Cop shoots/kills guy stealing her personal car


PDA






Frandy
August 29, 2005, 08:00 AM
I'm going to follow this one. No word yet whether he had a gun or not. If not, she's gonna be in some pickle of a mess!

http://www.wral.com/news/4906724/detail.html


WRAL.com

Raleigh Police Officer Placed On Desk Duty After Deadly Shooting
SBI, Internal Affairs Conducting Investigations

POSTED: 1:17 pm EDT August 28, 2005
UPDATED: 7:23 am EDT August 29, 2005

RALEIGH, N.C. -- The State Bureau of Investigation is investigating a deadly shooting involving a Raleigh police officer.

Raleigh police said Michelle Peele was working off-duty as a security guard at the La Rosa Linda's restaurant on New Bern Avenue Sunday morning when she spotted a person stealing her personal car at about 1 a.m.

Peele confronted the suspect and fired one shot, which hit the man, police said. Police have identified the man as 42-year-old Nyles Arrington.

Police said Arrington then drove Peele's vehicle across New Bern Avenue, struck a parked vehicle, drove back across New Bern Avenue and stopped in the median.

Arrington was transported to WakeMed, where he was pronounced dead.

WRAL asked a spokesman with the Raleigh Police Department if the suspect was armed. The spokesman said the SBI, in accordance with department policy, is conducting an investigation into the incident.

The department's Internal Affairs Unit also will conduct an investigation. Police will submit a report about the shooting to the city manager within five days.

Peele, who has been with the department since June 1999, has been placed on administrative duties, which is customary in cases such as this, police said. So far, no charges have been filed.

If you enjoyed reading about "Cop shoots/kills guy stealing her personal car" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
scubie02
August 29, 2005, 08:07 AM
you know, I wouldn't have a problem with that...as long as it worked the same way for me. Once upon a time, we strung people up for stealing your horse, right?

Its funny how the mimdset has changed. A friend of mine who lives way in the sticks recently got a call from his insuarance that they were going to cancel his homeowners policy--get this--because he had "too many dogs and horses". !?! In addition to a couple of indoor dogs he keeps a pack of hunting dogs in pens (both an enclosed inner part and an outer penned area) and he has 3 or 4 horses. The insurance guy said something about what if somebody cam eonto his property, tried to ride one of his horses, and got thrown and hurt or something. Then he'd be liable, and his insurance would have to pay, and we couldn't have that. Well, how messed up have things become where somebodt coes onto YOUR property without permission, tries to ride YOUR horse, hurts themself, and its YOUR fault! The first thing I said was "once upon a time you could have strung them up for messing with your horse, now you're paying them..."

El Tejon
August 29, 2005, 09:03 AM
She should have called the police and left the job up to professionals. :D

CentralTexas
August 29, 2005, 09:32 AM
so he wasn't holding a weapon. In all these cases he attempted to murder the officer as soon as he put the car in drive. Don't you watch "COPS"???
Overall that's what a horse thief should get.
CT

Preacherman
August 29, 2005, 09:33 AM
Hmmm... if she shot him after midnight, does that mean he turned into a pumpkin?

:evil:

The Freeholder
August 29, 2005, 09:44 AM
Ah, according to what I learned in my NC concealed carry class, the officer is WRONG. You can not employ deadly force in NC to stop a property crime (shame, that).

It's possible he was trying to hit her with the car, but you can't tell from the article. It seems that most/all the driving occured after the shot, from my read.

It'll be interesting to see the facts and what is made of this.

Legionnaire
August 29, 2005, 10:02 AM
Whatever else might be said, I'm impressed by this officer's marksmanship. After reading stories of officers shooting ninety rounds or somesuch and hitting the mark, what, six times (?) it sounds like this particular officer remembered her fundamentals: front sight; smooth press; clean break; follow through. No mention of the range involved (how close was the "confrontation?") or whether Arrington was already in the car or not. But one shot? That's good shooting.

Geno
August 29, 2005, 10:11 AM
In Michigan I can NOT use deadly force to stop someone from stealing my car...why can cops? Or can they? Or should they?

In my mind, when cops are off-duty...they're off duty. This business of the war on terror and all cops carrying at all times, and always on-duty is just an excuse for taking us to a "Police State". This country is going out-of-control. We have security guards killing people for allegedly stealing diapers; cops shooting people for allegedly stealing cars; and yet other cops standing on the sidelines and watching us get our brains stomped out onto the pavement while they do NOTHING!

For years, America has held educators under the public looking glass for alleged incompetence. Now we have higher than ever standards. Progress there is being made. I think it's high time to have national standards for police. Require at least a B.S./B.A.; a minimum GPA of 3.0 or higher; required to pass state exams. with a score of 95% or higher. Then, they should have to complete at least 6 Grad. Hrs. every 5 years and serve at least 4 years employment probation. Those were the standards for me to be an educator. Why, would we permit any less for some gun-toting "pumpkin-head" who wants to play "cow-girl" and shoot-‘em-up at the O'Kay Corral...all when she's "off duty"?

Personally, I hope she gets busted, demoted and prosecuted. I hope her "invaluable car" was worth more, even smashed up, than this poor dead man's life was of value to his family. Hope his family can somehow find a means to survive off of what they will get in a lawsuit against her and the restaurant that made the mistake of hiring her.

Doc2005
:barf:

kbr80
August 29, 2005, 10:29 AM
If not, she's gonna be in some pickle of a mess!

She needs to be charged with murder, that what would happen if I did this.

MudPuppy
August 29, 2005, 10:31 AM
It's possible he was trying to hit her with the car

I PROMISE you that's what was happening. :scrutiny:

Sidenote, the link had 15 other headlines--6 of which were shooting/gun related (at the time I looked).

HankB
August 29, 2005, 10:40 AM
Grand theft auto at 1:00 AM . . . bad guy shot dead . . . if this had happened in Texas, (most likely) no problem.

XLMiguel
August 29, 2005, 10:41 AM
Gee, Doc, while I agree in principle that we should try to get the best people possible in public service, the criteria you advocate would severly limit the candidate pool and price the remainder beyond the pale of most municipal/county budgets, probably cutting the force by 2/3 in the process. Are you willing to pay rookie patrolpersons $45-50K to start and subsidize the continuing education and monitoring program? Then again, you'd have to significantly re-engineer the job to make it attractive to folks with those kind of credentials (do you deal with the public in your line of work?).

As far as the "poor dead man", I think you've got it backwards - he isn't the victim - he's a @#^%^@#$ thief, a decidedly risky occupation (more so than even police work :D ) with some severe downsides when caught. We don't know all the details, so I can't really say if it was a good shoot 'legally', but from a justice standpoint, he got what thieves deserve, perhaps in abundance (but his choice to do the deed and assume the risks), and I have little sympathy for him, what makes you think his actions were somehow excusable? What part of "thou shall not steal" did you miss? And why do you think some scumbag has the 'right' to do a felony crime on someone's property and then have his family sue if he gets hurt/killed in the ptrocess?

bcochran
August 29, 2005, 10:43 AM
Push the appropriate rant button:

1. complaints about bgs

2. complaints about police

3. complaints about women

4. complaints about having to work

Rockstar
August 29, 2005, 10:46 AM
I'm glad Nyles is dead. Hope the cop isn't charged; if she is, I guarantee you her defense won't be that she was trying to stop the guy from stealing her car.

In my jurisdiction, a reasonable person would have to assume that anybody stealing a car must be armed, unless, of course, you could see the perp's hands at every moment during the "transaction".

John Deere
August 29, 2005, 11:02 AM
Careful there Doc, when you lean that far to the left, your skirt rides up and exposes your bleeding heart.
Here`s a revolutionary concept for you to ponder, if you don`t want to get shot, don`t steal!
Hmmm, there was no doubt that the car was being stolen, no question as to who was stealing it, and no stray rounds to endanger the public. I`d say give the officer a marksmanship medal, and a pay raise.
Regards,

Godfather
August 29, 2005, 11:35 AM
I have no problem with cops, I just hate how much protection they get compared to average Joe.

If a drunk runs from the police and hits a cop, he gets murder 1. If he hit and killed me, it'd be manslaughter.

M-Rex
August 29, 2005, 11:58 AM
And the problem is?

Good Guys 1
Dirtbags 0

Welcome to my ignore list, Doc for putting your anti-cop bigotry on parade. :fire:

MechAg94
August 29, 2005, 12:02 PM
Need to the officer a marksmanship medal and change the law to allow us to protect our property also.

Rockstar
August 29, 2005, 02:08 PM
The cop had no more authority than any other private citizen, as far as protecting her property was concerned.

dustind
August 29, 2005, 02:28 PM
In my opinion it was a good shoot, but I doubt the law or the courts will agree with me.

I really think national standards for police would be a bad thing. Police should serve the needs of the community. As a college graduate who got better than a 3.0 I think college degrees are over rated

and the restaurant that made the mistake of hiring her. You would go so far as to suggest suing the restaurant!? Even if she did do something wrong I do not see how it could be their fault, especially considering that her dealings with the car thief had nothing to do with her job watching the restaurant.

Alex45ACP
August 29, 2005, 02:28 PM
Good, another leech removed from society. The officer should get a promotion.

MikeIsaj
August 29, 2005, 02:29 PM
Police said Arrington then drove Peele's vehicle across New Bern Avenue, struck a parked vehicle, drove back across New Bern Avenue and stopped in the median.A little common sense would lead a person to suppose from this quote that the thief was already in the car and probably trying to run her down. It does not make sense to think that a person would be fatally shot and then get into a car, start it up and drive away, unless your intent is to find a reason to call cops stupid.

