[2dogs]

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/dekalb/0603/06ramirez.html

Cop shooter feared for his life, court told

By DAVID SIMPSON
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution



On the day he was arrested, Bautista Ramirez told police detectives he shot a Doraville police officer because he was afraid that "if I don't kill him, he's going to kill me."

Jurors in Ramirez's death penalty trial saw the videotaped interview, conducted in Spanish, and heard a simultaneous English translation for more than 90 minutes Thursday.

Doraville police investigator Hugo Arango was shot to death May 13, 2000, after approaching Ramirez, then 19, and his cousin, 16, outside the Eclipse nightclub.

The defense contends Ramirez acted in self-defense after Arango hit him in the head with a flashlight. Prosecutors say Ramirez killed Arango to avoid arrest for having a concealed weapon.

In his account to the detectives after his arrest May 18, 2000, Ramirez said Arango threatened his cousin, Alvaro Ramirez, for moving his hands after being frisked. "He shouted he was going to bust his head open," Bautista Ramirez said.

Moments later, the elder Ramirez said, Arango began frisking him and discovered the gun he had tucked into his waistband. Ramirez, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, had no permit for the gun.

Ramirez said he turned away when the officer reached for the gun, "and he hit me on the head. And I thought, 'Well, he's going to kill me.' "

He said Arango shoved him to the ground and fell on top of him from behind. Ramirez said he could see the "security guard" -- actually club manager David Contreras -- lunging toward him.

"I said, 'Well, they're going to kill me. And I shot him [Contreras] . . . but I couldn't see very well," Ramirez said, adding later he was "half-dizzy" because of the blow to his head.

The struggle continued on the ground, he said, and he reached around his body to fire two shots under his armpit toward Arango. Ramirez said he then reached over his shoulder and "saw his face" and fired again.

A medical examiner has testified Arango was killed almost instantly by the final shot to the head.

Ramirez's account of being struck with the flashlight was supported in earlier videotaped testimony by Alvaro Ramirez. Several witnesses have said Ramirez was bleeding from his head as he fled.

Contreras has testified he never saw Arango with the flashlight and that Arango and Ramirez were grappling face to face when Ramirez opened fire. But he appeared to change that account in his second stint on the witness stand by saying the men fell to the ground, apparently before shots were fired.

Most of Bautista Ramirez's videotaped interview was conducted by John King, then a police captain who now is Doraville police chief. In cross-examination Thursday, defense lawyer Thomas West pointed out Ramirez said he was roughed up by the arresting officers and had not slept for more than a day.

[standingbear]

does anybody know what happens to your sense of fear when someone(not just a cop) beats you on the head with a flashlight?

[jmbg29]

I'm glad to see the young man step up to the plate and admit to murder.

He should be taken outside the court, and hanged from the nearest tree. Hang his cousin right next to him as an accesory to murder.

Then round up the rest of the alien :cuss:ers and throw them the hell out of my COUNTRY!!!!!!


Illegal alien POS :cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :fire: :fire: :fire:

[Coronach]

does anybody know what happens to your sense of fear when someone(not just a cop) beats you on the head with a flashlight?It probably skyrockets. However, if you are resisting arrest and are armed, this kinda negates that argument. :scrutiny:

Mike

[jmbg29]

this kinda negates that argument.No "kinda" about it.

The rat :cuss: no habla? Tough :cuss:!

It's a damn shame that the flashlight hit wasn't fatal.:fire: :banghead: :fire:

[Ian]

Would your attitude change at all if the shooter were a 75-year-old WWII vet, jmbg? Where he came from, and whether or not he is 'legal' is of no relevance to the incident in question. I don't think there's enough info here to make a decision one way or another, but the previous actions of either party are immaterial in determining who was right and who was wrong.

[jmbg29]

Would your attitude change at all if the shooter were a 75-year-old WWII vet, jmbg?Talk about irrelevant. Where he came from, and whether or not he is 'legal' is of no relevance to the incident in question.It has everything to do with it. His very presence in this country is an illegal act. That alone makes him subject to arrest 24/7/365.I don't think there's enough info here to make a decision one way or another, He was in the processs of being arrested by a police officer. In his attempt to resist that arrest, he murdered a police officer. Open and shut case. Hang the convict, and let's move on. Next case.but the previous actions of either party are immaterial in determining who was right and who was wrong. See above

[CZ-75]

I think I'll second Ian.

I believe it's been relatively common practice in the past for police to rough up, shake down, and even kill illegals because the perception is that they can get away with it because the victims won't talk to investigators due to immigration status and their belief that even if they did, they don't know which officers are covering for the bad ones.

[oldfart]

Had the defendant reached into his pocket for a cell-phone and the officer shot him, the officer would use the tried and true "I thought he was reaching for a gun" defense and walk free.

I'd like to see the Mexican population back in Mexico too, but I'm fed up with police officers shooting people and getting away with it with nothing more than a few days of paid leave. I've watched cops do just what this one is accused of and never suffer a single repercussion. When was the last time you heard of a police officer going to prison for killing an unarmed citizen? Is that because police personnel are superior to all other people?

Until citizens-- regardless of what country they are legal citizens of-- have the same rights as the police we will live in a police state.

[Feanaro]

Murder eh? Sounds to me like the guy acted too rashly but given the situation I think he could have been justified. Some cops, not many but some, like to hit people. A lot. Whether this man was an illegal or not he feared the cop would beat him to death, the cop had proven he was capable of violence and he reacted. But that is fine with you, eh jmbg, 'long as it happens to illegals?

The idea that simply because you can be arrested negates your right to defense when someone attacks you is absurd. He could have been arrested anytime and that's what the cop was doing. The cop also happened to threatened the man, both with his little flashlight stunt and by saying he was "going to bust his head open."

He is an illegal, so what? That has no weight on the charge of murder, the question is did he act out of genuine fear for his life? Whether you are here legally or illegally the RIGHT to self defense can't be taken away from you.

It is likely that he might have acted to save his own hide from arrest. But you appear to assume that is the case simply because he is an illegal. Real fair eh?

[Gmac]

But all cops are perfect, aren't they? Lots of people on this board seem to think so.:confused:

[Jim March]

Lesse, we have:

1) attempted flight

2) being an illegal

3) carrying a gun

Uhhh...guess what? NONE of those justify lethal force.

A metal D-cell flashlight upside the head is lethal force.

Self defense against a cop that is trying to kill you without legal justification is proper.

If that's what happened, I hope he gets off (and gets deported of course, or spends some jail time for the gun carry first at worst).

[LawDog]

Somebody check me on this, but the chain of events seesm to go like this:1)Cop is frisking suspects.

2)During the frisk, Suspect #2 keeps moving around.

3)Suspect #1 claims cop threatened Suspect #2 because of the movement.

4)Cop finds gun in waistband of Suspect #1.

5)Cop tries to remove gun.

6)Suspect #1 decides he wants to wander off - after cop finds gun.

7)Suspect #1 gets smacked with a Streamlight - either before or after cop and Suspect #1 wind up grappling on the ground.

Folks, if I'm conducting a lawful arrest and I find a gun during the frisk, I'm going to relieve my arrestee of his gun.

If, when I am removing said gun, the arrestee decides he needs to make a sudden move, I'm here to tell you he's going to be lucky if all he gets is a Mag-Light in the teeth.

If I'm in close to a suspect and reaching for his gun, and he decides to jerk away while I'm taking his gun, we're liable to find out just exactly how fast an HK can get to slide-lock.

LawDog

[12-34hom]

Thank you; Lawdog.

If this subject had not entered this country illegally; he would still be alive = correct?

12-34hom.

[mons meg]

Lawdog, I'm with you...don't they call that a "furtive" motion? I mean, he moved after the arresting officer found the gun??

All bets are off, whether he's from south of the border or a Medal of Honor winner.

[Ian]

His very presence in this country is an illegal act. That alone makes him subject to arrest 24/7/365. Sure, he is subject to arrest for illegal immigration 24/7/365. But he is not subject to arrest for murder because of that.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would your attitude change at all if the shooter were a 75-year-old WWII vet, jmbg?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Talk about irrelevant. On the contrary, it's very relevant. If your opinion of the case WOULD change if the arrestee were of a different social group, then your perception of the event is clearly biased, and you have no business judging the arrestee.

I'm quite willing to believe that this guy shot a cop to avoid arrest, if that is proven to have been the case. But his guilt depends on what he did, not who he is.

[jmbg29]

Sure, he is subject to arrest for illegal immigration 24/7/365. But he is not subject to arrest for murder because of that.He is subject to arrest and conviction of murder because both he and the witnesses agree that he shot a cop that was trying to arrest him. He is guilty because after he was stopped and frisked (due to a fight that he was alledged to have been party to) he then decided to resist arrest because the cop had found a gun during the frisking process. Then he was hit in the head by the cop for continuing to resist and move away after the gun had been discovered.

