School teacher killed by police for rolling up her car window

[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?

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?

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 asshole 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 asshole 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.