R.H. Lee
August 29, 2005, 02:30 PM
AFAIK, it's entirely legitimate for a LEO to shoot a fleeing felon. What's the problem?

Coltdriver
August 29, 2005, 02:32 PM
Having once lived in NC I can assure you that a citizen would have been arrested on the spot for this, period.

The DA would then charge the citizen with murder.

The investigation would then lead to trial.

The DA would let the court decide.

This cop got it all wrong. To approach a thief in the act of stealing a mere car is not grounds for killing them. If the thief tried to run her over a mere citizen would be charged with aggravating the situation and would still be charged with murder.

Even in Colorado you could not get away with this one. The cop escalated a car theft into murder. Bad call.

I am not defending the thief. NC law generally sucks and it defends the crooks. The cop did not help her cause by her actions. If she were not a cop, she would already be in jail.

buzz_knox
August 29, 2005, 02:36 PM
AFAIK, it's entirely legitimate for a LEO to shoot a fleeing felon. What's the problem?

Because you can only use deadly force to effect an arrest when it is likely that the felon will pose an imminent danger to others. The Supreme Court decided that in Garner v. TN.

A little common sense would lead a person to suppose from this quote that the thief was already in the car and probably trying to run her down. It does not make sense to think that a person would be fatally shot and then get into a car, start it up and drive away, unless your intent is to find a reason to call cops stupid.

He might have tried to run her over.
She might have shot him through the side window when he posed no danger to her.

There's a 50-50 chance that under the facts that what she did was illegal. But there's a far greater chance that no matter what the facts demonstrate, he will have been "found" to have been attempting to run her over.

svtruth
August 29, 2005, 02:41 PM
And, what are the dept.'s rules on moonlighting?

Frandy
August 29, 2005, 04:39 PM
From what I have heard, he was indeed in the car when she shot him. What I don't know yet, is if the car was moving when she shot him.

By the way, a year or so ago it became police policy in Raleigh that police officers are prohibited from firing into moving vehicles or stepping in front of them. For better or worse (don't flame me, the messenger) this was to prevent bystanders or innocent parties from being shot and to prevent the cop from escalating the incident or getting run over.

I got me a feelin' she's toast. Of course, it might all depend on who she might know in the NC SBI. :uhoh:

Coronach
August 29, 2005, 05:08 PM
And, what are the dept.'s rules on moonlighting?Not sure, but they're not relevent to the propriety of the shoot.

As usual, this is going down as a "not enough facts, can't tell." If Nyles was just taking the car, and she was in no danger, it's probably going to be a bad shoot. If Nyles was in the driver's seat and she was in a position to be struck, or if he was not complying with verbal commands and gave an indication that he was armed...that's going to be far less cut and dried. It all depends on exactly what (if anything) Nyles did to require the use of deadly force.

Of note, I strongly suspect that her PD has a rule requiring her to act to stop a felony in progress, regardless of her duty status (and regardless of the fact that it was her own car), so the usual arguments as applied to citizens (duty to retreat, etc) would not apply. If you think about it for .5 seconds, that sounds like a "rights for me but not for thee" type affair, but when you think about it a bit longer, you'll note that it is actually an obligation to act where a citizen could never be required to do so.

Mike

PS Most departments have rules about moonlighting whereby cops can work as security at various establishments.

buzz_knox
August 29, 2005, 05:10 PM
Of note, I strongly suspect that her PD has a rule requiring her to act to stop a felony in progress, regardless of her duty status (and regardless of the fact that it was her own car), so the usual arguments as applied to citizens (duty to retreat, etc) would not apply.

But the restrictions on shooting a fleeing felon, as well as the policy on shooting into cars, would still control.

Malamute
August 29, 2005, 05:18 PM
"This business of the war on terror and all cops carrying at all times, and always on-duty is just an excuse for taking us to a "Police State"."


I disagree. I think most cops have been required to be armed at all times anyway. Your comments sound more like chicken little mentality, and an excuse to criticise police.


John Deere makes a good point.





"Of note, I strongly suspect that her PD has a rule requiring her to act to stop a felony in progress, regardless of her duty status (and regardless of the fact that it was her own car), so the usual arguments as applied to citizens (duty to retreat, etc) would not apply. If you think about it for .5 seconds, that sounds like a "rights for me but not for thee" type affair, but when you think about it a bit longer, you'll note that it is actually an obligation to act where a citizen could never be required to do so."


This also sounds correct. Yes, there ARE some differences in average people and off duty police. Just deal with it.

thorn726
August 29, 2005, 05:29 PM
even i have to admit, on or off duty, cops might as well be cops.

i wouldnt want a passsign off-duty cop to watch me gettting beat down by a group of thugs, saying to himself "oh, 10 minutes ago it would have been my job to help"

so i guess it depends on what are the laws there for stopping a fleeing felon.
if a shoot is ok, then ok.

if not, then this would be a cop getting away with something we would get murder for, not good.

SO- shoot a fleeing felon? is that legal for this officer on duty???
(or off, whatever, like i said, on or off, she is a cop, this was a crime)

spacemanspiff
August 29, 2005, 06:21 PM
i thought they only gave female officers whistles? i mean, if they gave every woman cop a gun there'd be like, carnage and mayhem and chaos!

:what: :neener: :evil:

Coronach
August 29, 2005, 07:25 PM
But the restrictions on shooting a fleeing felon, as well as the policy on shooting into cars, would still control.Absolutely. I was trying to head off a "duty to retreat/thou shall not confront" argument at the pass. ;) Dept. policy and constitutional protections against shooting fleeing felons still apply.

Too soon to call.

Mike

CARRY'IN
August 29, 2005, 07:31 PM
Even in Colorado you could not get away with this one. The cop escalated a car theft into murder. Bad call.

Even in California you could not get away with this one. The cop escalated a car theft into murder. Bad call.

It used to be OK to kill someone for stealing your stuff. Not anymore. I cant do it- she cant do it; she should have been arrested.

Slotback
August 29, 2005, 07:36 PM
Insufficient information to draw any conclusions. However, in Texas, this is a righteous shoot.

Hawkmoon
August 29, 2005, 08:03 PM
Insufficient information to draw any conclusions. However, in Texas, this is a righteous shoot.
Ummmm ... right. That point was made several posts before yours. And was equally irrelevent, since the incident did not take place in Texas.

Standing Wolf
August 29, 2005, 08:12 PM
On the proverbial "bright side," at least he isn't going to be contributing to the burden of probation case loads.

Tse Gee La
August 29, 2005, 10:04 PM
Hey Doc2005, I have 1 question for you. With all your education would you take a jobs that may require you to give your life and only be paid $26,000 per year?

If yes, run down now and apply to be a police officer.
If no, the next time you see a police officer thank him.

CentralTexas
August 29, 2005, 11:00 PM
Here in Austin they make almost 50K -or you could join the military and make lot's less. Either way regardless how tough or the pay if yopu accept do the job properly and with honor.
CT

4v50 Gary
August 29, 2005, 11:38 PM
El Tejon wrote: She should have called the police and left the job up to the professionals. :D

Too funny!

CARRY'IN
August 29, 2005, 11:52 PM
With all your education would you take a jobs that may require you to give your life and only be paid $26,000 per year?

I think a police officer makes a little more than someone at walmart. I dont mind them making money, but I very much mind that odd whining about cops getting paid so little. Like two out of five adults in the workforce in America, police are paid either by the state or federal government. Three people like me support two people like them. If they want to shoot someone for stealing their car then they should be subject to the same laws that I am. If I shot someone who was stealing my car I would go to jail. If Texas says murdering someone for stealing your ford pinto is justified, I dont want to live in Texas thank you. I know that will outrage many of you, but I was brought up to value human life. Thieves make you want to kill them, believe me, I know. But if we all did what we wanted.......

Model520Fan
August 29, 2005, 11:54 PM
Good Guys 1
Dirtbags 0

Welcome to my ignore list, Doc for putting your anti-cop bigotry on parade.


Worth repeating.

Rockstar
August 30, 2005, 12:01 AM
I don't see the car thief as a "poor guy."

Since the car thief was a Democrat, there'll be a lot of political pressure in NC for the cop to be prosecuted, regardless of the facts. Speaking of which, nobody on this board knows the facts. Might have been a bad shoot. Might have been a good shoot. Time will tell. Those claiming that situations like this are always whitewashed are just...well, ignorant.

CARRY'IN
August 30, 2005, 12:11 AM
Might have been a bad shoot. Might have been a good shoot.

Alright, guess I will be the one to ask; how do you know he was a dem? And we all know what it might have been. We are talking about it. If you dont want to listen to our ignorance, go somewhere else.

oneslowgun
August 30, 2005, 12:21 AM
The simple fact of the matter is, if you subsituted "CCW holder" for "off duty cop" in this story, does anyone even remotely think we wouldn't be discussing the arrest of the CCW holder?

Randy in Arizona
August 30, 2005, 12:38 AM
I dont want to live in Texas thank you. I doubt that many Texans will be heartbroken at this proclamation!
Please add Arizona to the same list! :D :D :D :D

CARRY'IN
August 30, 2005, 12:41 AM
Sure Randy, I'll stay in my backyard if you stay in your trailer park.

Nimitz
August 30, 2005, 12:47 AM
is that necessary?

:uhoh:

Chad

ExtremeDooty
August 30, 2005, 12:53 AM
I think we need a Federal law allowing the shooting of all fleeing felons caught in the act. This would seriously cut down crime.

If it saves just one innocent life......

It's for the Children.... :D

GregGry
August 30, 2005, 01:34 AM
If a drunk runs from the police and hits a cop, he gets murder 1. If he hit and killed me, it'd be manslaughter.

