Intense video - SC trooper shot


PDA






peacenik
April 26, 2008, 02:44 PM
The camera covers the trooper being shot point-blank, then you can't really tell what happens after that, besides the gunman getting out of his car and approaching the cop's car.

http://videos.thestate.com/vmix_hosted_apps/p/media?id=1844458&genre_id=2985

I'm trying to find out the details of the outcome. If anyone can, please post.

If you enjoyed reading about "Intense video - SC trooper shot" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
CWL
April 26, 2008, 03:15 PM
Intense video alright.

That trooper kept a clear enough mind to call for help and to keep running from the BG, but it does not sound like he ever drew his pistol to return fire during the entire encounter. I know he was shot in the hand and gut/vest, but it didn't seem that he was incapacitated to the point where he couldn't fight back.

Blackbeard
April 26, 2008, 03:30 PM
It looks like they both lived. The officer in the video is Sgt. James Sinkler, who was shot in the bulletproof vest and the hand. Trooper Darren Wilson -- the one who arrived off camera to back up Sgt. Sinkler -- was awarded the IACP National Trooper of the Year award for his actions that night.

The driver, Eric Maradiaga, pleaded guilty to the shooting of Sgt. Sinkler. He was sentenced to 20 years for assault and battery with intent to kill.

Press Release (http://www.scdps.org/oea/nr2005/022205.htm)

Another link (http://www.scfop.org/newsi.asp?newsid=715)

P.S. According to the vest maker's website, Sgt. Sinkler was shot with a .357 Magnum.

csmkersh
April 26, 2008, 03:34 PM
If you'll look in the upper right sidebar, you'll see he shot the suspect.

lvcat2004
April 26, 2008, 03:44 PM
Wow, intense. Good thing he had a vest. I think the trooper did everything right by retreating and calling back-up. I would've tempted to draw and empty my mag on the BG right then and there....

.cheese.
April 26, 2008, 04:09 PM
20 years? That's all?

Blackbeard
April 26, 2008, 04:18 PM
Here's a link to the inmate record (https://sword.doc.state.sc.us/incarceratedInmateSearch/).

MASTEROFMALICE
April 26, 2008, 04:21 PM
Says "alien". Does that insinuate he's illegal?

conw
April 26, 2008, 04:26 PM
There's a version of this floating around on YouTube, I think, that has commentary from the trooper...they actually did a good job of reconstructing his face. You can hardly tell unless you look closely.

The perp's gun actually jammed, and it looks like an auto to me. He tried to grab the cop's gun.

Edit: Oops, different video. Disregard.

TexasRifleman
April 26, 2008, 04:30 PM
Says "alien". Does that insinuate he's illegal?

No. There are many alien situations that are legal. Resident alien, non resident alien etc.

Can't tell by just the term "alien" whether it's legal or not.

"Alien" simply means he's not a US Citizen.

DEDON45
April 26, 2008, 08:08 PM
Too bad the perp didn't fully get what he deserved. There's a huge witch hunt going on right now down here involving the Highway Patrol, etc. and I fear it will only make the criminal element bolder than usual.

Sans Authoritas
April 26, 2008, 09:53 PM
Did I hear the suspect say, "Don't shoot! Don't shoot!" right before you hear a rapid burst of 5 shots (which apparently failed to hit/kill the perpetrator?) Granted, if the man still had a weapon while saying this, it would be moot. I'm just wondering...

-Sans Authoritas

peacenik
April 26, 2008, 10:30 PM
There's a huge witch hunt going on right now down here involving the Highway Patrol, etc. and I fear it will only make the criminal element bolder than usual.

Yeah, I'm from SC, too, and have been watching this unfold, and share your concerns. In some cases, it does appear that the SCHP went over-the-top. But certainly, this shows how tough the job can be. Here's another, where the woman just wouldn't give up her registration and driver's license. The cop (rightfully) tasers her:

http://videos.thestate.com/vmix_hosted_apps/p/media?id=1790099

Sorry girl, but we gotta have rules. The officer asks for your papers, you show 'em to him.

hankdatank1362
April 26, 2008, 10:33 PM
Hopefully they whaled on this guy like they did in some of the other SCHP brutality vidoes that have been popping up lately. Not saying the other guys deserved it, but this guy did.

