Judge Dredd, yes or no?

[namedpipes]

The way I heard the story, the girl had been sent by her father, a pastor, to give a ride home to another church member that had realized her sin and called for help. She was driving to the church.

Actually I made that up. Point is nobody here knows why she didn't stop or for that matter whether or not she did stop. She very well could have based on what I saw on the vid.

The summary judgment was so far out of proportion that one must make fun of the situation or cry.

Sent from my chimney using smoke signals.

 

[Martlet]

Maybe you should listen to your own advice - you are witch hunting the girl on the possibility that she had been drinking and might, just might, get into an accident and hurt someone.

Maybe you should read. I said that we didn't see enough to know what happened. Beyond that, I was showing how dumb it is to make up facts to support the position you wish were accurate.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

Maybe you should read. I said that we didn't see enough to know what happened. Beyond that, I was showing how dumb it is to make up facts to support the position you wish were accurate.

There is in no way that you or anyone on here can justify this shooting. It should never have happened. All the way until he and the car come off camera he was to the side of the car. He should have went back to his car,called in and pursued her. PERIOD. He is not fit to be a police officer

 

[Martlet]

There is in no way that you or anyone on here can justify this shooting. It should never have happened. All the way until he and the car come off camera he was to the side of the car. He should have went back to his car,called in and pursued her. PERIOD. He is not fit to be a police officer

There is no way that you, or anyone, can speak to what happened in the car or off camera. PERIOD. You're merely speculating. I'm simply refusing to do that. You're making up a story to fit what you wish to be true.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

There is no way that you, or anyone, can speak to what happened in the car or off camera. PERIOD. You're merely speculating. I'm simply refusing to do that. You're making up a story to fit what you wish to be true.

I am not making up shit.
We may never know what happened off camera but the shooting should never have happened. He was to the side of the car all the way until you hear the shots being fired. I don't give a shit what happened off camera he should not have shot!

 

[pastera]

Maybe. Or she was shitfaced and ran him down while trying to get away.

Speculation

And when the drunk killed your family 2 miles down the road, you same people would have a 30 page thread about how ineffective the police are.

Speculation

Of course not. I'm saying that nobody knows WTF happened, because it was off camera. However, I doubt that the officer simply intentionally executed her for failure to follow orders. At BEST he was completely justified based on his actions and her intentional attempt yo run him down. At WORST he made a series of split second poor decisions that put himself in the position that he felt the need to use deadly force. Either way, she made poor decisions that contributed to her death.

If it's the former, no news. If it's the latter, he shouldn't be a police officer.

Maybe you should read. I said that we didn't see enough to know what happened. Beyond that, I was showing how dumb it is to make up facts to support the position you wish were accurate.

Facts in evidence from video are that the officer actively engaged the vehicle placing himself into harm's way. He created the situation by which he became endangered not her. He then used his own reckless action as reason to use deadly force.

Can you dispute that the officer had effective means other than deadly force to apprehend a teenager driving away at low speed?

She has a legal requirement to stop for the police. Don't let rational thought get in the way of your witch hunt, though.

You are failing to understand that the arguement here is not if she should have stopped but if capital punishment is proper and just punishment for not stopping.

I didn't say it was. I said she contributed to events that led up to her death.

We don't task LEOs to be good witnesses. We task them to enforce the law. He wasn't "playing cop". He IS a cop.

This officer took demonstrable actions to entrap her into a situation where he could justify deadly force.

If an officer hands you a gun then shoots you - is he justified in stating that he was in fear of his life because you were armed? No, because if not for his deliberate actions you would pose no threat, as did she.

Like I said, you can't see what happens off camera. You don't know what happened. Neither do I.

- - - Updated - - -



That's a suggestion, not a law.

- - - Updated - - -

Beats me. I wasn't there. Were you?

Maybe you should read. I said that we didn't see enough to know what happened. Beyond that, I was showing how dumb it is to make up facts to support the position you wish were accurate.

I did read all of it - and determined you have a personal vendetta against drunk driving. You have no more facts than presented in the video that clearly shows the officer's actions were what placed him in the unwarrented danger, not the driver.