I don't know about that. Granted I don't live in your state, I do know that 1rst degree murder in my state is an intentional crime. When there is no intent, you do not have first degree murder. A drunk driver that wipes out a cop, from not being able to control his car, is not guilty of 1rst degree. Same with a normal person, either way its not 1rst degree unless the drunk driver showed intent.

It is possible that an enhancer could be added to the list of charges, for the cop, and not for a normal guy. That depends on that state laws however. I know in my state, I don't know of any enhancers that would add to the time you spent in jail for unintentionally running down a cop vs average joe. I do know that you stand about Zero chance of having your time in jail reduced from the maximum sentence if you run a cop down, versus an average Joe.

In my mind, when cops are off-duty...they're off duty. This business of the war on terror and all cops carrying at all times, and always on-duty is just an excuse for taking us to a "Police State".

When you are hired as an officer, you are paid for 40 hours of work a week, however, you are never off duty. When you are on lunch you are still on duty, when you sleep you are still on duty, your just not getting paid for it. Police state or not, I rather have LEO packing heat off duty, then not packing heat. On average all of the officers here know far more about guns, how to shoot them, the laws of the state, how to properly handle disputes, etc then non LE. Its safe to say that because of the strict education requirements most departments have, and the training that the put you through.

This country is going out-of-control. We have security guards killing people for allegedly stealing diapers; cops shooting people for allegedly stealing cars; and yet other cops standing on the sidelines and watching us get our brains stomped out onto the pavement while they do NOTHING

It sounds to me like you are a by product of watching to much media. There are hundreds of thousands of police contacts every day, and I bet less then 1% of them end up with the police using deadly force. People keep saying that the police is going on shooting frenzies, yet the best proof they can offer is a partial story on a already justified shooting.

The whole wall mart incident has not one bit to do with LE, as I understand it. It was not a cop that killed anyone, it was a security guard, there is a difference. The only fact that it got so much attention was because it was a "security guard". Had it been two ex friends that fought in that parking lot, the whole story probably wouldn't have gone any farther then a notice of a deceased male, in the obituaries.

Also the complete story is not in on the case of this shooting. It is possible that the LEO was justified in the shooting (if the guy tried to hit her) and its possible the LEO was not justified. There isn't enough information to provide proof on if deadly force was justified or not, and until then I will take the position that it was justified. After all isn't it "innocent until proven guilty"? I guess that doesn't work for police officers anymore :rolleyes: ...

Also, as far as standing around on the sidelines while people get their brains stomped out, thats interesting. Police can't exactly see future crimes, todays life isn't like Minority Report (a movie FYI). So how do you expect the police to stop someone from being killed by a wallmart employee, when by time they get called, its to late? Police departments are primarily reactive, they get a call, and officer gets dispachted to the situation. If the police departments knew that some crack heads were going to shoot up a local diner, prior to it happening, they would do something about it. Since that isn't the case, they can only arrive during/after the fact.

kbr80
August 30, 2005, 01:55 AM
WRAL.com
Related To Story
Video: Use Of Deadly Force Part Of Investigation Into Weekend Shooting

Authorities Look Into Use Of Deadly Force In Raleigh Shooting
Off-Duty Police Officer Shoots Man Accused Of Stealing Her Car

POSTED: 12:06 pm EDT August 29, 2005
UPDATED: 6:11 pm EDT August 29, 2005

RALEIGH, N.C. -- State investigators and Raleigh police are looking into the use of deadly force following the shooting of a man by an off-duty police officer.

Officer Michelle Peele, 33, was working off-duty security at La Rosa Linda's Mexican Restaurant on New Bern Avenue Sunday morning when investigators said she saw a man driving off with her car.

Police said Peele shot into the car, hitting Nyles Arrington, who then crashed into a parked car and landed in the median. Arrington, who had an extensive criminal record, later died at WakeMed.

"It is another death. It's sad and unfortunate," said Wake County District Attorney Colon Willoughby. "We'll review it and hold it to the same standards we do other cases."

Willoughby said Peele would not be treated any differently because she is a police officer.

In September 2003, Raleigh police officer J.R. Reyes was criminally charged after he fired into a moving vehicle and injured a suspect. He later pleaded guilty to improperly discharging a firearm.

"We have had cases in the county where the use of force by a police officer is prosecuted because it's inappropriate, and those where it was not," Willoughby said. "But it turns on the facts of the case, and that's what we'll look at in this case."

In addition to the criminal investigation, the Internal Affairs Division of the Raleigh Police Department will look at whether Peele violated department policy. In August 2004, Police Chief Jane Perlov put into place a policy that prohibits officers from firing into moving vehicles unless someone's life is in danger. It also prohibits officers from walking into the path of a moving vehicle.

There is no timetable as to when the SBI will finish its investigation, but the Raleigh Police Department is required to provide a detailed report on the incident to the city manager by Friday.

Peele, who is a bike officer in downtown Raleigh, is now assigned to administrative duties pending the outcome of the investigation.

http://www.wral.com/news/4909804/detail.html?subid=22100762&qs=1;bp=t

CARRY'IN
August 30, 2005, 02:03 AM
In August 2004, Police Chief Jane Perlov put into place a policy that prohibits officers from firing into moving vehicles unless someone's life is in danger. It also prohibits officers from walking into the path of a moving vehicle.

Go Jane! Wont be able to step in front of a car and just blast the driver anymore I guess. I think Ms Peele is in alot of trouble.

M-Rex
August 30, 2005, 02:21 AM
I hope Ofc. Peel is exonerated.

Good guys: 1
Dirtbags: 0

Liberal administrative types: Jury's still out

CARRY'IN
August 30, 2005, 02:28 AM
She cant be exonerated; she killed someone for stealing her car. As much as you and many others might applaud that- it is against the law. I dont believe my car is worth someones life. Even a thief with a criminal record. Some people believe otherwise. Does not change the law. Of course I am just preaching about this law cuz I happen to agree with it. ;)

M-Rex
August 30, 2005, 02:36 AM
Yes, she most certainly can be exonerated. Once the investigation is done, the report will be forwarded to the D.A. It will be up to him/her to decide if it would be in the public's best interest to pursue it. Based on what I've read so far, it's still a crapshoot (no pun intended).

I would be interested in donating a couple bucks to a legal defense fund for this officer.

kbr80
August 30, 2005, 02:42 AM
I would be interested in donating a couple bucks to a legal defense fund for this officer.

Thats all fine and good, but from what I read, and I am waiting for more information than we have, it sounds like murder. If I did that, what the article reports the officer did, I would be in jail. Would you donate to my defense fund?

M-Rex
August 30, 2005, 02:51 AM
Thats all fine and good, but from what I read, and I am waiting for more information than we have, it sounds like murder. If I did that, what the article reports the officer did, I would be in jail. Would you donate to my defense fund?

If you've already decided it "sounds like a 'murder' then you really aren't waiting for more information now are you? :scrutiny:

If I thought what you did was justified and deserved defending, then I probably would donate to your defense fund. If I thought it "sounds like a murder" then I probably wouldn't. :rolleyes:

Geno
August 30, 2005, 02:55 AM
Well, the differing thoughts and disagreement are fine with me. The personal attacks...well, that surprises me. I guess some people here do not choose the "high road".

"Lean too far left and lift my skirt"? That's one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard made to a man. This site call for no personal attacks. To infer that I am a transvestite…Mister, that was uncalled for!

Bleeding heart? Not at all. I prefer to lock up the gad guys for many years, TRY to rehabilitate and force them to make financial restitution for the crime instead of killing them like a dog and adding their family to the public welfare dole.

"Add me to your ignore list"? Well praise the Lord and pass the peas! Good. Thanks-you! If you don't believe in free speech, and free expression, just fill out a complaint form and request the moderator cut me off. If short of that, I guess I'm within my God-given, American right to speak my mind.

"Liberal"? ME? Dang...you really don't know me. What was that expression...compassionate conservative??? Or were that just hollow words?

At no point did I state that the man stealing the car was appropriate. I still say the cop over-reacted. She escalated a situation and tried to save her precious car...for that a BG is dead and can NEVER make restitution, and worse yet, if he had family, they will be ASAP on the welfare dole. Should my tax dollars pay for the cop's dumb mistake? No...let her employer's insurance pay this one. She made, in my humble, compassionate and conservative mind, a very bad call.

Maybe someday, more cops will conduct themselves to the wonderful high standards that my now retired brother-in-law conducted himself as a cop! See, I am a realist. I have clear vision...not warped closed mindedness. I say we should support the professional cops, increase standards, pay them better, arm them well, and train them impeccably. Fire the bad ones.

That's liberal? That's wearing a skirt? That's being a bleeding heart? Thank God for free speech and free expression!

Doc2005

CARRY'IN
August 30, 2005, 03:06 AM
I am a realist. I have clear vision...not warped closed mindedness.

Then you are a liberal. Dont be in denial - I finally had to put a dress on to. They are actually very comfortable.

psyopspec
August 30, 2005, 03:15 AM
In September 2003, Raleigh police officer J.R. Reyes was criminally charged after he fired into a moving vehicle and injured a suspect. He later pleaded guilty to improperly discharging a firearm.

That's quite a deal. I'm surprised at the amount of assumptions being flung around in this thread. I be equally unsurprised if she gets off, pleads down, or gets successfully charged, especially since it's still way too early in the game to tell what happend, let alone what charges may be leveled against her.

MrMex
August 30, 2005, 03:34 AM
Moderator Note:

An inability to keep things civil will result in your being shown the door, MrMex.

CAPTAIN MIKE
August 30, 2005, 04:40 AM
..So what would happen to any one of US who used his or her sidearm to shoot a car thief?

