Chump Bailey Posted February 2, 2007 Author Share Posted February 2, 2007 This is besides the point, because it doesn't matter how I or you would feel, that's why we strive to have an impartial system in this country, we either honor that system or we scrap it. Fair enough... It just seems to me that we always expect/demand justice to be blind and for our judicial system to be balanced and impartial - but only from afar - it's not so clearly delineated when it is you actually on the hot seat. but as you said - strive - it's the best we got... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 So far as I'm concerned the moment you try to run from or resist arrest by a known law-enforcement agent, you've admitted your guilt. At that point you become a convict attempting to escape and the officers should be allowed to use whatever means are necessary to keep you from doing so. Typical :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 I am pretty sure the shooting at the tires was justified under Texas law( will find law later) For him to be convicted the jury must have believed he intended to kill. As my cuz says"I'd rather be tried by twelve ,than carried out by six" :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 As my cuz says"I'd rather be tried by twelve ,than carried out by six" :2cents: I agree... but he shot at a vehicle that was driving AWAY from him. He was in no danger of being "carried out by 6" which is exactly why he got in trouble in the first place. Also I have to point something out that really bugs the **** out of me. People are focused on the driver. The driver "turned into him" etc etc. The car had NINE PEOPLE IN IT. He knew that there were nine people in the car and he fired at it as it sped away!!! That is extremely wreckless at best. He knowingly endangered the lives of 8 individuals that had nothing to do with the crazy stunt the driver just pulled other then being in the car with him. They had no control over that yet this deputy decided it was a good idea to fire 10 shots at a vehicle heavily occupied. It's amazing that he didn't manage to kill anyone. I have a very big problem with cops firing into a car filled with people over something in which no one was hurt and no one was in immediate danger. Some of you may not value the lives of illegals but human life is too valuable IMO to justify what this guy did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BURGUNDYBLEEDER Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 The article says that the deputy faces 10 years because he injured one of the passengers, whom was an illegal alien. I say that should not be a factor in the sentence of the deputy. The woman wasn't supposed to be in the country. It should be looked at as if the deputy had shot through the car (as if the illegal alien woman was not there). The deputy may have acted inappropriately but I do not think that injuring an illegal alien should have any bearing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manleyistheman Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 So far as I'm concerned the moment you try to run from or resist arrest by a known law-enforcement agent, you've admitted your guilt. At that point you become a convict attempting to escape and the officers should be allowed to use whatever means are necessary to keep you from doing so. You gave up your right to have an opinion on the United States of America on November 7, 2006 when you declared her death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 Destino, I agreed with you ,the quote was just a freebie demonstrating attitude. The officer was justified in shooting at the tires I believe,BUT the jury obviously felt he went beyond that. The officers are just like soldiers and must make a determination of level of force used AND live with the consequences of that determination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herrmag Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 The article says that the deputy faces 10 years because he injured one of the passengers, whom was an illegal alien. I say that should not be a factor in the sentence of the deputy. The woman wasn't supposed to be in the country. It should be looked at as if the deputy had shot through the car (as if the illegal alien woman was not there). The deputy may have acted inappropriately but I do not think that injuring an illegal alien should have any bearing. I agree that the woman SUPPOSEDLY being shot is irrelevant to an extent. She is still human, and does exist, but it's his behavior that should be questioned. Not WHO was in the car, but whether or not he legally had the right to fire at the tires of the car. I'd like to see someone, anyone, with the time, to actually cite Texas law that shows whether or not his conduct was illegal. There are instances where this could be considered legal. As far as your statement, Destino, if the driver is willing to run over a cop, would he be any less inclined to do so to a civilian? Just because he no longer posed a threat to the cop, doesn't mean he no longer posed a threat to civilians. He was, afterall, pulled over for running a red light. The degree to which he ran a red light is not highlighted. If it was of the yellow-turned-to-red variety, then this doesn't play into account. However, if he ran one going 45 miles an hour, and didn't even tap his brakes (or a similar incident), I wouldn't blame the cop for firing at the tires of the car. I wish there were more details. Unfortunately, you have to assume that the jury was privy to the specifics. It's a shame someone would write an article and leave them out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 I agree... but he shot at a vehicle that was driving AWAY