 

[Martlet]

Speculation



Speculation

95% of what's been posted in this thread is speculation. You don't have a problem with 94% of that because it supports your desired conclusion. Your bias is showing.


Facts in evidence from video are that the officer actively engaged the vehicle placing himself into harm's way. He created the situation by which he became endangered not her. He then used his own reckless action as reason to use deadly force.[/quote]

Speculation. The facts in evidence are the officer was actively engaged in trying to stop the vehicle for a reason we don't know, then the activity disappeared from view.

Can you dispute that the officer had effective means other than deadly force to apprehend a teenager driving away at low speed?

Speculation. You don't know that is what occurred off camera.

You are failing to understand that the arguement here is not if she should have stopped but if capital punishment is proper and just punishment for not stopping.

According to the officer, she was shot after hitting him with a vehicle. Your speculation doesn't jive with his account.

This officer took demonstrable actions to entrap her into a situation where he could justify deadly force.

Speculation.

If an officer hands you a gun then shoots you - is he justified in stating that he was in fear of his life because you were armed? No, because if not for his deliberate actions you would pose no threat, as did she.

Not an accurate comparison. If I run a red light, then try to run the officer down as he motions for me to pull over, I'm not being shot for running the red light. I'm being shot in self defense while attempting manslaughter.

I did read all of it - and determined you have a personal vendetta against drunk driving. You have no more facts than presented in the video that clearly shows the officer's actions were what placed him in the unwarrented danger, not the driver.

You did read all of it, then jumped to your presupposed conclusion. You warped the facts to justify your desired ends. Incorrectly, I might add.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[pastera]

95% of what's been posted in this thread is speculation. You don't have a problem with 94% of that because it supports your desired conclusion. Your bias is showing.

Speculation. The facts in evidence are the officer was actively engaged in trying to stop the vehicle for a reason we don't know, then the activity disappeared from view.

It is clear in the video that the front of her vehicle had passed the officer by the time he started moving toward the victim. In order to hit an object, a cars motion vector must point toward that object, not away from it as evidenced in the video. The only way the officer could have been in the path of the car was for him to knowingly place himself into the path.

Speculation. You don't know that is what occurred off camera.

Neither do you - my comments were based on information entirely contained in the video. The officer moved into the path of the car.

According to the officer, she was shot after hitting him with a vehicle. Your speculation doesn't jive with his account.

You apparently still don't understand the argument.

He placed himself in a self fulfilling position of harm in order to create the appearance of justifiable cause for lethal force.
In order to be in a position to get hit by hte car, the officer knowingly placed himself in that position. He setup the consequences that precipitated his use of deadly force.

Was the girl guilty of failing to stop - most certainly
Was she guilty of drinking and driving - has no applicability in the current debate

Did the officer use sound judgement in the execution of his duties - doubtful.

Not an accurate comparison. If I run a red light, then try to run the officer down as he motions for me to pull over, I'm not being shot for running the red light. I'm being shot in self defense while attempting manslaughter.

There is no evidence that the dead girl swerved to hit the officer as you suggest in your example. If the officer jumps out in front of your car giving you no reaction time do you think that the shot would be in self defense?

You did read all of it, then jumped to your presupposed conclusion. You warped the facts to justify your desired ends. Incorrectly, I might add.

No, I looked at the facts in front of me and used only those facts no personal vendettas or biases. And those facts lead a prudent person to believe the officer holds the preponderance of the blaim for not using his available tools properly.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD[/QUOTE]

 

[NickW85]

She deserves it.

Kind of an empty statement. Could you add to this? Not shooting down your opinion, just looking for content on how you came to it.

 

[Artifact]

I was just being sarcastic. Both groups of +- NES members came out. This is turning into speculation, don't speculate, guilty, not guilty, play stupid games win stupid prizes. A normal day on our forum.

What happened off camera is not the point, this is not about speculating. The Big Adult with Untouchable power / Gun, should have never fired his firearm period. They are suppose to be good role models, have good values like: Duty, integrity, respect, professionalism and the sarcastic list goes on and on. I watched the new Robocop movie last night besides the shitty acting and action the movies message was pretty clear. We are not becoming a police state, we ARE a police state.