In my jurisdiction, there would not necessarily be an 'imminent threat of death or seriously bodily injury' directed at me where a thief was stealing my personal property and driving away from the scene.

This case is worth following to see what facts are developed by the outside agency.

Hobie
August 30, 2005, 09:53 AM
If I can't defend my property, I have no property. If we can't defend our borders, we have no country. If I can't worship, I have no religion. How darn simple does it have to be for some folks to understand?

Frandy
August 30, 2005, 09:59 AM
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/wake/story/2768545p-9207274c.html

Model520Fan
August 30, 2005, 10:45 AM
I still say the cop over-reacted. She escalated a situation and tried to save her precious car...for that a BG is dead and can NEVER make restitution, and worse yet, if he had family, they will be ASAP on the welfare dole. Should my tax dollars pay for the cop's dumb mistake? No...let her employer's insurance pay this one. She made, in my humble, compassionate and conservative mind, a very bad call.

Maybe someday, more cops will conduct themselves to the wonderful high standards that my now retired brother-in-law conducted himself as a cop! See, I am a realist. I have clear vision...not warped closed mindedness.

That's liberal? That's wearing a skirt? That's being a bleeding heart?
Doc2005

Yes, it certainly is. YOU say she escalated a situation when you don't even know what the situation was. A very large number of posters here say that they don't know what happened, and refuse to call her either a murderer or a savior of the pedestrian population of North Carolina. Not you - you know what happened, even though most of us don't.

Since you have been so free in judging her without the facts, I will judge you with most of the facts: You jumped to contusions because you have an inclination to favor criminals. You are liberal. You wear a skirt. You are a bleeding heart. Your own words convict you. If you don't like my words, be more careful with your own words about a public servant.

BTW, I am not now nor have I ever been an LEO, I do not generally support illegal behavior by LEO's any more than or even as much as by non-LEO's, and I am VERY open to the possibility that she did what you think she did. But you have no right to maliciously (or even, in my opinion, just stupidly) malign her without at least hearing her side of the story, which you probably won't, unless she is indicted.

You are not humble, you are not compassionate, and you give evidence only to contradict that you are conservative.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

M-Rex
August 30, 2005, 10:53 AM
If I can't defend my property, I have no property. If we can't defend our borders, we have no country. If I can't worship, I have no religion. How darn simple does it have to be for some folks to understand?

There is much wisdom in that statement. I applaud you.

Hawkmoon
August 30, 2005, 11:33 AM
If I can't defend my property, I have no property. ... How darn simple does it have to be for some folks to understand?
It is pretty simple.

Having established that, since you are a resident of one of the 49 states that does not allow the use of lethal force to protect property, I suggest you get busy contacting your state legislators about revising your state laws.

El Tejon
August 30, 2005, 11:51 AM
You can defend your property. You cannot use deadly force to do so under most circumstances. Real life is not driven by Errornet/Gun Shoppe Commando bravado but by the law.

This is the issue before the North Carolina prosecutor: was the officer justified in using deadly force to take a fellow human beings life who was alleged to be stealing a motor vehicle?

Maybe yes, maybe no, as the tilecrawlers say it is "fact sensitive." The media does a lousy job in reporting what happened even when it is written down for them.

Wait and see.

Byron Quick
August 30, 2005, 11:55 AM
The general tone of this thread will improve or the thread will be closed. Slightly veiled bigoted innuendos will cease. Name calling, even of groups who are perhaps not present in this thread will cease.

Please PM me if there is anything in the above that you do not understand.

Several posters here are about a heartbeat away from being warned. A member may get one warning before being banned.

Janitor
August 30, 2005, 12:23 PM
Sorry to grab such an easy (and obvious) target:
this poor dead man's life
Huh?

Well - maybe we could make this line work. How about we change it to:

"this poor dead thieving low life who was committing a felony at the time"

?

CARRY'IN
August 30, 2005, 01:00 PM
The off-duty police officer who shot a man Sunday morning was investigated by police internal affairs division after a cab driver complained that she physically and verbally abused him. Akindele encountered Peele on March 18, according to a copy of the letter. Raleigh police responded to Akindele's complaint April 6, according to a copy of a letter by Capt. R.G. Joyner, head of the internal affairs division. Police told Akindele they would notify him in writing about the disposition of the complaint, according to the letter. Akindele has not heard from police since the April letter, he said. Peele joined the force in 1999 and earns $45,850 a year as patrol officer in downtown Raleigh.

Not looking good for Ms. Peele or the Raliegh PD. You cant gun down unarmed people, no matter how much you want to- that is the law of this land and I and many other people support that law. If you dont like it, change the law.

Rockstar
August 30, 2005, 01:24 PM
Doc: I believe you're making some assumptions not based on statistical probability. Chances are, any "family" the deceased had were already on welfare. Whether or not they were on welfare is really moot, as the statistical probability of the deceased's having ever exercised any responsibility for his "family" is just about zero. Good riddance to bad rubbish. I truly hate that the cop has to endure the psychological trauma that she's experiencing.

Carry: I agree that the law must be followed. While I truly have no compassion for the thief, I still agree that the facts must be adjudicated properly. As to the morality of the situation, the value of the thief's life, etc., that's just where you and I disagree. The life of a parasite who'd steal my bicycle is worthless to me. Not saying that I'd dispatch a bike thief, but if he got hit by a bus while riding my stolen bicycle, I'd just think, "Great!"

CARRY'IN
August 30, 2005, 01:30 PM
As to the morality of the situation, the value of the thief's life, etc., that's just where you and I disagree. The life of a parasite who'd steal my bicycle is worthless to me. Not saying that I'd dispatch a bike thief, but if he got hit by a bus while riding my stolen bicycle, I'd just think, "Great!"

Reminds me of a study they did on college students and found that most of them, if given a choice of saving their dog or a stranger from drowning, would save their dog.

Geno
August 30, 2005, 02:06 PM
I "lived" under a South American police state after getting married there. Living in a police state (military dictatorship) REALLY opened my eyes to just how dog-gone-good we have it here in America. Unfortunate for me, it also gave me great pause to hold a critical eye of government. Oh, and who supported the military over-throw in Chile? Yes...we did!

I would prefer to err on the side of holding the government's feet to the fire than to turn a blind eye and assume all is well when things go bad. Then, add to this the fact that the bad shooting in England was covered up. The police knew the facts that the man did NOT flee, he did NOT wear an overcoat. The entire matter was a sham, and a shame. I do not want for that to be brought to America.

So, all of that considered, we all live different realities. We all have different experiences, and to that end we all have different opinions. Where else can one express those opinions as such with out the fear of having our front door kicked in and being dragged out and beaten?

I have seen it...I have lived it! In my time "living" or better "surviving" in South America I was the unfortunate witness to dozens of atrocities! I finally tired of living "under the gun"...literally! On every street corner there were at least 2 "carabineros" with .45 ACP Uzis...fingers always on the triggers! There were trucks mounted with .50 Cal Bags on nearly every avenue in downtown, and there were school buses painted camo...with barred windows to lock up ANYONE suspicious. I NEVER saw an empty bus.

People shot, killed for no apparent reason...and thousands of people who just plain turned up missing. You don't have to agree with me. While we have different opinions, we ALL have one thing absolutely in common here...we love our country...most of us would die for our country or our family, and we don't want to see happen here what I saw in South America and what happened to the alleged bad guy in England.

For certain there must be an independent investigation, and unlike in England, the facts must be made public, and they will be. So, here's my parting thought...God bless America! There ain't NO WHERE on earth like her! Let's keep it that way.

Doc2005

Frandy
August 30, 2005, 02:16 PM
The general tone of this thread will improve or the thread will be closed. Slightly veiled bigoted innuendos will cease. Name calling, even of groups who are perhaps not present in this thread will cease.
Thank you!


I lived under a South American military dictatorship...it changed my life!

And Doc, thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! +1

one-shot-one
August 30, 2005, 02:38 PM
1. you my not value your or someone's car but some of us work long and hard for what we have and the though of some dirtbag (oops is this one of the "groups who is perhaps not present") to simply take it. making "life easier for criminals just don't make sense.
2. if my choices are to live in the most run down trailer park in texas or a mansion in san francisco, show me the trailer park! :neener:

buzz_knox
August 30, 2005, 02:58 PM
You know, I can agree with making it legal to shoot to kill to protect property . . . as long as we make killing someone because you mistook that person as a thief a capital offense. In other words, you shoot someone you thought was a thief and they weren't, and you get the chair, needle, firing squad, whatever.

Don't think such a mistake could happen? Well, I and many I've known have done the "hey, what are you doing" thing when it came to seeing our car drive off, only to discover that it wasn't our car just a look a like. And I've also tried to enter my car, only to discover that it was an identical car. (By the way, you'd be surprised to learn just how many different cars that key you have will fit). I'd hope that the person who killed me over a mistake would soon follow me in death.

Yes, we've worked long and hard for our possessions. It's disgusting when they are taken away. It's even more disgusting when people are killed to prevent their theft.

Sorry. I value my property greatly. But not so greatly that I would kill another person to defend it, with the caveat that I'd have no hesitation to drop someone committing arson on a home/business, as that shows a desire to destroy everything a person has, and such subhumans don't deserve the slightest quarter. I have no compunctions about killing to save the innocent; I have no desire to kill someone over a TV, a car, what have you.

Mike Sr.
August 30, 2005, 05:09 PM
He -the deceased- steals a car. Later does a hit and run, kills someone or uses car in a armed robbery and while fleeing runs a red light and kills somerun in the 'GREEN' better [worse] 'yet' drives into a bunch of school kids crossing the street on their GREEN going to school...