He killed in order to save himself from jail. If it were otherwise, he would have gone limp, and done none of the things that even a very young mentally challenged child knows will cause the police to resort to violence in order to control the situation/prevent escape/etc.

I say give him his wish, skip jail, and string him, and his cousin - the accessory to murder - up

So, if he was a 75 year old WWII vet - from the U.S. or :cuss:ing Mexico, he would still be guilty of the commission of murder in the second degree with aggravating circumstances because he committed the offense while trying to resist arrest.

The idea that simply because you can be arrested negates your right to defense when someone attacks you is absurd. He could have been arrested anytime and that's what the cop was doing. The cop also happened to threatened the man, both with his little flashlight stunt and by saying he was "going to bust his head open."By your logic, a bank robber would be justified in killing anyone in the bank that tried to use force to stop him, if he just has the good sense to say "Duh-huh...Sorry your honor. I was in fear for my life...huh-huh...I had to kill 'em all sir."

The POS got the flashlight to the head for thrashing around while the cop was trying to get his gun away from him, and arrest him. He wasn't struck at random, and he wasn't struck without reason. And by your own (and his own admission) he was warned to stop resisting arrest. "going to bust his head open."HE decided to resist arrest, and escalated that resistance to the point of MURDER!!!!!! It is likely that he might have acted to save his own hide from arrest. But you appear to assume that is the case simply because he is an illegal. Real fair eh?No. I find him guilty because he has no right to resist arrest. That he chose to resist arrest is what got him hit in the head.

That he is an illegal rat-:cuss: POS only adds to the outrage of his crime.But that is fine with you, eh jmbg, 'long as it happens to illegals?What will be fine with me is if this illegal gets the eternal dirt nap that he so richly deserves.

[Standing Wolf]

The defense contends Ramirez acted in self-defense after Arango hit him in the head with a flashlight. Prosecutors say Ramirez killed Arango to avoid arrest for having a concealed weapon.

1. Hang the illegal alien murderer.

2. Hang his assault lawyer next.

[Matthew Courtney]

Hitting someone in the head with a maglite is an application of lethal force. Is lethal force justified in Georgia to prevent resisting arrest by flight? If it is, then the defendant had no right to self defense. If it is not, then the defendant retained the right to defend himself from unlawful excessive force.

[TexasVet]

Hitting someone in the head with a maglite is an application of lethal force.

Funny, if I apply "lethal force" the recipent isn't gonna be able to shoot me afterward. Must have been somewhat "less than lethal" in application. Really reaching for any reason (no matter how remotely plausible) to make this a bad shoot, are we?

Seems to me (and almost any court except in a few of the People's Republics that used to be states) that once a cop finds a gun on a criminal suspect and the criminal attempts to move away, the officer has the right to use any force needed to protect himself and any bystanders.

[TheeBadOne]

Really reaching for any reason (no matter how remotely plausible) to make this a bad shoot, are we?
No kidding. I'm waiting for someone to say the cop planted the gun on him........... :rolleyes:

[jimpeel]

He should be taken outside the court, and hanged from the nearest tree. Hang his cousin right next to him as an accesory to murder.

It's a damn shame that the flashlight hit wasn't fatal.

Open and shut case. Hang the convict, and let's move on. Next case.

I say give him his wish, skip jail, and string him, and his cousin - the accessory to murder - up

What will be fine with me is if this illegal gets the eternal dirt nap that he so richly deserves.

You're just a law and order sorta guy, now, aren't you.

I recall you made similar "take em out and hang em" exhortations in our debate on John Walker Lindh on TFL at http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=101133

You wanted to summarily hang him as well.

[Coronach]

His immigration status is irrelevant.

The fact that he was armed and resisting arrest, however, is completely relevant. If he was reaching for the gun, all bets are off. Smack him in the melon with the flashlight, empty your sidearm into him, whichever you have a chance to do, but you better do it NOW because the game is on.

Obviously, we don't have access to all the info in this case (my constant lament), but the fact that we have arrived at the sentencing stage is what we in LE refer to as "a clue."

Mike

[jmbg29]

You wanted to summarily hang him as well.If by summarily you mean taking a person that was caught fair and square doing what they were/are guilty of, and putting them to death, then yes.

In both cases, good men died because they failed to kill the rats first, and said rats are still stealing my oxygen.

[Shweboner]

No excuse for this. This guy shot a cop who was doing his job. Hitting a guy with a flashlight is not reason enough to committ MURDER. Especially when he is being arrested. It would be a travesty if this ????stain gets off.

I have enough common sense to know that when i am being arrested, especially while carrying, to not act like that...


~Brian

[Mr. James]

Thank you, Coronach,

And Shweboner.

His immigration status is irrelevant. He's involved in a brawl, he's searched by the responding officer, and as the officer discovers a lethal weapon, he turns away in such a way as, apparently, to separate himself from Investigator Arango ... perhaps to draw that weapon and use it?

Disclaimers for the partial facts reported, but this perfidious son of a slattern needs nine grams. (Well, not really, but he needs a life-time darning socks for Bubba.)

Horrible story. The illegitimate son of a dog needs to accept he deliberately killed an officer solely to avoid arrest.

:( :fire:

[Byron Quick]

Folks...keep it civil or it gets shut down.

[tyme]

Solely to avoid arrest... for carrying a concealed weapon? If the defendant were an American citizen, would everyone still approve of his conviction and possibly his death?

On one hand there's the tragic death of an officer. On the other, a potential arrest of a person for illegal carry. The balance suggests that homicide over possible arrest for a fairly low-level crime is not justifiable. I don't think the consideration is that simple, though. If it were, and firearms were banned tomorrow, nobody would be morally or ethically justified in doing anything about it other than turning in firearms or, if caught, permitting the state to cart them to prison (merely passing through the process of conviction by an adequately indoctrinated jury pool). Or perhaps do violations of the RKBA only merit defensive violence, if that's what happened in this case, if the police go house to house? Is there no moral sanctuary for those who choose to defend through violence the act of unlicensed concealed carry?

[Coronach]

And if the officer were detaining or arresting him for his involvement in the aformentioned fight? He would still be disarmed, and we're right back where we started.

Mike

[Jim March]

In response to:

Hitting a guy with a flashlight is not reason enough to committ MURDER.

That is NOT true, when it's aimed at the head.

If a cop tries to arrest me, and in the middle of the process gives me reason to think he's tryng to kill me, I'm going to do my level best to kill them.

Applying a metal-bodied flashlight to my skull IS an attempted killing. It doesn't matter that the attempt didn't succeed; what matters is, the attempt told the Mexican everything he needed to know about the cop's intent.

Look, you know how cops can carry batons and use 'em on people who are unarmed? That's because they've had training in how NOT to kill with it. But if they *violate* that training, it's a whole 'nuther thing and the one thing they *cannot* do with a baton (or large Maglight) is go upside the head with it.

Lawdog, back me up on that point: you've HAD that training, you know what I'm talking about.

Now, what I *don't* know is whether or not the Mexican put the cop in fear of losing her life *before* she wacked him upside the head with the flashlight. (And no, just the carrying of a gun doesn't cut it - y'all do NOT want to take the position that cops can gun any of us down the instant they see a gun, do you?) So I'm not saying one way or the other whether or not this was murder.

I'm saying that the possibility exists that this was a case of lawful self defense on the Mexican's part.

[jimpeel]

When I first moved to Colorado, about 1995, there was a case where a guy shot a cop in, I believe, Denver. He stated at his trial that he shot the cop out of fear that the cop was about to kill him. It was a jury trial and he was aquitted.

No person has any duty to allow themselves to be killed by another -- whether it is under color of lawful authority or not. All of the killing done in Nazi Germany was done under color of lawful authority yet noone here would agree that the victims had any duty to allow themselves to be killed.

[Coronach]

Jim March-

Respectfully, please remember that this issue was already addressed at the gentleman's trial for murder. I'm not saying that every conviction returned by a jury is correct, but until I see something solid, I'm really not too inclined to second guess a jury of my peers on questions of fact. Especially based upon a news report. They found him guilty. While by no means absolute, that means something.

Mike

[12-34hom]

Jim March, Using a baton or ASP and striking someone in the head area is only justified in a lethal force situation.

My training, target areas are , arm & leg areas. [elbows & knees if situation warrants it]. No striking the back, spine, or head areas unless your engaged in a deadly force situation.

12-34hom.

[Coronach]

Ditto.

[jmbg29]

Now, what I *don't* know is whether or not the Mexican put the cop in fear of losing her life *before* she wacked him upside the head with the flashlight. Note to cop killers:
Be sure to kill the cop that tries to arrest you, and at least some of the folks around here will give you the benefit of the doubt.

Dead cops tell no tales.


Everyone has the right to defend themselves. What they do not have, is a right to resist arrest and escalate the situation to the point of murder. Nobody has that right. If the killer had not resisted arrest in the first place, it is very likely HE NEVER WOULD HAVE BEEN HIT ANYWHERE.

He was an illegal alien thug, carrying a gun. He knew what that meant. He knew it meant jail. He figured he would fight it out. To the delight of many of you, he won the first round.

