How do you know it is homicide?




> What suspicions does the anonymous tipster raise? A woman is sitting inside her car at a Parking lot. Now, the initial encounter with the cop is consensual and she is not under arrest or detained... she can ignore his questions and leave. What is the officer's basis to detain her? Not providing ID? Did she have to provide ID? Does Virginia have a "Stop and ID" statute(which reasonable suspicion of a crime must be present to Demand ID)?


All addressed above.




> I understand you're a fan of citing case law, so:
> Deshaney vs. Winnebago County
> Warren vs. District of Columbia
> Two supreme court cases that say precisely that the police have no duty to protect you or prevent crime.
> 
> Stop making this more complicated than it needs to be.
> You are still suffering from the Stockholm Syndrome you had programmed into you by public school.
> It's making you spout reams of technobabble that you think support the idea that it's ok for cops to murder people.
> It's not.
> ...


Before I argue on the basis of what is in those cases, why do you suppose the police patrol the streets? Is it for fun? If the police have advance knowledge about a crime, why do they bother to stop it since according to you they "have no duty to protect you or prevent crime"? If an officer was a witness to a crime in progress on his way to see his girlfriend and he just ignored it and went to see her, you really believe that he would get away with your argument if it later was revealed to the public what he did? The rest of your comments are silly and are duly ignored.




> Please, Lethalmiko, respond to the bold. Perhaps I've missed it, but I don't remember seeing any response from you on PaulConventionWV's point, here.


You are referring to the statement "If we are to protect the right of the individual to not be detained, then we can't allow the very act of them exercising that right to make them a suspect." This is true but you have to consider the totality of the circumstances as I have explained above. A person who flees from cops in certain circumstances should be pursued. If his life is in danger from the officers and there is no reasonable suspicion, I would support fleeing. If they are simply investigating and he runs from them, it's a different story.




> You don't shoot people who are running from you, unless of course they're murdering people, and making a tactical retreat. And, frankly, the court could rule that police officers are allowed to do this, and I'd still consider it immoral. It's a matter of principle: Don't shoot people when there are other viable alternatives. Can you honestly state, with a straight face, that the only option this officer had was to shoot the suspect dead?


What about the guy who has murdered someone and is trying to get away? Or the guy who wants to go destroy evidence implicating him? I already said earlier that shooting is the very last resort. I cannot yet make the judgement about whether there were other alternatives until I get all the facts. Besides, I have already argued above that she may have broken a law at the point she was shot.




> As to the whole arm-dragging argument, I'm sorry, but I just can't believe that. You'd have to be unbelievably slow of reaction to allow your arm to get stuck in a vehicle's window, and this cop was obviously fast enough to pull out his gun and shoot her to death before she 'escaped' (read: legally exited) a possible crime scene.


We need to hear his cross-examined testimony.




> No, I can't prove you wrong if you don't know what you're talking about. You won't admit it because you have a different understanding of the subject than I do. If I were to talk with someone I studied with, then I would be able to prove something to them by showing them relevant facts and using them within the guidelines of the Constitutional framework that we both know. You, however, do not even use the same definitions that I do, so I can't prove anything to you unless you first admit that these terms and precedents do not mean what you think they mean because to you they are subjective and volatile. They are not. The only reason I even said you were ignorant is because I couldn't help but notice your lack of knowledge of what many Constitutional terms even mean. These are standards that are accepted in the legal community, and you didn't even let it be known why you disagree with these definitions, so I had to conclude that you didn't know how they were used in the first place. Your oversimplification of Constitutional concepts in order to justify something that has always been accepted as unconstitutional, to me, proves your ignorance of said Constitutional concepts. I don't care if you think it is wrong of me to call you ignorant. That's what I observed, so I'm going to calls it like I sees it.


You speak in general terms without citing a single example of my so-called ignorance from anything I have said so far. This fact combined with your tendency to use strawmen can also lead me to call you all sorts of things (eg dishonest) but I have stuck to the points and in cases where I accuse you directly of anything, I give clear examples of your fallacious arguments.

----------


## Czolgosz

> The biggest error most of you have made is failing to consider the “totality of the circumstances”.



Lady in car, school parking lot.  "Somebody phones in a suspicious person."  Cop, not fearing for his life, kills lady.    Totality, you say?

----------


## Lethalmiko

> The quote of his I replied to contained no outrageous claims, I did read some of his other posts and on that point I'd agree with you, he did go to far, atleast further than I would, and in those post yes, HE was defending this particular officer, I was not. If people think I was defending this cop that is their misguided opinion and is not my fault.


I made it clear in an earlier post that I was defending the _presumption of innocence_ principle, not the cop per se.




> The notion that actions like the one described in the OP are technically allowed is an easy one to follow.  Of course, I disagree vehemently for reasons already stated dozens of times.  Nevertheless, even if for the sake of argument we accept as true that police are technically allowed to kill anybody who refuses to obey their commands, the argument is irrelevant.  Remember at Nuremberg it was settled as international law that technical authority, including the obedience to direct orders that would otherwise get the person killed, was not sufficient justification for the commission of atrocities. Technical authority is not good enough.  "I was only following orders" is not good enough.  Murder is murder, and when said murder takes place simply on account of a bruised ego from 'failure to obey,' it becomes an atrocity.


As I have labored to explain in great detail, we have to understand what was really going on and find out why Cook was shot by reading the cross-examined testimony of the officer. My point is not about people being killed for refusing police orders. It is about people fleeing from officers who are ordered to stop but ignore the order. Or people who are about to be arrested who resist.

----------


## Lethalmiko

> Lady in car, school parking lot.  "Somebody phones in a suspicious person."  Cop, not fearing for his life, kills lady.    Totality, you say?


Have you read everything I wrote? If you did, can you please refute any specific argument I made. Otherwise you are just repeating what has already been said by people on your side, which is useless.

----------


## Czolgosz

> Have you read everything I wrote? If you did, can you please refute any specific argument I made. Otherwise you are just repeating what has already been said by people on your side, which is useless.


Yes, let's argue semantics of how a women, sitting in her car (apparently not observed violating anybody's rights), is killed by a cop...cuz that'll make moot the totality of the situation.  So which is it, details or totality?

----------


## pcosmar

> Have you read everything I wrote? .


I didn't, and won't bother. I scanned enough to see that you are still attempting to justify you Boot Licking position.

The drivel is not worth the recycled electrons it is made of.

----------


## Lethalmiko

> I didn't, and won't bother. I scanned enough to see that you are still attempting to justify you Boot Licking position. The drivel is not worth the recycled electrons it is made of.


Right. And since you have chosen to ignore what the Culpeper Star Exponent reported, I can safely conclude you are being irrational.




> Yes, let's argue semantics of how a women, sitting in her car (apparently not observed violating anybody's rights), is killed by a cop...cuz that'll make moot the totality of the situation. So which is it, details or totality?


Oh, and what about the part where Cook (a total stranger) was walking around the school and never left when she was asked to by the staff? You have never heard of child kidnapping, right?

----------


## pcosmar

> Right. And since you have chosen to ignore what the Culpeper Star Exponent reported, I can safely conclude you are being irrational.


I just don't justify Police Murders and have NO respect  for those that do.

----------


## aGameOfThrones

*Let's see what the U.S. supreme court thinks.*




> An individual operating or traveling in an automobile does not lose all reasonable expectation of privacy simply because the automobile and its use are subject to government regulation. 25 Automobile travel is a basic, pervasive, and often necessary mode of transportation to and from one's home, workplace, and leisure activities. Many people spend more hours each day traveling in cars than walking on the streets. Undoubtedly, many find a greater sense of security and privacy in traveling in an automobile than they do in exposing themselves by pedestrian or other modes of travel. Were the [440 U.S. 648, 663] * individual subject to unfettered governmental intrusion every time he entered an automobile, the security guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment would be seriously circumscribed. As Terry v. Ohio, supra, recognized, people are not shorn of all Fourth Amendment protection when they step from their homes onto the public sidewalks. Nor are they shorn of those interests when they step from the sidewalks into their automobiles. See Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 146 (1972).
> 
> VII
> Accordingly, we hold that except in those situations in which there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. This holding does not preclude the State of Delaware or other States from developing methods for spot checks that involve less intrusion or that do not involve the unconstrained exercise of discretion. 26 Questioning of all oncoming traffic at roadblock-type stops is one possible alternative. We hold only that persons in automobiles on public roadways may not for that reason alone have their travel and privacy interfered with at the unbridled discretion of police officers. The judgment below is affirmed.- DELAWARE v. PROUSE

----------


## Czolgosz

> [/COLOR]
> Oh, and what about the part where Cook (a total stranger) was walking around the school and never left when she was asked to by the staff? You have never heard of child kidnapping, right?


Ok, that's significant.  Apparently more details came out, to which I was unaware.

----------


## AFPVet

> This is why everybody who believes in freedom must work diligently for sound money, fully redeemable. We have to eliminate the cop mentality of superiority and immunity. That's what a constitutional militia and sheriff department does. While sound money starves the military industrial beast. The sooner the better.
> 
> The Purse & The Sword by Dr. Edwin Vieira Jr.


Amen man +rep

----------


## jmdrake

> The quote of his I replied to contained no outrageous claims, I did read some of his other posts and on that point I'd agree with you, he did go to far, atleast further than I would, and in those post yes, HE was defending this particular officer, I was not. If people think I was defending this cop that is their misguided opinion and is not my fault. As for the court of public opinion, I already conceded that people have every right to form an opinion of their own outside the courtroom, but having a "trial by media" is disgusting and frightening and something our founders never would have apporved of. 
> 
> Next you claim no one here was cop bashing? Let's just look at a few replies, heck, wait, just look at the title itself "School teacher killed by police for rolling up her car window" - no bias there:
> 
> by Seraphin
> _TPTB have trained cops to be animals - they WANT a war. It's that simple._ 
> 
> by Czolgosz
> _"Cops are known liars."_
> ...


Fair enough.  A couple of counter points.

1) I never claimed that nobody was "cop bashing".  What I said was that this was not a "cop bashing thread" and that "not everyone you (Butchie) have been arguing against has been cop bashing".

Here are the relevant quotes from me.




> Common use of the English language is that if you are talking to a group of other people on another side of the issue they can refer to themselves as "us" without inferring that you aren't part of the greater "we".  Don't be silly.  And everyone that you are arguing against is *not* "cop bashing".  I certainly haven't been.  Not unless you can't fathom someone stating the obvious that based on all available evidence *this* particular cop went way over the line without somehow "cop bashing".  If I said the Sunday School teacher was wrong would I be Sunday School teacher bashing?  Give me a break!





> ^Thread winner!  I haven't read every post in this thread.  For the sake of argument, let's say there were some "All cops are pigs!" posts.  That still doesn't justify the "If you are questioning this cop's actions you must hate cops" attitude of some.  His story simply *doesn't* add up.  Some want to talk about probable cause?  Well there is probable cause to arrest this officer and charge him for manslaughter at least.  Why does "innocent until proven guilty" = "put him on paid administrative leave" in these cases?  Really, if we're talking about treating officers as well as the general public is treated....?


2) If I mistook your support for one thing Lethalmiko said for your general support of his position in this thread, my apologies.

That said, there is a concerted effort to militarize our police forces nationwide.  You saw it in Pittsburgh at the G20 summit.  Thankfully some cops are resisting this (Oathkeepers) but it is something to be concerned about.

This is what people are concerned about.

----------


## Lethalmiko

> I just don't justify Police Murders and have NO respect  for those that do.


You have just proved my conclusion about you being irrational. Firstly you conclude that it was a murder (which is what this whole debate is about) and then based on this unsubstantiated conclusion, you make the absurd inference that I am justifying a police murder. Talk about fallacies!

----------


## pcosmar

> You have just proved my conclusion about you being irrational. Firstly you conclude that it was a murder (which is what this whole debate is about) and then based on this unsubstantiated conclusion, you make the absurd inference that I am justifying a police murder. Talk about fallacies!


A woman(committing no crime) was shot to death.
That is murder.

I had these same arguments with others when the grandmother in Atlanta was MURDERED by police.
I had the same arguments when New Orleans cops MURDERED people on a bridge.

It has become too damn common.

Irrational is defending the actions of these criminals.

----------


## Lethalmiko

*Murder* is the unlawful killing, with *malice aforethought*, of another human, and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter).

*Homicide* (Latin: homicidium, Latin: **** human being + Latin: caedere to cut, kill) refers to the act of a human killing another human. Murder, for example, is a type of homicide. Homicide is not always a punishable act under the criminal law, and is different than a murder from such formal legal point of view.

*Manslaughter* is a legal term for the killing of a human being, in a manner considered by law as less culpable than murder. The distinction between murder and manslaughter is said to have first been made by the Ancient Athenian lawmaker Draco in the 7th century BC. The law generally differentiates between levels of criminal culpability based on the _mens rea_, or state of mind. This is particularly true within the law of homicide, where murder requires either the intent to kill – a state of mind called malice, or malice aforethought – or the knowledge that one's actions are likely to result in death; manslaughter, on the other hand, requires a lack of any prior intention to kill or create a deadly situation. Manslaughter is usually broken down into two distinct categories: voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter.
_
--Courtesy of Wikipedia_




> *Let's see what the U.S. supreme court thinks.*


You have brought up something interesting. I will come back to address it later.




> Ok, that's significant. Apparently more details came out, to which I was unaware.


I mentioned it in my first post today. That's why it is a good idea to read everything someone has said before you give a counter-argument.

----------


## pcosmar

> *Murder* is the unlawful killing, with *malice aforethought*, of another human, and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter).
> 
> *Homicide* (Latin: homicidium, Latin: **** human being + Latin: caedere to cut, kill) refers to the act of a human killing another human. Murder, for example, is a type of homicide. Homicide is not always a punishable act under the criminal law, and is different than a murder from such formal legal point of view.
> 
> *Manslaughter* is a legal term for the killing of a human being, in a manner considered by law as less culpable than murder. The distinction between murder and manslaughter is said to have first been made by the Ancient Athenian lawmaker Draco in the 7th century BC.
> 
> The law generally differentiates between levels of criminal culpability based on the mens rea, or state of mind. This is particularly true within the law of homicide, where murder requires either the intent to kill – a state of mind called malice, or malice aforethought – or the knowledge that one's actions are likely to result in death; manslaughter, on the other hand, requires a lack of any prior intention to kill or create a deadly situation. Manslaughter is usually broken down into two distinct categories: voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter.


That is all very nice BULL$#@!,, But I have been in prison with many that were there for murder when the FACTS in the case show clear self defense,,, or no involvement at all.

All legalistic mumbojumbo aside. The Courts are as much of a problem as the Public Apathy. 

And the cases that I mentioned earlier (At&NO) it took years for  a slap on the wrist sentence. 
And those were very clear cases of Premeditated murder. The coverup was extensive,, but eventually fell apart and public pressure forced a verdict.

----------


## Lethalmiko

> That is all very nice BULL$#@!,, But I have been in prison with many that were there for murder when the FACTS in the case show clear self defense,,, or no involvement at all.
> 
> All legalistic mumbojumbo aside. The Courts are as much of a problem as the Public Apathy. 
> 
> And the cases that I mentioned earlier (At&NO) it took years for  a slap on the wrist sentence. 
> And those were very clear cases of Premeditated murder. The coverup was extensive,, but eventually fell apart and public pressure forced a verdict.


I shall leave it for others to point out the glaring fallacy in all this. Any takers?

----------


## azxd

> If an officer asks me reasonable questions, I would fully cooperate. If he overdoes the questions, I would then ask if I am being detained and for what. I would never be shot at because I would not just drive away from an officer anyhow without closure one way or the other.
> 
> 
> A person impersonating an officer is unlikely to just shoot at someone for nothing. I would never allow it to reach to that.


If I possessed the power of a mind reader, I'd not get into a position with someone impersonating an officer, either.

And I really did expect that you couldn't leave this thread alone ... SAD that you hold such conviction to defending all your strawmen.

----------


## azxd

> I made it clear in an earlier post that I was defending the _presumption of innocence_ principle, not the cop per se.


Bull$hit ... Or you'd not have headed down the road of dead bodies in trunks and all the other garbage you pollute this forum with.

----------


## jmdrake

> I shall leave it for others to point out the glaring fallacy in all this. Any takers?


Sure.  I'll point out the glaring fallacy of you using freaking Wikipedia to "prove" what is a legal standard that varies from state to state.  In some cases you can commit "murder" simply by walking up to someone, pointing a fake gun at them and saying "give me your wallet" if they die of a heart attack.

----------


## azxd

> Right. And since you have chosen to ignore what the Culpeper Star Exponent reported, I can safely conclude you are being irrational.
> 
> 
> Oh, and what about the part where Cook (a total stranger) was walking around the school and never left when she was asked to by the staff? You have never heard of child kidnapping, right?


Making up crap to defend this is irrational ... Yes ?

----------


## jmdrake

> I made it clear in an earlier post that I was defending the _presumption of innocence_ principle, not the cop per se.


Except:

A) Since RPF is not a court of law there is no applicable presumption of innocence principle and

B) You were making cockamamie arguments that the cop *should* be allowed to kill someone who hadn't actually threatened anyone's life or safety just because that person attempted to leave the scene without permission.




> As I have labored to explain in great detail, we have to understand what was really going on and find out why Cook was shot by reading the cross-examined testimony of the officer. My point is not about people being killed for refusing police orders. It is about people fleeing from officers who are ordered to stop but ignore the order. Or people who are about to be arrested who resist.


Right.  See how you've just contradicted yourself?  Arguing about the "presumption of innocence" my foot!  Nobody is debating that the woman didn't attempt to leave.  So under the way you would structure the rules there is no way the cop could be found guilty.  You aren't arguing for a "presumption of innocence".  You are arguing for a license to kill unarmed people who disobey a cop's orders.

----------


## azxd

> .


Spread your wisdom in this thread - http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Permanent-Coma ... Deadlyone

----------


## tod evans

> *Murder* is the unlawful killing, with *malice aforethought*, of another human, and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter).
> .



I would have no problem sentencing the cop in this case to pre-meditated murder charges what-so-ever.

He regularly "trains" with his weapon, he is (or should be) well versed in it's use, he consciously strapped it to his side before he started his shift knowing he could very well be called upon to DEFEND either himself or some innocent person.

Instead he made the conscious decision to shoot an unarmed civilian who was trying to avoid confrontation.

A crime of this magnitude committed by a person entrusted with the public "welfare" deserves a much more severe sentence than simple electrocution or injection.

----------


## pcosmar

> I shall leave it for others to point out the glaring fallacy in all this. Any takers?


Glaring fallacy in what?

I don't approach it from the point of some kid in a classroom. 
I have sat with men in cells and read court transcript and evidence sheets.
I have personally stared down the barrels of guns.

And some junior G-man is wanting to defend state sanctioned murder?

----------


## JK/SEA

Well we'll never know the 'real' truth will we?...i guess were left with just a few paranoid stories of a woman walking around a school. Perhaps she was going to come back and steal some plants later. 

Cop wins.

The end.

----------


## Lethalmiko

[My comments at the end]*

DELAWARE v. PROUSE (1979)*
MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST, dissenting
-----------------------------------------
The Court holds, in successive sentences, that absent an articulable, reasonable suspicion of unlawful conduct, a motorist may not be subjected to a random license check, but that the States are free to develop "methods for spot checks that . . . do not involve the unconstrained exercise of discretion," such as "[q]uestioning . . . all oncoming traffic at road-block-type stops . . . ." Ante, at 663. Because motorists, apparently like sheep, are much less likely to be "frightened" or "annoyed" when stopped en masse, a highway patrolman needs neither probable cause nor articulable suspicion to stop all motorists on a particular thoroughfare, but he cannot without articulable suspicion stop less than all motorists. The Court thus elevates the adage "misery loves company" to a novel role in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. The rule becomes "curiouser and curiouser" as one attempts to follow the Court's explanation for it.