Srry but I am tired of thieves putting YOU, ME AND FAMILY AT RISK or in FEAR.

And those of you who empathize with the thief are somewhat accountable for your tolerance and acceptance of such behavior...maybe the first time he stole money out of his Dad's billfold...if Dad had spanked his azz or made him totally and completely accountable...he might not have stolen or tried to steal a car. Thus he'd be with his family this Labor Day...


Now substitute the car with one of 'YOUR' guns....duh..

If I was Bill Gates or Warren Buffet...she'd get a 10-mil for her defense and so would any one of you in the same circumstance....

CARRY'IN
August 30, 2005, 05:10 PM
I have no compunctions about killing to save the innocent; I have no desire to kill someone over a TV, a car, what have you.

Some of us seem to value human life and some of us dont, regardless of where we live or which way we lean.

El Tejon
August 30, 2005, 05:31 PM
Mike, I understand your frustration, but please be aware the law takes a dim view of deadly force being used to defend property. Property may be replaced, human life may not. The law being an expression of the majority via the representational process.

It is one thing to vocalize sentiments such as "shoot the b*****d!"; however, as responsible gun owners committed to good citizenship as we all are here, we should remember there is always Problem #2, what happens next.

I see nothing to sustain a self-defense claim. If so the officer should be prosecuted for murder. However, I am well aware that the media has very little idea what it is talking about in reporting incidents of these sort. Wait and see.

Byron Quick
August 30, 2005, 05:39 PM
I took a traditional Japanese martial art for many years. One day at a seminar, I witnessed a question asked of the second highest ranked non-Japanese in that art. Bud Malmstrom was asked if he would kill someone who mugged him for his wallet. Bud's answer was,"No, I would not for there is nothing in my wallet worth a human being's life."

I disagreed with Bud, publicly and vocally. My response was this,"I would kill that mugger, if possible, even if my wallet was empty. While I agree that there is nothing in my wallet worth a human being's life...there is another value that is pertinent here. I would kill him not for the money he was attempting to steal but the fact that he had initiated aggression against me. Aggression even if he had not touched me. I have the right to walk down the sidewalk in peace and without fear. I will maintain that right."

spacemanspiff
August 30, 2005, 05:41 PM
am i too late for the armchair-commando-debriefing?

Nimitz
August 30, 2005, 05:45 PM
am I to late for the armchair-commando-debriefing?

Never.... :neener:

Chad

Rockstar
August 30, 2005, 06:17 PM
Carry: Some of us probably disagree with your definition of "human" life. ;)

Doc: Too bad that you lived under a South American dictatorship. I don't believe, however, that information is germane to this discussion.

asiparks
August 30, 2005, 06:44 PM
Wow. So Byron, you believe that just a good arse kicking would be insufficient to teach your mugger a lesson ? I don't believe that crime should go unpunished, but I also think that there should be a sense of scale to the deterrent. Workwise I have been in quite a few fights (none of which I've instigated BTW), in most I prevailed, in some, as my ruggedly handsome nose bears witness, i got a bit of a kicking. But I've never felt compelled to kill any of those individuals even though they may be screaming that they're going, amongst other things, to kill me. Might happen one day, but should I, to be on the safe side, kill each of them first ?

Mike Snr... you need a caboose on that "what if" train of thought, it's exactly the same hysteria whipping "but think of the children" nonsense that the anti gunners use. Might as well ask what if he steals the car, goes to jail, finds God, becomes a doctor and finds a cure for cancer that one day saves your life.

You know, some criminals come from good homes and good families, they're not necessarily bred by scoundrels and ne'erdowells. How would you feel if it was your child/ brother/sister/father who got killed for taking a car or wallet ? "Good, they deserved to die" ?

CARRY'IN
August 30, 2005, 06:50 PM
My response was this,"I would kill that mugger, if possible, even if my wallet was empty. While I agree that there is nothing in my wallet worth a human being's life...there is another value that is pertinent here. I would kill him not for the money he was attempting to steal but the fact that he had initiated aggression against me. Aggression even if he had not touched me.

If the mugger is pointing a gun at me.....Hmmmm. I would try and shoot him if I had the opportunity. If he did not give me the chance and ran away with my wallet, I would not be able to shoot him in the back without going to jail- and I probably would not shoot anyway since my life was no longer in jeopardy. If he threatened me with a knife or other weapon I just might give him a chance to surrender...maybe not- depends on what my instincts were telling me at that moment (and how close he was etc.). I am much more concerned about my family than I am about myself. Someone is absolutely going to get blasted by me for any transgression if I feel my wife or daughter is at risk. I would not think twice. But driving away in my car? No.

CZ-100
August 30, 2005, 07:33 PM
I think we need a Federal law allowing the shooting of all fleeing felons caught in the act. This would seriously cut down crime.

If it saves just one innocent life......

It's for the Children....

And also save many of our tax dollars... :D

demusn1979
August 30, 2005, 07:53 PM
Hope his family can somehow find a means to survive off of what they will get in a lawsuit against her and the restaurant that made the mistake of hiring her.

if this guy was stealing other peoples property to support his family then he
deserves what he got.thats whats supposed to happen when you try to take other peoples stuff. thats what he would get if he was trying to take my property and to hell with him and his kind.

#1 with a bullet! :cuss:

M-Rex
August 30, 2005, 09:26 PM
You know, some criminals come from good homes and good families, they're not necessarily bred by scoundrels and ne'erdowells.

This is an oxymoron. :scrutiny:

CARRY'IN
August 30, 2005, 09:54 PM
You know, some criminals come from good homes and good families, they're not necessarily bred by scoundrels and ne'erdowells.

I just cant go bleeding heart on this one; I hate thieves. I have been ripped off more than once. I stand by the not killing someone for stealing but I am not going get all sentimental on criminals. Anyway, what does that statement really have to do with anything? Stay on topic please.

Hawkmoon
August 30, 2005, 10:09 PM
You know, some criminals come from good homes and good families, they're not necessarily bred by scoundrels and ne'erdowells.

This is an oxymoron.
Why?

My late father was one of three brothers. My father and his younger brother held honest, steady jobs for their entire working lives, earned an honest but moderate income, and retired to die peacefully.

My father's older brother, on the other hand, was a con artist for as long as I was old enough to understand right from wrong. According to my parents, he was even a scam artists (black market) while serving in WW2, while my father was freezing his posterior shepherding convoys through the Himalyas from India into China. My uncle was incredibly sociable, the life of any party, extremely handsome .. and apparently had an aversion to "work." My parents were very careful when he was visiting (he lived in another state) to always pre-brief social friends with whom my uncle was likely to come into contact.

I do not consider my grandfather and grandmother to have been either scoundrels or ne'erdowells. Where's the oxymoron?

asiparks
August 30, 2005, 11:09 PM
Kindly don't tell me to stay on topic if you simply can't be bothered to read to the end of the paragraph. What was bleeding heart ? I was replying to the comments stating that car thieves and muggers deserve to be killed and asking that if it were one of your kin that was getting the bullet, would you be so cavalier with that life. It was prefaced by the comment alluding that most crime is the result of an individual making very poor decisions for themselves, not the result of poor parenting or environment, so don't think that someone you care about might one day be despatched for threatening Mr Quick. I stated that the punishment should fit the crime. If you rob me I will break every bone in both your hands, if you rape my wife I will insert something large, blunt and possibly covered in barbed wire up your rectum, if you play loud music outside my house at 3am I will, fairly politely, make you turn it down. I am unlikely to kill you.

M-Rex
August 30, 2005, 11:11 PM
Why?
Where's the oxymoron?

Evil begets evil. Dirtbags beget dirtbags. It's just the way it is. I watched 'generational crime' for many years working in a correctional institution. In generality, criminals come from environments that allow criminality to take root and germinate. Occasionally, a good family has a social burp and churns out a sociopath, but in general, bad people don't come from good homes.

The fact that no one in your family ever turned in Uncle Con-artist, and simply let him continue in his criminal ways lends credence to my theory. All that is neccessary for the triumph evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmond Burke

CARRY'IN
August 30, 2005, 11:22 PM
Kindly don't tell me to stay on topic if you simply can't be bothered to read to the end of the paragraph.

I was not telling you to do anything. Now I am; calm down.

asiparks
August 30, 2005, 11:24 PM
now that sounds like a liberal statement, that people simply can't help becoming criminals because of their environment. How many rapists are following in their father's footsteps do you reckon ? How many murderers outside of organised crime families ?

"Anyway, what does that statement really have to do with anything? Stay on topic please." uh huh....... :rolleyes: must have imagined that then.......

Powderman
August 30, 2005, 11:50 PM
For years, America has held educators under the public looking glass for alleged incompetence. Now we have higher than ever standards. Progress there is being made. I think it's high time to have national standards for police. Require at least a B.S./B.A.; a minimum GPA of 3.0 or higher; required to pass state exams. with a score of 95% or higher. Then, they should have to complete at least 6 Grad. Hrs. every 5 years and serve at least 4 years employment probation. Those were the standards for me to be an educator.

A cordial question, sir or ma'am...

Do you even know what a person has to go through to be hired as a police officer?

Are you aware of how long the selection process takes?

Do you know the average education level of the average street cop?

CARRY'IN
August 30, 2005, 11:54 PM
now that sounds like a liberal statement, that people simply can't help becoming criminals because of their environment. How many rapists are following in their father's footsteps do you reckon ? How many murderers outside of organised crime families ?

Maybe you need to take your pills? You are not making a bit of sense.

CARRY'IN
August 30, 2005, 11:55 PM
A cordial question, sir or ma'am...