Let's hope that the jury members have a conscience and vote to put the mad dog down. :fire: :fire: :fire:

[jmbg29]

In his account to the detectives after his arrest May 18, 2000, Ramirez said Arango threatened his cousin, Alvaro Ramirez, for moving his hands after being frisked. "He shouted he was going to bust his head open," Bautista Ramirez said.How curious. I have to pay for this rat to be interrogated in Spanish, but the rat knew exactly what the cop said in English. He knew precisely what the cop meant. Isn't that something? And gee, what the cop said (according to the rat) makes a perfect fit for his I-had-to-kill-the-cop-because-he-had-me-shaking-in-my-boots defense.

Ramirez said he turned away when the officer reached for the gun, "and he hit me on the head. And I thought, 'Well, he's going to kill me.' "Well would you looky there... The rat's own words, and HE WASN'T HIT until after he decided to turn away!!!! Oh, and why did he turn away???? Let's just see what the rat has to say about that shall we? he turned away when the officer reached for the gun, That's right. If he had turned away AFTER the cop had taken the gun, he couldn't have used it to kill the cop. A smart one, this rat.

He certainly has a bunch of you pegged. :scrutiny: :uhoh: :barf: :barf: :barf:

[jmbg29]

When I first moved to Colorado, about 1995, there was a case where a guy shot a cop in, I believe, Denver. He stated at his trial that he shot the cop out of fear that the cop was about to kill him. It was a jury trial and he was aquitted.A Denver jury found a cop killer not guilty? You mean the same Denver that fights tooth and claw to prevent innocent citizens from defending themselves with CCWs, from cop killers and other assorted trash?

Say it isn't so. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Next you will be telling me that certain areas of the country are notorious for jury nullification, despite the fact that said jury is convinced of the defendants guilt.

:barf:

[gunsmith]

can we donate to the dead officers family?
if a ww2 vet killed a mexican cop,how fair would his trial
be?
can LEO's get bigger flashlight?
please say a prayer for the LEO's family

[NukemJim]

Everyone has the right to defend themselves. What they do not have, is a right to resist arrest and escalate the situation to the point of murder. Nobody has that right. If the killer had not resisted arrest in the first place, it is very likely HE NEVER WOULD HAVE BEEN HIT ANYWHERE.

From the facts that have been given on this board I agree with the above.

The immigration status of the killer is irrelevant. A LEO was killed by someone they were trying to lawfully arrest.

Perhaps I am too innocent and naive but I really doubt that a LEO who was going to kill someone would attempt to arrest them first.

Look at it from the LEO viewpoint. Multiple suspects, noncoopereating, firearm found even if it is against policy I could see how someone might use unauthorized blows.

IF HE DID WHAT THE LEO SAID NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE HAPPENED AND THE LEO WOULD STILL BE ALIVE.

Think about the LEOs right to go home at the end of their shift.

NukemJim

[Tim Burke]

Let's look at this in a different light.
You wake up to the sound of someone in your house. You get the drop on him, put him up against the wall, and spot a gun tucked into his waistband. You decide to remove it (yeah, I know, this is a bad idea without back-up, but cops get faced with similar problems all the time). As you reach for the gun, the guy turns away.

What are you going to do?
If you're smart, you are going to shoot him. Why? Because in that scenario, it is reasonable to believe that he is turning to maintain control of the gun. If he's intent on maintaining control of the gun, it's because he wants to use it. In short, that move is a lethal threat to you, and you are allowed to use lethal force in response to that threat.

Yes, a flashlight upside the head is lethal force, but lethal force was warranted. My suspicion is that Officer Arango didn't swing the light as hard as he could, because he thought that he could prevail with a lesser degree of force, but we will never know.

In order to be justified in using lethal force, one can not be the instigator of the conflict. This turned into a conflict when the defendant turned. The officer was completely within his rights in all of his actions. I accept every word of the defendant's testimony as truth, and he has confessed to killing a LEO in the performance of his duties.

[Shweboner]

what some of us seem to be forgetting is that the defendant is our enemy. He is a criminal, in this country ilegally. One other thing some are forgetting is that this mans defence is that he was acting out of fear for his life.... but what about that officer? Could they have not feared for their own life?? I sure as hell would. A D-Cell MagLite to the head is 100x better than a bullet in the head, which is what he might well have gotten.

There should be no question of this. If this cop was out to kill him, he could have shot him as he turned away... which seems to me would have been justified because he probably was reaching for the gun... and eventually did. Sounds like the LEO was trying to get control of the suspect, not kill him.

If you committ a crime and get caught, be a man and accept the responsibility for what you do. Not try to kill people to get away. Besides this guy wasn't even looking at that much time if convicted... now he's a cop killer and will not know freedom ever again.


~Brain

[jmbg29]

If this cop was out to kill him, he could have shot him as he turned away... The long and short of it is that if the cop was the rogue killer/abuser some of the people here make him out to be, then he would have put the flashlight upside the head of the cousin when the cousin made his first move. The cop didn't swing anything until the killer tried - and succeeded - to retain control of the gun.

Instead, the two rats worked in concert to eventually kill the arresting officer. The really sick part is that they found their own little cheerleading squad right here at THR of all places.

Maybe you guys - you know who you are - would like to donate some money to those two nice, but terrorized by the cops, misunderstood punks.

[Jeff White]

We don't have all of the facts but the officer's actions seem to be within the guidlines for the use of deadly force.

In his account to the detectives after his arrest May 18, 2000, Ramirez said Arango threatened his cousin, Alvaro Ramirez, for moving his hands after being frisked. "He shouted he was going to bust his head open," Bautista Ramirez said.

First off, we don't know if Officer Arango spoke Spanish or not. Did he threaten his cousin in English or Spanish? How did they understand what was said if it was in English? Secondly the officer was on the second rung of the force continuum ladder, by verbally demanding compliance. Maybe his choice of words wouldn't have been what the screen writers of Adam 12 would have had Martin Milner or Kent McCord say in a similar situation, but then we really don't know what was said. Either way it was a verbal command.

Moments later, the elder Ramirez said, Arango began frisking him and discovered the gun he had tucked into his waistband. Ramirez, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, had no permit for the gun.

We don't know if this was a Terry search or search incident to arrest, but either way it was a legal search and the officer was just being safe. The fact Ramirez didn't have a permit for the gun is irrelevant at this point.

Ramirez said he turned away when the officer reached for the gun, "and he hit me on the head. And I thought, 'Well, he's going to kill me.' "

This action is the justification for the use of deadly force. Officer Arango discovered the weapon and when he tried to secure it for his and Ramirez's safety, Ramirez resisted by turning away. At this point we have Officer Arango knowing that Ramirez is armed with a handgun, and fighting Ramirez for control of it. A blow to the head from a flashlight or baton is totally acceptable. Ramirez used deadly force against Officer Arango at this point. Officer Arango had to assume that Ramirez had means and motivation to cause him death or great bodily harm if he was allowed to get control of the weapon (which he did in fact do). Officer Arango would have been justified in shooting Ramirez at this point.

Had Ramirez not resisted arrest and tried to maintain control of his weapon, this would not have happened. I doubt that he would have been hit in the head with a flashlight. Officer Arango used restraint by not shooting Ramirez once he had opened a reactive distance with the blow from the flashlight. From the account it looks like he went to ground with Ramirez to attempt to disarm him and at this point Ramirez murdered him. This thread isn't about the tactics used, but about if deadly force in the form of the blow to the head from the flashlight was justified. From the account I read here, I have to say that it was. This whole incident probably took less then a minute.

All you guys who say that Officer Arango was wrong to hit Ramirez in the head, put yourself in Arango's shoes. There you are, responding to a fight call, you get some kind of control of the situation, begin searching the suspects for weapons, discover a firearm in possesion of one of the suspects and he immediately resists. There you are, close enough to grapple with him, the only weapon you have in your hand is a flashlight and the suspect turns away when you reach for his weapon. We don't have all the facts, but I would bet Ramirez turned away rather violently and forcefully, perhaps in an attempt to open up a reactive distance to draw and shoot the officer. Think about fights you've seen or participated in. They aren't choreographed slow motion affairs. I would bet this was over with in seconds. I also would bet that Ramirez would have shot Officer Arango if he hadn't been hit in the head. This was all about an attempt to escape, not self defense.

Jeff

[Robby from Long Island]

For starters, let me just say I'm not a member of the LE community and never have been.

What I can't understand is how so many members of THR can be so quick to want to defend the bad guy instead of the cop. Exactly how many of you heros think you could do a better job of diffusing a possibly dangerous situation than this cop did?

Your a PO in what was probably a minority community frisking a couple of guys acting antsy, not following your commands and suddenly finding one of this guys has a gun. Tell me that your adrenalin is not going to go off the chart. And I'm sure the "witnesses" are really going side with the cop even if they know he was in the right. Yeah, sure.