As the Court correctly points out, people are not shorn of their Fourth Amendment protection when they step from their homes onto the public sidewalks or from the sidewalks into [440 U.S. 648, 665]   their automobiles. But a random license check of a motorist operating a vehicle on highways owned and maintained by the State is quite different from a random stop designed to uncover violations of laws that have nothing to do with motor vehicles. * No one questions that the State may require the licensing of those who drive on its highways and the registration of vehicles which are driven on those highways. If it may insist on these requirements, it obviously may take steps necessary to enforce compliance. The reasonableness of the enforcement measure chosen by the State is tested by weighing its intrusion on the motorists' Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of the State's legitimate interests. E. g., United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 878 (1975).

In executing this balancing process, the Court concludes that given the alternative mechanisms available, discretionary spot checks are not a "sufficiently productive mechanism" to safeguard the State's admittedly "vital interest in ensuring that only those qualified to do so are permitted to operate motor vehicles, that these vehicles are fit for safe operation, and hence that licensing, registration, and vehicle inspection requirements are being observed." Ante, at 659, 658. Foremost among the alternative methods of enforcing traffic and vehicle [440 U.S. 648, 666]   safety regulations, according to the Court, is acting upon observed violations, for "drivers without licenses are presumably the less safe drivers whose propensities may well exhibit themselves." Ante, at 659. Noting that "finding an unlicensed driver among those who commit traffic violations is a much more likely event than finding an unlicensed driver by choosing randomly from the entire universe of drivers," ibid., the Court concludes that the contribution to highway safety made by random stops would be marginal at best. The State's primary interest, however, is in traffic safety, not in apprehending unlicensed motorists for the sake of apprehending unlicensed motorists. The whole point of enforcing motor vehicle safety regulations is to remove from the road the unlicensed driver before he demonstrates why he is unlicensed. The Court would apparently prefer that the State check licenses and vehicle registrations as the wreckage is being towed away.

Nor is the Court impressed with the deterrence rationale, finding it inconceivable that an unlicensed driver who is not deterred by the prospect of being involved in a traffic violation or other incident requiring him to produce a license would be deterred by the possibility of being subjected to a spot check. The Court arrives at its conclusion without the benefit of a shred of empirical data in this record suggesting that a system of random spot checks would fail to deter violators. In the absence of such evidence, the State's determination that random stops would serve a deterrence function should stand.

On the other side of the balance, the Court advances only the most diaphanous of citizen interests. Indeed, the Court does not say that these interests can never be infringed by the State, just that the State must infringe them en masse rather than citizen by citizen. To comply with the Fourth Amendment, the State need only subject all citizens to the same "anxiety" and "inconvenien[ce]" to which it now subjects only a few. [440 U.S. 648, 667]  

For constitutional purposes, the action of an individual law enforcement officer is the action of the State itself, e. g., Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339, 346 -347 (1880), and state acts are accompanied by a presumption of validity until shown otherwise. See, e. g., McDonald v. Board of Election, 394 U.S. 802 (1969). Although a system of discretionary stops could conceivably be abused, the record before us contains no showing that such abuse is probable or even likely. Nor is there evidence in the record that a system of random license checks would fail adequately to further the State's interest in deterring and apprehending violators. Nevertheless, the Court concludes "[o]n the record before us" that the random spot check is not "a sufficiently productive mechanism to justify the intrusion upon Fourth Amendment interests which such stops entail." Ante, at 659. I think that the Court's approach reverses the presumption of constitutionality accorded acts of the States. *The burden is not upon the State to demonstrate that its procedures are consistent with the Fourth Amendment, but upon respondent to demonstrate that they are not. "On this record" respondent has failed to make such a demonstration.*

Neither the Court's opinion, nor the opinion of the Supreme Court of Delaware, suggests that the random stop made in this case was carried out in a manner inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Absent an equal protection violation, the fact that random stops may entail "a possibly unsettling show of authority," ante, at 657, and "may create substantial anxiety," ibid., seems an insufficient basis to distinguish for Fourth Amendment purposes between a roadblock stopping all cars and the random stop at issue here. Accordingly, I would reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Delaware.

-----------

*COMMENTS*
Although Judge Rehnquist was the single dissenter, I find his arguments more convincing. But for now, the law says a driver has no obligation to show their licence based on a random check by an officer, and on this score, Cook had no obligation to show hers. The issue of her actions at the school remains and based on that, there was ample reasonable suspicion. And there is still the question of how to interpret her driving away from the officer.

----------


## Danke

> Deadlyone


haha

I had to look up "miko."

"A Miko (巫女) is a Shinto[1] term in Japan, indicating a shrine maiden (jinja)[2] or a supplementary priestess[3] who was once likely seen as a shaman[4] but in modern Japanese culture is understood to be an institutionalized[5] role in daily shrine life, trained to perform various tasks, ranging from sacred cleansing[6] to performing the Kagura,[7] a sacred dance."

----------


## Danke

> A crime of this magnitude committed by a person entrusted with the public "welfare" deserves a much more severe sentence than simple electrocution or injection.


+rep

----------


## Danke

> DELAWARE v. PROUSE...


Now if you really what to go down the rabbit hole.  Look up all those legal terms to discover to whom it applies.

----------


## Lethalmiko

> Making up crap to defend this is irrational ... Yes ?


Have you read the Culpeper Star Exponent article?




> Instead he made the conscious decision to shoot an unarmed civilian who was trying to avoid confrontation.


How would he have known she was unarmed to make such a decision? I already refuted this argument in post #434.




> Well we'll never know the 'real' truth will we?...i guess were left with just a few paranoid stories of a woman walking around a school. Perhaps she was going to come back and steal some plants later. 
> 
> Cop wins.
> 
> The end.


Those "paranoid stories" are from an eye witness at the school who is parent and from the school staff who asked her to leave.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Those "paranoid stories" are from an eye witness at the school who is parent and from the school staff who asked her to leave.


Well, apparently those 'paranoid' stories from a superior eyewitness with impecable credentials and a school staff member who no doubt is without question someone who is a qualified expert in recognizing a person hell bent on wanton lawlessness, was enough to get this woman sent to a 'better' life by someone with expert training in knowing when someone is going to committ crimes that we can't discuss here due to decorum....right?

----------


## Anti Federalist

Hah hah

+rep




> haha
> 
> I had to look up "miko."
> 
> "A Miko (巫女) is a Shinto[1] term in Japan, indicating a shrine maiden (jinja)[2] or a supplementary priestess[3] who was once likely seen as a shaman[4] but in modern Japanese culture is understood to be an institutionalized[5] role in daily shrine life, trained to perform various tasks, ranging from sacred cleansing[6] to performing the Kagura,[7] a sacred dance."

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Sorry I took long to respond as I really got busy with work. This will be an essay.


Well thanks for the warning anyways.




> The biggest error most of you have made is failing to consider the totality of the circumstances. Most of you have tended to focus on one issue and blown it up to make it look like what I am saying is ridiculous. For example, some argue that Cook got shot just for rolling up her window. This is false because that action has to be examined in the light of all the other factors such as the tip-off, the officer's assessment at the scene, her apparent refusal to cooperate and her taking off.


What is it that you are not understanding?

There is no right, legally or morally, to use deadly force on anybody fleeing, unless it is clear that they would be an immidiate threat to others.




> I said "Liberty demands zero tolerance to criminal activity." Some of you sharply disagree, which means that you tolerate a little crime. A little bit of rape, murder, theft and arson here and there hurts nobody right? Are you serious? Or do you not know what "criminal activity" is by definition?


And as I have already stated, I would rather see a hundred guilty go free than one innocent go to jail.

Or in this case, get summarily executed in their vehicle.

This is why I'm thinking you're just trolling. No sane person would want to live in society in which there was complete "zero tolerance" for crime. You do realize the ramifications of that, what it would take to be totally crime free?

A cure much much much worse than the sickness.




> If an officer asks me reasonable questions, I would fully cooperate. If he overdoes the questions, I would then ask if I am being detained and for what. I would never be shot at because I would not just drive away from an officer anyhow without closure one way or the other.


You would never be shot at huh?

Yeah, I've heard that before.

What are you trying to prove here anyway?

----------


## Danke

> Hah hah
> 
> +rep


deleted: he just needs prodding, donnay taught me that.

----------


## azxd

> Have you read the Culpeper Star Exponent article?


Sorry DeadlyDancer ... I'm more worried about bodies in trunks

----------


## azxd

> I made it clear in an earlier post that I was defending the _presumption of innocence_ principle, not the cop per se.
> 
> As I have labored to explain in great detail, we have to understand what was really going on and find out why Cook was shot by reading the cross-examined testimony of the officer. My point is not about people being killed for refusing police orders. It is about people fleeing from officers who are ordered to stop but ignore the order. Or people who are about to be arrested who resist.





> How would he have known she was unarmed to make such a decision? I already refuted this argument in post #434.


Please stop dancing around so much ... It's very hard to follow someone who is defending, then not defending, then defending, then not defending ... Is this a pirouette ?
I'm getting very confused.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Well?  Where is it sailor boy?


Jesus, check yer account.

No need to get yer panties in a wad.

----------


## pacodever

> Those "paranoid stories" are from an eye witness at the school who is parent and from the school staff who asked her to leave.


I am going to go out on a limb here and give the 54 year old retired cosmetologist, Sunday school teacher, quilter's guild member, and church kitchen volunteer the benefit of the doubt as to her intentions at the school.  At the time of her leaving the grounds and being shot, no students, school staff, or civilians were in danger so I think the question of her intentions at the school are a moot point as to the justification of the shooting.

Even if the police officer's arm was trapped in the vehicle (which there are accounts it was not), any danger to the police officer had passed after the first shot and her proceeding left out of the parking lot.  At some point in time his arm cleared the vehicle and he was no longer being dragged.  There is NO acceptable justification (legal or moral) for the next 5 shots into the back of the vehicle unless that police officer witnessed her pulling a gun which she did not or turned the vehicle / reversed towards the police officer.

Its not a stretch in my mind that a police officer who would cowardly shoot a woman in the back, would also have verbally abused and upset the woman into irrational behavior.  Either way, this police officer unneccessarily escalated the situation to violence and should be punished to the full extent.  He took a situation of a unarmed women sitting in a parked car outside of a school to bullets flying in front of a school and blood in the streets.  Don't you have better things to do other than justifying violence and murder?

----------


## Danke

> I am going to go out on a limb here and give the 54 year old retired cosmetologist, Sunday school teacher, quilter's guild member, and church kitchen volunteer the benefit of the doubt as to her intentions at the school.  At the time of her leaving the grounds and being shot, no students, school staff, or civilians were in danger so I think the question of her intentions at the school are a moot point as to the justification of the shooting.
> 
> Even if the police officer's arm was trapped in the vehicle (which there are accounts it was not), any danger to the police officer had passed after the first shot and her proceeding left out of the parking lot.  At some point in time his arm cleared the vehicle and he was no longer being dragged.  There is NO acceptable justification (legal or moral) for the next 5 shots into the back of the vehicle unless that police officer witnessed her pulling a gun which she did not or turned the vehicle / reversed towards the police officer.
> 
> Its not a stretch in my mind that a police officer who would cowardly shoot a woman in the back, would also have verbally abused and upset the woman into irrational behavior.  Either way, this police officer unneccessarily escalated the situation to violence and should be punished to the full extent.  He took a situation of a unarmed women sitting in a parked car outside of a school to bullets flying in front of a school and blood in the streets.  Don't you have better things to do other than justifying violence and murder?


She was acting irrational.  She could have driven onto the athletic field and run over a shot putter during warm ups.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Apperantly it was a quote from a parent.

Where did *he* get his information?

Has this been confirmed by the school?

And regardless, it changes nothing for me.




> But why she was in the nearby parking lot of the middle school at Epiphany Catholic *Thursday morning remains a mystery to many, including Michael Watts of Culpeper, whose children attend the small private school that fronts on Main Street.*“As a parent, I have questions about what the woman was doing at our school. Why was she walking around the middle school and why wouldn’t she leave when asked by school staff?” he said.

----------


## azxd

> Either way, *this police officer unneccessarily escalated the situation to violence* and should be punished to the full extent.  He took a situation of a unarmed women sitting in a parked car outside of a school to bullets flying in front of a school and blood in the streets.  *Don't you have better things to do other than justifying violence* and murder?


And this is where the problem lies with both the officer, and Miko ... Kudos for expressing it so well.

----------


## Anti Federalist

+rep




> I am going to go out on a limb here and give the 54 year old retired cosmetologist, Sunday school teacher, quilter's guild member, and church kitchen volunteer the benefit of the doubt as to her intentions at the school.  At the time of her leaving the grounds and being shot, no students, school staff, or civilians were in danger so I think the question of her intentions at the school are a moot point as to the justification of the shooting.
> 
> Even if the police officer's arm was trapped in the vehicle (which there are accounts it was not), any danger to the police officer had passed after the first shot and her proceeding left out of the parking lot.  At some point in time his arm cleared the vehicle and he was no longer being dragged.  There is NO acceptable justification (legal or moral) for the next 5 shots into the back of the vehicle unless that police officer witnessed her pulling a gun which she did not or turned the vehicle / reversed towards the police officer.
> 
> Its not a stretch in my mind that a police officer who would cowardly shoot a woman in the back, would also have verbally abused and upset the woman into irrational behavior.  Either way, this police officer unneccessarily escalated the situation to violence and should be punished to the full extent.  He took a situation of a unarmed women sitting in a parked car outside of a school to bullets flying in front of a school and blood in the streets.  Don't you have better things to do other than justifying violence and murder?

----------


## Pericles

> +rep


Yep - that was a rep worthy post.

----------


## Czolgosz

> Apperantly it was a quote from a parent.
> 
> Where did *he* get his information?
> 
> Has this been confirmed by the school?
> 
> And regardless, it changes nothing for me.



Dude is building case on hearsay from a parent?  rofl

----------


## Birdlady

You got to watch out for the quilter's guild. Dangerous group of people right there.

----------


## RiseAgainst

> You got to watch out for the quilter's guild. Dangerous group of people right there.


Almost as bad as Blood Elves.  Almost.

----------


## Jonathanm

> This is true but you have to consider the totality of the circumstances as I have explained above. A person who flees from cops in certain circumstances should be pursued. If his life is in danger from the officers and there is no reasonable suspicion, I would support fleeing. If they are simply investigating and he runs from them, it's a different story.


Are you saying that if someone is under investigation, and they run from the police, that these people are no longer subject to due process? That's insanity, and it isn't consistent with the ideas of our constitution. You are NOT allowed to use lethal force on someone who is simply _running_. If someone is running after committing a murder, and there is _reasonable suspicion_ that this person might turn and kill the officer or a civilian, then the officer _can_ use lethal force. If, however, the person is running and the officer see's no reasonable evidence that they're an _imminent_ danger to either he, or a civilian, then the officer is _NOT_ allowed to shoot. What is so difficult about drawing this distinction?




> What about the guy who has murdered someone and is trying to get away?


The officer never claimed that this woman was murdering people. These are entirely different situations. If a murderer is about to escape, and he's locked and loaded, and might shoot other civilians, then I have no problems with the officer shooting him. This was not the scenario in this particular case.




> Or the guy who wants to go destroy evidence implicating him?


Under this implication, the officer can shoot anyone who ever runs. After all, they might be going to destroy evidence. Frankly, I don't care if the man manages to destroy the evidence. He's still subject to due process. Destroying evidence is _not_ a physical threat to anyone, and therefor it cannot be prevented via the usage of lethal force. Will it $#@! up the case for legal purposes? Possibly. But just because someone is destroying evidence, that doesn't give police officers the right of judge jury and executioner. Police officers aren't allowed to go around shooting people in possession of marijuana, and then afterwards claim, "Well, he was about to eat it..." 




> Besides, I have already argued above that she may have broken a law at the point she was shot.


Since when does breaking a law become grounds for execution? If she broke any laws she should be given _due process_. Without due process, you simply _cannot_ have liberty. If police are allowed to shoot people for breaking any law, there is, by definition, no due process.




> We need to hear his cross-examined testimony.


I wasn't trying to imply that he should be sent to a prison without trial, and without cross-examining. I'm only pointing out that I have a hard time _believing_ it. When someone tells you a story, and it sounds illogical and strange, it's only _natural_ to be a bit suspicious, don't you think?

----------


## Lethalmiko

Now we have intellectual dishonesty rearing its ugly head again. Some of you in here have no interest in getting to the truth. Michael Watts, one of the parents made a statement to the media and will probably be a witness at the trial. Kris Buchele made two contradicting statements (also to the media) within 24 hours. Yet somehow, most of you think his testimony is credible and that of Watts is questionable. Don't any of you see the nonsense in this? Using an argument that has been thrown at me, what reason would the parent have to lie? Not that I agree with this particular argument but I am only using it to show how hypocritical some of you are.

If you were an officer and were investigating this with the knowledge that there was a strange woman no one had ever seen before at a school in a small town who was prowling around and who refused to leave after being expressly told so by school staff, what would you be thinking? Wouldn't you reasonably suspect she was planning to kidnap a child? Please answer me this and don't avoid the question.




> There is no right, legally or morally, to use deadly force on anybody fleeing, unless it is clear that they would be an immidiate threat to others.


Legally I don't know since I am not acquainted with all the laws about this in all the states. Morally I disagree. You keep avoiding asking yourself and answering why any innocent law-abiding citizen would run away from the police making a routine enquiry.




> And as I have already stated, I would rather see a hundred guilty go free than one innocent go to jail. Or in this case, get summarily executed in their vehicle. This is why I'm thinking you're just trolling. No sane person would want to live in society in which there was complete "zero tolerance" for crime. You do realize the ramifications of that, what it would take to be totally crime free? A cure much much much worse than the sickness.


You have not addressed any of my arguments in opposition to what you are saying. So who is "trolling"? Does "zero tolerance" mean there will be zero crime? If I say "the government should have zero tolerance to corruption", does that mean there will never be any coruption? These leaps of logic amaze me.

This why I doubt that most of you are even true libertarians. Zero tolerance to crime is based on the fundamental principle that a criminal is someone who is violating the rights of someone else. Tolerating even 0.0001% of crime is tolerating violation of rights. In a situation where a person resonably suspected of criminal activity is fleeing unprovoked, I would rather err on the side of crime prevention because their action is not consistent with an innocent person. If you have a logical rebuttal for this, I want to read it.




> You would never be shot at huh? Yeah, I've heard that before. What are you trying to prove here anyway?


I was answering specific questions about how I would behave. I would never give an officer cause to shoot at me in short. By the time I was driving away, he would have stopped asking me questions and walked away.




> I am going to go out on a limb here and give the 54 year old retired cosmetologist, Sunday school teacher, quilter's guild member, and church kitchen volunteer the benefit of the doubt as to her intentions at the school. At the time of her leaving the grounds and being shot, no students, school staff, or civilians were in danger so I think the question of her intentions at the school are a moot point as to the justification of the shooting.


This reasoning is either faulty or dishonest (or both). I already quoted a Supreme Court decision that shows the logic of not evaluating an action in the light of hindsight. So how nice or innocent she was is irrelevant. What matters are her specific actions and how they were reasonably interpreted. The SCOTUS says (and I agree) that you have to judge based on what a reasonable person would do in the specific circumstances with the information they had at the time. IOW, Cook could have also just as easily been a child trafficker in an identical situation. Since you cannot expect people to read minds (especially of a stranger), they reasonably suspected her of being up to no good and called the police accordingly who had reasonable suspicion. When the officer tried to find out what she was doing there and who she was, she resisted and drove off. Put all those facts together and there is a profile of a possible criminal obstructing an investigation that may lead to her arrest.




> Even if the police officer's arm was trapped in the vehicle (which there are accounts it was not), any danger to the police officer had passed after the first shot and her proceeding left out of the parking lot. At some point in time his arm cleared the vehicle and he was no longer being dragged. There is NO acceptable justification (legal or moral) for the next 5 shots into the back of the vehicle unless that police officer witnessed her pulling a gun which she did not or turned the vehicle / reversed towards the police officer.


There is only ONE, I repeat ONE account of the arm incident from an eye witness who has already contradicted themself. There is some truth in your argument about the shooting but I would still reserve judgement because I do not know what was really going on. Was he trying to arrest her but she was resisting? Was he thinking she was about to draw a gun once he could no longer see what what she was doing?