The best part of the the entire movie lasted 15 seconds when Robocop was doing/competing against another Robot/drone/machine in a kidnaping/hostage situation the machine killed all the perps in less than a minute, shooting a storm of bullets with extreme accuracy and freeing the hostage. Robocop took much longer and was much slower and before shooting the hostage taker that was holding a child as shield it did ask the perp to release the child and showed emotions of fear that both him and the perp might hurt the child. You have to watch that part to really understand the message, hard to describe.

Lately all we see is shoot and ask questions later, or shoot and ask no questions at all, or shoot just for the sake of shooting, and the list goes on and on.

Kind of an empty statement. Could you add to this? Not shooting down your opinion, just looking for content on how you came to it.

 

[Martlet]

It is clear in the video that the front of her vehicle had passed the officer by the time he started moving toward the victim. In order to hit an object, a cars motion vector must point toward that object, not away from it as evidenced in the video. The only way the officer could have been in the path of the car was for him to knowingly place himself into the path.

Not true. You aren't accounting for the officer's attempt to remain in her vision and the sideways motion of a turning vehicle. Like I stated before: You can't see what happens off camera. You're speculating.

Neither do you - my comments were based on information entirely contained in the video. The officer moved into the path of the car.

Not necessarily.

You apparently still don't understand the argument.

He placed himself in a self fulfilling position of harm in order to create the appearance of justifiable cause for lethal force.
In order to be in a position to get hit by hte car, the officer knowingly placed himself in that position. He setup the consequences that precipitated his use of deadly force.

No. You don't understand the argument. The driver set up the consequences by failing to respond to his likely completely lawful order to stop.

Did the officer use sound judgement in the execution of his duties - doubtful.

I don't disagree with this statement. My position is if we assume this speculation to be accurate, it doesn't rise to the level of "he executed her".

There is no evidence that the dead girl swerved to hit the officer as you suggest in your example. If the officer jumps out in front of your car giving you no reaction time do you think that the shot would be in self defense?

There is no evidence of anything. It happened off camera. Your argument is dependent upon his jumping in front of her (if that assumption is accepted, which it isn't), to be an isolated event. It wasn't. She wasn't driving down the street when an officer jumped in front of her and shot her. She was actively fleeing the police.

No, I looked at the facts in front of me and used only those facts no personal vendettas or biases. And those facts lead a prudent person to believe the officer holds the preponderance of the blaim for not using his available tools properly.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Speculation.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[todd c]

was the officer in question wearing a uniform?

 

[namedpipes]

... The driver set up the consequences by failing to respond to his likely completely lawful order to stop. ...

Did she? Or did she simply not see him in the noise and confusion, or thought he was the boy that was chasing her back at the party. Maybe the officer didn't even give her that lawful order to stop.

... My position is if we assume this speculation to be accurate, it doesn't rise to the level of "he executed her". ...

If the speculation here is correct, that the officer deliberately placed himself in danger and shot her "in self defense" then you are quite correct. He didn't execute her. It was deliberate murder. It simply is not justifiable to shoot someone for failing to stop for an officer.

Even in frigging MASSACHUSETTS that is a $100 FINE.

 

[Martlet]

Did she? Or did she simply not see him in the noise and confusion, or thought he was the boy that was chasing her back at the party. Maybe the officer didn't even give her that lawful order to stop.

If she didn't, she shouldn't be on the road. Flashing lights. Officer at her window. The previous car didn't have a problem.

[edit]If the speculation here is correct, that the officer deliberately placed himself in danger and shot her "in self defense" then you are quite correct. He didn't execute her. It was deliberate murder. It simply is not justifiable to shoot someone for failing to stop for an officer.

Even in frigging MASSACHUSETTS that is a $100 FINE.
[/QUOTE]

Irrelevant, really. You'll go out of your way to find the slightest sliver of opportunity to support your CORDWOOD agenda.

Don't let facts, or lack of them, get in the way of a good agenda driven call to arms.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[namedpipes]

... Even in frigging MASSACHUSETTS that is a $100 FINE.

