Arrested woman shoots at police ...

[Derec]

What is incredible is that 1) she didn't hit (forget about kill) from point blank range and

Not that incredible if she doesn't have much/any experience with firearms. Apparently the gun was not hers but she found it in the truck she stole.

2) they were able to return fire so quickly in such an awkward position.

Afaik they exited the vehicle and returned fire from the outside.

Chips fell where they did. The only person dead is the person that tried to kill an officer.

They were damn lucky too.

Really? Or are you just extrapolating. Searching her for weapons is more about protecting themselves than anything else. These Officers fucked up royally. Not only not cuffing her appropriately, but not making certain she unarmed. They should be forced to go back to Police School or something and learn how to take people in to custody.

You are extrapolating too, but in the other direction. And she has a history of escaping handcuffs. Maybe her hands are just very small and she can wiggle out of cuffs due to her physiology.

Curious, where was she hiding the gun so that they couldn't find it with a cursory pat down?

I don't know? Bra? Underwear? How big was the gun anyway?

 

[J842P]

Maybe her hands are just very small and she can wiggle out of cuffs due to her physiology.

It would be more accurate to say her anatomy might have allowed her to escape, not her physiology.

 

[fast]

If she was wrongfully arrested, she had not only a right, but a duty to own and use a gun in her defense.

I refuse to believe that. There has to be some underlying fundamental misconceptions or distortions in the logical path to such a belief. It's like there's a lingering cloud of confusion or perhaps you're simply in the grip of a theory.

Just how far do you extend the notion of wrongfully arrested?
Narrow scope: police knew she didn't do what they arrested her for
Midrange: law was properly codified but (on moral grounds) shouldn't have been
broad scope: improper anyway you look at it.

 

[J842P]

If she was wrongfully arrested, she had not only a right, but a duty to own and use a gun in her defense.

I refuse to believe that. There has to be some underlying fundamental misconceptions or distortions in the logical path to such a belief. It's like there's a lingering cloud of confusion or perhaps you're simply in the grip of a theory.

Just how far do you extend the notion of wrongfully arrested?
Narrow scope: police knew she didn't do what they arrested her for
Midrange: law was properly codified but (on moral grounds) shouldn't have been
broad scope: improper anyway you look at it.

I think he is parodying the position of right-wing gun fanatics. They often claim they need guns to resist tyrannical actions by the government.

 

[fast]

I refuse to believe that. There has to be some underlying fundamental misconceptions or distortions in the logical path to such a belief. It's like there's a lingering cloud of confusion or perhaps you're simply in the grip of a theory.

Just how far do you extend the notion of wrongfully arrested?
Narrow scope: police knew she didn't do what they arrested her for
Midrange: law was properly codified but (on moral grounds) shouldn't have been
broad scope: improper anyway you look at it.

I think he is parodying the position of right-wing gun fanatics. They often claim they need guns to resist tyrannical actions by the government.

Oh, in that case, I like cookies. Mea culpa

 

[arkirk]

It does matter if the arrest was justified. It does matter if the arrest was a false arrest. The entire event would not have occurred if the woman had not been arrested. They may have tempted or taunted her to draw on them. There are many possibilities. I do not see this case as open and shut, though I think we can find a number of cops who desperately seem to want it so. Because a police chief says a killing is within policy guidelines means nothing more than the chief wanting his men to not be questioned and perhaps charged. There are all sorts of reasons he can make a statement like this. Some of them are dishonest. OOPS! I may have just slaughtered a prized holy cow! And we all know that would not be in line with police policy guidelines. As it stands today, no civilian is allowed to question any cop. No citizen is allowed to disobey for any reason any order a cop might give him/her on pain of perhaps being shot or having the life squeezed out of him/her. Police policy is mostly anything goes these days I think the body cameras may be some help, but I really think what is needed is an attitude change toward law enforcement by law enforcers. Today's cops act more like an occupying force than members of the community they police.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

But that's kind of irrelevant. It's like saying if a restaurant owner overcharged a customer for a meal and so the customer best him to death with a chair, it's the owner's fault because he wouldn't have gotten beaten to death if he hadn't overcharged the guy. Her vast overreaction of pulling a gun and firing eliminates any actions which led up to it.

 

[Duke Leto]

Maybe her hands are just very small and she can wiggle out of cuffs due to her physiology.

It would be more accurate to say her anatomy might have allowed her to escape, not her physiology.