> Its not a stretch in my mind that a police officer who would cowardly shoot a woman in the back, would also have verbally abused and upset the woman into irrational behavior. Either way, this police officer unneccessarily escalated the situation to violence and should be punished to the full extent. He took a situation of a unarmed women sitting in a parked car outside of a school to bullets flying in front of a school and blood in the streets. Don't you have better things to do other than justifying violence and murder?


Your conclusions do not follow since you start with the premise that he is guilty, which is what we are discussing. You cannot build arguments on something that has not yet been established. Neither can you conclude the escalation was unnecessary until you ask the officer to explain why he shot her several times. 

Please drop the dishonest "unarmed woman" argument which I have dealt with several times with no counter-argument. Also drop the silly argument that I am justifying murder and violence.




> Apperantly it was a quote from a parent. Where did he get his information? Has this been confirmed by the school? And regardless, it changes nothing for me.


It changes nothing that a woman was acting in a manner consistent with a criminal?




> Are you saying that if someone is under investigation, and they run from the police, that these people are no longer subject to due process? That's insanity, and it isn't consistent with the ideas of our constitution. You are NOT allowed to use lethal force on someone who is simply running. If someone is running after committing a murder, and there is reasonable suspicion that this person might turn and kill the officer or a civilian, then the officer can use lethal force. If, however, the person is running and the officer see's no reasonable evidence that they're an imminent danger to either he, or a civilian, then the officer is NOT allowed to shoot. What is so difficult about drawing this distinction?


There is no "due process" outside the courtroom. There are only rules about what the police can and cannot do based on logically derived guidelines. I need you to quote the specific law or supreme court decision that prohibits using lethal force on a fleeing suspect. In my view, a fleeing suspect has lost benefit of doubt because they are acting the way a criminal would. If someone is told by an officer "Stop or I will shoot!" and they continue running, why is it so difficult to see that they are very likely a criminal, regardless of whether they pose an imminent danger or not? Please answer this point.




> The officer never claimed that this woman was murdering people. These are entirely different situations. If a murderer is about to escape, and he's locked and loaded, and might shoot other civilians, then I have no problems with the officer shooting him. This was not the scenario in this particular case.


Let us assume he wanted to arrest her and she resisted and fled. Would he be justified in shooting her after warning her in that situation?




> Under this implication, the officer can shoot anyone who ever runs. After all, they might be going to destroy evidence. Frankly, I don't care if the man manages to destroy the evidence. He's still subject to due process. Destroying evidence is not a physical threat to anyone, and therefor it cannot be prevented via the usage of lethal force. Will it $#@! up the case for legal purposes? Possibly. But just because someone is destroying evidence, that doesn't give police officers the right of judge jury and executioner. Police officers aren't allowed to go around shooting people with marijuana, and then afterwards, claim, "Well, he was about to eat it..."


Again, due process does not apply here as I explained above. The evidence destruction was one example of a consequence of letting him escape. But my main argument is that a fleeing suspect is most likely a criminal and criminals should not be treated with kid gloves.




> Since when does breaking a law become grounds for execution? If she broke any laws she should be given due process. Without due process, you simply cannot have liberty. If police are allowed to shoot people for breaking any law, there is, by definition, no due process.


Addressed.




> I wasn't trying to imply that he should be sent to a prison without trial, and without cross-examining. I'm only pointing out that I have a hard time believing it. When someone tells you a story, and it sounds illogical and strange, it's only natural to be a bit suspicious, don't you think?


Agreed, but when you do not have FULL information, you cannot rationally deduce anything concrete, no matter how strange the story sounds. For example, before I read the Culpeper Star Exponent article, it seemed very strange and illogical to me that someone would call the police over a woman sitting in her car doing nothing. I was very suspicious but I framed my arguments based on the facts I knew. Now that it has emerged that she was infact acting suspiciously, it gives more fuel to my arguments. Similarly, if facts do emerge that the officer lied for example, then it shall begin pointing towards guilt, although even then, it is possible for him to have had other legal reasons to shoot her.

In short, we simply do not know yet until we hear all the facts.

----------


## azxd

Futility exists.

----------


## Travlyr

Lethalmiko, you argue that thoughts are a crime. Sure we can eliminate crimes of mundane people by killing them. Just like we can stop Iran from building a nuclear weapon, even if they are not building one, by bombing them and their children. But that does not advance a peaceful society.

On this forum we favor liberty, peace, and prosperity. We don't want to be killed by a cop because we didn't obey him. We don't want to be controlled by cops. We want criminals tried in a court of law in front of a jury of peers and if convicted then we want them to pay restitution, if possible, and if not possible, then we want to get as close to justice as we can get.

We want the insanity to stop, Lethalmiko. Why do you keep arguing for it? The cop clearly violated Patricia Cook's right to life without due process of law as guaranteed in the "Bill of Rights." Clearly.

----------


## Lethalmiko

> Lethalmiko, you argue that thoughts are a crime. Sure we can eliminate crimes of mundane people by killing them. Just like we can stop Iran from building a nuclear weapon, even if they are not building one, by bombing them and their children. But that does not advance a peaceful society.
> 
> On this forum we favor liberty, peace, and prosperity. We don't want to be killed by a cop because we didn't obey him. We don't want to be controlled by cops. We want criminals tried in a court of law in front of a jury of peers and if convicted then we want them to pay restitution, if possible, and if not possible, then we want to get as close to justice as we can get.
> 
> We want the insanity to stop, Lethalmiko. Why do you keep arguing for it? The cop clearly violated Patricia Cook's right to life without due process of law as guaranteed in the "Bill of Rights." Clearly.


Well, I cannot respond to this since you have not addressed any of my arguments directly and you are making general statements without reference to anything concrete I have said. You are also engaging in the tactic of ignoring all the other circumstances and reducing everything to one issue. Go read my post #434 and come back with specific arguments instead of making blanket baseless accusations. Your last statement is false as I have shown before. The right to life does not exist in a vacuum and it can be superseded by other things such as the right to self-defense (as an *EXAMPLE*). I am just as against a police state as anyone here but I will not participate in irrational group-think based on conspiracy theories and emotions. 

Sadly, I agree with liberal writers who say that many Ron Paul supporters act like members of a cult. I have seen less than ten people on this forum that are honest and think more logically out of thousands that I have read comments from. Yet I am constantly accused of being brainwashed or indoctrinated or defending the police state, etc. I wonder how many here have read even one paragraph of John Locke's _Second Treatise of Civil Government_.

I hope to read some substantive arguments that I can address head-on.

----------


## Travlyr

> Well, I cannot respond to this since you have not addressed any of my arguments directly and you are making general statements without reference to anything concrete I have said. You are also engaging in the tactic of ignoring all the other circumstances and reducing everything to one issue. Go read my post #434 and come back with specific arguments instead of making blanket baseless accusations. Your last statement is false as I have shown before. The right to life does not exist in a vacuum and it can be superseded by other things such as the right to self-defense (as an *EXAMPLE*). I am just as against a police state as anyone here but I will not participate in irrational group-think based on conspiracy theories and emotions. 
> 
> Sadly, I agree with liberal writers who say that many Ron Paul supporters act like members of a cult. I have seen less than ten people on this forum that are honest and think more logically out of thousands that I have read comments from. Yet I am constantly accused of being brainwashed or indoctrinated or defending the police state, etc. I wonder how many here have read even one paragraph of John Locke's _Second Treatise of Civil Government_.
> 
> I hope to read some substantive arguments that I can address head-on.


You never answered my original question. What was Patricia Cook's crime?

----------


## Gary4Liberty

The shooting was not justified. Case closed. Even without the witness testimony it is obvious the shooting is not justified.

----------


## Pericles

> You never answered my original question. What was Patricia Cook's crime?


Contempt of cop.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Well, I cannot respond to this since you have not addressed any of my arguments directly and you are making general statements without reference to anything concrete I have said. You are also engaging in the tactic of ignoring all the other circumstances and reducing everything to one issue. Go read my post #434 and come back with specific arguments instead of making blanket baseless accusations. Your last statement is false as I have shown before. The right to life does not exist in a vacuum and it can be superseded by other things such as the right to self-defense (as an *EXAMPLE*). I am just as against a police state as anyone here but I will not participate in irrational group-think based on conspiracy theories and emotions. 
> 
> Sadly, I agree with liberal writers who say that many Ron Paul supporters act like members of a cult. I have seen less than ten people on this forum that are honest and think more logically out of thousands that I have read comments from. Yet I am constantly accused of being brainwashed or indoctrinated or defending the police state, etc. I wonder how many here have read even one paragraph of John Locke's _Second Treatise of Civil Government_.
> 
> I hope to read some substantive arguments that I can address head-on.


Were making progress. At least you admit to this now.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Contempt of cop.


This can be corrected by learning how to clean leather boots with your lips and tongue.

----------


## Jonathanm

> There is no "due process" outside the courtroom.


Absolute nonsense. Read the bill of rights, amendments five and fourteen. We have a right to due process, and this right is something we always have, whether it be in a courtroom, or in the privacy of our own homes. Due process is the legal requirement of the government to respect our rights as citizens. Due process does not solely refer to the actual act of courts. If you're going to go out on limbs like this, you really need to look at what your logic implies. If due process took place _solely_ in the court room then no one would ever _see_ the court room. If we follow through with your logic, a police officer could kill literally _anyone_ he thought was a suspect. After all, the right to due process doesn't begin until the guy gets to the courtroom, right? 




> There are only rules about what the police can and cannot do based on logically derived guidelines.


Yes, and among those guidelines, and most important of them, are the constitution and the bill of rights.




> I need you to quote the specific law or supreme court decision that prohibits using lethal force on a fleeing suspect.


I'll do you one better. The Bill of Rights. This honestly isn't that difficult. Some things in the constitution are vague, but this is not one of them.




> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, *nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW*; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.


One cannot be given due process if one is killed before he has chance to stand trial. As such, killing a suspect is a direct violation of due process principles. The only exception to this is, of course, when an officer has reasonable belief that the person he is shooting is about to commit a _violent_ act against someone else, or against his own person. In other words, if he is actively protecting the life of another human being, or himself, from _imminent_ danger.




> In my view, a fleeing suspect has lost benefit of doubt because they are acting the way a criminal would.


This simply isn't consistent with the ideas of liberty. It is not consistent with the ideas of our constitution. You're not looking at the right of due process. It doesn't matter if the man behaves like a criminal. Behaving like a criminal, unless you're a clear and imminent threat to one's life, does not revoke your rights to due process. Due process in regards to prosecutions would be _absolutely pointless_ if it weren't granted to suspected criminals.




> If someone is told by an officer "Stop or I will shoot!" and they continue running, why is it so difficult to see that they are *very likely* a criminal, regardless of whether they pose an imminent danger or not?


Because of the bold. Very likely does not entail guilty. We do not live in a society where someone can be killed, on a whim, because they very likely might be guilty. This is why people have accused you of being a statist, you keep assuming that the citizen will always be at fault. By your logic, it's alright if a few innocent people die, just so long as a few more guilty ones die, too. Again, this is not in line with the constitution, and it is not in line with the concept of liberty.




> Again, due process does not apply here as I explained above. The evidence destruction was one example of a consequence of letting him escape.


If the right to due process did not exist outside of a courtroom, then you would effectively never have the right to due process.




> But my main argument is that a fleeing suspect is most likely a criminal and criminals should not be treated with kid gloves.


It's not about treating them with kid gloves. It's about protecting everyone's right to due process. To this point I again defer you to the bill of rights, particularly the fifth and fourteenth amendments. 




> Let us assume he wanted to arrest her and she resisted and fled. Would he be justified in shooting her after warning her in that situation?


No, no, no. The only way an officer can legally fire upon another person is if that person is about to do physical harm to someone else. Anything less than this and you're looking at due process violation. You're missing the point in all of my posts, I feel. It's not that I support violent criminals. It's that I support everyone's right to a fair trial, and you simply cannot be given a fair trial if you're dead. You need to understand that police officers, in America, were not designed to be judge, jury, and executioner. Police officers, in America, are only supposed to _apprehend_ those that violate laws. 




> Agreed, but when you do not have FULL information, you cannot rationally deduce anything concrete, no matter how strange the story sounds.


Perhaps I phrased my last statement rather strongly in regards to the window theory. It's not that I can't _ever_ believe it. It's simply that I cannot believe it until the officer provides a very logical, concrete story. Unfortunately, that would be very difficult for the officer - Not because he's necessarily guilty, but because the story contains several logical flaws. Furthermore, even if his story checks out to be true, that didn't give him the right to keep shooting her after he was no longer in danger.

----------


## Travlyr

> Contempt of cop.


It is quite telling that Lethalmiko doesn't admit that. He defends it. Disobey a cop and get yourself killed. 

Crazy World Right Now.

----------


## Travlyr

> This can be corrected by learning how to clean leather boots with your lips and tongue.


So true.

Lick My Boots Or Die!

----------


## Lethalmiko

> You never answered my original question. What was Patricia Cook's crime?


I cannot tell right now if there was a crime and what it was. This point was explained in my post #434 in the very first part.




> Absolute nonsense. Read the bill of rights, amendments five and fourteen. We have a right to due process, and this right is something we always have, whether it be in a courtroom, or in the privacy of our own homes. Due process is the legal requirement of the government to respect our rights as citizens. Due process does not solely refer to the actual act of courts. If you're going to go out on limbs like this, you really need to look at what your logic implies. If due process took place _solely_ in the court room then no one would ever _see_ the court room. If we follow through with your logic, a police officer could kill literally _anyone_ he thought was a suspect. After all, the right to due process doesn't begin until the guy gets to the courtroom, right?


What I meant is that at the scene of a crime or possible crime, there is no time to follow the normal court process of proving guilt and innocence based on evidence that needs to be evaluated. Neither is there automatic _presumption of innocence_, an important part of _due process_. If there were, a Terry Stop would be illegal because you would have to prove beyond doubt that the person you are about to briefly detain and possibly search for weapons is guilty of a crime. Moreover, even if I am wrong about not including the pre-trial part in _due process_, I have nevertheless said there are procedures that must be followed when pursuing fleeing suspects, such as ordering them to stop and firing warning shots. Therefore how does your argument follow? ie that police will just be killing people to prevent a trial?




> One cannot be given due process if one is killed before he has chance to stand trial. As such, killing a suspect is a direct violation of due process principles. The only exception to this is, of course, when an officer has reasonable belief that the person he is shooting is about to commit a _violent_ act against someone else, or against his own person. In other words, if he is actively protecting the life of another human being, or himself, from _imminent_ danger. This simply isn't consistent with the ideas of liberty. It is not consistent with the ideas of our constitution. You're not looking at the right of due process. It doesn't matter if the man behaves like a criminal. Behaving like a criminal, unless you're a clear and imminent threat to one's life, does not revoke your rights to due process. Due process in regards to prosecutions would be _absolutely pointless_ if it weren't granted to suspected criminals... Very likely does not entail guilty. We do not live in a society where someone can be killed, on a whim, because they very likely might be guilty.


The main problem with this line of argument is that it fails to adequately address the point that a fleeing suspect is not an _ordinary_ suspect so to speak and should therefore be treated differently. This is a person who is actively frustrating the course of natural justice by fleeing. They are directly preventing the same _due process_ that you keep emphasizing from being carried out on them. So why should they be treated the same as everyone else when their very action by its nature nullifies _due process_? If they are so innocent, why don't they stop, be subjected to a minor inconvenience of being questioned and they go about their business afterwards?




> This is why people have accused you of being a statist, you keep assuming that the citizen will always be at fault. By your logic, it's alright if a few innocent people die, just so long as a few more guilty ones die, too. Again, this is not in line with the constitution, and it is not in line with the concept of liberty.


Strawman. I never make any assumptions about anything, which is something you would have gathered by now if you were a bit more honest. Do not conflate a normal innocent person with a fleeing suspect who belongs to a different category as I have argued above.




> No, no, no. The only way an officer can legally fire upon another person is if that person is about to do physical harm to someone else. Anything less than this and you're looking at due process violation. You're missing the point in all of my posts, I feel. It's not that I support violent criminals. It's that I support everyone's right to a fair trial, and you simply cannot be given a fair trial if you're dead. You need to understand that police officers, in America, were not designed to be judge, jury, and executioner. Police officers, in America, are only supposed to _apprehend_ those that violate laws.


You cannot be given a fair trial if you escape and evade the police!




> ... the story contains several logical flaws. Furthermore, even if his story checks out to be true, that didn't give him the right to keep shooting her after he was no longer in danger.


You could be right. I am just not too sure that you can easily determine his level of danger after the first shot since at some point he could no longer see her actions in the vehicle. His actions appear excessive and they may well have been. I want to hear his explanation first before I am sure about such a conclusion.

On the issue of lethal force on fleeing suspects, maybe we can agree to disagree, unless you give me a more solid argument than just claiming it is part of the constitution, bearing in mind my argument that such a suspect is not an ordinary suspect, but someone actively frustrating due process.

----------


## AFPVet

I have already given my professional opinion on this case; however, let's just think logically about this. Would a church going, well loved, community assisting soccer mom really trap a cops arm in the window and drive away in order to inflict serious bodily injury to him? Come on. I know for a fact that many of these large police departments (even some of the smaller ones) have officers who abuse drugs... many of these thugs in these stories are reacting as if they were high on meth or were on roid rage.

----------


## Gary4Liberty

> I cannot tell right now if there was a crime and what it was. This point was explained in my post #434 in the very first part.


I bet you wouldn't say that if the cop was dead and a witness said she followed him out into the street as he drove away and pumped off five rounds into his car.

----------


## azxd

> Well, I cannot respond to this since you have not addressed any of my arguments directly and you are making general statements without reference to anything concrete I have said. You are also engaging in the tactic of ignoring all the other circumstances and reducing everything to one issue. Go read my post #434 and come back with specific arguments instead of making blanket baseless accusations. Your last statement is false as I have shown before. The right to life does not exist in a vacuum and it can be superseded by other things such as the right to self-defense (as an *EXAMPLE*). I am just as against a police state as anyone here but I will not participate in irrational group-think based on conspiracy theories and emotions. 
> 
> Sadly, *I agree with liberal writers who say that many Ron Paul supporters act like members of a cult. I have seen less than ten people on this forum that are honest* and think more logically out of thousands that I have read comments from. Yet I am constantly accused of being brainwashed or indoctrinated or defending the police state, etc. I wonder how many here have read even one paragraph of John Locke's _Second Treatise of Civil Government_.
> 
> I hope to read some substantive arguments that I can address head-on.


So what you're really saying is that because the majority don't agree with you, we are a cult, we lie, and you are going to align yourself with a liberal mindset ... LOL
Are you also going to bail on the principles we all seem to support ?

Obama will be proud, if you do !!!

----------


## Lethalmiko

> So what you're really saying is that because the majority don't agree with you, we are a cult, we lie, and you are going to align yourself with a liberal mindset ... LOL Are you also going to bail on the principles we all seem to support ? 
> Obama will be proud, if you do !!!


Here are a few observations about most (not all) RP supporters I have encountered in here that form the basis of that assessment:

1. If you say anything "negative" about Ron Paul or the campaign, they come on you like a ton of bricks, even if what you say is true.
2. If you say something they do not like, they will call you a "troll", despite the admins discouraging this.
3. They cannot tolerate dissenting opinions.
4. They often tell you to leave and go somewhere else.
5. They are obsessed with conspiracy theories.
6. They think most cops are dirty.
7. Any apparent defense of a cop means you are a statist.
8. They hurl all manner of insults at you, especially in the rep section.
9. Personal attacks are the basis of at least half the arguments against you. Strawmen a quarter.
10. They appear to have a malevolent view of the world.

I can agree with any correct observation made by anyone (eg a liberal) but disagree with the rest of what they say.

----------


## Lethalmiko

> Would a church going, well loved, community assisting soccer mom really trap a cops arm in the window and drive away in order to inflict serious bodily injury to him?