Do you even know what a person has to go through to be hired as a police officer?

Are you aware of how long the selection process takes?

Do you know the average education level of the average street cop?

I would bet money you are going to tell us all about it eventually.

asiparks
August 31, 2005, 12:01 AM
M-Rex stated "Evil begets evil. Dirtbags beget dirtbags. It's just the way it is. I watched 'generational crime' for many years working in a correctional institution. In generality, criminals come from environments that allow criminality to take root and germinate"

to which i replied

"now that sounds like a liberal statement, that people simply can't help becoming criminals because of their environment."

Again it's only my opinion, Carry'in, but I believe that blaming an "environment" for a persons criminal behavior is quite a "liberal" point of view...

funnily enough, I was broadly in agreement with your earlier postings.....

cheers

CARRY'IN
August 31, 2005, 12:18 AM
Ok sorry. I am a big mouth. :o

Powderman
August 31, 2005, 02:08 AM
I would bet money you are going to tell us all about it eventually.

I'm not sure.

I have posted about this in the past, but I am so sick and tired about the eternal bashing of law enforcement that goes on--on this board and others. I used to think that I was helping to educate people, but I believe that it is an exercise in futility.

It appears that there are some people who do not want to lose their conceptions of LEO's. Most people seem to think that we are imbued with special privileges, that we have a "license to kill", and that we get a kick out of being "bullies".

While in college (yes, Doc, some of us awful JBT's actually have progressed beyond high school!), the practice of cops shutting themselves off from almost every one else was discussed at length. At first, I could not understand why we, as cops, seemed to shun the rest of society--except for fellow cops.

Now, I finally understand why. Flame away if you wish--this is not whining, nor begging for attention. It's simply a statement of fact.

CARRY'IN
August 31, 2005, 03:43 AM
At first, I could not understand why we, as cops, seemed to shun the rest of society--except for fellow cops.

Now, I finally understand why.

So do I.

M-Rex
August 31, 2005, 04:02 AM
While in college (yes, Doc, some of us awful JBT's actually have progressed beyond high school!), the practice of cops shutting themselves off from almost every one else was discussed at length. At first, I could not understand why we, as cops, seemed to shun the rest of society--except for fellow cops.

We also discussed this in college, and at the academy. Everyone thought that he/she would never let that type of behavior manifest itself. But...it does. It's the natural defense mechanism of people who pin on the badge. It results from going from one extreme to another. Intense pride and satisfaction at having 'made it' and gotten your badge. Relief that the academy is finally over. Counter that with the criminal element that the police officer must deal with every day. Couple even that with the general disdain that the citizenry holds police officers in (especially these days, it seems). It's only natural that cops will gravitate to other cops and keep to themselves.

I view it with this perspective. Folks generally view 'the police' as societal 'parents'. Cops are the folks that tell people "no". I think this reminds folks of their childhoods when their parents exerted authority over them, and they naturally want to rebel.

No one wants a cop around until they have an emergency and need them. Then they get angry with the cop for not showing up fast enough.

One of my T.O.'s said it best. "If you want to be liked, be a fireman, not a cop."

Anyway, I apologize for the mild threadjack.

LiquidTension
August 31, 2005, 08:39 AM
I wouldn't kill someone for stealing from me, but neither would I be upset if that person met an untimely end.

Some people's lives are valuable, other people's are not. Anyone that says all life is equal is lying or just hasn't thought it through. Is the scientist that will find a way to end world hunger worth the same as a crackwhore who's major accomplishment is ending up on COPS? Pfft...

Powderman
August 31, 2005, 12:42 PM
To answer the original intent of the post:

If the law allowed it--yes. I would shoot someone trying to steal.

Think about it. Not too awfully long ago, there was a time when you could actually walk the streets at any time of the day or night, when your children could go and play anywhere they wanted without fear, where you could leave your doors unlocked without concern.

This was during the time when (a) if a person decided to be a thief, they COULD be shot if the owner caught them in the act, (b) if a mugger was shot in the commission of the crime, the shooter was praised, not sued, and (c) to enter someone's house without permission was universally recognized as a one way ticket to the boneyard.

Yes, I'd shoot. But, it is illegal to do so. Thus, I do not.

Do I agree with the law? In this case, no. But it is the law.

Old Dog
August 31, 2005, 12:59 PM
Anyone that says all life is equal is lying or just hasn't thought it through So, basically, Jesus was lying ... Hmm.
Is the scientist that will find a way to end world hunger worth the same as a crackwhore who's major accomplishment is ending up on COPS? Pfft Well, perhaps that crackwhore was some father's little princess at one time ... or some little girl's precious big sister ... or even someone's mother ...

I remain amazed by the conflicting sentiments expressed throughout THR these days: cops are bad, even when they shoot criminals in the act ... but citizens should summarily execute looters on the scene of disaster areas and that's okay ... cops are bad, especially when they end up in conflict with a citizen after they break a dog out of car with windows rolled up on a hot day in a business parking lot ... but another thread bemoans a forum member's sick dog with everyone chiming in about how important dogs are to their lives ...

So many here seem so primed and ready to apply deadly force against someone taking property -- when there exists NO threat to the property owner's life ... One wonders ... Just how many of these folks have actually had to take a life? Or how many of these folks have even seen a life taken? Or just how much do some of these folks actually value the life of anyone, other than themselves?

CARRY'IN
August 31, 2005, 04:13 PM
Anyone that says all life is equal is lying

The problem here is the same problem that we faced with eugenics and nazism. You want to get rid of the useless eaters? Then you will want to cull the race a little more, and a little more...etc. Pretty soon it will be a case of doing the job right and just getting rid of everyone who does not fit a specific profile. It is the problem we face even now with capital punishement (Jesus suffered capital punshment by the way, and so did the thieves on either side of him). If human life is sacred, then it is sacred. It either is or it is not. All of it. Everyone. If you step back from that you will eventually end up shouting Sig Heil! in a crowd of blue eyed blonde haired psychopaths.

one-shot-one
September 1, 2005, 01:05 PM
Old Dog: I aint Jesus and have very little hope of ever having his love or patients for criminals, I’d be doing good if I could get to the level of Peter when he cut off the servants ear.

buzz_knox
September 1, 2005, 01:41 PM
It appears that there are some people who do not want to lose their conceptions of LEO's. Most people seem to think that we are imbued with special privileges, that we have a "license to kill", and that we get a kick out of being "bullies".

Would you accept that some of those conceptions are the result of LEO actions? I've had cops tell me that they were taught "if you aren't blue, you're nothing" in the academy. I've seen cops who acted as if they did have special privileges and I listened to one who stated he wanted a judge who would rule in favor of law enforcement every time, regardless of circumstances. And I've seen cops who acted as if they had a license to kill, right down to trying to pick fights with truckers.

My view is there are good cops and bad cops. But the good cops get tarnished because they often don't make this distinction, but treat every criticism as anti-LEO. I'm not anti-LEO, I'm anti-scum bag.

M-Rex
September 1, 2005, 01:50 PM
Would you accept that some of those conceptions are the result of LEO actions? I've had cops tell me that they were taught "if you aren't blue, you're nothing" in the academy. I've seen cops who acted as if they did have special privileges and I listened to one who stated he wanted a judge who would rule in favor of law enforcement every time, regardless of circumstances. And I've seen cops who acted as if they had a license to kill, right down to trying to pick fights with truckers.

I would accept that if you would be willing to accept that much of the law enforcement misconceptions are also the result of anti-cop bigotry being spread by uninformed, ignorant civillians who are only happy when they are complaining.

Everyone has a 'bad cop story'...just like everyone has a 'bad shopper story', a 'bad customer service story', a 'bad mechanic story', a 'bad telephone representative story', ad infinitim, ad absurdum.

There's an old axiom I'm reminded of. Most of the time, the child who hates his teacher is usually the child who disrupts the class the most.

buzz_knox
September 1, 2005, 02:19 PM
I would accept that if you would be willing to accept that much of the law enforcement misconceptions are also the result of anti-cop bigotry being spread by uninformed, ignorant civillians who are only happy when they are complaining.

Absolutely, with the caveat that non-uniformed civilians not involved in law enforcement, sure. Not if it's the "cops versus civilians" thing. That false dichotomy is the root of the "blue or crap" attitude.

PX15
September 1, 2005, 05:00 PM
My understanding is that the dead car thief was in fact accelerating AT the LEO, he WAS trying to run her over, the LEO SHOT was in fact THRU the front windshield and it was ONLY 1 shot, and that was with a ball round.

Later at the crime scene (felony car theft) a fully loaded 25cal semi-automatic Italian Galesi (with round in chamber) was discovered in the drivers floorboard. Another firearm, a revolver, (RG14) was also found, fully loaded and adjacent to the perps right hand. (which was dangling between the seats.) Both of the firearms had the serial numbers ground off.

Also, it....... WAIT! I just realized all of the above was wishful thinking, and I don't have a clue if the shooting was "righteous" or not.

I hope it was.

But you know what? Even tho I'm a dyed in the wool gun nut and supporter of leo's in general I don't think any vehicle being stolen is deserving of a death sentence, unless some aggressive behaviour on the thief's part was endangering someone during the process.

Just my old fart opinion.....

PX :o

Rockstar
September 1, 2005, 08:32 PM
Using Jesus's ordeal to rationalize that the lives of society's parasites are as valuable as other lives is simpleminded, in my humble, not-from-SanFransissygo-opinion. :evil: Referring to Nazis in this thread is less-than-simpleminded.

M-Rex
September 1, 2005, 08:53 PM
Absolutely, with the caveat that non-uniformed civilians not involved in law enforcement, sure. Not if it's the "cops versus civilians" thing. That false dichotomy is the root of the "blue or crap" attitude.