from him. He was in no danger of being "carried out by 6" which is exactly why he got in trouble in the first place. I will agree with twa's "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6" comment; but I also have to agree that more than likely, by the time the officer drew his sidearm, there was no immediate threat to his health or wellbeing as you point out. Also I have to point something out that really bugs the **** out of me. People are focused on the driver. The driver "turned into him" etc etc. The car had NINE PEOPLE IN IT. He knew that there were nine people in the car and he fired at it as it sped away!!! That is extremely wreckless at best. He knowingly endangered the lives of 8 individuals that had nothing to do with the crazy stunt the driver just pulled other then being in the car with him. They had no control over that yet this deputy decided it was a good idea to fire 10 shots at a vehicle heavily occupied. It's amazing that he didn't manage to kill anyone. Destino, while I can see where you're coming from, I tend to look at it a little differently. There were EIGHT people beyond the driver to be the voice of reason in the vehicle. To say to the driver... "Ok. We got caught. Let's not do anything stupid that might get us shot." I would also suggest that if he was truly aiming to disable the vehicle, that he probably didn't put these people in as much danger as you're claiming. Of course where he was actually aiming is something we'll never know. I have a very big problem with cops firing into a car filled with people over something in which no one was hurt and no one was in immediate danger. Some of you may not value the lives of illegals but human life is too valuable IMO to justify what this guy did. Destino, my main concern with this has nothing to do with illegal aliens, resident aliens, or martians in general. It has to do with people not having respect for law enforcement and knowing that the system is set up in a way to hinder the officer instead of the criminals. We allow these high speed chases to become front page news. We crucify officers in the media, if at the end of these chases, they allow their emotions & adrenalin get the better of them and act overly harshly to the suspect(s). Essentially we tell people that there is no consequence to running from a police officer. That's a problem in my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 The article says that the deputy faces 10 years because he injured one of the passengers, whom was an illegal alien. I say that should not be a factor in the sentence of the deputy. The woman wasn't supposed to be in the country. It should be looked at as if the deputy had shot through the car (as if the illegal alien woman was not there). The deputy may have acted inappropriately but I do not think that injuring an illegal alien should have any bearing. That is an outrageous statement. You telling me illegal aliens are nothing? Hurting them is the same as having done nothing at all?! That is disgusting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 I say that should not be a factor in the sentence of the deputy. The woman wasn't supposed to be in the country. OMG'ness! NO you just didn't! Because a person is here illegally means that their being assaulted is not a crime! OMG'ness, heaven's to betsy, I'm so glad that our laws in this country are more thought out than this.:doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 As far as your statement, Destino, if the driver is willing to run over a cop, would he be any less inclined to do so to a civilian? Just because he no longer posed a threat to the cop, doesn't mean he no longer posed a threat to civilians. He was, afterall, pulled over for running a red light. The degree to which he ran a red light is not highlighted. If it was of the yellow-turned-to-red variety, then this doesn't play into account. However, if he ran one going 45 miles an hour, and didn't even tap his brakes (or a similar incident), I wouldn't blame the cop for firing at the tires of the car. I wish there were more details. Unfortunately, you have to assume that the jury was privy to the specifics. It's a shame someone would write an article and leave them out. So we kill people who run red lights because they might endanger someone? I hope that cops don't start doing this because otherwise high speed chases are going to start ending very differently from here on out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herrmag Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 So we kill people who run red lights because they might endanger someone? I hope that cops don't start doing this because otherwise high speed chases are going to start ending very differently from here on out. Your pathetic attempt to simplify what I said is not needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 Your pathetic attempt to simplify what I said is not needed. Honestly, this is what your argument sounds like. Officers are taught how to end high speed chases and those tactics don't involve shooting tires. Face it the officer was PO'ed and made a very poor decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoshuaj Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 the whole "he should have just shot the tires" argument is a touch off base. LEOs (at least by SOP of the departments which I'm familiar) are only to fire their weapon in the event that deadly force is required, not to disable a vehicle, "wing" somebody, etc. Ergo, shooting out the tires is best left to the big screen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 the whole "he should have just shot the tires" argument is a touch off base. LEOs (at least by SOP of the departments which I'm familiar) are