Irrelevant, really. You'll go out of your way to find the slightest sliver of opportunity to support your CORDWOOD agenda.

Don't let facts, or lack of them, get in the way of a good agenda driven call to arms.

My cordwood agenda? You have me mixed up with someone else. I have no agenda, cordwood or otherwise.

I do find it amusing that you're criticizing others for speculating and asserting that the cops actions were wrongful, even while speculating yourself and asserting his actions were correct.

Bottom line, what the girl did was not even remotely extreme enough to justify shooting her.

It's a bit like contending that a cop in that town that outlawed swearing, would be justified in murdering a 10yo boy for saying "****".

Same data set: minor infraction, extreme reaction, but pushed all the way to one end of the scale.

Not extreme enough? The violator is a 4yo girl with ribbon in her hair. Swore at the cop and got shot for her temerity.

For the love of God you are JUSTIFYING shooting a teenager over a traffic violation. And you are calling ME a cordwood agendist? (whatever the hell that is)

 

[Martlet]

My cordwood agenda? You have me mixed up with someone else. I have no agenda, cordwood or otherwise.

I do find it amusing that you're criticizing others for speculating and asserting that the cops actions were wrongful, even while speculating yourself and asserting his actions were correct.

Bottom line, what the girl did was not even remotely extreme enough to justify shooting her.

It's a bit like contending that a cop in that town that outlawed swearing, would be justified in murdering a 10yo boy for saying "****".

Same data set: minor infraction, extreme reaction, but pushed all the way to one end of the scale.

Not extreme enough? The violator is a 4yo girl with ribbon in her hair. Swore at the cop and got shot for her temerity.

For the love of God you are JUSTIFYING shooting a teenager over a traffic violation. And you are calling ME a cordwood agendist? (whatever the hell that is)

You didn't read the thread. My position, and following support, has always been we don't KNOW if the cops actions were justified or criminal, since they take place off camera. It's all speculation. Calling it an execution based on that speculation is idiocy.

 

[pastera]

You didn't read the thread. My position, and following support, has always been we don't KNOW if the cops actions were justified or criminal, since they take place off camera. It's all speculation. Calling it an execution based on that speculation is idiocy.

No denying that he executed her is lunacy - it may have been justified but he definitely executed her

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/execute

Whether his actions fall under definition 3 or 4 have yet to be determined.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

You didn't read the thread. My position, and following support, has always been we don't KNOW if the cops actions were justified or criminal, since they take place off camera. It's all speculation. Calling it an execution based on that speculation is idiocy.

its execution

 

[Martlet]

No denying that he executed her is lunacy - it may have been justified but he definitely executed her

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/execute

Whether his actions fall under definition 3 or 4 have yet to be determined.

Semantics. The parties discussing this, to my knowledge, aren't confused about our intended meanings.

 

[pastera]

You didn't read the thread. My position, and following support, has always been we don't KNOW if the cops actions were justified or criminal, since they take place off camera. It's all speculation. Calling it an execution based on that speculation is idiocy.

No denying that he executed her is lunacy - it may have been justified but he definitely executed her

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/execute

Whether his actions fall under definition 3 or 4 have yet to be determined.

Just watched the video again - the officer placed his hand (or attempted to) on the a-pillar of the car just as both exit the camera's view - so in order for the officer to get hit by the car and end up on the hood he had to move in front of a fleeing vehicle.

 

[Martlet]

No denying that he executed her is lunacy - it may have been justified but he definitely executed her

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/execute

Whether his actions fall under definition 3 or 4 have yet to be determined.

Just watched the video again - the officer placed his hand (or attempted to) on the a-pillar of the car just as both exit the camera's view - so in order for the officer to get hit by the car and end up on the hood he had to move in front of a fleeing vehicle.

Or the vehicle had to make a hard turn into him.

 

[namedpipes]

You didn't read the thread. My position, and following support, has always been we don't KNOW if the cops actions were justified or criminal, since they take place off camera. It's all speculation. Calling it an execution based on that speculation is idiocy.