It could have been an accident. Or maybe she wasn't thinking properly. Remember that she was wondering around the school and refused to leave after being asked to by the school staff. Her husband was not even aware she was at the school because she told him something else about her moves that day. She apparently refused to cooperate with the officer, something that would have cost her nothing but a few minutes of her time. Older people are normally more cooperative with law enforcement officers. All this suggests someone not exactly in her right state of mind so anything is possible.

----------


## azxd

> Here are a few observations about most (not all) RP supporters I have encountered in here that form the basis of that assessment:
> 
> 1. If you say anything "negative" about Ron Paul or the campaign, they come on you like a ton of bricks, even if what you say is true.
> 2. If you say something they do not like, they will call you a "troll", despite the admins discouraging this.
> 3. They cannot tolerate dissenting opinions.
> 4. They often tell you to leave and go somewhere else.
> 5. They are obsessed with conspiracy theories.
> 6. They think most cops are dirty.
> 7. Any apparent defense of a cop means you are a statist.
> ...


Did you steal this from Daily KOS  Or,
Are you just upset that your strawman arguments have failed to elevate you to stardom ?

----------


## Lethalmiko

> Spread your wisdom in this thread - http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Permanent-Coma ... Deadlyone


Had a quick look and watched the video. Sad turn of events. I can't really say too much as I have not had time to analyze the issue. One argument is that the cop probably could have grabbed her from behind instead. Another argument is that this sort of unfortunate accident is very rare and a tazer is better than shooting someone with a gun. The cop will probably be charged with involuntary manslaughter.

----------


## azxd

I'm sure she is as crazy as anyone else, and deserved to die /sarcasm

----------


## azxd

> Had a quick look and watched the video. Sad turn of events. I can't really say too much as I have not had time to analyze the issue. One argument is that the cop probably could have grabbed her from behind instead. Another argument is that this sort of unfortunate accident is very rare and a tazer is better than shooting someone with a gun. The cop will probably be charged with involuntary manslaughter.


You should try reading the thread and focusing on the +500 deaths that have been attributed to the use of a tazer

----------


## Jonathanm

> What I meant is that at the scene of a crime or possible crime, there is no time to follow the normal court process of proving guilt and innocence based on evidence that needs to be evaluated. Neither is there automatic presumption of innocence, an important part of due process.


If an officer cannot say, with reasonable suspicion, that the person is about to attack someone, or his own person, then that officer simply has no right to harm them. 

I've never claimed that a police officer needs to hold an immediate court of law if he decides to shoot someone. _My point isn't to say that police officers can never use lethal force._ My point is to say that police officers cannot use lethal force if they don't have reasonable suspicion that they, or another, are in danger.

I am not advocating automatic innocence. I am advocating that someone is innocent until proven guilty. It's a big leap to say that innocent until guilty means automatic innocence. Innocent until guilty is precisely the idea of due process. When did I ever state that everyone is always innocent? 




> I have nevertheless said there are procedures that must be followed when pursuing fleeing suspects, such as ordering them to stop and firing warning shots.


You're right, you did say this. My apologies for not addressing it. The problem with this idea, though, is that if authority (police) are not held to a common standard that none of them can violate (the bill of rights), then police will inevitably drift towards tyranny. Historically speaking, when a government or authoritative power is not restricted in some form or manner, it almost inevitably ends in tyranny.

To you I ask this. What is the stated purpose of a police officer? To serve AND protect, right? How do you serve the people if you are willing to violate their rights? When you start violating the rights of the people you are serving, you are, BY DEFINITION, no longer serving them. You are RULING them.

We could argue that they are serving the rights of the other "innocent" people, but that's irrelevant. Firstly, because the suspect has not yet been found guilty of any crimes, and secondly because one group of people is not given special rights over another group of people. All people get the same rights. Even deplorable types, like rapists and murderers, have a right to due process should they be caught _after the fact._ If they are caught _during_ the act, that is an entirely different situation, and depending on the circumstances the police officers could very well use lethal force.

A good police officer should be looking firstly to the constitution, secondly to supreme court rulings, and thirdly to department procedure. Why? Because if the police officers want to _serve_ AND protect, the one's they are serving are the people. You cannot serve the people if you violate their rights.




> Therefore how does your argument follow? ie that police will just be killing people to prevent a trial?


Because historically speaking, unchecked authority almost inevitably leads to tyranny. The police need to follow a commonly held standard so that their authority cannot go unchecked. This standard, in the United States, is the Constitution, and specifically the Bill of Rights.




> The main problem with this line of argument is that it fails to adequately address the point that a fleeing suspect is not an *ordinary suspect* so to speak and should therefore be treated differently.


The main problem with this line of argument is that it fails to adequately address that, constitutionally speaking, _all_ criminals have a right to due process. Even criminals that have committed extremely heinous crimes have a right to due process. If this weren't the case, why would we take suspected murderers to trial at all? Why not just shoot anyone that's accused of murder or rape?

Do you not see the paradox in your argument? If you are guaranteed the right to due process, except for when you are a suspect, then you effectively have no right to due process. Why would any citizen need due process of law if he weren't being charged with a crime? The non-suspect has no need to be protected from prosecution, because the non-suspect, by definition, _is not being prosecuted or accused of crime._ Due process is meant to protect the citizens from false accusations, false imprisonment, and false execution. If you take due process away from suspects, then, by its very nature, the idea of due process becomes paradox: *You have a right to fair trial, but only if you do not need to exercise that right.*




> This is a person who is actively frustrating the course of natural justice by fleeing.


Yes, and they can be charged with resisting arrest in a court of law because of this. We could argue that the man might never see a court room, because he might get away, but it really is irrelevant. This is the very nature of police work. You can't always catch all of the bad guys. Some of them will certainly get away. But, in a free society, you must be willing to accept that some of the bad guys get away, so that some of the good guys aren't unjustly punished.




> They are directly preventing the same due process that you keep emphasizing from being carried out on them. So why should they be treated the same as everyone else when their very action by its nature nullifies due process?


The unfortunate nature of due process is that people are able to occasionally escape justice. Personally, I'd prefer the _relatively low possibility_ of someone escaping justice, over the _high probability_ of tyranny in a society without due process. Again, I defer you to look at history. Unchecked authority almost as a rule leads to tyranny. 




> If they are so innocent, why don't they stop, be subjected to a minor inconvenience of being questioned and they go about their business afterwards?


I never argued they were innocent. I argued that, regardless of whether or not they are guilty, they are still guaranteed the right of due process. Again, unless an officer has reasonable suspicion that he or another are in imminent danger, said officer has no right to employ lethal force, whereupon someone is denied right to due process by sheer fact that they are now, indeed, dead. I defer you to my above points.




> Strawman. I never make any assumptions about anything, which is something you would have gathered by now if you were a bit more honest. Do not conflate a normal innocent person with a fleeing suspect who belongs to a different category as I have argued above.


You never make assumptions about anything? And you call _me_ dishonest. You've made plenty of assumptions. Case in point, below....




> The main problem with this line of argument is that it fails to adequately address the point that *a fleeing suspect is not an ordinary suspect* so to speak and should therefore be treated differently.





> If they are so innocent, why don't they stop, be subjected to a minor inconvenience of being questioned and they go about their business afterwards?





> Do not conflate a normal innocent person with a fleeing suspect who belongs to a different category as I have argued above.





> bearing in mind my argument that such a suspect is not an ordinary suspect, but someone actively frustrating due process.





> You keep avoiding asking yourself and answering why any innocent law-abiding citizen would run away from the police making a routine enquiry.


All of the above are assumptions. You are assuming that ANYONE who runs from the police is guilty of a crime.




> Some of you in here have no interest in getting to the truth.


Assumption. You cannot see inside the minds of others.




> IOW, Cook could have also just as easily been a child trafficker in an identical situation.


Assumption. The only things you know about this given situation are that A) A woman is hanging out around a school, and B) People don't know why she's doing it, want her to leave, and she won't. There is no logical basis for concluding, from these facts, that Cook is a child trafficker. 




> Let us *assume* he wanted to arrest her and she resisted and fled.





> I am just as against a police state as anyone here but I will not participate in irrational group-think based on conspiracy theories and emotions.


Assumption that others are indulging in irrational group-think based conspiracy theories. Again, you can't read our minds. Also, assumption that YOU are correct, and that all of US are wrong. 

You can argue these beliefs. That is fine. Everyone is entitled an opinion. But if you argue these beliefs, you cannot label yourself as someone who follows the constitution, as you are expressly stating things that are just the opposite. I haven't read many of your posts on RPF, so I don't know if you believe in/follow the constitution. From what you've stated here, however, I can only conclude that you're OK with constitutional violations, as you are directly arguing against the Bill of Rights, amendments five and fourteen. This doesn't mean I hate you, it just means that I completely disagree with you. To me, the constitution is the supreme law of the land, and all laws therein should not violate the constitution.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Contempt of cop.


Sentence?

Summary road side execution.

----------


## Lethalmiko

Thanks *Jonathanm* for your substantive reply which raised interesting points for further discussion.

*The "Right to harm"*
You argue that the only case where a fleeing suspect can be harmed is when they are an imminent physical danger to another person. I am not sure how you derived this rule but you take it as a given. What about the guy who has stolen something from a private home and is getting away? Should the police be allowed to shoot him? If you still say no, what if he has just stolen nuclear weapons or the technology to make them? (Just in case you argue that military technology is a state secret justifying shooting him, what if he steals a special software disc that allows him to take control of private nuclear reactors or the traffic control system in the whole country?)

*The "Common Standard"*
You seem to imply that allowing police to shoot a fleeing suspect will drift toward tyranny but you give no logical argument how this follows. For example, we allow police to shoot suspects that are a danger to other people (eg someone in the process of shooting people randomly). Has this translated into more tyranny? Or course not. So if we add the fleeing suspect to the list of permissible shooting situations, it does not follow police will necessarily abuse it.

*Misc*




> I am not advocating automatic innocence. I am advocating that someone is innocent until proven guilty. It's a big leap to say that innocent until guilty means automatic innocence. Innocent until guilty is precisely the idea of due process. When did I ever state that everyone is always innocent?


But I never said anything like this. I said "Neither is there automatic presumption of innocence" which is different from what you claim I say, "It's a big leap to say that innocent until guilty means automatic innocence". "Automatic innocence" is *NOT* the same thing as "Automatic presumption of innocence".




> To you I ask this. What is the stated purpose of a police officer? To serve AND protect, right? How do you serve the people if you are willing to violate their rights? When you start violating the rights of the people you are serving, you are, BY DEFINITION, no longer serving them. You are RULING them.
> 
> We could argue that they are serving the rights of the other "innocent" people, but that's irrelevant. Firstly, because the suspect has not yet been found guilty of any crimes, and secondly because one group of people is not given special rights over another group of people. All people get the same rights. Even deplorable types, like rapists and murderers, have a right to due process should they be caught after the fact. If they are caught during the act, that is an entirely different situation, and depending on the circumstances the police officers could very well use lethal force.


The fatal flaw in the logic here is to implicitly assume that the suspension of a suspect's rights constitutes a violation. A person can have their rights suspended if they act in certain ways. A guy brandishing a knife at someone can be rightfully shot dead by the police without being found guilty of any crime. He is not in the act of an actual murder but just the threat alone suspends his right to life. All people have the same rights but not all people can exercise those rights all the time. A person accused of murder who is remmanded in custody has his right to freedom of movement and association effectively suspended, but your logic implies we are violating those rights by locking him up during the trial.




> The main problem with this line of argument is that it fails to adequately address that, constitutionally speaking, all criminals have a right to due process... If this weren't the case, why would we take suspected murderers to trial at all? Why not just shoot anyone that's accused of murder or rape? Do you not see the paradox in your argument? If you are guaranteed the right to due process, except for when you are a suspect, then you effectively have no right to due process. Why would any citizen need due process of law if he weren't being charged with a crime?


You are avoiding the main thrust of my argument. I have no problem in principle with what you say but I made the point that a fleeing suspect is NOT in the same category as any other normal suspect and you have not addressed this. All your arguments about due process are based on normal suspects. I have already argued above that a person's rights can be suspended under certain circumstances without it equating to a violation. If you accept this premise, you must carefully consider the argument therefore that a fleeing suspect qualifies for having their normal rights suspended. The probability of a perfectly innocent person with nothing to hide running away from cops who are making a routine enquiry is so minute that probably 99.99% of cases involve criminals. Other than temporary insanity or some other mental confused state, can you make this case?




> The unfortunate nature of due process is that people are able to occasionally escape justice. Personally, I'd prefer the relatively low possibility of someone escaping justice, over the high probability of tyranny in a society without due process. Again, I defer you to look at history. Unchecked authority almost as a rule leads to tyranny.


As I have argued above, the vast majority of people who flee from police are criminals so letting them escape without using lethal force to stop them becomes more than a low probability of escaping justice. Armed with the knowledge of what you advocate, all they have to do after a crime is make sure they have a very fast car and they don't shoot or threaten anyone's life.




> I never argued they were innocent. I argued that, regardless of whether or not they are guilty, they are still guaranteed the right of due process.


The point I was making here is that there is no justification for fleeing from cops other than them threatening your life. An innocent person will cooperate with officers almost 100% of the time.




> You never make assumptions about anything? And you call me dishonest. You've made plenty of assumptions. Case in point, below.... All of the above are assumptions. You are assuming that ANYONE who runs from the police is guilty of a crime.


It is not an assumption. I said a fleeing suspect is subverting the natural course of justice and should therefore be treated differently and have their rights suspended. I also added the point about the extremely high probability they are a criminal.




> Assumption. You cannot see inside the minds of others.


My assessment was derived by reading how people responded to my arguments. For example, most people in here think Kris Buchele's testimony is more credible than Michael Watts. Anyone who thinks this is obviously not interested in the truth. Even when I give plausible scenarios that may exonerate the officer, they ignore the arguments and revert to "he is guilty". Does that sound like people interested in the truth? So how am I assuming anything here? I suspect that even if the officer is fairly aquitted because he was within the law, pretty much no one here will accept the verdict.




> Assumption. The only things you know about this given situation are that A) A woman is hanging out around a school, and B) People don't know why she's doing it, want her to leave, and she won't. There is no logical basis for concluding, from these facts, that Cook is a child trafficker.


You are the one who has ironically concluded that I made a conclusion! I argued that her actions were the basis of reasonable suspicion which warranted the call to the police and subsequent investigation. I gave the example of child trafficking as a possible direction of her actions. Reasonable suspicion is always tied to something concrete. A person walking up and down a shop as in the case of _Terry v Ohio_ is someone who looks like they are about to rob the place. Just because you suspect them of being a robber does not mean you have concluded they are.




> Assumption that others are indulging in irrational group-think based conspiracy theories. Again, you can't read our minds. Also, assumption that YOU are correct, and that all of US are wrong.


If someone tells me the moon landing never happened, I don't need to read their mind to know they are a conspiracy theorist.




> You can argue these beliefs. That is fine. Everyone is entitled an opinion. But if you argue these beliefs, you cannot label yourself as someone who follows the constitution, as you are expressly stating things that are just the opposite. I haven't read many of your posts on RPF, so I don't know if you believe in/follow the constitution. From what you've stated here, however, I can only conclude that you're OK with constitutional violations, as you are directly arguing against the Bill of Rights, amendments five and fourteen. This doesn't mean I hate you, it just means that I completely disagree with you. To me, the constitution is the supreme law of the land, and all laws therein should not violate the constitution.


False conclusion. I can have a different interpretation of how to apply the constitution in a particular case. That does not mean I am a statist. Why are there dissenting opinions in the SCOTUS? A few posts back I quoted a single dissenting opinion of Judge Rehnquist over the issue of police officers being empowered to demand driver's licences at random. Are you going to argue he is just a statist for dissenting? What makes you confident your interpretation of the application to the case we are discussing is correct, and that anyone who disagrees with you therefore supports violations of the constitution? 

For someone who rails against assumptions, you sure are full of them!

----------


## pcosmar

> You argue that the only case where a fleeing suspect can be harmed is when they are an imminent physical danger to another person. I am not sure how you derived this rule but you take it as a given. What about the guy who has stolen something from a private home and is getting away? Should the police be allowed to shoot him? If you still say no,* what if he has just stolen nuclear weapons or the technology to make them?* (Just in case you argue that military technology is a state secret justifying shooting him, what if he steals a special software disc that allows him to take control of private nuclear reactors or the traffic control system in the whole country?)


Wow,,
Just wow.

Can people stop responding to this insane troll now?

----------


## WilliamC

> Wow,,
> Just wow.
> 
> Can people stop responding to this insane troll now?


How else do we get to see the lengths that apologists for the State will go to if not by drawing them out?

Sort of like burning a koran just to see who is crazy enough to become violent over it, there is something to be said for baiting.

Of course a truth machine would be better, but it's coming...

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/...truth_machine/

----------


## Jonathanm

> It is not an assumption. I said a fleeing suspect is subverting the natural course of justice and should therefore be treated differently and have their rights suspended. I also added the point about the extremely high probability they are a criminal.


It IS assumption, though. A suspect has not been _convicted_ of a crime. If someone runs, what evidence do you have that this person is guilty? Absolutely none. The argument: "An innocent wouldn't run," is also assumption. Can you prove to me that innocent people _never_ run from the police? If you accept the fact that sometimes innocent people _do_ run from the police, you also have to accept the fact that innocent people can and will be shot to death without due process. 

Since we're playing the what if games, let me give you a list of reasons as to why an innocent person might run from the police. 

*What if the person is mentally ill, for example a paranoid schizophrenic, and has irrational fears that someone is out to get him? Statistically speaking, the vast majority of schizophrenics are benign, and of no threat to the public. Yet, because of his mental illness, you have now given the officers a right to shoot him dead. Doesn't that seem just a little bit unjust, to you? After all, no one _chooses_ to get schizophrenia. A schizophrenic man actually lives at the extended stay motel that my parents own, and if officers ever came for him he would run, despite the fact that he is a law abiding citizen. 

*What if the person is running because he _fears_ the police? 

*What if the police officers in this particular stretch of town are known to be corrupt, and racist? 

*What if someone happens to start running at the moment a police officer walks by? 

*What if the person isn't aware the police are chasing him? Perhaps he's wearing earbuds and was out for a run.

*What if the person doesn't hear the police officers properly identify themselves and it is dark outside?

*What if the person has a psychological reasoning for the flight response? Maybe they were recently raped, or assaulted, and the police officer scared them on his approach. Maybe, when they were growing up, a squad of twelve drug task force agents raided the wrong home, killed the family dog, and caused lasting psychological fear of police?

*What if the person running has seen a youtube video where the police officer in question had engaged in police brutality? For example, if an officer had done something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AdDLhPwpp4, would you still say that an innocent shouldn't run from him? Would you still say that, under these circumstances, the officer has a right to shoot said runner?

All of the above are possible scenarios as to why an innocent man might run from the police.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Now we have intellectual dishonesty rearing its ugly head again. Some of you in here have no interest in getting to the truth. Michael Watts, one of the parents made a statement to the media and will probably be a witness at the trial. Kris Buchele made two contradicting statements (also to the media) within 24 hours. Yet somehow, most of you think his testimony is credible and that of Watts is questionable.


Who's being intellectually "dishonest"?

I never said any such thing about Watts.

All I said is that he was not a school "official" and therefore anything he says is third hand information, as opposed to an eyewitness.

----------


## azxd

Amazingly this thread has developed to the point of someone potentially having a nuke ... What a strawman apologist

----------


## sparebulb

"Lethal" and his toady Butchie are obviously not here to make friends and they don't seem to embrace any of RP's ideals.

Perhaps we can speculate why they are _really_ here....

----------


## Anti Federalist

> If you were an officer and were investigating this with the knowledge that there was a strange woman no one had ever seen before at a school in a small town who was prowling around and who refused to leave after being expressly told so by school staff, what would you be thinking? Wouldn't you reasonably suspect she was planning to kidnap a child? Please answer me this and don't avoid the question.


No, of course not, that would *not* be my first thought.

----------


## Jonathanm

> Perhaps we can speculate why they are really here....


Even if they are trolling, and I can't say that they are for a fact, it's given me some practice at explaining my own views. I know I'll be better prepared in the future, now. For that I'm grateful. 

Shout out to the mods who let this thread remain open.