This piece of trash was in the country illegally, carrying a gun illegally, refusing to follow the cops orders and then decides to kill him. The fact the cop (the good guy) only belted the illegal (the bad guy) in the head with a 4 cell to me shows great restraint. Under the circumstances, putting a round through the punk should have been considered justifiable. But then again in this world of "Political Correctness" even yelling at a suspect is thought of as Harassment.

The fact of the matter is, an awful lot of these illegal aliens coming up from south of the border were dirtbags in their homeland and are dirtbags here. They know their going to a country where excessive tolerance is preached and their going to find a lot of sympathizers thanks to liberal media all over America.

The sad truth is, a good cop is dead and a lot people in this country are are only hearing the story of this "poor Mexican" trying to better himself in the land of the free.

I read some of the responses posted here and I can't help but wonder what kind board members are out there.

It's a shame some of you tough guys don't have to do the job that some of these cops do, maybe then you wouldn't be so tough.

[Coronach]

What I can't understand is how so many members of THR can be so quick to want to defend the bad guy instead of the cop.Because, Robby, this was a conflict between a cop and a gunowner. Therefore, the gun owner is right, and the cop is wrong.

You, apparently, didn't get the memo. [/sarcasm]

Mike ;)

[nemesis]

Ian said.........
I don't think there's enough info here to make a decision one way or another, but the previous actions of either party are immaterial in determining who was right and who was wrong.

As a means to making a decision "one way or another", we should consider that the gentleman in question was in the country illegally, in possession of a weapon illegally and concealing said weapon illegally. I'd be willing to venture a guess and say that maybe he had something to hide and was prepared to use deadly force to achieve his aims.

On the other hand, these poor people only come here to better their miserable lives and they do contribute countless tax dollars to the economy.

I vote that we let him go so that he can get back to contributing to the community.

[Sir Galahad]

There are some people who just hate any authority no matter who or what it is. They hate cops and they hate the government. I'm glad to say I am not one of them. If I make mistakes in my life, I know it's my fault. It's not "The Man" keeping me down. When the CHP officer stopped me for speeding many, many years ago, I was speeding. I paid my fine. I don't still blame that cop for doing his job and I suspect there are some cop-haters who still have their small clothes in a wad because a cop gave them a ticket years back. I have personally been harrased by police on two occasions. Do I still blame ALL cops for that? No. Do I think cops are right all the time because they are cops? No. But I do know when an officer is searching a suspect, that suspect better hold still if in possession of a weapon. If a cop was searching me and turned up a handgun and tried to remove it and I jerked away, I would fully expect to be shot right there and consider myself lucky if all I got was a knot on the head. I know these things and don't whine about it. All in all, cops do a hard job for little pay. The cops who died in the WTC on 9/11 weren't in there beating poor, illegal aliens. They were trying to save peoples' lives. How about some folks remembering that? Oh, I forgot...you don't NEED government or police because you're so evolved. :rolleyes:

[Matthew Courtney]

I don't see folks here defending this man particularly. What I see is people pointing out that, just as law abiding citizens sometimes find themselves in situations where cops justifiably shoot them, cops can find themselves in situations where they may justifiably be shot. Just because a man has a badge does not make him immune to people who might reasonably percieve his actions to be life threatening, especially if he is not in uniform.

[jmbg29]

What I see is people pointing out that, just as law abiding citizens sometimes find themselves in situations where cops justifiably shoot them, cops can find themselves in situations where they may justifiably be shot.Then point out if you will, exactly what the cop did before the suspects resisted arrest, that made his being shot justifiable.

Keep in mind, that both of the suspects, and all of the eyewitnesses agree (and freely admit) that the suspects made the first moves that started the verbal command, and the subsequent striking of the second suspect by the officer, after the second suspect refused to relinquish control of his firearm.

Other than that, I really don't care about your, or anyone else's "what if", or "it coulda been", or "there once was".

Start another thread called "Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda" for all I care.

What matters here is what the defendant himself described: MURDER!!!!!

[Jeff White]

Matthew,

Are you saying that Officer Arango deserved to be shot, because he hit Ramirez in the head with a flashlight after Ramirez resisted being disarmed? :scrutiny:

I only want to know one thing. What would you have done in if you were in Officer Arango's shoes that night?

Jeff

[Matthew Courtney]

Going only by the posted article, which is all the information that I have, there is nothing to indicate that the officers were in uniform or properly identified themselves as LEO's.

Justification of deadly force has nothing to do with "deserved" or what the decedent did. It has everything to do with what the person using force reasonably believes at the time that they use force.

There are many examples of police killing citizens who were doing nothing wrong. The police were justified only because they wrongly percieved the citizen to pose a threat. I will cite Amado Diablo and Vicki Weaver as examples. Mr. Diablo was unarmed and had taken out his wallet. Mrs. Weaver was unarmed and was holding her baby.

[Coronach]

What was that Lawdog said? Something about seeing how fast you can get your sidearm to slidelock? That'd be my vote. ;)

Mike

[Jeff White]

Matthew,

Justification of deadly force has nothing to do with "deserved" or what the decedent did. It has everything to do with what the person using force reasonably believes at the time that they use force.

Exactly....so what part of

Ramirez said he turned away when the officer reached for the gun,

makes it so hard to understand why Officer Arango's next action was to strike Ramirez in the head with the flashlight? Wouldn't he reasonably have believed that Ramirez was armed with a weapon that could kill or maim him and he must take immediate action to save his life?

I know we have only part of the story here, but don't you think that if self defense was a viable defense, it would have been argued in the murder trial, not the penalty phase? Do you really think that if there was anything wrong with Officer Arango identifying himself as a police officer, it wouldn't have been brought up in the murder trial? Remember, Ramirez has already been convicted of murder.

Personally, I would have hit Ramirez as hard as I could with whatever I had in my hand when he attempted to keep me from disarming him, but instead of going to ground with him trying to recover the weapon, I'd have shot to slide lock, right along with Lawdog, Mike and every other police officer I know.

The bottom line is that this became a deadly force situation as soon as Ramirez tried to avoid being disarmed. Ramirez is alive and Officer Arango is dead because Ramirez was the better ground fighter that night.

I can see where Ramirez may have reasonably believed he was in mortal danger after he was struck with the flashlight. But then what else could anyone expect. I don't think you'll convince me that he believed he was in mortal danger when he started the entire sequence of events by turning away when Officer Arango reached into his waistband to recover Ramirez's weapon.

Ramirez started the entire chain of events by resisting being disarmed. What was Officer Arango supposed to do? Not respond to the call? Stand there dumbfounded hoping Ramirez didn't shoot him when he turned away to keep from being disarmed? :banghead:

What would you have done?

Jeff

[Coronach]

Going only by the posted article, which is all the information that I have, there is nothing to indicate that the officers were in uniform or properly identified themselves as LEO's.Now you're being silly, and little more. The same article also says that the shooter was convicted by a jury of his peers for murder. You're willing to go out on a limb hypothesizing, and yet ignore some glaring bits of information present in the article itself.

I would call that bias, but thats just me.

Mike

[Matthew Courtney]

The article says," death penalty trial". In my interpretation, a trial determines guilt. I read this as being a proceeding to determine guilt. If indeed the defendant has been convicted, assertions of self defense are irrelavent. Those who commit murder should die for their crimes.

I do need to add that there are circumstances where opposing parties would be both justified in using deadly force based on their differing reasonable assessments of circumstances.

This sort of thing can arise with undercover officers making arrests, citizens lawfully engaged in defense of themselves or others, and when police serving warrants go to the wrong house.

[Matthew Courtney]

Now you're being silly, and little more. The same article also says that the shooter was convicted by a jury of his peers for murder. You're willing to go out on a limb hypothesizing, and yet ignore some glaring bits of information present in the article itself.

I have reviewed the original post and the link. Nothing in either indicates that the shooter has been convicted. The proceeding is refered to as a trial. Trials are held to determine guilt. Proceedings that hear evidence for the purposes of sentence are normally referered to as trial penalty phases or sentencing hearings.

I am neither hypothesizing or ignoring anything. You sir, are the one who is either making things up, or making reference to information which I do not have available.

If there is more information available, please post a link.

[Jeff White]

A search of the AJC archives brought 63 hits. Reading the synopsis (I'm too cheap to pay for the articles) I've learned that Officer Arango was questioning 3 suspects about a car theft when the shooting occurred.

Cop's death 'execution,' chief asserts
Author: Maurice Tamman; Staff Date: May 16, 2000 Publication: The Atlanta Journal and The Atlanta Constitution Page Number: C1 Word Count: 1199

A shot already had shattered Hugo Fernando Arango's thigh as he lay prone on the ground outside the Eclipse nightclub early Saturday morning.

But Bautista Toledo Ramirez, 22, stood over him anyway and fired a shot into the 24-year-old Doraville police officer's neck, Doraville police Chief Ron Davis said Monday. That bullet severed his brain stem and effectively killed him.

"He then put (the gun) right on Hugo's badge and pulled the trigger," Davis said.