That's not fair, <edited>

 

[Derec]

It does matter if the arrest was justified. It does matter if the arrest was a false arrest.

As Tom Sawyer and others pointed out, it doesn't justify her shooting at the police. If she had been falsely arrested, she should have taken it up with a judge.
In this case, however, she was arrested because she stole a Ford F150 truck. That is illegal in the State of Georgia last time I checked, so the arrest was completely legitimate. The woman also has a very long criminal record, including but not limited to three car thefts. Her criminal record includes this doozy:

When she was caught in a stolen car in September 2006, Christian got into the driver’s seat of a patrol car and drove off, dragging an officer with her, the police report states. The officer was thrown from the car and Christian was later arrested and convicted, spending three and a half years in state prison, according to the Georgia Department of Corrections.

She got off way too easy there.

The entire event would not have occurred if the woman had not been arrested.

It wouldn't have occurred had she not stolen the pickup truck either.

They may have tempted or taunted her to draw on them.

Do you have any evidence she did that? Or are you speaking from your anti-cop prejudice?

There are many possibilities.

I do not see this case as open and shut, though I think we can find a number of cops who desperately seem to want it so.

Given that she stole a truck and opened fire at the police when arrested the case seems open and shut to me.

Because a police chief says a killing is within policy guidelines means nothing more than the chief wanting his men to not be questioned and perhaps charged. There are all sorts of reasons he can make a statement like this. Some of them are dishonest. OOPS!

Not even her family is denying that she stole the truck or that the arrest itself was illegitimate. And there is also no dispute that she opened fire at the police.

I may have just slaughtered a prized holy cow! And we all know that would not be in line with police policy guidelines. As it stands today, no civilian is allowed to question shoot at any cop.

FIFY.

No citizen is allowed to disobey for any reason any order a cop might give him/her on pain of perhaps being shot or having the life squeezed out of him/her. Police policy is mostly anything goes these days I think the body cameras may be some help, but I really think what is needed is an attitude change toward law enforcement by law enforcers. Today's cops act more like an occupying force than members of the community they police.

None of this rambling changes the facts of the case, namely that she stole a car and shot at the police. They are lucky that she missed, unlike that police officer in Queens that got shot in the head by a thug.

- - - Updated - - -

It would be more accurate to say her anatomy might have allowed her to escape, not her physiology.

Thanks for the correction.

That's not fair, <edited>

Like you never misused a word!
But I get it, you and Athena have to try to make it personal because otherwise you have nothing.

 

[laughing dog]

No evidence except the Atlanta police chief's explicit statement to that effect.

Produce it.

I think it is more likely that they didn't search thoroughly because of the policy than that they missed an easily findable gun.

Your assumptions are not evidence of the facts of the case.

Cops shot at themselves just to frame her? Do you really believe that?

No. I did not say there was no evidence that she shot a weapon. I said there is no evidence at this point that she used her gun. In otherwords, with the evidence at the time of my writing, she may not have been armed when she was apprehended and that she may have obtained the weapon while in custody.

No excuses. Even if the cops made a mistake when they missed the gun the blame still lies with the woman who shot at the police. Therefore, her family has no case against the police.

The woman got loose from the police which means the police did not do their job. If the woman was armed when she was apprehended, the police did not do their job when they frisked her. If the woman was not armed when she was apprehended and subsequently obtained the weapon while in custody, the police did not do their job.

Bro, do you even read?

Yes. Unlike you, I can distinguish between established fact and assumptions.

 

[Rhea]

I dunno, I looked at this and it seemed too early to be making excuses for her. If she shot at the cops, then, yah, she kinda opened the criminal case and dangerous and lethal and all.

Is there something that suggests the gun she was holding was never fired? First blush seemed kind of open and shut?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I dunno, I looked at this and it seemed too early to be making excuses for her. If she shot at the cops, then, yah, she kinda opened the criminal case and dangerous and lethal and all.

Is there something that suggests the gun she was holding was never fired? First blush seemed kind of open and shut?

<Leftist hat>
The police killed her. Therefore they were obviously in the wrong, no evidence is needed to show this.
</Leftist hat>

 

[fast]

The entire event would not have occurred if the woman had not been arrested.