I read it. You've been speculating and asserting as fervently as anyone else, just from a different perspective.

Sent from my chimney using smoke signals.

 

[Martlet]

I read it. You've been speculating and asserting as fervently as anyone else, just from a different perspective.

Sent from my chimney using smoke signals.

My position is very clear. I'm sorry you're having trouble with it. I'll state it again.

It's impossible to definitively state what happened off camera. Any conclusion drawn is speculative. Nobody sees the actions of either party. Based on that, any cries of "murder" and denouncements of "JBTs" are irresponsible and idiotic.

If you have trouble understanding my position after that rather definitive statement, I can't help you.

 

[namedpipes]

My position is very clear. I'm sorry you're having trouble with it. I'll state it again.

It's impossible to definitively state what happened off camera. Any conclusion drawn is speculative. Nobody sees the actions of either party. Based on that, any cries of "murder" and denouncements of "JBTs" are irresponsible and idiotic.

If you have trouble understanding my position after that rather definitive statement, I can't help you.

Fortunately I'm not in need of help.

You are not standing by, watching with interest. You are giving your wholehearted support for the officer and his actions. That is certainly your right but stop pretending you're objective. An objective observer would not repeatedly post justifications for why the officer's actions *might* have been justified. He might state the evidence is not definitive either way. period. Below are a couple of your "objective" comments. About as objective as my cordwood agendii...

Bottom line is a teenage girl is dead because she didn't stop for a police officer. She should have gotten a ticket for that, not a bullet. My opinion might change a little if she was "fleeing" a bank robbery or murder scene. Well I guess it was a murder scene after all, but the murderer will never be charged.

... If I run a red light, then try to run the officer down as he motions for me to pull over, I'm not being shot for running the red light. I'm being shot in self defense while attempting manslaughter.

... The driver set up the consequences by failing to respond to his likely completely lawful order to stop. ... She wasn't driving down the street when an officer jumped in front of her and shot her. She was actively fleeing the police.

 

[Martlet]

Fortunately I'm not in need of help.

You are not standing by, watching with interest. You are giving your wholehearted support for the officer and his actions. That is certainly your right but stop pretending you're objective. An objective observer would not repeatedly post justifications for why the officer's actions *might* have been justified. He might state the evidence is not definitive either way. period. Below are a couple of your "objective" comments. About as objective as my cordwood agendii...

Bottom line is a teenage girl is dead because she didn't stop for a police officer. She should have gotten a ticket for that, not a bullet. My opinion might change a little if she was "fleeing" a bank robbery or murder scene. Well I guess it was a murder scene after all, but the murderer will never be charged.

Again, you obviously didn't read the thread. The first quote isn't speculation. Perhaps you need it dictionary. It was a response to a speculation. The second isn't speculation either. It's fact, and again a response to speculation.

I understand you don't comprehend my point, yet have an overwhelming desire to be right about SOMETHING. I really couldn't spell it out any plainer for you. It was pretty simple English. I didn't even use big words.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

 

[Martlet]

Amen

 

[namedpipes]

Again, you obviously didn't read the thread. The first quote isn't speculation. Perhaps you need it dictionary. It was a response to a speculation. The second isn't speculation either. It's fact, and again a response to speculation.

I understand you don't comprehend my point, yet have an overwhelming desire to be right about SOMETHING. I really couldn't spell it out any plainer for you. It was pretty simple English. I didn't even use big words.

You're pretty good at twisting, I'll give you that.

The portions I quoted were not speculation. Why do you think they were? They are your comments outlining how you feel the shooting was (possibly) justified. Go back and read your own words...

It is simply not reasonable to shoot someone because they didn't stop, at least under those circumstances. Are you THAT dense?

Hey you! Stop!

No.

BLAM

Jesus Christ. You're acting like it was Charles Manson fleeing the scene. It was a girl that might or might not have been drinking and/or been somewhere she shouldn't have. It just isn't that damned important she had to be shot for it...

 

[namedpipes]

Exactly. That's his M/O...

 

[crazymjb]

Martlet's spot on.

Based off this video, an honest jury wouldn't convict. I sure as shit wouldnt.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...