Manhunt: Police shoot innocent people looking for suspect

[sepe]

No, I'm not dismissing ANYTHING. I'm simply saying that debates such as this can garner enough following in the media to force powers to be to take action. That inherently is not a bad thing. What is a bad thing is that it can also impose emotionally driven rationale on those who WILL determine the fate of those involved and they may not be judged fairly. Treyvon Martin case is a perfect example of this and we simply do not have the facts. As long as the authorities are investigating it sufficiently that is all we should be "demanding."

The bullet holes are indeed questionable, but again WE DON'T KNOW all the facts. The media is telling one thing, my friend tell me other things that media doesn't, and that's all we have to go on. How do we know what's truth, what's being omitted, etc.? We cannot. All I can do is hope that the APPROPRIATE investigators will be looking into it. I'm certainly not going to propose that I know enough about it to call for a man's termination, criminal hearing, or hanging though.

Why would your LAPD friend be giving any information about something that will end in a sizable lawsuit? We know enough to know that even if they were acting in what they thought was a reasonable manner, they did a **** poor job. Even if it was reasonable actions, parked cars and houses weren't their target. With the way LAPD has handled things in the past, I hope it isn't going to be them that does any investigating of this situation and the others that will probably pop up.

 

[fireman76]

S-O-O-O-O- if it moves, and you don't know what it is, shoot it?????

Given the reason the officers were there to begin with ANY vehicle creeping by in the dark with lights off would be suspicious IMO.

I do not know that the officers at this place were operating a vehicular checkpoint or otherwise, but judging from the conversation it would seem as though it was some sort of checkpoint or rally point for investigators.

The way it was put to me was that the vehicle "crept up on" a series of officers conducting searches on the road. That could imply to me a number of things, but judging from the direction of the bullet holes I think it's at least reasonable to assume they crept PAST the officers as well.

This presents my entire point. WE DON'T KNOW. It's IA's job to figure out. I'm sure the double standard will apply and they'll get off scott free, which I HATE but what is this debate going to do about that?

 

[the1kidd03]

Why would your LAPD friend be giving any information about something that will end in a sizable lawsuit? We know enough to know that even if they were acting in what they thought was a reasonable manner, they did a **** poor job. Even if it was reasonable actions, parked cars and houses weren't their target. With the way LAPD has handled things in the past, I hope it isn't going to be them that does any investigating of this situation and the others that will probably pop up.

LAPD is not the only agency or the primary agency in the hunt. Every surrounding county is searching, feds, and Arizona and other states...

 

[the1kidd03]

S-O-O-O-O- if it moves, and you don't know what it is, shoot it?????

If that's what you chose to interpret, then sure....

 

[hornadylnl]

Not really. It would be citizens who choose to approach LEOs in this context.

Again, I agree that if an agent tramples other's rights that he should be treated equally but that would be to deny them the right to the legal system our society has developed. That system and society is what neither one of us agree with, but as long as it stands it must be followed. Otherwise, there's a lot of death and crime in vein and our money is wasted in EVERY possible sense (which is a whole other issue but one I also agree with.)

If the legal system were up to me I'd be considered a dictator by many for harshness to criminals, but I'd guarantee crime would DROP.

I'm all about fair trials. But agents of the state who willingly and knowingly violate those rights of citizens? Only to have the gall to demand those same rights for themselves? That borders on treason to me.

 

[fireman76]

I sure wouldn't want to go deer hunting with you!

If that's what you chose to interpret, then sure....

 

[the1kidd03]

I'm all about fair trials. But agents of the state who willingly and knowingly violate those rights of citizens? Only to have the gall to demand those same rights for themselves? That borders on treason to me.

Wouldn't argue that, but if that fair trial isn't given to EVERYONE across the board, then there's no need to have it at all in society. We could simply deal with criminals independently without need for jails, courts, LE, etc.

EDIT:
<<<<5000 posts....I feel....the same

 

[the1kidd03]

I sure wouldn't want to go deer hunting with you!

That's not my concern.

Have you served in the military? Ever worked in LE or any field to which you can reasonably debate the intent of the post of mine you quoted in a knowledgeable fashion? If not then there's no point to you posting to the extent which you have due to obvious misinterpretation of my posts. Case in point, what relevance does anything in this conversation have to hunting?

 

[sepe]

LAPD is not the only agency or the primary agency in the hunt. Every surrounding county is searching, feds, and Arizona and other states...

If he is hearing things down the line (wasn't on scene), his comments about the situation are weighed just about the same as the media's...at least with me. If he was on scene, it is still pretty stupid to be talking about it all that much when there is going to be a lawsuit.