only to fire their weapon in the event that deadly force is required, not to disable a vehicle, "wing" somebody, etc. Ergo, shooting out the tires is best left to the big screen You're exactly right. Which is why I really think he should have been intentionally shooting into the passenger compartment of the vehicle. Unfortunately it would appear he didn't agree... or he's a really bad shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 You're exactly right. Which is why I really think he should have been intentionally shooting into the passenger compartment of the vehicle. This borders on lunacy! I don't know whether to laugh at it or be outraged. At a certain point this has to turn into a farce, otherwise its just insanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoshuaj Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 **I really think he should have been intentionally shooting into the passenger compartment of the vehicle.** I'm not real sure that course of action for response to a vehicle driving AWAY from you is in the old SOP either....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 **I really think he should have been intentionally shooting into the passenger compartment of the vehicle.**I'm not real sure that course of action for response to a vehicle driving AWAY from you is in the old SOP either....... As I mentioned earlier, I feel that running from a law enforcement officer is an admission of guilt and therefore should allow an officer to use whatever means are necessary and at his disposal to stop you. Until we as a society get it through our granite skulls that law enforcement officers are to be obeyed and defered to in all but the most uncommon of circumstances, I think we need to give these officers a LOT MORE leeway in how they deal with people who will not follow the rules. Is what this officer did against current SOP... more than likely so, and apparently he's going to pay for it. My contention is that the SOP is ridiculous and actually contrary to assisting the officer in completing his job. Just like so many other policies and procedures we use to tie the hands of our law enforcement officers and ensure they cannot actually carry out their duties efficiently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 As I mentioned earlier, I feel that running from a law enforcement officer is an admission of guilt and therefore should allow an officer to use whatever means are necessary and at his disposal to stop you. Until we as a society get it through our granite skulls that law enforcement officers are to be obeyed and defered to in all but the most uncommon of circumstances, I think we need to give these officers a LOT MORE leeway in how they deal with people who will not follow the rules.Is what this officer did against current SOP... more than likely so, and apparently he's going to pay for it. My contention is that the SOP is ridiculous and actually contrary to assisting the officer in completing his job. Just like so many other policies and procedures we use to tie the hands of our law enforcement officers and ensure they cannot actually carry out their duties efficiently. Basically MSF's approach to everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mooka Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 So far as I'm concerned the moment you try to run from or resist arrest by a known law-enforcement agent, you've admitted your guilt. At that point you become a convict attempting to escape and the officers should be allowed to use whatever means are necessary to keep you from doing so. You can't argue both sides. What you are describing here is completely the opposite from American laws and our criminal justice system. You can't pick and choose what laws and American ideals/morals to follow, especially when you're so black and white about certain issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoshuaj Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 ok,,,I'm new here and just catching on but I think I get it now it's your world and we're just living in it....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herrmag Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 Honestly, this is what your argument sounds like. Officers are taught how to end high speed chases and those tactics don't involve shooting tires. Face it the officer was PO'ed and made a very poor decision. Perhaps he was, perhaps he wasn't. Perhaps you should've read my post completely before responding. I've also stated that I wish someone, if they had the time, could post what the regulation states concerning firing at a vehicle. I never said running a red light gives the Cop a right to shoot into the car. Taking bits and pieces of someone's post and piecing them together so that it makes an outrageous claim is sophomoric at best. If you're looking for a future in politics, I'd say you're on the right track. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herrmag Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 Basically MSF's approach to everything. Where have you been? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 You can't argue both sides. What you are describing here is completely the opposite from American laws and our criminal justice system. You can't pick and choose what laws and American ideals/morals to follow, especially when you're so black and white about certain issues. I don't believe I was arguing both sides. I believe the system needs to be dramatically changed both for criminals and for law enforcement officers. It needs to be updated and revised to be useful in the modern times. However, that's a topic for another time and a different thread, not this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.