Although I'm inclined to agree, the truth of that fact is borderline trivial. Remember the other case where a guy ran from the officer? He eventually shot the guy in the back several times. That too wouldn't have happened had the guy never got out and ran. These facts, true as they are, do not (or at least should not) distract our thinking. If a mother leaves a child in the car while running into a store real quick, or if she leaves her purse on the seat out of haste, or doesn't remove the keys in the ignition of her running car, we can easily make note of some facts after things don't turn out well, but the question of whether things wouldn't have happened given such facts don't really have a bearing on the matter that's usually at hand. You are stressing some point in color, but what point does the highlighting of that fact supposed to make?

 

[Rhea]

I dunno, I looked at this and it seemed too early to be making excuses for her. If she shot at the cops, then, yah, she kinda opened the criminal case and dangerous and lethal and all.

Is there something that suggests the gun she was holding was never fired? First blush seemed kind of open and shut?

<Leftist hat>
The police killed her. Therefore they were obviously in the wrong, no evidence is needed to show this.
</Leftist hat>

No, that is not what the leftist says. I'm leftist, I said the opposite. Why did you post that?

 

[RavenSky]

I dunno, I looked at this and it seemed too early to be making excuses for her. If she shot at the cops, then, yah, she kinda opened the criminal case and dangerous and lethal and all.

Is there something that suggests the gun she was holding was never fired? First blush seemed kind of open and shut?

<Leftist hat>
The police killed her. Therefore they were obviously in the wrong, no evidence is needed to show this.
</Leftist hat>

This very thread shows that your stereotype is false. I wonder, though, if there will ever be a thread where you are not defending even the most egregious police actions?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I dunno, I looked at this and it seemed too early to be making excuses for her. If she shot at the cops, then, yah, she kinda opened the criminal case and dangerous and lethal and all.

Is there something that suggests the gun she was holding was never fired? First blush seemed kind of open and shut?

<Leftist hat>
The police killed her. Therefore they were obviously in the wrong, no evidence is needed to show this.
</Leftist hat>

Wow... that is a terrible reply to a post. It takes it so out of context that it renders their entire post void of any original content meaning. And there appears only one "leftist" here who is questioning the cops motives.

Do you have to work that hard to take people that far out of context, or does it come naturally?

 

[Rhea]

<Leftist hat>
The police killed her. Therefore they were obviously in the wrong, no evidence is needed to show this.
</Leftist hat>

Wow... that is a terrible reply to a post. It takes it so out of context that it renders their entire post void of any original content meaning. And there appears only one "leftist" here who is questioning the cops motives.

Do you have to work that hard to take people that far out of context, or does it come naturally?

Perhaps he had context surgically removed. It's hard to believe anyone was born that way.

 

[Derec]

And there appears only one "leftist" here who is questioning the cops motives.

At least two on here (arkirk and laughing dog). More in real life, like State Sen. Vincent Fort who is so far to the left he starts bending right on some issues, like Sunday sales of alcohol.

 

[Derec]

Produce it.

It's been produced in the OP. It's not my fault you are too lazy to read it.

Your assumptions are not evidence of the facts of the case.

What part of "it is more likely" do you not understand?

No. I did not say there was no evidence that she shot a weapon. I said there is no evidence at this point that she used her gun.

1. If she shot at police what does it matter whose gun she used?
2. Nobody is claiming she used her own gun. The police know which gun she used and it belonged to the owner of the truck she stole, not her.

In otherwords, with the evidence at the time of my writing, she may not have been armed when she was apprehended and that she may have obtained the weapon while in custody.

You think police leave guns on the back seat to goad detainees into shooting at them? Now, that's a cunning plan worthy of Baldrick himself!

The woman got loose from the police which means the police did not do their job. If the woman was armed when she was apprehended, the police did not do their job when they frisked her. If the woman was not armed when she was apprehended and subsequently obtained the weapon while in custody, the police did not do their job.

Now who is assuming things?

Yes. Unlike you, I can distinguish between established fact and assumptions.

Nope. And furthermore I start with facts and make reasonable inferences. Like seeing the fact that Atlanta has a policy against male cops properly searching female suspects and saying it is likely that played a role in them missing the gun. Or the fact that she escaped handcuffs once before and saying it could be due to her anatomy rather than two different officers at two separate occasions both failing to put the handcuffs on properly.

You on the other hand ignore the facts and jump to outlandish assumptions like police stashing guns on the backseat of their cruisers.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And there appears only one "leftist" here who is questioning the cops motives.

At least two on here (arkirk and laughing dog).

laughing dog is not defending the culpability of the shooter.

More in real life, like State Sen. Vincent Fort who is so far to the left he starts bending right on some issues, like Sunday sales of alcohol.

Who?