I did notice in another post you mentioned an eye for an eye, would that mean if it is proven that these cops acted like complete morons (while making the jobs of the good guys even harder), they should be made to sit in a truck while someone shoots it up?

 

[the1kidd03]

If he is hearing things down the line (wasn't on scene), his comments about the situation are weighed just about the same as the media's...at least with me. If he was on scene, it is still pretty stupid to be talking about it all that much when there is going to be a lawsuit.

I did notice in another post you mentioned an eye for an eye, would that mean if it is proven that these cops acted like complete morons (while making the jobs of the good guys even harder), they should be made to sit in a truck while someone shoots it up?

Personally, I would not disagree with that at all.

However, in the given law system that our society has devised in the interest of ethical values and fairness, it is and would not be the appropriate response. If we wish to have an ethical legal system then that must be applied across the board and not as some wish to pick and choose. If not, then again there is no need for it to begin with and we should just do away with it.

I didn't inquire as to whether he was on that specific scene because I know there are limits to what he can discuss. I had a few minutes and merely wanted to seek clarification on the very vague reporting of the stories I knew of at that time. He is a supervisor and works closely with DHS, so I can reasonably assume him to be knowledgeable on everything going on in his county at the very least. Even he admitted to being a "ground pounder" in this search when that is not his typical role.

 

[Liberty1911]

George Zimmerman is another prime example. He had already convicted Trayvon Martin of being a criminal without witnessing a single crime. And now he expects innocent until proven guilty. Do unto others as you'd have done unto you.

I with you in principle in this debate, but really, you brought up Trayvon Martin?

 

[Harleyrider_50]

The 'Hunt' should get interest'n now......A Million Bux worth.....

Search for fugitive ex-cop sets region on edge - wave3.com-Louisville News, Weather & Sports

SUMbody'll rat this dude for that kind'a bank.....

 

[sepe]

The 'Hunt' should get interest'n now......A Million Bux worth.....

Search for fugitive ex-cop sets region on edge - wave3.com-Louisville News, Weather & Sports

SUMbody'll rat this dude for that kind'a bank.....

Maybe the could convince Dog and his idiot crew that Dorner is a meth head, he'd get on the case just for some TV time.

 

[hornadylnl]

I with you in principle in this debate, but really, you brought up Trayvon Martin?

I didn't introduce Trayvon to this thread. Thekidd did.

 

[jamil]

How can this even be debated?

There is NO justification for that. EVER.

If you shoot at it, whether you're a citizen shooting in self defense, or a cop in the line of duty, when the dust settles there better be a bad guy.

Police or not. You don't get to get off on an "oops".

 

[lucky4034]

However, I've already identified very important circumstances where the media has NOT given you necessary information.

I honestly don't feel that you have... All you provided is that the police officers that pulled the trigger "THOUGHT" they were in danger.... But just because they "THOUGHT" a creeping truck with its lights off was dangerous... it still doesn't justify shooting 40 rounds into the BACK of the truck.

I know those officers THOUGHT they were doing the right thing at that time... but now we all know that they WEREN'T. That is why I suggest they be pulled up on a felony charge that fits. Whether it be attempted murder or reckless endangerment (if that is a real charge), negligent discharge or whatever.

They need a day in court to prove that they were "Insane" (which I proposed in an earlier post).

A crime was committed. THERE IS NO ARGUING THAT!!! And if a crime was committed, we should define it and charge these officers with it.

Whether or not they deserve to be locked up is debatable, but that is what the judiciary system is for. If it is good enough for me, then it is good enough for them too.

 

[lucky4034]

How can this even be debated?

There is NO justification for that. EVER.

If you shoot at it, whether you're a citizen shooting in self defense, or a cop in the line of duty, when the dust settles there better be a bad guy.

Police or not. You don't get to get off on an "oops".

Exactly... and if there is no bad guy, then a crime was committed and someone should be charged with it. Whether you are an LEO or not

 

[Bunnykid68]

How can this even be debated?

There is NO justification for that. EVER.

If you shoot at it, whether you're a citizen shooting in self defense, or a cop in the line of duty, when the dust settles there better be a bad guy.

Police or not. You don't get to get off on an "oops".

Actually , that is not true and you know it. If we did something like that we would be sitting in jail waiting to make bail because we are guilty until we prove ourselves innocent.

 

[dsol]

Want to put up a case of beer that these shooters will get off scott free?

Oh hellno! That is a sucker bet if I ever heard one. Those trigger happy assclowns will get some paid leave and a slap on the wrist at the worst. For something that one of us would be rotting in a cell for doing.

 

[popsmoke]

The LAPD manhunt for Christopher Dorner continues...