Buzz...you're a thinking man, and I appreciate that. I saw my share of the 'us vs. them' crowd where I used to work, so I can see where you're coming from.

Frandy
September 2, 2005, 05:12 PM
Not definitive yet, but...
Police Report (http://www.wral.com/news/4929771/detail.html)

Read The Full Report From Raleigh Police

POSTED: 1:02 pm EDT September 2, 2005
CITY OF RALEIGH POLICE DEPARTMENT INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: J. Russell Allen, City Manager
FROM: Jane Perlov, Police Chief
SUBJECT: Five Day Report following the Use of Deadly Force by Officer A.M. Peele On August 28, 2005
DATE: September 2, 2005
On Saturday, August 27, 2005, Officer A.M. Peele went to work in an off-duty capacity at La Rosa Linda Authentic Mexican Restaurant located at 4005 New Bern Avenue. She was employed to provide outside security to the establishment in the late night hours. She was dressed in the traditional uniform of the department. She drove her personal vehicle, a black Nissan Xterra, to the job site.
Her vehicle was backed into a parking space directly across from the front door of the restaurant. Ms. Lindsay Banning, a Raleigh animal control officer who is a friend of Officer Peele, had accompanied her to her off-duty employment. Ms. Banning and Officer Peele sat in the vehicle as Officer Peele worked. Subsequently, Ms. Banning got out of the car and entered the foyer of the restaurant.
Officer Peele got out of the car to enter the restaurant because the restaurant’s inside security officer, George Luis Jaime, indicated that there were patrons who needed to be removed from the establishment. Four patrons were ejected by the inside security staff. At the time Officer Peele got out of her car she left the keys in the ignition, the windows down, and the car unlocked with the parking lights on.
A few minutes later, shortly before 1:00 a.m., Officer Peele, Ms. Banning and Mr. Jaime were in the foyer area of the restaurant. The glass exterior door to the restaurant was closed. Officer Peele, Ms. Banning and Mr. Jaime observed a man getting into Officer Peele’s personal vehicle. Officer Peele and Ms. Banning immediately ran from the building. Officer Peele challenged the man to get out of her car.
Officer Peele approached the driver’s side of the vehicle. The suspect placed the vehicle in gear and began to move forward. Officer Peele fired one shot striking the man under the left arm. The bullet traveled downward and did not exit the body. After being shot, the suspect drove the vehicle out of the parking lot. He traveled across New Bern Avenue, crossed through the median, entered the parking lot of the Caroco convenience store and struck a parked vehicle belonging to an employee of the store. The suspect then placed the vehicle in reverse, backed up, shifted to a forward gear, and drove back across the eastbound lanes of New Bern Avenue.
The vehicle came to rest in the median of New Bern Avenue. After firing her weapon, Officer Peele began to run after the vehicle and radioed the Emergency Communications Center (ECC). She relayed the location of the vehicle and the fact that she shot the suspect. Officer Peele indicated to the ECC that she did not believe that the suspect had a gun. Additional officers arrived at the scene. Traffic was blocked on New Bern Avenue. Officers immediately approached the vehicle. The suspect’s medical condition was evaluated and relayed to the ECC, which had an EMS unit in route. Emergency medical personnel arrived at the scene, began medical care and transported the man to WakeMed where he was pronounced dead.
The medical examiner will generate an autopsy report when all testing is completed. Because the suspect did not have any identification in his possession his fingerprints were obtained at the hospital. The City County Bureau of Identification identified the deceased through his fingerprints that were in the Automated Fingerprint Identification system because of past arrests. The deceased was identified as Mr. Nyles Arrington, DOB 8-13-63. Mr. Arrington’s family indicated that Mr. Arrington had become homeless because of a drug problem. He did have a crack pipe in his possession when his clothing was searched. Prior to August 28, 2005 Mr. Arrington had been arrested for driving while impaired, larceny, unauthorized use of a vehicle, credit card fraud, motor vehicle theft, possession of cocaine and speeding to elude officers.
As required by Police Department policy, the State Bureau of Investigation was requested to conduct an investigation of the shooting. SBI agents arrived quickly after being called and began their investigation immediately. At the conclusion of the investigation the report will be presented to District Attorney Colon Willoughby to determine if any criminal laws were violated by Officer Peele. The Internal Affairs Unit of the police department is conducting an administrative investigation into the shooting. At the conclusion of that investigation supervisory staff of the department will determine whether there were any violations of department policy.
Officer Peele became a sworn member of the department on June 4, 1999. She is assigned to the Downtown District and works in Field Operations. As required by department policy she is currently assigned to administrative duties.

buzz_knox
September 2, 2005, 05:16 PM
Officer Peele approached the driver’s side of the vehicle. The suspect placed the vehicle in gear and began to move forward. Officer Peele fired one shot striking the man under the left arm. The bullet traveled downward and did not exit the body.

Ouch. Not looking so good for her.

buzz_knox
September 2, 2005, 05:19 PM
Buzz...you're a thinking man, and I appreciate that. I saw my share of the 'us vs. them' crowd where I used to work, so I can see where you're coming from.

Thank you. People on both sides forget that we're in this together. If we aren't, then we start de facto social stratification, and that inevitably leads to . . . dangerous interaction.

Frandy
January 24, 2006, 08:39 PM
Many here thought she would be in big-time doo doo.

Well, here is the story in today's Snooze and Disturber:

http://www.wral.com/news/6408583/detail.html

The article:
Grand Jury Won't Indict Raleigh Officer In Fatal Shooting

POSTED: 5:30 pm EST January 24, 2006
UPDATED: 6:03 pm EST January 24, 2006
RALEIGH, N.C. -- A Wake County grand jury declined Tuesday to indict a Raleigh police officer in a fatal police shooting.

On Aug. 28, 2005, Officer Michelle Peele shot and killed Nyles Arrington while she was working off-duty security at a restaurant near downtown Raleigh. An earlier report stated that Peele shot the man after he got into her personal vehicle, refused to leave and then attempted to drive it away.
Raleigh Police Dept.

Report Of Incident
Peele had gotten out of her car and left her keys inside because she was distracted by a disturbance in the restaurant, La Rosa Linda Authentic Mexican Restaurant, the report said.
After the fatal incident, the State Bureau of Investigation conducted a criminal investigation of the shooting. District Attorney Colon Willoughby reviewed the investigation.

The Raleigh Police Department is finalizing its review of the administrative investigation that was conducted after the shooting to determine if there were violations of department policy. Peele remains on administrative duties pending the results of the review.

Previous Stories:

September 2, 2005: Police Issue Report After Fatal Shooting Involving Officer
http://www.wral.com/news/4929821/detail.html
August 31, 2005: 'I Fired At The Suspect,' Says Off-Duty Officer In Police Recording
http://www.wral.com/news/4916966/detail.html
August 29, 2005: Authorities Look Into Use Of Deadly Force In Raleigh Shooting
http://www.wral.com/news/4909804/detail.html
August 29, 2005: SBI, Internal Affairs Conducting Investigations After Deadly Raleigh Shooting
http://www.wral.com/news/4906724/detail.html

NineseveN
January 24, 2006, 10:12 PM
Now isn't that nice? :barf:

Oleg Volk
January 24, 2006, 10:25 PM
One car thief fewer out there. Nice indeed.


Now to extend the same treatment by law enforcement to the rest of us...

gunsmith
January 24, 2006, 10:39 PM
She should have called the police and left the job up to professionals


funny as heck!:evil:

Byron Quick
January 25, 2006, 12:23 AM
I stand with Oleg. I don't have a problem with the officer not being indicted. I just want private citizens to be able to make the same shot without indictment.


However, even with the dichotomy between the treatment of police officers and private citizens by grand jurys, the fact remains that we all owe a debt of thanks to this officer. Thanks to her, there is one less predator out there to prey on us, our families, and our friends.

The proper target here is our legislatures to lobby for the passage of laws which give all citizens the right to expanded self defense-not to foster an us vs. them stance with the police.

gunsmith
January 25, 2006, 06:59 AM
if some one did, my apology,(I didn't read the whole thread) I get tired of long threads that bash police...

Well any way here goes,....I BET HE WON'T DO THAT AGAIN

Vermont Guy
January 25, 2006, 10:31 AM
Now to extend the same treatment by law enforcement to the rest of us...

I'd say that is exactly the problem. Or did you mean to write "treatment of"?

Skeptic
January 25, 2006, 10:54 AM
Careful there Doc, when you lean that far to the left, your skirt rides up and exposes your bleeding heart.

JD.....

Now that is some funny stuff........ LMAO!!!

Can I use that later????

HankB
January 25, 2006, 11:07 AM
Didn't look through the whole thread, so this may have been said already . . . the theft and shooting took place at 1 AM.

Too bad this didn't occur in the Lone Star State. Under Texas law, shooting a thief at night is generally OK, as far as criminal law is concerned.

Hobie
January 25, 2006, 03:07 PM
...Under Texas law, shooting a thief at night is generally OK, as far as criminal law is concerned.I guess jacklighting is illegal, right?

Fred Fuller
January 25, 2006, 07:03 PM
Well... she got lucky, or something darn near like it. Most likely the DA did not push for an indictment or there would have been one. Can't see too many grand juries going counter to the wishes of a DA. Bet it wouldn't happen that way to John Q. NC Concealed Handgun Permit Holder if all other circumstances were the same.