----------


## Travlyr

> "Lethal" and his toady Butchie are obviously not here to make friends and they don't seem to embrace any of RP's ideals.
> 
> Perhaps we can speculate why they are _really_ here....


Yeah. And there are a few others on this forum working against the liberty message as well. Like previously said, the more they defend the police state counterfeiting regime the deeper the light shines down the rabbit hole. Net benefit, imo.

----------


## sparebulb

> Yeah. And there are a few others on this forum working against the liberty message as well. Like previously said, the more they defend the police state counterfeiting regime the deeper the light shines down the rabbit hole. Net benefit, imo.


I agree with you and Jonathanm.

The MODS are great for keeping this thread open.  In a sick way, I'm even thankful to "Lethal" and Butchie for helping us understand the psychological damage that the police state apparatus has inflicted unto itself.

----------


## Danke

> Amazingly this thread has developed to the point of someone potentially having a nuke ... What a strawman apologist


See, another reason not to shoot at a fleeing mundane, could accidentally set off their nuke!!

----------


## Anti Federalist

> The point I was making here is that there is no justification for fleeing from cops other than them threatening your life. An innocent person will cooperate with officers almost 100% of the time.


I do not.

I make it a point to be as recalcitrant, silent and uncooperative as possible, (At least that how I'm sure the government enforcers see it, to me I am just standing firm and exercising my rights.) whenever I have any dealings with police, TSA, DHS or any other governmental regulatory body, which, in my line of work, I come across on fairly regular basis.

In your world, which is pretty much what we have here, I have to seriously concern myself with getting shot in the back for being uncooperative.

----------


## HOLLYWOOD

Our State apparatus of today's Judicial System (Courts/Judges/Law Enforcement) = Liberty and Justice for Some. That's the problem with the immorality of government today and the laws. This is what creates revolutions.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Police have no obligation to protect you:

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/ka...rotection.html

The seminal case establishing the general rule that police have no duty under federal law to protect citizens is DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services. [6] Frequently these cases are based on an alleged "special relationship" between the injured party and the police. In DeShaney the injured party was a boy who was beaten and permanently injured by his father. He claimed a special relationship existed because local officials knew he was being abused, indeed they had "specifically proclaimed by word and deed [their] intention to protect him against that danger," [7] but failed to remove him from his father's custody.

The Court in DeShaney held that no duty arose because of a "special relationship," concluding that Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves. "The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf." [8]

About a year later, the United States Court of Appeals interpreted DeShaney in the California case of Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department. [9] Ms. Balistreri, beaten and harassed by her estranged husband, alleged a "special relationship" existed between her and the Pacifica Police Department, to wit, they were duty-bound to protect her because there was a restraining order against her husband. The Court of Appeals, however, concluded that DeShaney limited the circumstances that would give rise to a "special relationship" to instances of custody. Because no such custody existed in Balistreri, the Pacifica Police had no duty to protect her, so when they failed to do so and she was injured they were not liable. A citizen injured because the police failed to protect her can only sue the State or local government in federal court if one of their officials violated a federal statutory or Constitutional right, and can only win such a suit if a "special relationship" can be shown to have existed, which DeShaney and its progeny make it very difficult to do. Moreover, Zinermon v. Burch [10] very likely precludes Section 1983 liability for police agencies in these types of cases if there is a potential remedy via a State tort action.

Many states, however, have specifically precluded such claims, barring lawsuits against State or local officials for failure to protect, by enacting statutes such as California's Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846 which state, in part: "Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals."

It is painfully clear that the police cannot be relied upon to protect us. Thus far we've seen that they have no duty to do so. And we've also seen that even if they did have a duty to protect us, practically- speaking they could not fulfill it with sufficient certainty that we would want to bet our lives on it.

----------


## azxd

> See, another reason not to shoot at a fleeing mundane, could accidentally set off their nuke!!


1 shot, 1 million killed ... Hmm.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I do not.
> 
> I make it a point to be as recalcitrant, silent and uncooperative as possible, (At least that how I'm sure the government enforcers see it, to me I am just standing firm and exercising my rights.) whenever I have any dealings with police, TSA, DHS or any other governmental regulatory body, which, in my line of work, I come across on fairly regular basis.
> 
> In your world, which is pretty much what we have here, I have to seriously concern myself with getting shot in the back for being uncooperative.


I am the same.  Indeed, there is a rather large and robust American tradition of the completely innocent being as uncooperative with the police as possible.  Contrary to what some people see on Law and order and NCIS, a great many of us were taught from a very young age that if you do not exercise your rights, you lose them.  Certainly current events are bearing that warning out, thus inspiring even more completely innocent people to start exercising our rights.

Somehow Mr. Miko does not realize that this is a solid American tradition that goes all the way back to our founding as a nation.  I suppose when you look at the world through blue-colored classes, that's what happens.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> See, another reason not to shoot at a fleeing mundane, could accidentally set off their nuke!!


Indeed, terrorists like these things called "Dead Man's Switches" that so long as they are holding it it's ok, but as soon as they let go BOOM!

So if there really is a 56 year old female Christian terrorist Sunday School teacher with a nuclear bomb, the last thing you want to do is shoot them if you cannot locate the detonation circuit, because if you do you could end up being the guy who destroyed the city!

----------


## phill4paul

I am also with AF and GunnyFreedom in this matter. I do not buy into this "If you have done nothing wrong then you have nothing to fear mentality." I have done nothing wrong. And the fear I have of regarding meek subjugation to an 'authority' figure,and the knowledge that if given an inch a mile will be sought after, is quite real.

----------


## Lethalmiko

Before I respond more specifically to those that have said something sensible, let me raise something else in line with this discussion. 

*SCENARIO ONE*
Imagine that two policemen go to arrest a first offender for a small non-violent crime (eg not paying parking tickets or something similar), but the person resists arrest. The person does not hurt or threaten to hurt the officers during the attempted arrest. He does not run away but just keeps "dancing around" almost within reach but each time the officers try to handcuff him, he blocks or wriggles his way out without striking anyone. The officers do not have tazers or anything else to incapacitate the guy from a distance. Should the officers use physical force to arrest the guy or just leave him alone and come back later? 

*SCENARIO TWO*
A non-violent junkie who is ordered to go into drug rehab by a judge decides to stay home instead. The judge after finding out has him arrested for contempt of court. Do you agree with the law which says that he should be arrested for disobeying the orders of the court?

*SCENARIO THREE*
A guy who is arrested on the street for matching the description of a crime suspect refuses to give his name or address to interrogating officers. He refuses to cooperate in any way and even stops speaking. Each time someone attempts to talk to him, he shows them the middle finger. He has no criminal record, is not in the fingerprint database and there is no way to identify him positively at that point. Should he be locked up in jail until he gives his name or should he be allowed to walk?

*NOTE:* Whatever your answers, kindly give your reasoning and/or legal basis.

----------


## pcosmar

> Whatever your answers, kindly give your reasoning and/or legal basis.


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,* shall not be violated*, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and *particularly describing* the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. 

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

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed,* nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted*. 

*The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.* 

and lastly,, Police should NOT EXIST in a free society.
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm



> The Constitution contains no explicit provisions for criminal law enforcement. Nor did the constitutions of any of the several states contain such provisions at the time of the Founding. Early constitutions enunciated the intention that law enforcement was a universal duty that each person owed to the community, rather than a power of the government*. Founding-era constitutions addressed law enforcement from the standpoint of individual liberties and placed explicit barriers upon the state.*

----------


## JK/SEA

> Before I respond more specifically to those that have said something sensible, let me raise something else in line with this discussion. 
> 
> *SCENARIO ONE*
> Imagine that two policemen go to arrest a first offender for a small non-violent crime (eg not paying parking tickets or something similar), but the person resists arrest. The person does not hurt or threaten to hurt the officers during the attempted arrest. He does not run away but just keeps "dancing around" almost within reach but each time the officers try to handcuff him, he blocks or wriggles his way out without striking anyone. The officers do not have tazers or anything else to incapacitate the guy from a distance. Should the officers use physical force to arrest the guy or just leave him alone and come back later? 
> 
> *SCENARIO TWO*
> A non-violent junkie who is ordered to go into drug rehab by a judge decides to stay home instead. The judge after finding out has him arrested for contempt of court. Do you agree with the law which says that he should be arrested for disobeying the orders of the court?
> 
> *SCENARIO THREE*
> ...


LOL...i'm sorry, i know you want a reasonable discourse, but geezus...this is so funny, i can't help but to just laugh at this...

----------


## pcosmar

> LOL...i'm sorry, i know you want a reasonable discourse, but geezus...this is so funny, i can't help but to just laugh at this...


It would be funny if it were not so damn sad.

----------


## JK/SEA

> It would be funny if it were not so damn sad.


i should add that while laughing, i was doing a double face palm, while shaking my head.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Umm, that.




> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,* shall not be violated*, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and *particularly describing* the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. 
> 
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; *nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,* nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. 
> 
> Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed,* nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted*. 
> 
> *The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.* 
> 
> and lastly,, Police should NOT EXIST in a free society.
> http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

----------


## truelies

a Peace Officer I could have respect for however they are all but extinct in America. The men & women of law enforcement are an enemy for whom I have no respect. Look upon them as rabid dogs.

----------


## Jonathanm

> SCENARIO ONE
> Imagine that two policemen go to arrest a first offender for a small non-violent crime (eg not paying parking tickets or something similar), but the person resists arrest. The person does not hurt or threaten to hurt the officers during the attempted arrest. He does not run away but just keeps "dancing around" almost within reach but each time the officers try to handcuff him, he blocks or wriggles his way out without striking anyone. The officers do not have tazers or anything else to incapacitate the guy from a distance. Should the officers use physical force to arrest the guy or just leave him alone and come back later?


No. The man isn't being violent towards the police officers. The man's only crime is that of something non-violent. With reasonable suspicion we can come to the conclusion that this man is not a violent criminal, and does not deserve to be treated in a violent manner. The Constitution is pretty straightforward when it comes to things like this.




> SCENARIO TWO
> A non-violent junkie who is ordered to go into drug rehab by a judge decides to stay home instead. The judge after finding out has him arrested for contempt of court. Do you agree with the law which says that he should be arrested for disobeying the orders of the court?


I absolutely disagree, not because of the dodging court issue, but because of the order that he must go to drug rehab in the first place. The drug war is unconstitutional. No where in the constitution does it give the federal government the right to criminalize a substance. Policing crimes of this nature is a drain on taxpayer money, and a violation of civil liberties.

Warning: RANT INCOMING.

You cannot protect people from themselves. I know this first hand. I have several suicide attempts under my belt, and you know who saved me from death? Hint: It wasn't the government. This whole idea of protecting people from themselves is ludicrous. If the government tried to protect me from myself, here are the things that would now be illegal: Car exhaust, knives and hot water, alcohol, ambien, and Tylenol. Quite frankly, I'm amazed that I'm still alive today, and haven't suffered liver damage or something fatal of the sort. For a two week period I was actually saving up my allowance to purchase a helium hood, and helium, over the internet. I say this not as a means for sympathy, but to show a contrast of just how $#@!ed up I was then, when I believed the government was my only solution, compared to how relatively stable I am now that I've learned my destiny is in my own hands.

I hope this sort of discussion doesn't make anyone uncomfortable. I am not trying to get sympathy, because quite frankly I now love my life. I talk about my suicide issues openly because I feel it brings a certain perspective to the argument that otherwise might be lacking. I was once on the edge of getting welfare. I was _so_ close to giving up on life, on my own future, and just accepting that the government would take care of me; that the government could _protect me_. Thankfully, somewhere along this road to nowhere, I saw Ron Paul giving a speech. Intrigued, I bought one of his books. I devoured it, and then I went on to find these forums, and lurked here, religiously, for weeks on end. I learned the message of liberty and I've never looked back. Being on welfare, *to me*, is like a more socially acceptable form of imprisonment. This became even more clear to me when I saw places like Florida passing drug-test-the-welfare-people laws.

Had the government gotten involved with me and involuntarily forced me into a mental health institution, I probably would have gotten worse. Why? Because for me, any form of imprisonment is detrimental to my mental well being. As it stands, my friends and family managed to get me _voluntary_ help, and after a lot of work I went from suicidal + living off of parents dime, to being non-suicidal and working near full time.




> SCENARIO THREE
> A guy who is arrested on the street for matching the description of a crime suspect refuses to give his name or address to interrogating officers. He refuses to cooperate in any way and even stops speaking. Each time someone attempts to talk to him, he shows them the middle finger. He has no criminal record, is not in the fingerprint database and there is no way to identify him positively at that point. Should he be locked up in jail until he gives his name or should he be allowed to walk?


He should be allowed to walk. The constitution, again, is pretty straightforward on this. You are not required, as a citizen, to tell the police officer anything. You are not required to answer any questions they ask. This is not even up for debate in America. You have a RIGHT to these things, even after being convicted via Miranda rights: _You have the right to remain silent..._

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Warning: RANT INCOMING.
> 
> You cannot protect people from themselves. I know this first hand. I have several suicide attempts under my belt, and you know who saved me from death? Hint: It wasn't the government. This whole idea of protecting people from themselves is ludicrous. If the government tried to protect me from myself, here are the things that would now be illegal: Car exhaust, knives and hot water, alcohol, ambien, and Tylenol. Quite frankly, I'm amazed that I'm still alive today, and haven't suffered liver damage or something fatal of the sort. For a two week period I was actually saving up my allowance to purchase a helium hood, and helium, over the internet. I say this not as a means for sympathy, but to show a contrast of just how $#@!ed up I was then, when I believed the government was my only solution, compared to how relatively stable I am now that I've learned my destiny is in my own hands.
> 
> I hope this sort of discussion doesn't make anyone uncomfortable. I am not trying to get sympathy, because quite frankly I now love my life. I talk about my suicide issues openly because I feel it brings a certain perspective to the argument that otherwise might be lacking. I was once on the edge of getting welfare. I was _so_ close to giving up on life, on my own future, and just accepting that the government would take care of me; that the government could _protect me_. Thankfully, somewhere along this road to nowhere, I saw Ron Paul giving a speech. Intrigued, I bought one of his books. I devoured it, and then I went on to find these forums, and lurked here, religiously, for weeks on end. I learned the message of liberty and I've never looked back. Being on welfare, *to me*, is like a more socially acceptable form of imprisonment. This became even more clear to me when I saw places like Florida passing drug-test-the-welfare-people laws.
> 
> Had the government gotten involved with me and involuntarily forced me into a mental health institution, I probably would have gotten worse. Why? Because for me, any form of imprisonment is detrimental to my mental well being. As it stands, my friends and family managed to get me _voluntary_ help, and after a lot of work I went from suicidal + living off of parents dime, to being non-suicidal and working near full time.


Best. Rant. Ever.

+rep

----------


## Jonathanm

> Best. Rant. Ever.
> +rep


Thanks! I appreciate the comment and the rep. It's good to know that, at least to some people, I can make sense. 

Sometimes I feel like I'm shouting at a brick wall that wants nothing more than to just fall over and crush me under the weight: _"No, Jonathan. You don't know how to best handle the genetic disorder you've had for your entire life. We the politicians do. It only makes logical sense that someone who has never dealt with bipolar II should know how to best treat it, don't you think? No? Well, how about some mental hospital? I hear they have good... Uh... Look, just get in the cage, buddy. It's for your own self interest. And if imprisonment doesn't help you, well, we'll just have to keep you imprisoned until it does."_

----------


## Danke

"Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985). The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."
Fleeing felons may be followed into places not open to the public without a warrant if the officer is in "hot pursuit." See Warden, Md. Penitentiary v. Hayden, [2], 87 S.Ct. 1642, 18 L.Ed.2d 782."

----------


## azxd

> Before I respond more specifically to those that have said something sensible, let me raise something else in line with this discussion. 
> 
> *SCENARIO ONE*
> Imagine that two policemen go to arrest a first offender for a small non-violent crime (eg not paying parking tickets or something similar), but the person resists arrest. The person does not hurt or threaten to hurt the officers during the attempted arrest. He does not run away but just keeps "dancing around" almost within reach but each time the officers try to handcuff him, he blocks or wriggles his way out without striking anyone. The officers do not have tazers or anything else to incapacitate the guy from a distance. Should the officers use physical force to arrest the guy or just leave him alone and come back later? 
> 
> *SCENARIO TWO*
> A non-violent junkie who is ordered to go into drug rehab by a judge decides to stay home instead. The judge after finding out has him arrested for contempt of court. Do you agree with the law which says that he should be arrested for disobeying the orders of the court?
> 
> *SCENARIO THREE*
> ...


There is no disputing against a man denying principles.

----------


## azxd

There is no disputing against a man denying principles.

----------


## Lethalmiko

Nobody has answered the questions I asked in my first two scenarios. I will make my point nevertheless and then get back to the earlier comments later. In this post, I will give my own opinion, without necessarily agreeing with current law.

*PREAMBLE*
How do the police deal with a person resisting arrest? In my scenario one, some of you may possibly sympathize with the guy and feel that the police should not use strong physical force to arrest him. But suppose he is accused of murdering a 54 year old church going woman and all the other things I described in the scenario remain exactly the same? I bet you will all agree that he needs to be arrested by any means necessary.

So the essential question is this: Why are the police morally and legally allowed to use force to arrest him, considering that he is not hurting or threatening to hurt anyone while resisting arrest? I believe the simple answer is that he is subverting the natural course of justice. He is preventing the law from taking its course. The reason that you get locked up for contempt of court is that you are frustrating the judicial process.

*Jonathanm* unfortunately is focusing on the trees intead of seeing the forest. I could have easily replaced the drug rehab thing with an order to do community service. The specific court order is irrelevant since I was asking about whether everyone in here agrees with locking up someone for contempt of court or not. There is no need to preach to the choir since I am against the anti-drug laws and the accompanying war. Freedom means you are free to do whatever despicable $#@! you want to yourself. Just don't infringe on other people's rights.

The third scenario is admittedly a difficult one since it depends on other factors. Suppose the arrested guy was identified on a lineup for a crime? Without knowing his name, it is entirely possible he may end up wrongly convicted in a case of mistaken identity. He may have a twin brother or look-alike who committed the actual crime but is in hiding. So contrary to what *Jonathanm* claims, it is not "pretty straightforward". It gets more complicated when he is taken into court and refuses to answer the question about his names and address which will probably be looked at as contempt of court (I am not sure).


*FLEEING SUSPECTS*
I submit that a fleeing suspect is doing the exact same thing as the guy resisting arrest or the guy who ignores a court order. They are all subverting the course of justice and making it impossible for due process to happen. If you agree with the logic in the modified first scenario that force should be used if necessary to arrest the alledged murderer, then applying it to a fleeing suspect should logically follow. Whether or not a crime has been committed is irrelevant, and guilt or innocence proved is also irrelevant (we are arresting someone who has been accused of murder but not yet found guilty). 

The fleeing suspect of course is being chased based on _reasonable suspicion_, but the point is that he is also frustrating the law and should therefore not be tolerated. _Reasonable suspicion_ is a legal basis to briefly detain someone, and if necessary frisk them for weapons. This legal procedure carries just as much weight as a judge sentencing you to community service. If you are not allowed to subvert justice by ignoring the court's decision, why should you be allowed to in the _Terry Stop_ situation?

This is my basis for arguing that a fleeing suspect should be stopped by lethal force if necessary and I think that it should not matter whether the suspect is a threat to anyone or not. Of course lethal force should only be used as a last resort. In the case of a mental patient, it is possible someone may be unfortunately gunned down but this is very unlikely, and the same argument can also apply to someone facing arrest who resists and is insane.




> "Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985). The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."
> Fleeing felons may be followed into places not open to the public without a warrant if the officer is in "hot pursuit." See Warden, Md. Penitentiary v. Hayden, [2], 87 S.Ct. 1642, 18 L.Ed.2d 782."

----------


## azxd

Many men know many things, no one knows everything.

----------


## azxd

He who approves cannot reject.

----------


## azxd

A madman is punished by his madness alone.