This article would seem to suggest that Officer Arango was in uniform the night he was murdered.

Shooting scenario changes
Doraville police now say only one man attacked Officer Hugo Arango.
Author: Maurice Tamman; Staff Date: May 17, 2000 Publication: The Atlanta Journal and The Atlanta Constitution Page Number: B3 Word Count: 421

Only one of the three young men originally suspected in the execution-style slaying of a police officer at a Doraville nightclub Saturday actually participated in the attack, investigators said Tuesday.

Still, all three remain at large.

Doraville police Capt. Robert Brown said police believe the suspected shooter, Bautista Toledo Ramirez, 22, of Roswell, and his cousin, Alvarro Duarte "Gordo" Ramirez, 16, of Canton, are still in the metro Atlanta area.

This article suggests that Officer Arango was liked and respected in the Hispanic Community.

Buford Highway merchants lose a friend
Doraville police officer shot outside nightclub was link between cops, Hispanic community.
Author: Maurice Tamman; Staff Date: May 18, 2000 Publication: The Atlanta Journal and The Atlanta Constitution Page Number: JA2 Word Count: 725

Drive along Buford Highway, and the business signs are more likely to be in Korean or Spanish than English, a bustling version of the immigrant neighborhoods seen in New York City a century ago.

On Saturday, one of the heroes of that community was killed outside the Eclipse nightclub. This week, the community has mourned the loss of 24-year-old Hugo Fernando Arango with a pronounced sense of grief because he was one of their own.

Of course because he was so sure his actions were self defense, he hid out for a week.

THE MANHUNT IS OVER: A job that takes 'whatever it costs'
35 law enforcement agencies cooperated in the search for a suspected cop killer
Author: Maurice Tamman; Staff Date: May 19, 2000 Publication: The Atlanta Journal and The Atlanta Constitution Page Number: E3 Word Count: 899

Hundreds of police officers -- dusted with red clay, soaked in sweat and determined to find a man suspected of killing one of their own -- combed two miles of Cherokee County woods Wednesday and Thursday in what became the largest manhunt in Georgia history.

The search for Bautista Toledo Ramirez, who is suspected of shooting to death a Doraville police officer, began around the Hickory Flats area Wednesday night with a platoon of about 150 officers and ended Thursday at 2 p.m.

Ramirez quickly confessed.

Suspect confessed, police say
Investigators recover gun believed used to kill cop
Author: Maurice Tamman; Staff Date: May 19, 2000 Publication: The Atlanta Journal and The Atlanta Constitution Page Number: A1 Word Count: 758

Bautista Toledo Ramirez has confessed to killing Doraville police Detective Hugo Arango, Doraville Police Chief Ron Davis said today.

He said that Ramirez, 22, confessed and waived his right to an attorney during an interrogation late Thursday night. He spoke with Doraville detectives and agents from the GBI and FBI.

This article states Arango was investigating burglary to motor vehicles that night. Hardly an undercover sting operation.

19-year-old charged in Doraville cop slaying
Author: Maurice Tamman; Staff Date: June 23, 2000 Publication: The Atlanta Journal and The Atlanta Constitution Page Number: C5 Word Count: 334

A DeKalb County grand jury indicted Bautista Ramirez on murder charges Thursday morning in connection with the slaying of a Doraville police officer May 13.

DeKalb District Attorney J. Tom Morgan announced soon afterward that he would seek the death penalty.

Investigators say Ramirez, 19, killed Detective Hugo Arango after a scuffle outside the Eclipse nightclub on Buford Highway.

Arango had been investigating reports that three young men were breaking into cars

[Jeff White]

I will have to stand corrected. This June 3d article states that Ramirez faces the death penalty if convicted.

Cop death evidence inconclusive
Author: DAVID SIMPSON

Staff Date: June 3, 2003 Publication: Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The (GA) Page Number: B6 Word Count: 281

DeKalb County's chief medical examiner testified Monday that medical evidence would support either the prosecution or defense explanations of the shooting death of Doraville police investigator Hugo Arango.

Bautista Ramirez, an illegal immigrant from Mexico who was living in Cherokee County, is on trial in DeKalb County Superior Court and could be sentenced to death if convicted of murdering Arango

So the facts haven't been established by a jury yet.

I am going to stand by my read on the original story. From what I've learned from reading the synopsis, Officer Arango was dispatched to the Eclipse nightclub to investigate auto burglary. Once there he confronted 3 suspects and used some strong language to establish contol. When he searched the elder Ramirez, Ramirez resisted and a fight ensued. Reports say Ramirez stood over Officer Arango and executed him before running away. The coroner says that the injuries to Officer Arango and the nightclub manager are consistant with both versions of the story.

Nothing I've read suggests to me that Ramirez acted in self defense. Apparantly Arango was in uniform. So we don't have to deal with the mistaken identity issue. By Ramirez's own admission he wasn't struck with the flashlight until after he resisted being disarmed.

Jeff

[Matthew Courtney]

Again, I am not defending Ramirez particularly, but there is nothing to indicate that the officer was in uniform. All we have is an unsworn statement by Chief Davis(who apparently was not at the scene at the time) to the press that the officer was shot in the badge.

[Matthew Courtney]

Wouldn't he reasonably have believed that Ramirez was armed with a weapon that could kill or maim him and he must take immediate action to save his life?

Believing that someone is armed and could do something does not, by itself, justify deadly force. One must also reasonably believe that the threat that the armed person will use their weapon unlawfully is imminemt. The officer may well have believed that. I just cannot let an assertion that killing people simply because thay are armed is justified go unchallenged.

[jmbg29]

Again, I am not defending Ramirez particularlyThis thead is about Ramirez, and what he did. It is not about Amadou Diallo, nor is it about Vicki Weaver. It is not about whether or not Ramirez had a pony as a child. It is about a murder that he has admitted to.but there is nothing to indicate that the officer was in uniform.Not true."He then put (the gun) right on Hugo's badge and pulled the trigger," Davis said. Even if there wasn't anything to indcate that he was in uniform, neither is there anything to suggest (with perhaps the exeption of the imagination of the cop-killer cheerleaders) that he wasn't in uniform. That makes the point about the uniform being on/off, equivocal, rather than dispositive, and therefore (without more information) for the purposes of this discussion, moot.One must also reasonably believe that the threat that the armed person will use their weapon unlawfully is imminemt.(sic)If a police officer is performing a lawful search for weapons, and the suspect begins to break away upon discovery of said weapon, then using the accepted standard of what a "reasonable person" would believe; it can reasonably be asserted that the "imminent" requirement has been met.All we have is an unsworn statement by Chief Davis(who apparently was not at the scene at the time) to the press that the officer was shot in the badge.Yet another distortion on your part. The Chief did not say that "the officer was shot in the badge".

He said"He then put (the gun) right on Hugo's badge and pulled the trigger," Davis said.which is entirely different from your distortion. I just cannot let an assertion that killing people simply because thay are armed is justified go unchallenged.The only people making that assertion are you and the rest of the cop-killer cheering squad.

My position is now, and forever will be, that what the suspect says in his own words (his, not mine, in case it still hasn't sunk in yet)amounts to murder.In his account to the detectives after his arrest May 18, 2000, Ramirez said Arango threatened his cousin, Alvaro Ramirez, for moving his hands after being frisked. "He shouted he was going to bust his head open," Bautista Ramirez said.And then he saysRamirez said he turned away when the officer reached for the gun, "and he hit me on the head. And I thought, 'Well, he's going to kill me.' "You will note that Ramirez is quoted as saying "the officer", not "the guy", or "the mugger", or "the guy that was going to kill me."

Nowhere in any of the articles is Ramirez quoted as refering to the dead cop as anything other than a policeman. Nowhere.

Nowhere in any of the reported testimony did the person, whose life is on the line, say that he was afraid BECAUSE HE DIDN"T KNOW THAT THE PERSON HE KILLED WAS A COP.

In fact, so far, the only person making that suggestion, is you! :fire: :fire: :fire:

[Matthew Courtney]

1. He did not admit to murder. He admitted to killing. If you do not know that there can be a difference, you have a lot to learn.
The cops who killed Mrs. Weaver and Mr. Diablo also admitted to killing, but not to murder.

2. Respecting interactions with subjects, it is the responsibility of the police to properly identify themseleves and prove that they did, not the responsibility of the subject to prove a negative.(It is logically impossible to prove that something didn't happen.)

3. That the officer properly ID'ed himself or even had any lawful reason to stop, much less search the defendant, has not been established in any way.

4. What the chief said is in no way relevant unless he was there and is saying it under oath. So he said "and pulled the trigger" instead of "shot". Big deal. My point was that hearsay is irrelavent, especially when told to a reporter.

5. Ramirez does not ever refer to the decedent as an officer. The article's author takes Ramirez's statements and uses the overall context to attribute them to be in reference to the officer. This in no way indicates that Ramirez could have known his attacker was an officer at the time of the indident.

6. I am not making assertions. I am simply pointing out deficiencies in the prosecutions case. I have already said that murderers should be executed.