Somebody call a game warden, running off and leaving the windows down and keys in the ignition of a nice shiny SUV in a public parking lot ought to at least qualify as hunting over a baited field.

lpl/nc

SSN Vet
January 26, 2006, 10:36 AM
You may not be able to use deadly force to stop a property theft.....but does that mean you can't use non-deadly force???

i.e. physically put yourself inbetween robber and the door.....or stand in front of car.

Now...armed with a car (which is definately a deadly weopon), isn't she defending her own life?

Who is obliged to back down?

If your not obliged to back down in protection of your property and the BG is so determined to take your property away from you that he is willing to do you bodilly harm....now it's self defense.

One less BG enjoying three hots and a cot on the taxpayer doll, while getting a master's in crime.

Why do so many on this forum instinctively respond by bashing the LEO.

People who want to break the law should think twice.....and do so at the risk of their life.

People who want to protect their property should not have to shake in their boots because the state might lock them up.

Maybe the state should be more concerned with preserving law and order and punishing / surpressing evil doers, than rushing to protect their rights.

IMHO, if you chose to commit a crime...you just chose to forfeit your rights to be protected by the state.

buzz_knox
January 26, 2006, 10:43 AM
Why do so many on this forum instinctively respond by bashing the LEO.

IMHO, if you chose to commit a crime...you just chose to forfeit your rights to be protected by the state.

1. Why do you perceive this as bashing? What she did was, in the absence of physical danger to herself (there was no evidence that the thief was coming at her), use deadly force to secure her property. That's not an allowed use of deadly force in that state yet they chose not to indict. The point that's been made is that if she didn't have a badge, she would have gone down. It's not bashing to state that she is being treated as a superior class of human being because of her occupation.

2. Whether or not you choose to commit a crime is irrelevant to the issue of your rights being infringed by the state. The Bill of Rights was developed to insure that your rights would be protected until you were fairly convicted of a crime. That was to insure that the innocent wouldn't be unfairly convicted, as was common in that day and age.

By the way, I can pretty much guarantee you've committed at least one crime in the ordinary course of the day. Shall we strip you of your rights for that?

gonzo_beyondo
January 26, 2006, 11:18 AM
Sure are alot of interesting threads about LEO here recently.

I have ZERO problem with competent, law-abiding, honest Police Officers doing their job. None, nada, zero problem with those fine men and women. Further, I'll go on to state that it's a lousy job and they get lousy pay, for what they have to deal with. I respect the hell out of anyone risking their neck to keep us safe, and doing a good job.

Its the relatively few (I hope) who are Not doing a good job, that I have a problem with. But ya know, in my life... out of all my associations and interactions with people, there has always been a few arseholes... therefore, I expect to see that trend in LEO, military, and anyplace else.

What bothers me about this story is simple to summarize:

I work MY ASS OFF... to be able to purchase my things, and often I end up on the Mac & Cheese diet because of it. Life is a continuing struggle to keep my head above water... as every cost I have increases practically monthly, while my household income is lower now than it was 10 years ago!

Why I do Not have the RIGHT to defend my property, as I do my life, is something I cannot understand. Right, property isn't as valuable as "precious life"... so they say...

My life gets pretty damn uncomfortable as I struggle to own and drive and insure my housing, auto, etc... And the scumbag crackhead who never worked a day in his life, getting ahold of my car, is not justifiable to me. This POS is not a "precious life"... he's a leech and a detriment to society.

This Officer probably felt the same way. I can't fault her for that.

I am pretty pissed off that SHE CAN, and I CAN'T though!

That's a pretty big problem. Why can I not shoot a felon fleeing in my property? I have to wonder if I'd really even care, if I was ever put into that position... It would be very hard to restrain my lead. :confused:

taliv
January 26, 2006, 02:09 PM
in other news, some female police can shoot...

k_dawg
January 26, 2006, 02:26 PM
in more other news, cop held to a different standard, and is treated differently than you or I would be. :cuss:

Robert J McElwain
January 26, 2006, 06:21 PM
The incident happened a 1 AM. It was dark, I'm sure it would have been difficult to see whether the perp was pointing a gun.

I know, if it had been my car being stolen, at that hour, I would have thought I saw a gun, and then it would have been self defense.

Bob

ingram
January 26, 2006, 06:29 PM
I love cops. Props to the cop with the flop to make the stop. I hope she ends up on top with a promotion hop.

BostonGeorge
January 26, 2006, 06:57 PM
The incident happened a 1 AM. It was dark, I'm sure it would have been difficult to see whether the perp was pointing a gun.

I know, if it had been my car being stolen, at that hour, I would have thought I saw a gun, and then it would have been self defense.

Bob




Wow.....just wow.

I suppose it would be ok for someone, much like myself, to shoot and kill you as long as the sun is down, because it was difficult to see whether you were pointing a gun or not?

Robert J McElwain
January 26, 2006, 10:40 PM
Wow.....just wow.

I suppose it would be ok for someone, much like myself, to shoot and kill you as long as the sun is down, because it was difficult to see whether you were pointing a gun or not?

That would depend on the proximity of one's IQ to ones shoe size.

Bob

k_dawg
January 26, 2006, 10:55 PM
Wow.....just wow.

I suppose it would be ok for someone, much like myself, to shoot and kill you as long as the sun is down, because it was difficult to see whether you were pointing a gun or not?


No, you are not an LEO... you'ld be serving around 15 years on death row, before they pump you full of chemicals and off you.

bp78
January 26, 2006, 11:07 PM
As a Raleigh resident, I'm just fine with the spirt of the law being enforced rather than the letter of the law.
Hopefully the outcome would have been the same had it been a CCP holder and not an officer.

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=local&id=3843414

Bruce333
January 27, 2006, 07:07 PM
I love cops. Props to the cop with the flop to make the stop. I hope she ends up on top with a promotion hop.Nope, no promotion. They fired her.

http://www.wral.com/news/6504308/detail.html

Raleigh Officer Fired After Investigation Of Off-Duty Shooting Death

POSTED: 4:10 pm EST January 27, 2006
UPDATED: 5:12 pm EST January 27, 2006

RALEIGH, N.C. -- A Raleigh police officer has been fired from her job after an internal investigation into the shooting death of a man as he tried to steal her personal vehicle.

Michelle Peele, who had been employed with the Raleigh Police Department since 1998, had been on administrative duties since she fatally shot Nyles Arrington as he allegedly attempted to steal her vehicle outside a Raleigh restaurant in August. A grand jury declined to indict her on charges related to the shooting on Tuesday.

The termination of Peele’s employment marked the end of the departmental investigation. No more details of the investigation are being released, citing state privacy laws.


Read The Raleigh Police Post-Shooting Report http://www.wral.com/news/4929771/detail.html

megatronrules
January 27, 2006, 07:22 PM
I think what some here are trying to say is that IF the officer was acting without cause then she should be fired and prosicuted. I don't having anything against cops and am not anti L.E. BUT I firmly believe that a cop who breaks the law SHOULD pay the same price you or I would for the same offense. If I caught someone stealing my cadillac and they tried to run me down and I shot them instead of jumping out of the way would I get away with it? Or should I have have stayed inside and let them take it?,after all it is insured.

My point is none of us were there and we don't know what exactly happened only she does. My point is cops do have alot more leway in these situations then any "joe citizen" does those are just the breaks (no pun intended) I guess. But she was fired so I guess the police felt she was to much of a liability I guess. Personally I would not kill someone over my car. If I saw someone through my window stealing my car I'd just call the police,unless they are a direct threat to me they are the cop's problem not mine.

Riktoven
January 27, 2006, 08:24 PM
Sure are alot of interesting threads about LEO here recently.

I have ZERO problem with competent, law-abiding, honest Police Officers doing their job. None, nada, zero problem with those fine men and women. Further, I'll go on to state that it's a lousy job and they get lousy pay, for what they have to deal with. I respect the hell out of anyone risking their neck to keep us safe, and doing a good job.

Its the relatively few (I hope) who are Not doing a good job, that I have a problem with. But ya know, in my life... out of all my associations and interactions with people, there has always been a few arseholes... therefore, I expect to see that trend in LEO, military, and anyplace else.

What bothers me about this story is simple to summarize:

I work MY ASS OFF... to be able to purchase my things, and often I end up on the Mac & Cheese diet because of it. Life is a continuing struggle to keep my head above water... as every cost I have increases practically monthly, while my household income is lower now than it was 10 years ago!

Why I do Not have the RIGHT to defend my property, as I do my life, is something I cannot understand. Right, property isn't as valuable as "precious life"... so they say...

My life gets pretty damn uncomfortable as I struggle to own and drive and insure my housing, auto, etc... And the scumbag crackhead who never worked a day in his life, getting ahold of my car, is not justifiable to me. This POS is not a "precious life"... he's a leech and a detriment to society.

This Officer probably felt the same way. I can't fault her for that.

I am pretty pissed off that SHE CAN, and I CAN'T though!

That's a pretty big problem. Why can I not shoot a felon fleeing in my property? I have to wonder if I'd really even care, if I was ever put into that position... It would be very hard to restrain my lead. :confused:


A - F***ing-Men !

Gonzo for President!

LiquidTension
January 28, 2006, 02:22 PM
The problem here is the same problem that we faced with eugenics and nazism. You want to get rid of the useless eaters? Then you will want to cull the race a little more, and a little more...etc. Pretty soon it will be a case of doing the job right and just getting rid of everyone who does not fit a specific profile.

Ah, there you go putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about getting rid of people that are worthless IMO, I simply stated that some people ARE worthless. Just because I don't place the same value on <insert whatever you like here> doesn't mean I want to abolish it, it just means exactly what I said - I don't value it as much. It was an opinion, not a plan to make the world a "better" place :rolleyes:

If you enjoyed reading about "Cop shoots/kills guy stealing her personal car" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!