Hey, there! Log in / Register
Open season on Massachusetts motorists continues
By Brett on Mon, 07/28/2008 - 12:19pm
Seriously- what is it with MA cops killing motorists?
The local police department, state police, and DA have set a world speed record for wagon-circling; we don't even know why the officer tried to pull over the vehicle. Based on previous incidents, it's doubtful anyone will get more than a slapped wrist.
We could consider something like New York's law against shooting at moving vehicles, but numerous police departments have such rules and motorists are still getting killed, so here's a better idea.
Update: The DA has held a press conference. Andre Martins was shot and killed by Christopher Van Ness, who claimed Martins sped out of the parking lot where Van Ness was speaking to another officer. The DA stated "an unknown number" of bullets were fired by the officer ("unknown"? Why? Magic Disappearing Bullets?) Martins was shot while trying to make a U-turn on someone's front lawn, and paramedics said he had some wacky tobaccy hanging from his mouth when they pulled him from the car, which seems slightly unusual for someone who just had a high-speed chase, spun out, hit a cruiser, and was fatally shot.Walter Brooks, editor of the Cape Cod Today, previously wrote a scathing criticism for silence from the DA and Yarmouth police: "It's now over 30 hours since the killing, and the public has a right to assume the DA and YPD are stalling until they get their stories straight."
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Yeah, that's great. "Stop,
Yeah, that's great. "Stop, or I shall blow my whistle, wot?"
Actually it's...
"Stop! Or I'll yell 'Stop!' again!"
The reason most departments
The reason most departments don't shoot at moving vehicles is because you probably miss, endangering people nearby- or if you do hit the person, you now have an unguided car that could cause even more damage, injury, or death.
PS:"You can't outrun a Motorola."
*rolls eyes*
*rolls eyes*
An even better idea...
...that won't require new laws passed or hamstring officers' ability to defend themselves and save the lives of civilians would be to have people not run from the @#$@^#$ cops...
No... Wait... That puts the onus on the citizenry, rather then those mean old cops.
"Yeah! Hunters don't kill
"Yeah! Hunters don't kill the *innocent* animals - they look for the shifty-eyed ones that are probably the criminal element of their species!"
"If the're not guilty, why are they running?"
I wrote about this a while ago. Here's the text:
"If you haven't done anything wrong, what do you have to hide?"
Ever heard that one? I work in information security, so I have heard it more than my fair share. I've always hated that reasoning, because I am a little bit paranoid by nature, something which serves me very well in my profession. So my standard response to people who have asked that question near me has been "because I'm paranoid." But that doesn't usually help, since most people who would ask that question see paranoia as a bad thing to begin with. So for a long time I've been trying to come up with a valid, reasoned, and intelligent answer which shoots the holes in the flawed logic that need to be there.
And someone unknowingly provided me with just that answer today. In a conversation about hunting, somebody posted this about prey animals and hunters:
"Yeah! Hunters don't kill the *innocent* animals - they look for the shifty-eyed ones that are probably the criminal element of their species!"
but in a brilliant (and very funny) retort, someone else said:
"If the're not guilty, why are they running?"
Suddenly it made sense, that nagging thing in the back of my head. The logical reason why a reasonable dose of paranoia is healthy. Because it's one thing to be afraid of the TRUTH. People who commit murder or otherwise deprive others of their Natural Rights are afraid of the TRUTH, because it is the light of TRUTH that will help bring them to justice.
But it's another thing entirely to be afraid of hunters. And all too often, the hunters are the ones proclaiming to be looking for TRUTH. But they are more concerned with removing any obstactles to finding the TRUTH, even when that means bulldozing over people's rights (the right to privacy, the right to anonymity) in their quest for it. And sadly, these people often cannot tell the difference between the appearance of TRUTH and TRUTH itself. And these, the ones who are so convinced they have found the TRUTH that they stop looking for it, are some of the worst oppressors of Natural Rights the world has ever known.
They are the hunters, and it is right and good for the prey to be afraid of the hunters, and to run away from them. Do not be fooled when a hunter says "why are you running from me if you have nothing to hide?" Because having something to hide is not the only reason to be hiding something.
Debate Fail...