----------


## pcosmar

> Nobody has answered the questions I asked in my first two scenarios. 
> 
> *FLEEING SUSPECTS*


I thought I had. But possibly I was too subtle.
http://constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.txt
*
Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest*

Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting 
officer's life if necessary. Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This 
premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the 
case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: Where the 
officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally 
accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with 
very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right 
to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What 
may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter 
in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been 
committed.

An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without 
affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, 
and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the 
arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will 
be no more than an involuntary manslaughter. Housh v. People, 75 111. 
491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. 
Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 
241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right 
to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by 
force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, 
his assailant is killed, he is justified. Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; 
Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an 
arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by 
the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private 
individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence. Jones v. State, 
26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 
43 Tex. 93, 903.

An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to 
be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in 
defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and 
battery. (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, 
the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer 
and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense. (State v. 
Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as 
he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus 
it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an 
officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without 
resistance. (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In 
his own writings, he had admitted that a situation could arise in which 
the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various 
branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation. There would be 
no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the 
Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, 
If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by 
human institutions. That was the ultimate right of all human beings in 
extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous 
injustice. (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford 
University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the 
case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.

As for grounds for arrest: The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, 
and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of 
the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the 
peace. (Whartons Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy 
v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)

----------


## Lethalmiko

> I make it a point to be as recalcitrant, silent and uncooperative as possible, (At least that how I'm sure the government enforcers see it, to me I am just standing firm and exercising my rights.) whenever I have any dealings with police, TSA, DHS or any other governmental regulatory body, which, in my line of work, I come across on fairly regular basis. In your world, which is pretty much what we have here, I have to seriously concern myself with getting shot in the back for being uncooperative.


There is a flip side to this. Being uncooperative may delay the process of getting to the real culprit. Police may end up wasting precious time trying to eliminate you from the list of suspects. I am not suggesting you just take any crap from the police. Cooperation with the police and exercising your rights are not mutually exclusive.




> I never said any such thing about Watts. All I said is that he was not a school "official" and therefore anything he says is third hand information, as opposed to an eyewitness.


How do you know how he got his information? Is it impossible for him to have seen the encounter between Cook and the school staff?




> Since we're playing the what if games, let me give you a list of reasons as to why an innocent person might run from the police. 
> 
> *What if the person is mentally ill, for example a paranoid schizophrenic, and has irrational fears that someone is out to get him? Statistically speaking, the vast majority of schizophrenics are benign, and of no threat to the public. Yet, because of his mental illness, you have now given the officers a right to shoot him dead. Doesn't that seem just a little bit unjust, to you? After all, no one _chooses_ to get schizophrenia. A schizophrenic man actually lives at the extended stay motel that my parents own, and if officers ever came for him he would run, despite the fact that he is a law abiding citizen. 
> 
> *What if the person is running because he _fears_ the police? 
> 
> *What if the police officers in this particular stretch of town are known to be corrupt, and racist? 
> 
> *What if someone happens to start running at the moment a police officer walks by? 
> ...


* I addressed mental illness in post #538.

* Fear of the police or other psychological reasons are not acceptable either. Anyone can claim that as an excuse for anything.

* Running away because police are corrupt/racist is like refusing to appear for trial before a judge who is known to be corrupt. 

* Some of these do not apply because they do not involve someone specifically identified. 

* If you did not hear the police identify themselves and it is dark outside, you may end up shot. However, once the police are in pursuit, they should shout at you again to stop and fire warning shots. Surely by then you should know who they are.

If your life is in danger, then you should run as I have said before.




> "Lethal" and his toady Butchie are obviously not here to make friends and they don't seem to embrace any of RP's ideals. Perhaps we can speculate why they are _really_ here....


I was not aware that everybody (apart from me and a few others) who come here do it to make friends. I also didn't know I don't embrace RP's ideals. Please, keep showing me what else I don't know. Don't forget to PM me when you finally compile the report about the real reasons I am here. Or you could just cut it short by concluding I am paid by the police state to bring confusion here and prevent Dr Paul from winning.




> No, of course not, that would *not* be my first thought.


So your first thought would be what exactly?




> In a sick way, I'm even thankful to "Lethal" and Butchie for helping us understand the psychological damage that the police state apparatus has inflicted unto itself.


Please continue the speculation. Why stop here?




> Police have no obligation to protect you:


Is that so? If someone has broken into my house and I call them, do they have the luxury of not showing up at all? Why don't they stop patrolling the streets then? What is the point after all?

The cases you quoted have nothing to do with what we are discussing. Someone injured in their private home obviously cannot sue the police for failing to prevent it happening, any more than I can sue the police for a drunken driver hitting into me and causing me physical injury. Police are not there to prevent all crimes. They can only do what is reasonable. They definitely have an obligation to intervene when a crime is in progress to protect my rights from being violated. The fact that they often fail proves nothing WRT this discussion. One of the things that needs to be sorted out is repealing these stupid anti-gun laws that allow criminals to have free reign. There would be much less need for policemen. I shall return later to comment on the argument some make that a public police force should not even exist.




> I do not buy into this "If you have done nothing wrong then you have nothing to fear mentality." I have done nothing wrong. And the fear I have of regarding meek subjugation to an 'authority' figure,and the knowledge that if given an inch a mile will be sought after, is quite real.


Completely taken my comments out of context.

----------


## pcosmar

> What is the point after all?


Damn good question.
They *should not exist* in the first place.
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

----------


## mikeforliberty

I can't believe 1. this thread is still going and 2. you haven't all added lethalmiko to your ignore list.

----------


## AFPVet

> Is that so? If someone has broken into my house and I call them, do they have the luxury of not showing up at all? Why don't they stop patrolling the streets then? What is the point after all?


Refer to Castle Rock v. Gonzales. AF was merely referencing this Supreme Court case which states that police have no constitutional obligation to protect you; however, they are bound by their department _policies_ which dictate their actions. 





> The cases you quoted have nothing to do with what we are discussing. Someone injured in their private home obviously cannot sue the police for failing to prevent it happening, any more than I can sue the police for a drunken driver hitting into me and causing me physical injury. Police are not there to prevent all crimes. They can only do what is reasonable. They definitely have an obligation to intervene when a crime is in progress to protect my rights from being violated. The fact that they often fail proves nothing WRT this discussion. One of the things that needs to be sorted out is repealing these stupid anti-gun laws that allow criminals to have free reign. There would be much less need for policemen.


 


> I shall return later to comment on the argument some make that a public police force should not even exist.



Let me save you the trouble... once more, some people get confused about this. Most state constitutions do not mention "police"... they do however, mention "sheriffs, marshals.... Sheriffs can have their deputies—just as marshals.

----------


## azxd

> Is that so? If someone has broken into my house and I call them, do they have the luxury of not showing up at all? Why don't they stop patrolling the streets then? What is the point after all?


Ignorance of facts excuses, ignorance of law does not excuse. 

Re-read the thread ... Your argument has already been defeated.

----------


## azxd

> I can't believe 1. this thread is still going and 2. you haven't all added lethalmiko to your ignore list.


I'm testing how long this insanity will be continued

----------


## Travlyr

"*Badges?* ... _We Don't Need No Stinking Badges._"

----------


## pcosmar

> I can't believe 1. this thread is still going and 2. you haven't all added lethalmiko to your ignore list.


I do not ignore. There are none on my ignore list.

I prefer to keep up with those spewing nonsense,, and to counter it.

----------


## Lethalmiko

> Refer to Castle Rock v. Gonzales. AF was merely referencing this Supreme Court case which states that police have no constitutional obligation to protect you; however, they are bound by their department _policies_ which dictate their actions. Let me save you the trouble... once more, some people get confused about this. Most state constitutions do not mention "police"... they do however, mention "sheriffs, marshals.... Sheriffs can have their deputies—just as marshals.


"The Court's majority opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia held that *enforcement of the restraining order was not mandatory under Colorado law*; were a mandate for enforcement to exist, it would not create an individual right to enforcement that could be considered a protected entitlement under the precedent of Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth; and even if there were a protected individual entitlement to enforcement of a restraining order, such entitlement would have no monetary value and hence would not count as property for the Due Process Clause. Justice David Souter wrote a concurring opinion, using the reasoning that *enforcement of a restraining order is a process, not the interest protected by the process, and that there is not due process protection for processes*."
_Castle Rock v. Gonzales_

The police are not mentioned in the constitution and one can argue from that angle that they have no _constitutional_ obligation to protect you. This is not my argument. Social security is not in the constitution. If the government stops sending SS checks to seniors, can they be sued for this? Are sheriffs or marshals obliged to protect you?




> I can't believe 1. this thread is still going and 2. you haven't all added lethalmiko to your ignore list.





> I'm testing how long this insanity will be continued


More silly comments. No one is putting a gun to your head to take part in this discussion.

----------


## TheTexan

Lethalmiko, there's a hundred different constitutional reasons you're wrong, a hundred different moral reasons you're wrong, but in the end it comes down to this: *you don't shoot grandmas in the back*.  To justify that... is sick.

----------


## SirPaul

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


Did Obama give special speech or special permission to police officers who are out of control?

Police violence is highest under Obama's false rule.

----------


## Butchie

> I agree with you and Jonathanm.
> 
> The MODS are great for keeping this thread open.  In a sick way, I'm even thankful to "Lethal" and Butchie for helping us understand the psychological damage that the police state apparatus has inflicted unto itself.


Umm, I actually haven't even been in this thread for a few days and only saw this cuz someone PM'd it to me, I'd say these negative remarks thrown my way are pretty uncalled for, you don't agree with me fine, (assuming you even knew what I was saying as most of you don't since you are blindly lumping me in as someone else's "toadie") but there's no need for this.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Lethalmiko, there's a hundred different constitutional reasons you're wrong, a hundred different moral reasons you're wrong, but in the end it comes down to this: *you don't shoot grandmas in the back*.  To justify that... is sick.


The only thing this woman appears to be guilty of is "Contempt of Cop".

That is a executable, capital, offense in Amerika these days.

----------


## azxd

> More silly comments. No one is putting a gun to your head to take part in this discussion.


True ... But then this form of distorted entertainment you provide would go silent.

Keep at it !!!
You've obviously got something to prove to the World

----------


## jmdrake

> Before I respond more specifically to those that have said something sensible, let me raise something else in line with this discussion. 
> 
> *SCENARIO ONE*
> Imagine that two policemen go to arrest a first offender for a small non-violent crime (eg not paying parking tickets or something similar), but the person resists arrest. The person does not hurt or threaten to hurt the officers during the attempted arrest. He does not run away but just keeps "dancing around" almost within reach but each time the officers try to handcuff him, he blocks or wriggles his way out without striking anyone. The officers do not have tazers or anything else to incapacitate the guy from a distance. Should the officers use physical force to arrest the guy or just leave him alone and come back later?


He should call for backup and wait patiently until it arrives.




> *SCENARIO TWO*
> A non-violent junkie who is ordered to go into drug rehab by a judge decides to stay home instead. The judge after finding out has him arrested for contempt of court. Do you agree with the law which says that he should be arrested for disobeying the orders of the court?


Do you actually know how these laws work?  This means that he's violated his probation.  The judge doesn't order an arrest for "contempt of court".  That's silly.  The junkie's probation record is updated to show he's violated his probation.  Police officers don't waste time trying to chase this guy down.  But the next time he's pulled over for anything the fact that he's violated his probation shows up on their record and they'll take him in.  I've seen a case where someone is in court for one thing, it shows up on the record that there is an outstanding warrant for something else (sometimes people just forget) and the person gets taken into custody.  




> *SCENARIO THREE*
> A guy who is arrested on the street for matching the description of a crime suspect refuses to give his name or address to interrogating officers. He refuses to cooperate in any way and even stops speaking. Each time someone attempts to talk to him, he shows them the middle finger. He has no criminal record, is not in the fingerprint database and there is no way to identify him positively at that point. Should he be locked up in jail until he gives his name or should he be allowed to walk?
> 
> *NOTE:* Whatever your answers, kindly give your reasoning and/or legal basis.


Your scenario three is incompetent.  There's no way to identify him?  You have no witnesses?  Then how on earth do you have a description of him?  What difference does it make if you have his name or not?  Someone's name isn't what makes them innocent or guilty of a crime.  And what exactly does "matching a description" even mean?  "Tall black man wearing blue jeans and a t-shirt"?  Regardless, the idea that you could "lock someone up until he tells you his name" is ridiculous.  One of the basic rights everybody knows they have is the right to remain silent.  And that silence can *not* be used against you.  If someone refuses to talk at all the police simply have to build up their case (if they have one) without that information.  You probably won't make bond if you never give the police your name, but the court still has to set you a speedy trial date and the state has to prove  you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

----------


## Jonathanm

> In the case of a mental patient, it is possible someone may be unfortunately gunned down but this is very unlikely


Ah, I see. You're willing to accept a certain amount of innocent people being gunned down. That is why we can't agree. I would rather a guilty man go free than an innocent man be wrongly killed.

Also, why would this be very unlikely? Schizophrenia affects roughly one percent of the population. Not all of them are _paranoid_ schizophrenics, but I'd argue all forms of schizophrenia could lead to running from police. Many schizophrenics are also more likely to be considered 'a suspect' by police officers, due to exhibiting certain strange tendencies, especially when off medications. 

Furthermore, I wasn't even addressing _other_ possibilities. All of the below can lead to hallucinations and/or delirium.

* PTSD
* Anxiety disorders
* Depersonalization/Derealization (Caused by a wide variety of disorders, including bipolar, depersonalization disorder, anxiety, and other dissociative disorders)
* Severe Insomnia
* Bipolar I (Manic episodes) 
* Alzheimers disease
* Narcolepsy
* Brain tumors
* High body temperatures
* Endocrine diseases.

----------


## Lethalmiko

> Lethalmiko, there's a hundred different constitutional reasons you're wrong, a hundred different moral reasons you're wrong, but in the end it comes down to this: *you don't shoot grandmas in the back*.  To justify that... is sick.


Name one. What exactly am I wrong about? And please stop being dishonest.

-------

Some argue that we do not need a professional police force since it is not in the constitution. Volunteer sheriffs and marshals and private citizens will do the job. While we are all in agreement that the police has been abused by the govt to erode people's rights, I have some concerns about this no-professional-police scenario that perhaps someone will be kind enough to address.

1. The constitution was written at a time when the population of America was about 4 million (they could have all fitted in LA). Unemployment was low and life was simple. By the time the first professional police services were established, there were about 20 million people. We now have over 300 million people and higher unemployment. Considering the sheer magnitude of cases, is it realistic to expect law enforcement to be left to volunteers?

2. In today's complex world with huge demands on our time, how easy would it be to find enough volunteers?

3. Back then, there were no advanced guns like we have now. How do volunteers take on criminals with automatic weapons? Why would anyone risk their lives?

4. Even if you manage to have enough people in a volunteer police force, they have to be trained as professionals to handle advanced criminals. How do you pay for the special training?

5. How do you handle issues to do with nationwide crime prevention through fingerprinting and other criminal databases?

6. Removing restrictions on gun ownership, ending the war on drugs and decriminalizing them would certainly reduce crime drastically. Would it be enough to make a volunteer police force feasible?

7. If citizens are to become part of law enforcement, should we allow them to have automatic weapons to take on the big bad guys? What are the implications of having millions of AKs in circulation?

----------


## Lethalmiko

> Ah, I see. You're willing to accept a certain amount of innocent people being gunned down. That is why we can't agree. I would rather a guilty man go free than an innocent man be wrongly killed. Also, why would this be very unlikely? Schizophrenia affects roughly one percent of the population. Not all of them are _paranoid_ schizophrenics, but I'd argue all forms of schizophrenia could lead to running from police. Many schizophrenics are also more likely to be considered 'a suspect' by police officers, due to exhibiting certain strange tendencies, especially when off medications.


It is unlikely because:

a) Insane people generally do not commit crimes and remain within the population.

b) Most insane people are in lunatic asylums. 

c) The probability of having a mad man being off his medicine away from the asylum and coincidentally committing a crime is extremely low. Within a day his someone would report his strange behavior. 

d) A mad man would find it very difficult to commit the crime since his thoughts are not coherent. Most of them are mostly harmless.

e) A mad man would not get very far running from the police. They would most likely already know about his madness beforehand and know how to deal with him.

----------


## TheTexan

> Name one. What exactly am I wrong about? And please stop being dishonest.


Others have already named plenty of reasons, articulated the reasons well, and you still ignore them, so I'll try not to repeat an argument you've already chosen to ignore.

Do you accept these facts?

1) The only 'probable cause' to believe she had committed a crime was a phone call reporting 'suspicious behavior'
2) There was no reason to believe she had any weapons or posed a threat or danger to others
3) The officer may or may not have had his arm stuck in the window during the first time he shot her (he didn't, but beside the point), the officer still shot her again after his arm was released from the window.

(And please stop being dishonest?  What's that supposed to mean?)

----------


## Kylie

> Name one. What exactly am I wrong about? And please stop being dishonest.
> 
> -------
> 
> Some argue that we do not need a professional police force since it is not in the constitution. Volunteer sheriffs and marshals and private citizens will do the job. While we are all in agreement that the police has been abused by the govt to erode people's rights, I have some concerns about this no-professional-police scenario that perhaps someone will be kind enough to address.
> 
> 1. The constitution was written at a time when the population of America was about 4 million (they could have all fitted in LA). Unemployment was low and life was simple. By the time the first professional police services were established, there were about 20 million people. We now have over 300 million people and higher unemployment. Considering the sheer magnitude of cases, is it realistic to expect law enforcement to be left to volunteers?
> 
> 2. In today's complex world with huge demands on our time, how easy would it be to find enough volunteers?
> ...



The answer to all of these problems is a well educated, well armed populace. Each citizen to be the kind of person that can't stand idle and watch evil and injustice happen. THIS is what we strive for, but we will have to suffice to the boundries set in the Constitution for starters, and work on from there.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

The general possession of automatic weapons throughout all strata of society doesn't seem to have hurt Switzerland any.

----------


## Jonathanm

> a) Insane people generally do not commit crimes and remain within the population.


Yes they do. The majority of mentally ill patients that commit crimes commit petty ones, or drug crimes, and not violent ones. The murderers and rapists and the violent offenders absolutely get institutionalized, if not imprisoned, but for the majority of the people we're talking about this just isn't the case.




> b) Most insane people are in lunatic asylums.


This right here shows you have a fundamental misunderstanding of mental illnesses. The majority of people with bipolar and schizophrenia are not, in fact, in asylums. The majority of people with mental illnesses, like these, are living in the populace and using medications. Furthermore, many of the conditions I listed do not in fact make you insane 24/7. Bipolar people are only 'insane' when having manic episodes. Schizophrenic people typically present with both psychotic and non-psychotic phases. 

People with endocrine disorders are not actually insane at all, but when left unchecked can lead to delirium. Too much thyroid hormone, or too little, can both cause this type of delirium, for instance.




> c) The probability of having a mad man being off his medicine away from the asylum and coincidentally committing a crime is extremely low. Within a day his someone would report his strange behavior.


Actually, again, most of the mentally ill folks do not in fact live in asylums. And even if they did: Do you not see the problem with this logic? Within a day someone would report his behavior... And then he might be shot for running.




> d) A mad man would find it very difficult to commit the crime since his thoughts are not coherent.


The lack of coherence is precisely why they might run from the police. I don't see how this supports your argument.




> e) A mad man would not get very far running from the police. They would most likely already know about his madness beforehand and know how to deal with him.


No, a mad man wouldn't get very far running from the police if the police shot him in the back. There is no guarantee that they would know about his madness. Furthermore, his madness could be caused by something completely unrelated to mental disorders. It could be an issue with the endocrine system (diabetes, thyroid hormones). Short term disorders: Insomnia. Or other disorders which almost never classify a person as being 'mad' in and of themselves, but in fact can cause issues of madness due to side effects: Narcolepsy.

Lastly, you're not addressing one of the very major flaws in all of this logic: That mentally ill people are _not_ diagnosed at birth. In the vast majority of cases people find out they are mentally ill by having a mental breakdown. For bipolar folk this will typically present during the young teenage years, and most often will be diagnosed after a suicide attempt, or a manic episode. 