[jimpeel]

Below is a response I wrote on TFL way back when on the subject of LEO bashing. There are many instances of the cops killing innocent people and getting away with it; so the public has become sensitized to the fact that they are free to kill at will and they will always get away with it. When someone feels in fear of their life at the hands of a LEO they also are totally convinced that the LEO will get away with their death regardless of the circumstanxces.

Here is what I wrote on TFL:

Look at the number of threads we have had on this subject
Most of these were located using the search term "swat AND death".

The militarization of the police?
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54886

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36699

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25454

Cops raid wrong home
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29414

The problem with no-knocks and "informants"
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25771

Grandfather of 14 shot to death
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34617

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23817

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32492

What if I shoot an agent or cop.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23807

Denver Officer Loses Wages for Raid
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53707

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33489

Innocent Man Dies in Police Blunder
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39714

The Donald Scott murder
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34071

Is Government Declaring War on Citizens?
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=79831

Trooper's gun accidentally fires during drug search
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=97220

(OH) Police Raid Wrong Address Looking For Robbery Suspect
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=97220

(CA) SWAT team kills 11-yr old boy
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39202

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28955

Cobb cops cuff wrong man; gun fired by mistake
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=79471

Police officer accidentally shot to death by SWAT team during raid
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=77304

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=76196

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=74971

BATF RAID: ANOTHER DEATH
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54488

SWAT accidental discharge
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49773

(MN) Grand Rapids teacher files suit claiming attack by SWAT team
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=38728

Orlando hostage shot by police sniper
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28139

[jimpeel]

Warrior Cops: The Ominous Growth of Paramilitarism in
American Police Departments

http://civilliberty.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?once=true&site=http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-050es.html

The direct link to the PDF file on briefing paper No. 50 is: http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp50.pdf

[jmbg29]

1) What he has admitted to constitutes murder.

2) Where in any of the articles does it say that the police officer never identified himself? Where in any of the articles did the defense protest that the prosecution had not established their caseProsecutors say Ramirez killed Arango to avoid arrest for having a concealed weapon.by not proving that the officer had identified himself? Think really hard now, and try to remember that Ramirez is on trial for his life, and that the possibility of the prosecution not being able to establish that fact could, maybe even would, be the difference between death, and walking AWAY!!!

3) See above

4) Again your obvious bias causes you to miss the point. The distinction between your intentional distortion was notSo he said "and pulled the trigger" instead of "shot".It is where the chief said that Ramirez put the gun! "He then put (the gun) right on Hugo's badge and pulled the trigger," Davis said.On the badge!My point was that hearsay is irrelavent, especially when told to a reporter.You cherry-pick what you call hearsay. All of this is hearsay, it's from a frigging newspaper. So we either go with what is available from the news articles as written or nothing. You don't get to pick and choose. In your first post you said you were going by what was available in the article."He then put (the gun) right on Hugo's badge and pulled the trigger," Davis said. is in one of the articles.

5) Ramirez is quoted as identifying the club manager as a [QUOTE]"security guard"[QUOTE]Again, I should think that if I were on trial for my life, that my attorney would point out to the jury and the press that my defense was predicated upon mistaken identity. None of the articles support this.

6) Based on what? You could make the claim that you suspect deficiencies in the reporting, but by your own admission you don't know any more about the prosecution of this case than anyone else that has access to these articles alone. Well, except for the parts that you fabricate, or selectively dismiss in your mind.

[jmbg29]

When someone feels in fear of their life at the hands of a LEO they also are totally convinced that the LEO will get away with their death regardless of the circumstanxces.Very true, but only relevant when they aren't the one that tried to resist arrest and escalate the incident.

The suspect in this case did not feel that he was in fear for his life, or the life of his cousin, until the cousin decided to move against the order of the police officer conducting the pat down.

In the testimony that we have available, the suspect clearly states that it was after his cousin started to fidget (against the orders of the cop), that the cop yelled at the cousin to stop, or get his head busted, that he then moved away from the cop, who had just found the gun, and then he was subsequently hit by said cop, it was then, and only then, that he said 'Well, he's going to kill me.'If you are correct, that this cop was a mad dog, why did the cop not club the cousin? If he was there to kill, or abuse the suspects, why did he wait UNTIL THE PERP MOVED AWAY WITH CONTROL OF THE GUN, to hit him? Wouldn't he have clubbed him the second that the gun was found? Or even simply upon suspicion of there being a gun? Or why not just kill them both and plant a gun?


I would check into all of the strawman links that you so thoughfully posted, but quite frankly, this thread is sickening enough all by its lonesome. :barf: :barf: :barf: :banghead: :banghead:

It would knock a buzzard off a you-know-what-wagon. :barf:

[gunsmith]

the mistake this cop made was not bashing the head in
of the suspect,the dead cop went easy on the "perp"
and look what happen's!?
The Weaver shooting was wrong,the FBI sniper
was wrong,hence the millions they settled for.
A.Diallo grabbed a small black object which is the same size
as a Beretta .25acp (do not do that when being chased by armed men!)
it is easy to second guess from the chair in front of my computer.
We should all pray for the LEO's family & send a check
so their kids can have some future

[Robby from Long Island]

Matthew Courtney -

You remind me of one of NYC's past majors, a jerk named Dinkins. He was notorious for never having met a criminal element he didn't want to embrace.

Maybe you ought to take up a collection for the relatives of this dirtbag Ramirez since it sounds like he won't be able to engage in any form of meaningful employment (if he ever did) for a while.

Maybe you can contact another dirtbag by the name of Al Sharpton and get a national protest going against the deceased cop for having the audacity of dying and now inconveniencing Ramirez's plans for the summer.

I'm really glad there are guys like you out there. It keeps guys like me and many others on the other side of the fence aware of who our enemies really are.

You really shouldn't waste your time on THR though, especially when HCI could use your limited talents.

[H Romberg]

There seems to be a whole lot of testosterone in the air right now. I've seen more head banging, cussing and flaming icons in this thread than most others I've read since this forum was created. Maybe I'm just a whiney hippy Libertarian, but this argument has gotten really personal for something none of us is actually involved in. TFL and THR have always tried to be a place for reasoned debate, and I don't think this measures up to that standard. There're good arguments on both sides of this issue, and that's what we have judges and juries for. Yes it sucks that a man died. What sucks more is that the whole episode could have been prevented if we didn't have idiotic laws that make criminals out of people based on their possessions and their immigration status. I'm sure I'll get jumped on for this, but if we'd fix our immegration policies and let peaceful people come and go freely (wellfare would have to go too, but that needs to happen anyway) this whole argument would be moot.

Now before I'm pilloried for wanting to open America to the unwashed hordes, remember that's where all our ancestors started out. More people willing to work means a healthier economy, more jobs, and more opportunities to trade in the long run. Any arguments that we'll run out of food, room, and jobs have been debunked by people far more eloquent than me, so before replying with one of them, please check out "The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith", or "Economics in one Lesson" by von Mises.

Flame away! :p

Hal

[jmbg29]

Now before I'm pilloried for wanting to open America to the unwashed hordes, remember that's where all our ancestors started out.Perhaps that is where your ancestors came from, but mine most certainly did not. They came here legally, they learned the language and the customs of the people that were already living in this nation, and adopted them as their own. So when you speak of ancestors, please speak only of your own, or of those that you have first hand knowledge of.

Most certain of all is that none of my American ancestors killed a man for doing his job (except in war). Nor did any of them ever require the taxpayers to pay for a criminal investigation interview in Danish or German.

Thanking you in advance for never again lumping my ancestors in with the piece of human filth that is the topic of this lamentable thread.

[Erik]

Let me see:

1. Felony stop, multiple perps
2. Frisk resulting in weapon
3. Resisting arrest resulting in the murder of the officer

The report of which causes many of our members to take the side of the murderer, back it up with hypotheticals, and chime in that they'd kill a cop too if they thought they were gonna die. Lovely.

Maybe the stereotypes portraid by the Antis are not so far off base after all....

:scrutiny:

[Robby from Long Island]

H Romberg -

Tell me, exactly what part of Ramirez belongs to that "peaceful people" statement?

Some of the comments I've read here in the last couple of days make me wonder about the personnel makeup of this forum.

I'm amazed at how many people are supportive of a cold-blooded cop killer with no feelings of real remorse for the family of the deceased.

I really hope if ever you really need help in an emergency, you can rely on the millions of illegal aliens coming to your assistance. I'm sure they'll be there for you when someone's breaking down your back door at 2 in the morning, etc., etc.

There are always a few rotten apples in every barrel and that's true of every profession in life.

I don't hate every auto mechanic because a few of them like to rip off unsuspecting customers when they bring their car in for a tuneup. The same could be said for electricians who charge $300 to an old lady living alone for replacement of a 15 amp circuit breaker or a plumber who charges $500 for a $50 job.

This dirtbag Ramirez should have been the one laying on the ground bleeding out, not the cop who was only doing his job.