Nice straw man there...
It's not a matter of "Oh, he's running so he must have something to hide" it's a matter of "Oh, he's, therefore he needs to be stopped."
The fact that he got shot directly stems from the fact that he ran from law enforcement. Until law enforcement starts popping people at traffic stops because they did rolling stops, this is a non-issue for 99.999% of us.
(Also in InfoSec)
Can someone explain
what situation justified this officer discharging his weapon?
I'm think maybe it was a good shoot but what was the situtation?
Why was this maggot not
Why was this maggot not deported in the first place? He's an illegal immigrant driving without a license and has had several run-ins with the law over the past 5 years, including trying to kill his girlfriend with his car.
shouldn't that be up to an immigration judge?
not to some cop who takes it upon himself to be judge, jury, and executioner all at once?
I don't think there was an
I don't think there was an immigration judge available when the illegal alien was trying to run the cops down.
Retort Fail
You're using the same reasoning that the previous poster just debunked in his lengthy reply. Which is the "If you're not doing anthying illegal, why should you be afraid" nonsense.
re: retort fail
Again. It's not a matter of "If you're not doing anything illegal, why should you be afraid"
It's "You're disobeying a lawful order [running from the cops] and therefore breaking the law."
Everyone seems to be concerned with why he ran. That doesn't matter. He did, and he needed to be stopped. Unfortunately, it cost him his life in the process.
Plus, it's now been revealed by the DA that the driver was attempting to run the cop over. I guess the cop was supposed to jump up onto the hook and run over the roof like you see in all those action moves, eh?
good response, logical
can be applied to the Celtics' kid too
^That is the best post I
^That is the best post I have read here all year.
...The one about the
...The one about the hunters/hunted is the the best, I should have said.
Here's a better answer
Comparing yourself to hunted game still sounds paranoid. How about:
Q: If you haven't done anything wrong, what do you have to hide?
A: Do you have anything to hide?
Q: Of course not. I haven't done anything wrong.
A: Cool! What's your e-mail address?
Q: [email protected]
A: [Grab pen and paper, make a show of writing that down.]Spell it again?
Q: [A little hesitant, as people always are when they start wondering what you're going to use the information for..] [email protected].
A: Thanks. What's your password?
Q: What? Why do you need my password?
A: You have nothing to hide, right? You haven't done something wrong, have you? Now, frankly, I'm a little suspicious.
[Either you win at this point, or you keep going.]
Q: Fine. It's m-y-p-u-p-p-y.
A: Thanks. Social Security? [And so on. Voicemail password, credit card numbers, "Last porn site you visited - ever in your life?". Eventually, they will not want to give you one of them, and you have caught them in a contradiction.]
Like you said
We don't even know why he was pulled over. Actually, we know nothing about this story other than a car ran a cop and a cop shot someone. That's it. Yet, you're already making judgements about the cop. Jumping the gun just a bit?
Heres a thought, when a cop
Heres a thought, when a cop motions for you to do something you do it (short of physical harm and what not) and if it infringes on your liberties you sort it out later. The cop says stop, this fella ran, cop caught him, someone got shot, thats all we know.
I think it kinda shows ignorance of our culture to claim that it would actually be a good idea in our country to take guns away from cops. Work on gun control on the whole, then when the robbers dont have guns come back and ask me to take them away from the cops.
Riiiiight
Work on gun control on the whole, then when the robbers dont have guns come back and ask me to take them away from the cops.
Right, because it's been legal for criminals to use deadly weapons for ~300 years.
Are you claiming that would
Are you claiming that would be criminals do not have access to a wide range of legal and illegal guns from which to choose from in this country?
Criminals for Gun Control
http://criminalsforguncontrol.com/ We, the members of the International Criminals Union, declare our position that all free and sovereign nations unite to ban the possession of firearms by law-abiding citizens.
It is our belief that our profession becomes more dangerous without strong and strict laws to regulate and prevent law-abiding citizens from possessing firearms. When only criminals and police can own a firearm our union's potential for growth will be unsurpassed.
The disarming of law-abiding citizens will allow our union to continue forth to the next generation with decreased risks of injury or our murder
Here's a little more detail
Here