If you have to first go through a mental breakdown to be labeled mentally ill, you could very well be subjected to being shot in the back, without even knowing what your own disorder is. You say this would be rare, but again, the rate of schizophrenia is widely accepted to be about 1 in 100. Bipolar disorder is recognized to be around 2%.

----------


## TheTexan

If I'm outside jogging, realize I left the oven on, and try to hurry home... but a cop gets up in my face asking me questions, I'll be real polite at first "I'm sorry officer I don't have time I gotta go"... but if he presses, I may just say "sorry, but I just don't have time for this" and keep on running.

He then proceeds to shoot me, and Lethalmiko is just fine with that.

----------


## RiseAgainst

> If I'm outside jogging, realize I left the oven on, and try to hurry home... but a cop gets up in my face asking me questions, I'll be real polite at first "I'm sorry officer I don't have time I gotta go"... but if he presses, I may just say "sorry, but I just don't have time for this" and keep on running.
> 
> He then proceeds to shoot me, and Lethalmiko is just fine with that.


Funny how a simple change of topic changes your tune.  Not so long ago you were the one justifying the use of aggressive violence in the form of social engineering, behavior modification and revenue generation against innocent individuals who have wronged no one.

Cognitive dissonance and all....

----------


## TheTexan

> Funny how a simple change of topic changes your tune.  Not so long ago you were the one justifying the use of aggressive violence in the form of social engineering, behavior modification and revenue generation against innocent individuals who have wronged no one.
> 
> Cognitive dissonance and all....


Uh, what?

----------


## Lethalmiko

> (And please stop being dishonest? What's that supposed to mean?)


You are dishonest because you are twisting things and falsely accusing me of something I never said. Show me where I said anything remotely similar to the following:




> *you don't shoot grandmas in the back*. *To justify that... is sick*.





> If I'm outside jogging, realize I left the oven on, and try to hurry home... but a cop gets up in my face asking me questions, I'll be real polite at first "I'm sorry officer I don't have time I gotta go"... but if he presses, I may just say "sorry, but I just don't have time for this" and keep on running. He then proceeds to shoot me, and *Lethalmiko is just fine with that*.


In any case, what is so hard about telling the cop, "I left the oven on at home and I am rushing to switch it off. Can you give me a ride while you ask me your questions?"




> Others have already named plenty of reasons, articulated the reasons well, and you still ignore them, so I'll try not to repeat an argument you've already chosen to ignore. Do you accept these facts?
> 
> 1) The only 'probable cause' to believe she had committed a crime was a phone call reporting 'suspicious behavior'
> 2) There was no reason to believe she had any weapons or posed a threat or danger to others
> 3) The officer may or may not have had his arm stuck in the window during the first time he shot her (he didn't, but beside the point), the officer still shot her again after his arm was released from the window.


I never once used the term 'probable cause' to describe the basis for questioning Mrs Cook. I said "reasonable suspicion" which nullifies point 1. Do you see again why I say you are dishonest? I reject point 2 because you expect the officer to be omniscient. Are you claiming it is impossible for a 54 year old woman to be a criminal with a gun in the car? Point 3 is speculation and I also reject it. On what basis do you conclude that the arm story is false? It may sound fishy but no one has evidence to disprove it at this point in time. The officer needs to be asked why he shot her multiple times before we can make any solid conclusions. You are also falling into the trap of thinking that the officer is trigger-happy. My only point is that I reserve judgement in this case because we have not heard the officer's full story.




> The answer to all of these problems is a well educated, well armed populace. Each citizen to be the kind of person that can't stand idle and watch evil and injustice happen. THIS is what we strive for, but we will have to suffice to the boundries set in the Constitution for starters, and work on from there.


 As an ideal I agree.




> The general possession of automatic weapons throughout all strata of society doesn't seem to have hurt Switzerland any.


In Switzerland, all men go into compulsory military training at 19 so they learn how to handle the weapons correctly. I doubt that you can get all American males into compulsory training as it will likely be resisted.




> Funny how a simple change of topic changes your tune.  Not so long ago you were the one justifying the use of aggressive violence in the form of social engineering, behavior modification and revenue generation against innocent individuals who have wronged no one. Cognitive dissonance and all....


I am not sure what you mean.

----------


## Lethalmiko

*Jonathanm*, I will answer you properly later.

----------


## sparebulb

> *Jonathanm*, I will answer you properly later.


The server to the SPLC must be down.

"Lethal", you might try your nearest Threat/Fusion center for further snitch/operative instructions.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> My only point is that I reserve judgement in this case because we have not heard the officer's full story.


LOL

You have done *nothing* but pass judgement here, basically saying that most of us here are nothing but part of a cop hating lynch mob.

You dismissed eyewitness testimony as unreliable.

You accepted third hand hearsay as solid evidence.

You failed to look at overwhelming precedent in cases like this.

You failed, barring any new evidence to the contrary, to acknowledge that settled law does not allow use of lethal force in this scenario.

Pot, meet Kettle, Kettle, Pot.

----------


## SL89

Deleted. I talk too much. Peace all!

----------


## TheTexan

> I never once used the term 'probable cause' to describe the basis for questioning Mrs Cook. I said "reasonable suspicion" which nullifies point 1.


Semantics, and irrelevant semantics at that.  Other than a phone call reporting 'suspicious behavior', do you believe that there was any other probable cause to believe she had committed a crime, or not?  Not a difficult question.




> I reject point 2 because you expect the officer to be omniscient.


I'm not expecting anyone to be omniscient.  I'm asking if you accept it to be true that there is no reason to believe that she had a weapon, and you dodge the question like you've been dodging everything else.




> Point 3 is speculation and I also reject it.


Your reading comprehension sucks.  Point 3 was stating as fact that the officer had shot the woman even when his arm was not in the window.  By the officer's own testimony, after his arm had been released, he had shot her again.  This isn't speculation.




> On what basis do you conclude that the arm story is false? It may sound fishy but no one has evidence to disprove it at this point in time. The officer needs to be asked why he shot her multiple times before we can make any solid conclusions.


Even if the cop's own testimony is true, he's a despicable individual for shooting that woman.




> In any case, what is so hard about telling the cop, "I left the oven on at home and I am rushing to switch it off. Can you give me a ride while you ask me your questions?"


It's a bicycle cop.  I did tell him I left the oven on at home.  He's still in my face asking me questions, I tell him I don't have time for this, and keep running, and he shoots me.  Are you ok with that, or not?

----------


## pacodever

> My only point is that I reserve judgement in this case because we have not heard the officer's full story.


I wonder what Patricia Cook's full story would have been...

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I wonder what Patricia Cook's full story would have been...


That's a good idea, hopefully they will get a deposition or have her testify.

Oh, wait...

----------


## Jonathanm

> That's a good idea, hopefully they will get a deposition or have her testify.
> 
> Oh, wait...


Dammit AF, quit making me laugh in these types of situations. Now I have to feel like an $#@! for the rest of the day.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Dammit AF, quit making me laugh in these types of situations. Now I have to feel like an $#@! for the rest of the day.


Gallows humor, my brother.

----------


## sparebulb

> That's a good idea, hopefully they will get a deposition or have her testify.
> 
> Oh, wait...


AF, if memory serves, didn't they perform a "psychological autopsy" on the Costco shooting victim?

I'm sure that the police can collect the nation's best psychics to get to the bottom of what really happened.

----------


## JK/SEA

The immortal hand of Patricia Cook will reach out from the grave and choke this cop to an inch of his life. With help from her friends of course.

Meanwhile, officer friendly is enjoying his paid days off, and swilling down his favorite brand of 'beverage' while taking in fresh air and good food, and being with his family in merriment.

Patricia Cook?....maybe we can figure this one out together.

----------


## Lethalmiko

> The majority of mentally ill patients that commit crimes commit petty ones, or drug crimes, and not violent ones. The murderers and rapists and the violent offenders absolutely get institutionalized, if not imprisoned, but for the majority of the people we're talking about this just isn't the case... The lack of coherence is precisely why they might run from the police. I don't see how this supports your argument... Lastly, you're not addressing one of the very major flaws in all of this logic: That mentally ill people are _not_ diagnosed at birth. In the vast majority of cases people find out they are mentally ill by having a mental breakdown. For bipolar folk this will typically present during the young teenage years, and most often will be diagnosed after a suicide attempt, or a manic episode.


 Give me statistics of how many mildly insane people are arrested for crimes. Of these how many commit violent crimes? How many are accidentally harmed by cops? By your own admission, most mentally ill people are harmless. What is the probability that a harmful mentally ill person is walking around freely? Lack of coherence supports my argument because the mental illness is more easily spotted and the number of crimes committed by mad people will be almost zero. The probability of a mental breakdown coinciding with a crime is very low. But the point is that the law still applies to insane people in the sense that they are taken out of society once found out. An insane person resisting arrest will still be arrested and put in an asylum.




> You have done *nothing* but pass judgement here, basically saying that most of us here are nothing but part of a cop hating lynch mob. 
> 
> You dismissed eyewitness testimony as unreliable.
> 
> You accepted third hand hearsay as solid evidence.
> 
> You failed to look at overwhelming precedent in cases like this.
> 
> You failed, barring any new evidence to the contrary, to acknowledge that settled law does not allow use of lethal force in this scenario.


We are all passing judgement so I don't see what your point is. The difference is I will only pass judgement on the cop after I hear his side of the story and weigh all the evidence. I cast doubt on the eyewitness testimony as any court would when they see a contradiction. You do not know whether Mr Watts was a witness or not so you are speculating. This scenario is not yet settled because not all the evidence has been revealed to the public.




> Semantics, and irrelevant semantics at that.  Other than a phone call reporting 'suspicious behavior', do you believe that there was any other probable cause to believe she had committed a crime, or not?  Not a difficult question.


If you do not realize how important the distinction between "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" is, I cannot say anything further on this point.




> I'm not expecting anyone to be omniscient.  I'm asking if you accept it to be true that there is no reason to believe that she had a weapon, and you dodge the question like you've been dodging everything else.


Can you explain what exactly it is in reality that allows a cop to confidently tell that a woman sitting in their car DOES NOT have a gun.




> Your reading comprehension sucks.  Point 3 was stating as fact that the officer had shot the woman even when his arm was not in the window.  By the officer's own testimony, after his arm had been released, he had shot her again.  This isn't speculation.


I am the one with a comprehension problem? Did you not say "The officer *may or may not** have had his arm stuck* in the window during the first time he shot her (*he didn't*, but beside the point)..." Here you are confidently asserting that he never had his arm stuck in the window. I answer that this specific comment is speculation and you change goalposts to focus on the extra shots that followed.




> Even if the cop's own testimony is true, he's a despicable individual for shooting that woman.


Believe what you want but I am not yet ready to say that for sure.




> It's a bicycle cop.  I did tell him I left the oven on at home.  He's still in my face asking me questions, I tell him I don't have time for this, and keep running, and he shoots me.  Are you ok with that, or not?


Unlike you, I don't believe that most cops are trigger-happy and no one is advocating senseless shooting. If he has reasonable suspicion, he is allowed to ask you questions. If he overdoes it, you ask him if you are free to go. If he says no, then he should arrest you by which point he should have probable cause. If he has no basis, he will let you go and him shooting you after this may be a product of your fertile conspiracy-theory laden imagination.

----------


## azxd

It avails little to know what ought to be done, if you do not know how it is to be done.

----------


## Danke

> ...


I know this has been answered before.  But what was a police officer doing that his reactions were  so slow as to not react and pull his arm away while the woman was rolling up her window?  sounds like he should have not been on the force to begin with.  not strong enough to pull your arm out of a window, seriously?  Ever heard of smash and grab?  Take the butt of your gun and hit the goddamn window, it shatters.

----------


## TheTexan

I think we should stop issuing guns to cops altogether.  They may still carry a weapon, but they will need to buy it themself, and follow the same rules as civilians do.  If they brandish, discharge their weapon, or shoot someone - they will be tried as a _civilian_.  Take 'shooting people' out of their job description, and replace that with 'protecting & serving people'.

----------


## Anti Federalist

bump

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I think we should stop issuing guns to cops altogether.  They may still carry a weapon, but they will need to buy it themself, and follow the same rules as civilians do.  If they brandish, discharge their weapon, or shoot someone - they will be tried as a _civilian_.  Take 'shooting people' out of their job description, and *replace that with 'protecting & serving people'.*


It'd be a nice start, but courts at all levels have ruled that cops have no obligation to protect and/or serve.  AF probably has the decisions handy.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> It'd be a nice start, but courts at all levels have ruled that cops have no obligation to protect and/or serve.  AF probably has the decisions handy.


One of the most recent.

There are literally hundreds at all levels that are basically saying the same thing.





> WASHINGTON, June 27, 2005 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police *did not* have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/po.../28scotus.html

----------


## libertyjam

> One of the most recent.
> 
> There are literally hundreds at all levels that are basically saying the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/po.../28scotus.html


Rhetorical question, mainly directed at SC Justices, What good are they then!?  

Obviously for the citizen, there is no Eff-ing use for them.  Get rid of them!

----------


## Anti Federalist

Oh, and a quick scan of the news shows no new information, no charges, no updates, nothing so far from "officials".

The only current news is this plaintive bleating from the local paper's Op/Ed page.

Never is it about "justice", only about "closure" and "healing" and putting it all behind us so it can be forgotten as quickly as possible and we can all get back to mindless consuming and entertainment.

$#@!ing Quislings.


*OUR VIEW: Not the attention we want*

http://www2.starexponent.com/news/20...nt-ar-1775259/

By: Star-Exponent staff editorial | Culpeper Star Exponent
Published: March 18, 2012
» 10 Comments | Post a Comment

Friday morning, the Culpeper Chamber of Commerce hosted its annual “State of Culpeper” address.

Business people, local leaders and dignitaries sang the praises of our town, saying “Culpeper is a great place.”

That it is, but lately the town and county have received unwanted and negative attention for the handling of two high profile cases.

Many are upset by the town’s handling of the Patricia Cook shooting death by a Town of Culpeper police officer. The officer’s name has yet to be released and the Virginia State Police are still investigating the circumstances surrounding Cook’s Feb. 9 death.

It has been more than a month since Cook’s death and the community deserves answers. We’re sure the State Police are simply doing a thorough investigation into the case, but the longer the townsfolk are not informed, the more misinformation is spreading through our neighborhoods.

Rampant speculation on the identity of the officer has caused many to throw out incorrect names, possibly damaging the reputation of others who are sworn to serve and protect.

We hope, for the community’s sake, that the investigation is wrapped up soon and more information is released about that fateful day.

The drama isn’t limited to the town as the county is embroiled in the aftermath of the overturned conviction of Michael Wayne Hash.

Hash was freed Wednesday after serving 12 years in prison after being convicted of the capital murder of 74-year-old Thelma Scroggins in 1996.

Hash’s situation has already cost Culpeper its Commonwealth’s Attorney, Gary Close, as he resigned effective Tuesday.

The community simply wants answers in the handling of the case, and that’s what we’re hoping for when Culpeper County Sheriff Scott Jenkins holds a community meeting today at 3 p.m. at the Courthouse courtyard.

Jenkins was an investigator in the Hash case and has said he will address the situation at the meeting. We hope that he gives the community the answers it deserves instead of pointing the finger of blame in other directions.

Answers and closure is what Culpeper needs in both cases if the community plans on healing itself.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Going to make a new thread about this.

http://www2.starexponent.com/news/20...ng-ar-1814557/

----------


## jmdrake

> Going to make a new thread about this.
> 
> http://www2.starexponent.com/news/20...ng-ar-1814557/


What?  You mean you aren't just worried about a black kid killed by a neighborhood watch captain?  You aren't giving the police a "pass" why trying to "fry" good upstanding citizens without a trial?

/sarcasm

Seriously, thanks for bumping this.

----------


## gtrguy

All, I started the Facebook page and petition because, at the 10 week mark, there had not been a single comment in our local paper or anywhere else for the 5 weeks prior to that. The officer is still on the payroll and no charges have been filed. We've now reached almost 900 signatures ( mine was the only one for a while ). The truly sad thing is how few people in our town have signed. Many are afraid, but most are just apathetic and simply want to not rock the boat. I appreciate seeing the interest in this shooting on this board. If you haven't already done so, please consider signing our petition. I plan on delivering it to the Special Prosecutor on June 1. We still need about 115 signatures to reach our original goal of 1,000 ( there's a petition about a dog being shot by a police officer in D.C. and they've got 33,000 signatures -- sad that a retired Sunday School teacher doesn't muster 1/33 of the sympathy for a shot dog -- not that that doesn't deserve sympathy, but she certainly deserves as much ). Obviously, the petition has no legal bearing on anything, but is an attempt to counteract the clear political pressure to bury this shooting. Not a single local official has called for any eventual release of information, and in VA, the special grand jury, has the authority to exonerate the officer and seal all testimony. This exact thing happened a few years ago in Appomattox, in a death where 6 sheriff's deputies swarmed an unarmed man and he died. It took 2 years to exonerate them all, never went to trial and no details were ever released. I'm cautiously optimistic that the Special Grand Jury ( which is expected to complete in mid-end June ) will do the right thing and either indict this officer, or release all the evidence, with a clearly justifiable reason for shooting Mrs Cook. That will be a difficult process as the death certificate makes it clear that she was shot in the arm, head, neck, and multiple times in the back.. and ballistics show that he followed her from the parking lot and continued to unload his glock into her vehicle as she attempted to drive away ( in one of the busiest parts of town, in the middle of the day ... endangering anyone who might have been passing by ). 

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Justi...05709186116293

http://www.change.org/petitions/spec...-patricia-cook

----------


## mport1

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


This. And obedience is what this is all about. If you don't obey everything a cop wants immediately you may be arrested, assaulted, or murdered.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> https://www.facebook.com/pages/Justi...05709186116293
> 
> http://www.change.org/petitions/spec...-patricia-cook


I don't FarceBook but I signed your petition.




> ( there's a petition about a dog being shot by a police officer in D.C. and they've got 33,000 signatures -- sad that a retired Sunday School teacher doesn't muster 1/33 of the sympathy for a shot dog -- not that that doesn't deserve sympathy, but she certainly deserves as much )


I hope you stick around and become part of the forum here, welcome aboard.

If you do, you'll see why that is.

----------


## AGRP

A grand jury charged Town of Culpeper Police Officer Daniel Harmon-Wright, 32, of Gainesville, Tuesday evening with murder, malicious shooting into an occupied vehicle, malicious shooting into an occupied vehicle resulting in a death and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony.

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/lo...155502385.html

----------


## Anti Federalist

This guy had more aliases than a mob boss.

Hopefully some justice will be done.

----------


## AGRP

> This guy had more aliases than a mob boss.
> 
> Hopefully some justice will be done.


Speaking of the mob:




> The grand jury also indicted Harmon-Wright’s mother, 55-year-old Bethany Sullivan, of Orange, on three counts of uttering and three counts of forgery of public documents. Their investigation revealed her alleged role in attempting to purge negative information from her son’ personnel file. She had been an administrative secretary to the chief of police when her son was hired.
> 
> http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/lo...155502385.html

----------


## phill4paul

> -Patricia-Cook/405709186116293[/url]
> 
> http://www.change.org/petitions/spec...-patricia-cook


  Done...you are at 1002 now.

----------


## HOLLYWOOD

> Speaking of the mob:


There is no rule of law for the 3 branches of tyranny. If this was a major police department, Harmon-Wright would of walked. Information I receive from associates working LE, bigger the department, the more we get away with now... they have attorneys white washing documents PRIOR to official submission of LE.

Now grab the popcorn, because the Judicial Branch and LE will run their best, "Let's Make A Deal" bargain, then the judge can reduce it even further.

PS: I feel bad about the VET that was murdered by police at that Las Vegas COSTCO, they got away with it completely.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> PS: I feel bad about the VET that was murdered by police at that Las Vegas COSTCO, they got away with it completely.


Yeah, that one was terrible. The difference is that the Costco case was one of gross incompetence all the way around. This case was more about a cop who intentionally committed murder out of anger.

As a matter of fact, the Costco case was more of a variation of the new trend of "SWATing" a person. The cashier who initiated this episode did so because she jumped to the conclusion that Erik Scott had been battering his girlfriend. She then alerted store security, who ramped it up a notch and contacted the Police. The end results of this accusation are now history.