I'm gonna do my best not to get involved in this discussion any more because I'm liable to get really personal and that's not fair to a lot of good people here.

[standingbear]

we know from the article some of the circumstances and also the precipate(mindset of both the victim and the shooter) that led up to the fatal shooting.what are the procedures for arresting a suspect?how could it have been avoided?im not implying anything and by no means being a smarty pants,just this scenerio has caught my interest.

[LawDog]

Going only by the posted article, which is all the information that I have, there is nothing to indicate that the officers were in uniform or properly identified themselves as LEO's.

http://www.odmp.org/officer.php?oid=15388

Not only was Hugo Arango in full uniform, but he was on regular patrol and thus was driving a marked police unit.

One of the shots allegedly fired by the defendant was through the badge on Aranda's chest.

You will also note that in none of the articles written about this case does the defendant make the least mention of not knowing that Officer Arango was, in fact, a police officer. Nor do any of the witnesses called by either the defense or the prosecution make any comment about not knowing that Officer Arango was, in fact, a police officer.

LawDog

[Jeff White]

Matthew,
You have posted several times since I asked you a question, but you have yet to answer. What would you have done in Officer Arango's stead?

How would you have handled it so that everyone went home or to jail uninjured?

Here's the situation, it's the early morning predawn hours. You are in a one man patrol car and a citizen flags you over and says he saw some subjects possibly breaking into some cars on the parking lot of the Eclipse bar.

You pull your squad into the parking lot and get out, the subjects that have been pointed out to you are standing right there.

Take it from here for me Officer Courtney.....

[jmbg29]

Take it from here for me Officer Courtney.....Bwaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaa LMAO

[H Romberg]

JMBG29, What tribe are you? If none, then you're a "Durn Furriner immegrant" just like the vast majority of us. Just because the law says a person doesn't belong here doesn't make that person less than human, and it doesn't make the law right. I think it's wrong to keep people from crossing borders to look for work. I think the biggest tragedy here is that a whole pile of lives got ruined that night because of laws that are built on bad economics and propped up by unthinking nationalist and protectionist dogma that doesn't hold water.

Robbie,
I stand by my point about "peaceful" people crossing borders. I might be making a bad assumption that he was being searched because of his ethnicity, but I've seen it happen enough times to think it's probable cause to look mexican in most places. If he was doing something non-peaceful when stopped, I'll happily concede that he's a criminal and deserves to be fried for shooting the officer. If he was just walking down the street though....... That's pretty sad.

I feel for the officer and his family. There's little chance anybody could convince me that this was a justifiable shoot. It's a tragedy when anybody dies, but like I knew when I enlisted, and cops know when they sign up, its a really dangerous job. Also, if you're trying to bust somebody's head open with a mag lite, don't expect a tin badge to keep them from fighting back.

[Jeff White]

H Romberg,

Also, if you're trying to bust somebody's head open with a mag lite, don't expect a tin badge to keep them from fighting back.

Do you think that Officer Arango should have backed off? Let's look at what we know. We know that Officer Arango was in uniform and on patrol in a marked patrol car. We know that someone flagged him over and told him that he saw some subjects possibly breaking into cars on the parking lot of the Eclipse bar. We know that Officer Arango confronted the subjects.

We know that at some point during his contact with the Ramirez pair, that he decided to search them. We don't know if he had established enough probable cause for an arrest or if he was conducting a Terry search (which is a patdown for weapons, that the Supreme Court has ruled a police officer has the right to do with any subject he encounters, for his own safety). The younger Ramirez moved his hands during the search and Officer Arango used verbal control techniques and threatened him with being struck if he moved again. When Officer Arango searched the elder Ramirez, he discovered a 9mm pistol in his waistband. When Officer Arango reached for the weapon, Ramirez turned away to protect the weapon. At this point Officer Arango struck Ramirez in the head with the flashlight. This much has been admitted to by Ramirez.

Do you really think that Ramirez thought that Officer Arango was going to kill him when he discovered the weapon? Because we can't say that Ramirez was feared for his life after he was struck with the flashlight. Why is that you ask? Because, Ramirez attacked Officer Arango with deadly force when he resisted being disarmed. Ramirez's story would only wash had Officer Arango struck Ramirez before he discovered the pistol in his waistband. But he didn't. Ramirez admits that he was struck after Officer Arango found the pistol and Ramirez turned away to keep him from taking it from him.

Ramirez had no right to resist. None. The fact is, Ramirez initiated the attack on Officer Arango who then took a reasonable action (striking Ramirez with the flashlight) in defense of his life. Yes, by striking him in the head, Officer Arango used deadly force. But only in response to the deadly force that Ramirez used against him first. Ramirez initiated the sequence of events that resulted in his murder of Officer Arango. The fact that he feared for his life after he attacked Officer Arango with deadly force is immaterial. Officer Arango would have been legally and morally justified in shooting Ramirez once he opened some distance between them with the defensive blow from the flashlight. But Officer Arango made the decision to continue to grapple with Ramirez for control of the weapon instead of shooting him at that point. This would suggest that Officer Arango quite possibly didn't intend to kill Ramirez.

Jeff

[Obiwan]

The only part I am having trouble with is the part where we are arguing about this!

He shot a cop

[Gmac]

Can't remember the name of the flick but----- Sheriff: " Why'd you arrest him (John Belushi) ? Deputy: "He was headed south,dressed like a Mexican"

[jmbg29]

If none, then you're a "Durn Furriner immegrant" just like the vast majority of us.Well, you did say something about being a hippie-liberaltarian, or some such hogwash.

Oh yeah, another big newsflash for you. The "tribes" immegranted :rolleyes: here as well. You may give them a pass, but I don't.

In any event, that has nothing to do with what I said. I know you may feel that it is your duty - as a hippie-liberaltarian - to malign all of the immigrant ancestors that came to this country (legally and illegally) by making believe that this particular rat is just like the vast majority of them, but murder does not take refuge in every heart. Never has, never will.

Your moral relativist friends and associates may play that "we're all the same" game with you, but I for one will not. So when you intimate that we all came from the same pile of sludge, you defame me, my ancestors, any other members on this board that are not decended of scum, etc...

As an American, you are free to do it, but I will call you on it every time. Just so you know.
I think the biggest tragedy here is that a whole pile of lives got ruined that night because of laws that are built on bad economics and propped up by unthinking nationalist and protectionist dogma that doesn't hold water.Officer Arango wasn't killed by ideology, he wasn't killed by half-baked hippie-liberaltarian ramblings, he wasn't killed by the gun, or its bullets. He was killed by an illegal alien, car-thief suspect, that decided to commit murder rather then be tossed back into his own country where he belonged.

I stand by my point about "peaceful" people crossing borders. I might be making a bad assumption that he was being searched because of his ethnicity, but I've seen it happen enough times to think it's probable cause to look mexican in most places. If he was doing something non-peaceful when stopped, I'll happily concede that he's a criminal and deserves to be fried for shooting the officer. If he was just walking down the street though....... That's pretty sad.That is the problem with this whole thread. The bizarre need to interject hypothetical situations for which there is no evidence. It probably stems from people watching all of the bad TV court dramas where lawyers are allowed to introduce arguments that are irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial to the case at hand.

Fact: A police officer was asked to investigate a possible crime.

Fact: The police officer questions, and begins to frisk, two likely suspects.

Fact: Both of the subjects attempt to resist arrest.

Fact: They initially succeed, because the second suspect commits murder in the 2nd degree.

So, we have two "youths", walking around at a pre-dawn hour, when someone flags down a police officer to tell him about a suspected crime. Both of the scumbags...er, I mean dirtbags...er, "youths", were in the vicinity. One was not old enough to be a legal patron of the club nearby. So the idea that they were just walking around at night o'clock in the morning, when there just happened to have be a crime reported, and that they shouldn't be questioned as potential suspects, is so far beyond absurd, as to be laughable.

You see, if you were to bring an argument like that before a real judge (Did you know that despite the efforts of the hippie-liberaltarians, there are some real judges left?), said judge would be throwing you out of his courtroom, for not representing your clients in a way that the court could find remotely plausible.

The reported crime involved cars. 90+% of all crimes committed upon the property known as "cars" is committed by teenagers/young adults. As such, assuming FIRST that the police officer stopped them because of their ethnicity, only goes to show the anti-cop mindset of the person making the assumption. Nothing more.

But what else would a reasonable person expect from someone that besmirches the character of the hundreds of millions of people that came to this country without black-hearted murder in their soul? I feel for the officer and his family.I'm sure they will find that a comfort.


Ugh! :barf: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :cuss:

[H Romberg]

JMBG29,
This thread must be doing wonders for your blood pressure. :D If I'd known I could PO people so much by disagreeing with them, I'd have started sooner. I'm actually in agreement with you that I think the guy should probably be fried for shooting the cop, because I don't think it was really self defense. The fact that he was a suspected car theif works against him, but I'd need to know a lot more to be sure, and I'd have to have been there in his brain to be as sure as you seem to be.

I was trying to make a point about how the way we over-regulate our society makes criminals out of people who most likely would otherwise be law-abiding normal folks. Seems with some people, that only holds true if you're white, and you're 100% legal in everythig you do. Otherwise you're part of a "pile of sludge" or some such thing. Sounds to me like the pot calling the kettle..... well, something or other.

Should you lose the right to defend yourself if you've ever sped in your car? How about if you cheated a little on your taxes? Do you have the right to defend yourself at all against the state? I think you do. I might be wrong, but I'll have to be convinved that any state, let alone ours, can be trusted with that much power. Good luck on that one, especially when there's so much history teaching me what happens when people lose the right to defend themselves.

I did give "native" Americans a pass, because they got here first. I'll concede the point if necessary though.

As for moral relativism, I'm guilty as charged and proud of it. Who the HE-double toothpicks is anyone to tell me or anyone else what is right or wrong? Don't you owe it to yourself to decide on a case by case basis, or does human morality fit into a nice formula somehow? If it does, I'd like to see it. Morality is relative as far as I'm concerned. Until God, Allah, Budda, Adonoi, Zeus, or someone of equal credibility actually shows up and tells me why he's the ultimate source of good and evil, it'll be tough to convince me otherwise.

Funny thing is that my leftist acquaintances (rotten pinko's but family) accuse me of being a right winger. If it wouldn't damage the 2A cause so much it'd be tempting to show them what right wing really means.


Hey Jeff,
No he shouldn't have backed off. I was making the point that if you attack any cornered animal, much less an armed Homo Sapiens, it will fight back. Sorry if I indicated the LEO was at fault. Not my intent.

[jmbg29]

Should you lose the right to defend yourself if you've ever sped in your car? I can't recall upon whose brow I placed the laurels for "Champion of the Non Sequitur Olympics" over at TFL, but I now bestow them upon you.

Congratulations, and well played, sir! :p ;) :D

[H Romberg]

One more thing. I'm not anti-cop by any means. Don't presume to understand the way I feel on that issue since it's pretty clear you don't know me very well. My feelings about cops run from the level of near worship (for the good ones who do an unthinkably tough job with integrity and humanity) to true hatred for the ones on power trips who are nothing but a jack-booted attitude with a gun and the power to lord it over whoever they want. It's easy to pigeon hole people, but it's pretty rude thing to do.

[H Romberg]

Non Sequitur.....

It appears I was unclear. I was trying to establish what level of criminality deprives one of the right to self defense, by using what I thought was a ridiculous example.

[jmbg29]

It's easy to pigeon hole people, but it's pretty rude thing to do.You pigeon-holed yourself by making the assumption that the cop went after the thugs because they fit a certain ethnic profile. You completely dismissed an almost endless litany of quoted, highlighted, parenthesied, italaicized, underlined, and print made bold, examples of clues within the various reports that pointed to a police officer simply doing what he is paid to do. Further, that he was doing that job in order to protect us from the very piece of filth that took his life.

You may tell me about your admiration for those that stand between us, and the black-hearted bastards of this world, until the Sun burns out of the sky, if you so choose. It won't mean a thing. Your own choices betray you.

It appears I was unclear. I was trying to establish what level of criminality deprives one of the right to self defense, by using what I thought was a ridiculous example.Several similarly ridiculous questions have been asked of me here on this very thread. To quote an oft used line in one of those exceedingly bad courtroom dramas that I alluded to previously, "Asked, and answered."

Perhaps you may wish at this point, to go back and actually read what is contained in this thread, rather than allowing your moral relativist mind to inject what you think it says, as you read it.

Good luck, and again, congratulations. Ta!

[ahenry]

I was trying to make a point about how the way we over-regulate our society makes criminals out of people who most likely would otherwise be law-abiding normal folks. Seems with some people, that only holds true if you're white, and you're 100% legal in everythig you do. In concept I agree with you. However, even with all those terrible, evil, and oppressive laws (while said tongue in cheek, I concede that we do have too many laws in America) I have managed to live my entire life having never broken any law other than a speed limit. It is not a terribly difficult thing to do. While I agree that we can and should eliminate about 95% of the laws currently on the books, as long as the exist and as long as they do not break my moral code, I will do all within my power to obey them and seek to change them through the proper channels. I ask that others do the same, in fact, as a law-abiding citizen and proponent of our justice system I demand that they do. If they choose to disobey the laws we agree to live under then I feel little, if any, sympathy for them when the inevitable consequences descend on them. I only regret that those consequences could not have been dished out by either the officer that was killed or by a nearby citizen.


No he shouldn't have backed off. I was making the point that if you attack any cornered animal, much less an armed Homo Sapiens, it will fight back. Humans have the capacity for intelligent thought. It takes very little of it to realize that when an officer of the law is speaking to you the smart choice, much less the right one, is to be polite and comply with the officers requests. Only if that officer is being overly heavy-handed and oppressive would a person have justification for resistance (note I said justification, still doesn’t necessarily mean its the smart move). This is the nature of the power we invest in law enforcement. As well, this is the reason great lengths are taken to try and ensure the “bad apples” don’t get that power. Humans being humans, mistakes happen. However, ask 10,00 Americans if it is smart or right to resist an officer of the law when that officer is conducting his lawful business and you will get 9,998 that tell you no. Your sympathies for this individual are sort of inane.

[H Romberg]

I didn't "assume" that what went on was because of ethnicity. All I did was dare to wonder if that was a component. I still say it's enought to bear looking at, even if it doesn't turn out to be the case we have a duty to look at ANY exculpatory possibility in criminal cases ("beyond any reasonable doubt" and all).

"asked and answered"

Sure, and if the answer is that being illegal removes your right to self defense, it's still b..... well, let's just say its of questionable value.

I'm sorry if I've missed a few of your more eloquent rants in this thread, but there's a lot of

:banghead: :banghead:
:cuss: :cuss: and
:fire: :fire:

to filter out before getting to the pearls of wisdom, not to mention a heck of a lot of posts to read.:D I answered the points I thought needed answering, and I sincerely apologize if I've offended by bringing up the same point someone else already hit. God knows we've never duplicated a point on THR before.;)

[jmbg29]

All I did was dare to wonder if that was a component. I still say it's enought to bear looking at, even if it doesn't turn out to be the case we have a duty to look at ANY exculpatory possibility in criminal cases ("beyond any reasonable doubt" and all).The only person in the entirety of our universe that would know the answer to that is dead.

Try www.crossingoverwithjonedward.com and get back to me would you?


Everyone has the right to defend themselves. What they do not have, is a right to resist arrest and escalate the situation to the point of murder. Nobody has that right. If the killer had not resisted arrest in the first place, it is very likely HE NEVER WOULD HAVE BEEN HIT ANYWHERE.Filtered out for your perusal.


The :cuss: :cuss: and the :banghead: :banghead: , and the :fire: :fire: stem from the shocking lack of attention to detail, the hideous lapses in logic, and the downright maggot-gagging lack of morality that have been revealed on this thread.

What more can I say?

[Jeff White]

I think we can pretty much rule out race as a component. Officer Arango was also of Hispanic descent. Also an immigrant. But race and immigration status have nothing to do with the issue here.

The issue is that Ramirez is trying to claim self defense as an affirmative defense for his murder of Officer Arango. My point is, that Ramirez attacked Officer Arango when Officer Arango discovered the 9mm pistol in his waistband. I don't doubt for one minute that Ramirez feared for his life once the fight started. But Ramirez started the fight.

I wasn't there, so the following is specutlation on my part. But it is educated speculation. I will have 19 years experience as a patrolman next month. I rather doubt that Ramirez, gently swiveled his hips to place the gun out of Officer Arango's reach. He more likely violently jerked away causing Officer Arango to fear that Ramirez was trying to access the weapon himself and shoot him (Officer Arango). Officer Arango responded by striking Ramirez in the head with his flashlight. He then went to ground with Ramirez and Ramirez got control of the gun and killed Officer Arango. What reasonable person on this board would not have responded the way Officer Arango did? Once they began fighting for control of Ramirez's gun, Officer Arango was fighting for his life. Does anyone here disagree with that?

I think a lot of you are letting your fear and loathing of the police cloud your judgement here. If we accept that Ramirez was justified in killing Officer Arango in self defense, then we must accept that defense for anyone who would attack you and then kill you when you defended yourself from the attack.

This would be a different situation if Officer Arango had struck Ramirez in the head with the flashlight before he found the gun in his waistband. But that isn't the way it happened. We know this because Ramirez admits that he wasn't struck in the head with the flashlight until after he turned away to keep Officer Arango from disarming him.

The saddest part of this thread is that it just shows how well Josh Sugarman, Tom Diaz and the Brady Bunch have succeeded in their publically stated goal of driving a wedge between law abiding gun owners and the police.

Jeff

[Erik]

"I was trying to establish what level of criminality deprives one of the right to self defense..."

All levels, absent a significant break in the events.