----------


## TheTexan

I'm actually surprised it's getting taken to court at all... kinda pokes a hole in my "no video didn't happen" theory

It may have to become a "no video and no more than 2 years in jail" theory, which just doesn't have the same ring to it

----------


## phill4paul

> I'm actually surprised it's getting taken to court at all... kinda pokes a hole in my "no video didn't happen" theory
> 
> It may have to become a "no video and no more than 2 years in jail" theory, which just doesn't have the same ring to it


  I dunno. Murder is a serious charge. It usually entails some seriously damning evidence. Otherwise, it is usually 'manslaughter.' We shall see. In the meantime I am satisfied with the recommendations of the grand jury. These aren't the typical 'get out of jail free card' charges.

----------


## TheTexan

> I dunno. Murder is a serious charge. It usually entails some seriously damning evidence. Otherwise, it is usually 'manslaughter.' We shall see. In the meantime I am satisfied with the recommendations of the grand jury. These aren't the typical 'get out of jail free card' charges.


Well, something doesn't add up.  Is there evidence we don't know about?  Another witness?  Video?

Usually when it's one mundane's word against a cop the case is immediately thrown out.

Perhaps the fact that he shot at her again after his hand had already been "released from the window"... as that can proven by ballistics.  But again, even that's a stretch.

----------


## XxNeXuSxX

WTF is wrong with the husband?!? YOU'RE WIFE WAS MURDERED BUT YOU DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS EXCESSIVE FORCE? Your wife deserves better, ass.

----------


## JK/SEA

He'll get fired. No jail time. The family will receive an undetermined amount of payoff. Cop finds another job as a cop in Bum$#@!, Idaho in 3 months. Ahhh, balance to the universe and Lethalmiko will smile.

----------


## phill4paul

> Well, something doesn't add up.  Is there evidence we don't know about?  Another witness?  Video?
> 
> Usually when it's one mundane's word against a cop the case is immediately thrown out.
> 
> Perhaps the fact that he shot at her again after his hand had already been "released from the window"... as that can proven by ballistics.  But again, even that's a stretch.


  I dunno. From what I understand a Grand Jury only makes a recommendation. It is up to the States A.G. to frame the case and the charges. I may be wrong. We shall see.

----------


## XxNeXuSxX

> I dunno. Murder is a serious charge. It usually entails some seriously damning evidence. Otherwise, it is usually 'manslaughter.' We shall see. In the meantime I am satisfied with the recommendations of the grand jury. These aren't the typical 'get out of jail free card' charges.


Let's see:

if I drive away from a girlfriend because she's clearly violent. I don't see how driving AWAY constitutes any different motive than namecalling would. Neither constitute threatening aggression; in fact, the victim was diffusing a VIOLENT situation; Uniform or not.

----------


## phill4paul

> Let's see:
> 
> if I drive away from a girlfriend because she's clearly violent. I don't see how driving AWAY constitutes any different motive than namecalling would. Neither constitute threatening aggression; in fact, the victim was diffusing a VIOLENT situation; Uniform or not.


  Was/is this hypothetical girlfriend a cop? 

  Whatever the evidence it convinced the G.J. enough to warrant charges of murder AND discharging a firearm during the commission of a FELONY. Now it will be up to the A.G.. Hopefully, he/she will follow their recommendations.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Cop fired.



*Culpeper Police Officer Charged With Murder Terminated*

http://www.newsplex.com/home/headlin...159914065.html

June 21, 2012

Effective June 19, Daniel Harmon-Wright’s employment with the Culpeper Police Department was terminated. This termination occurred after the completion of an Internal Affairs investigation into the matter of the shooting of Patricia Cook. Earlier this month, Harmon-Wright pleaded not guilty.

The Town would like to thank the community for its patience throughout this process.

----------


## phill4paul

> Cop fired.
> 
> 
> 
> *Culpeper Police Officer Charged With Murder Terminated*
> 
> http://www.newsplex.com/home/headlin...159914065.html
> 
> June 21, 2012
> ...


  It's a start. I'm sure the PBA will sit on its hands until a verdict comes in. If acquittal then they'll go full bore for reinstatement and back pay.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> In any case, what is so hard about telling the cop, "I left the oven on at home and I am rushing to switch it off. Can you give me a ride while you ask me your questions?"


Better yet, the cop should run with him.  Ah, but it's not about the questions.  It's about the control.

----------


## tod evans

All in favor say "AYE"

----------


## Anti Federalist

"Bizarre" my ass.

Nice spin, calling it "bizarre", since it looks like this $#@! may get actually get convicted on this.

Because, it's only in rare or "bizarre" cases that the enforcers light up and kill a Mundane, right?


*Trial date set for Culpeper officer accused in bizarre traffic stop shooting*

Posted on: 11:25 pm, August 7, 2012, by Nick Dutton

http://wtvr.com/2012/08/07/trial-dat...stop-shooting/

CULPEPER COUNTY, Va. (WTVR) – A trial date has been set for the former police officer accused of shooting and killing a woman during a bizarre traffic stop.

The Culpeper Star-Exponent reports that Daniel Harmon-Wright will be tried on Jan. 22. Additionally, the judge is considering a request to move the trial from Culpeper to Lynchburg.

Investigators said Harmon-Wright shot at Patricia Cook seven times in a church parking lot back in February, killing her.

Harmon-Wright said he was talking with Cook, who was inside her Jeep, when she took off and dragged him. 

But an eyewitness says the officer was not dragged by the vehicle.

----------


## aGameOfThrones

> judge is considering a request to move the trial from Culpeper to *Lynch*burg


..

----------


## Danke

> judge is considering a request to move the trial from Culpeper to Lynchburg


I'd like to be a judge in a town called "Lynchburg"

----------


## phill4paul

> I'd like to be a judge in a town called "Lynchburg"


  Ain't much there. You'd be bored to death. Unless you wanted to take courses at Liberty University. Which would still pretty much bore you to death.

----------


## Danke

> Ain't much there. You'd be bored to death. Unless you wanted to take courses at Liberty University. Which would still pretty much bore you to death.


Wouldn't be boring there if I were the judge.

----------


## phill4paul

> Wouldn't be boring there if I were the judge.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Update bump

----------


## Brian4Liberty

http://www.dailyprogress.com/starexp...a4bcf6878.html


Daniel Harmon-Wright guilty of voluntary manslaughter 



> A former Culpeper Police officer faces up to 25 years in prison for killing local housewife Patricia Ann Cook, 54, nearly a year ago on East Street.
> 
>   A 12-member jury Tuesday found Daniel Harmon-Wright, 33, guilty of voluntary manslaughter, shooting into an occupied vehicle and shooting into an occupied vehicle resulting in death following about nine hours of deliberation Monday and Tuesday.
> 
>   "I don't see this as a categorical statement with respect to law enforcement," said special prosecutor Jim Fisher, Fauquier County Commonwealth's Attorney, in a press conference following the verdict. "I think this was a unique situation with a unique defendant, who stepped out of line in a very aggressive fashion and broke the rules so the system has held him accountable."
> 
>   A dramatic silence filled the courtroom in Culpeper County Circuit Court when word came in around 4:15 p.m. that a verdict had been reached. Harmon-Wright, prior to taking his seat beside attorney Daniel Hawes, kissed his wife on the mouth. The mother of his baby son attended all six days of the trial, beginning last Tuesday along with at least nine other family members.
> 
>   Harmon-Wright, a former U.S. Marine, who served a tour in Iraq, covered his face with his hands as the verdict was read, and one female juror wiped away tears. The former Culpeper Police Officer was then handcuffed and escorted by three Culpeper County Sheriff's bailiffs to the Culpeper County Jail, adjacent to the courthouse.

----------


## tod evans

Good!

I hope he actually serves the 25..

----------


## aGameOfThrones

> Harmon-Wright, a former U.S. Marine, who served a tour in Iraq, covered his face with his hands as the verdict was read, *and one female juror wiped away tears.*


Tears were not meant for Patricia cook.

----------


## jmdrake

_Harmon-Wright, a former U.S. Marine, who served a tour in Iraq, covered his face with his hands as the verdict was read, and one female juror wiped away tears. The former Culpeper Police Officer was then handcuffed and escorted by three Culpeper County Sheriff's bailiffs to the Culpeper County Jail, adjacent to the courthouse._ 

I didn't know he was a vet.  While this doesn't negate what he did, I have to wonder what effect the war might have had on him?  He'd very well may have seen "checkpoint shootings" with the tragedy level going both ways.

----------


## jmdrake

> Tears were not meant for Patricia cook.


Well I feel for his wife and son.

Edit: And I feel for Patricia Cook's family who don't have the hope of seeing her in 25 years (or less).

----------


## tod evans

I have not seen any evidence of leniency by the "Just-Us" system regarding veterans accused of a capitol crime *unless* they're a member of the law enforcement community. 

This behavior alone is discriminatory.

I would like to see any LEO accused of a crime actually stand in front of a prosecutor/judge and jury that were not part and party to the LEO's daily activities..

This is only one isolated instance of a cop actually being prosecuted, there are thousands of crimes committed by LEO's that should be prosecuted but will never see the light of day due to the inherent cronyism of the "Just-Us" system...








> _Harmon-Wright, a former U.S. Marine, who served a tour in Iraq, covered his face with his hands as the verdict was read, and one female juror wiped away tears. The former Culpeper Police Officer was then handcuffed and escorted by three Culpeper County Sheriff's bailiffs to the Culpeper County Jail, adjacent to the courthouse._ 
> 
> I didn't know he was a vet.  While this doesn't negate what he did, I have to wonder what effect the war might have had on him?  He'd very well may have seen "checkpoint shootings" with the tragedy level going both ways.

----------


## Origanalist

> Culpeper Police Chief Chris Jenkins, in the statement, said the outcome of the trial does not change his department's mission.
> 
>   "We are still devoted to providing the best possible services to our community and in the best way possible,"


I shed tears too, after reading *this*.   http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...t=police+abuse

----------


## fisharmor

http://www.dailyprogress.com/starexp...a4bcf6878.html




> "It's going to be important for the court to send a message in  this case," he said, adding that prosecuting a law enforcement officer  for murder is certainly a rare occurrence.


Well, the prosecutor admits it.   But at least he's looking to make an example here.

Now if we can get Delma Tower's murderers locked up, I may start to feel ok about living here again.

----------


## Mani

Im surprised......I'm actually surprised......


But I Wonder, is this all because 1 man just happened to be there at just the right time to witness this?  And then had the courage to speak out?      Otherwise would it be just another mundane slaughtered per usual......

----------


## Origanalist

I hope that a very large man enjoys the officers incarceration immensly.

----------


## SeanTX

> I hope that a very large man enjoys the officers incarceration immensly.


Not likely, being a former cop he will get protective custody and special treatment in prison. And -- more than likely -- the lightest possible sentence. The JustUs system takes care of their own ...

----------


## Origanalist

Hope springs eternal.........

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> I didn't know he was a vet.  While this doesn't negate what he did, I have to wonder what effect the war might have had on him?  He'd very well may have seen "checkpoint shootings" with the tragedy level going both ways.


Yeah, that was my thought as well. You have to wonder if his "training" and experience in Iraq or Afghanistan came back with him to be used here. A reflex action.  Another reason why Officers need to be carefully screened before being hired.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Hold your excitement people. When all else fails, accuse the Jury of misconduct!




> *The conviction of a former Culpeper police officer could be thrown out just 24 hours after jurors convicted him of murder.* Daniel Harmon-Wright was found guilty on three counts in the 2012 shooting death of Patricia Cook.
> 
> With his head hung low and his hands and feet in shackles, Harmon-Wright was brought into court for what was supposed to be his sentencing hearing after being convicted Tuesday of manslaughter. Instead, it was the jurors under oath after it was discovered two dictionaries and one thesaurus were brought into the jury room during deliberations, a violation of the judges rules.
> 
> Six jurors admitted to looking up definitions of at least one of these words: "malice," "malicious," or "unlawful."
> 
> Read more: http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/01...day-84648.html

----------


## AGRP

> http://www.dailyprogress.com/starexp...a4bcf6878.html
> 
> 
> Daniel Harmon-Wright guilty of voluntary manslaughter


I dont think Ive ever read such a sympathetic article for someone who needlessly killed another person.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Hold your excitement people. When all else fails, accuse the Jury of misconduct!


So a judge "instructs" a jury they cannot look up a word to be certain of its meaning?

*It means what it says we mean Mundane, now shut the $#@! up.*

----------


## HOLLYWOOD

> I have not seen any evidence of leniency by the "Just-Us" system regarding veterans accused of a capitol crime *unless* they're a member of the law enforcement community. 
> 
> This behavior alone is discriminatory.
> 
> I would like to see any LEO accused of a crime actually stand in front of a prosecutor/judge and jury that were not part and party to the LEO's daily activities..
> 
> This is only one isolated instance of a cop actually being prosecuted, there are thousands of crimes committed by LEO's that should be prosecuted but will never see the light of day due to the inherent cronyism of the "Just-Us" system...


Most of the DAs, Gov paid defense lawyers, Bailiffs, LEOs, and Judges are golfing buddies... It's a tightly-knitted community and as previously stated, it truly has become in America, the: "JUST US SYSTEM".

----------


## aGameOfThrones

> Most of the DAs, Gov paid defense lawyers, Bailiffs, LEOs, and Judges are golfing buddies... It's a tightly-knitted community and as previously stated, it truly has become in America, the: "JUST US SYSTEM".



Because...

"If only half of those motherfuckers in the state's attorney 's office didn't want to be judges, didn't want to be partners in some downtown law firm, if half of them had the $#@!ing balls to follow through, you know what would happen? A guy like that would be indicted, tried and convicted. But no, everybody stays friends. Everybody gets paid. And everybody's got a $#@!ing future."

----------


## tod evans

> Because...
> 
> "If only half of those motherfuckers in the state's attorney 's office didn't want to be judges, didn't want to be partners in some downtown law firm, if half of them had the $#@!ing balls to follow through, you know what would happen? A guy like that would be indicted, tried and convicted. But no, everybody stays friends. Everybody gets paid. And everybody's got a $#@!ing future."


When a "public servants" pay is not regularly voted on and amended by the actual public that is supposedly represented then the servant is the master...

I do not accept public servants as my masters!

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Ahh yes, clearly guilty of murder, managed to get convicted of voluntary manslaughter, and STILL going to get off because someone was offended that people wanted to know the clear definition of 'malice' when deciding between manslaughter and murder.

Serve the Defense Attorney right if they said "Ok, we'll vacate manslaughter and replace it with murder!"

----------


## cjm

> Ain't much there. You'd be bored to death. Unless you wanted to take courses at Liberty University. Which would still pretty much bore you to death.


You can do a lot worse than Lynchburg.

LYNCHBURG CITY 	
Precincts Reporting:    19 of 19 (100%)
*Ron Paul* 	1,643 	*51.00%*
*Mitt Romney* 	1,578 	*48.99%*

----------


## Anti Federalist

3 years.

Forgot to update this one.


*Daniel Harmon-Wright sentenced to 3 years*
May 2, 2013 - 03:11 pm

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/05...ars-87338.html

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Ain't much there. You'd be bored to death. Unless you wanted to take courses at Liberty University. Which would still pretty much bore you to death.


I'd be curious to hear from some of the vocal Christians here as to their opinion of that college.  I don't know enough about it.




> _Harmon-Wright, a former U.S. Marine, who served a tour in Iraq, covered his face with his hands as the verdict was read, and one female juror wiped away tears. The former Culpeper Police Officer was then handcuffed and escorted by three Culpeper County Sheriff's bailiffs to the Culpeper County Jail, adjacent to the courthouse._ 
> 
> I didn't know he was a vet.  While this doesn't negate what he did, I have to wonder what effect the war might have had on him?  He'd very well may have seen "checkpoint shootings" with the tragedy level going both ways.


Doesn't that almost make it worse?  Killing people is still disgusting even when done in uniform, whether military or police.




> Not likely, being a former cop he will get protective custody and special treatment in prison. And -- more than likely -- the lightest possible sentence. The JustUs system takes care of their own ...


:sad:

----------


## angelatc

> 3 years.
> 
> Forgot to update this one.
> 
> 
> *Daniel Harmon-Wright sentenced to 3 years*
> May 2, 2013 - 03:11 pm
> 
> http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/05...ars-87338.html


Wow.  Drunk drivers get more.

----------


## SeanTX

> I'd be curious to hear from some of the vocal Christians here as to their opinion of that college.  I don't know enough about it.


I don't know much about it either, but recently there was a student from here who was attending Liberty University who (allegedly) lured a campus cop into his dorm room and attacked him with a hammer -- and he ended up being shot and killed.

 I kind of wonder if hearing about stories like this (the teacher) or others involving cops behaving badly maybe drove him to do that? Or maybe he had a bad personal experience with the police ? Or maybe he was just a cop killing thug -- but I can't imagine your average straight-arrow Christian university-type wanting to attack a cop for no reason ...

http://lubbockonline.com/filed-onlin...a#.Uq0tUiccfrM

----------


## Contumacious

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


Un-$#@!ing-believable.  

 Ms. Patricia A. Cook had the right to keep her window closed after providing her DL and proof of insurance.

But even if she did not provide those items the penalty is not death.

Police officers are pissed of because of the* Salinas v. Texas* case and are determined to force us to waive our Miranda rights.

Now you see why *Russians insist on having dash cams.*

.

----------


## aGameOfThrones

> Un-$#@!ing-believable.  
> 
>  Ms. Patricia A. Cook had the right to keep her window closed *after providing her DL and proof of insurance.*
> 
> But even if she did not provide those items the penalty is not death.
> 
> Police officers are pissed of because of the* Salinas v. Texas* case and are determined to force us to waive our Miranda rights.
> 
> Now you see why *Russians insist on having dash cams.*
> ...



Actually, she didn't have to provide them at all.

----------


## osan

> Actually, she didn't have to provide them at all.



Please elaborate.

----------


## aGameOfThrones

> Please elaborate.


Cop had no probable cause. Read this thread from the start and you'll find a more detailed answer.

----------


## Contumacious

> Actually, she didn't have to provide them at all.


Here in Texas we do.

Do you have a link supporting your assertion?

.

----------


## Czolgosz

Free people don't have to give papers.

----------


## Contumacious

> 3]Free people don't have to give papers.


[/B]

The operative word is FREE, but we live in a police state.


"Appellant first contends that, since the traffic stop was based only upon violation of a traffic law by the driver, the officers had no authority to request identification from him initially, as a mere passenger, absent reasonable suspicion to extend the scope of the investigation to him. We disagree.* During a routine stop for a traffic violation by the driver, officers may question the driver; request his license, insurance papers, and information on ownership of the vehicle; and ask about the driver's destination and the trip's purpose.**fn35 And the court of criminal appeals recently noted that "the detaining officer may also question the vehicle's occupants regarding their identities, travel plans, and ownership of the vehicle."*fn36 But the court in that case was addressing the scope of an investigative detention of a driver, not a passenger as to whom the officer had no separate reasonable suspicion of criminal activity."

*George v. State, 197 S.W.3d 806 (Tex.App. Dist.2 05/25/2006)*

----------


## pcosmar

> I don't know much about it either, but recently there was a student from here who was attending Liberty University who (allegedly) lured a campus cop into his dorm room and attacked him with a hammer -- and he ended up being shot and killed.
> 
>  I kind of wonder if hearing about stories like this (the teacher) or others involving cops behaving badly maybe drove him to do that? Or maybe he had a bad personal experience with the police ? Or maybe he was just a cop killing thug -- but I can't imagine your average straight-arrow Christian university-type wanting to attack a cop for no reason ...
> 
> http://lubbockonline.com/filed-onlin...a#.Uq0tUiccfrM


Perhaps he didn't. 
Maybe he just grabbed the hammer to defend himself from an assault.

History is written by the victor.

----------


## Czolgosz

Maybe I'm misreading your thoughts, so do you see your mental conundrum and it's resolution?  (Just in case my question is misinterpreted, no, I'm not being degrading)

----------