I know you can't do that... but if anyone deserves it, it's this guy.

BruceRDucer
April 27, 2008, 12:22 AM
My heart really went out to the trooper who was wounded. I would gladly have been there to assist him.




The video from Peacenik was very interesting. I don't even think the woman was drunk or stoned, and she was still rebellious enough to resist. No sympathy for her at all.

LawBot5000
April 27, 2008, 07:56 AM
With all the abuses going on in the war on drugs, I don't understand why they are going after the police in instances like this where it clearly self defense.

Cannonball888
April 27, 2008, 08:48 AM
Seems a bit careless to me, especially at night. I've never seen a cop open someones door during a traffic stop. This trooper had both his hands full: his gun hand holding a flashlight and his other hand holding the suspect's car door handle. Might have gone differently if he kept to the rear and asked the guy to step out.

Sans Authoritas
April 27, 2008, 09:19 AM
Peacenik, Yeah, I'm from SC, too, and have been watching this unfold, and share your concerns. In some cases, it does appear that the SCHP went over-the-top. But certainly, this shows how tough the job can be. Here's another, where the woman just wouldn't give up her registration and driver's license. The cop (rightfully) tasers her:

http://videos.thestate.com/vmix_host...dia?id=1790099

Sorry girl, but we gotta have rules.[emphasis added] The officer asks for your papers, you show 'em to him.

There's that "rules for the sake of rules" attitude again.

Absolutely. Every worker-unit must surrender its traveling papers if demanded by a representative of the State, because it is a RULE, and it is a rule because it is a RULE! Failure to follow the RULES results in being Tasered into compliance. Before the Taser, it should have resulted in getting batoned or OC'ed. Because failing to show your papers is a threat to the life and safety of the State and its Agent. Absolutely unacceptable.

"The original of this scene in another country was calculated to excite the indignation of those whom it could not impose on: the mimicry of it here is too humiliating to excite any feeling but shame."

-Thomas Jefferson

Sorry, I'm feeling a little ill right now.

-Sans Authoritas

Sans Authoritas
April 27, 2008, 09:23 AM
hankdatank1362 wrote: Hopefully they whaled on this guy like they did in some of the other SCHP brutality vidoes that have been popping up lately. Not saying the other guys deserved it, but this guy did.

I know you can't do that... but if anyone deserves it, it's this guy.

So, after the threat is neutralized, you think the perpetrator should be beaten in a fit of rage and revenge? Remind me, Hank, are you a Statute Enforcement Officer?

-Sans Authoritas

jaholder1971
April 27, 2008, 05:31 PM
Did I hear the suspect say, "Don't shoot! Don't shoot!" right before you hear a rapid burst of 5 shots (which apparently failed to hit/kill the perpetrator?) Granted, if the man still had a weapon while saying this, it would be moot. I'm just wondering...


Wondering what??? How to figure out a way to make the dirtbag who shot a cop the victim here???

There's that "rules for the sake of rules" attitude again.

Absolutely. Every worker-unit must surrender its traveling papers if demanded by a representative of the State, because it is a RULE, and it is a rule because it is a RULE! Failure to follow the RULES results in being Tasered into compliance. Before the Taser, it should have resulted in getting batoned or OC'ed. Because failing to show your papers is a threat to the life and safety of the State and its Agent. Absolutely unacceptable.


So tell us what he was supposed to do? He had the right to ask for ID and vehicle paperwork, was he just supposed to let her go?

So, after the threat is neutralized, you think the perpetrator should be beaten in a fit of rage and revenge? Remind me, Hank, are you a Statute Enforcement Officer?


Probably not, but you really need a lesson on who good guys and bad guys are.

TERRORISTS = BAD

CRIMINALS = BAD

COPS DOING THEIR JOB = GOOD

CONGRESS PASSING A IRAQ RESOLUTION WITH 2/3 MAJORITY = WAR DECLARATION

Sans Authoritas
April 27, 2008, 06:32 PM
jaholder1971 wrote: So tell us what he was supposed to do? He had the right to ask for ID and vehicle paperwork, was he just supposed to let her go?

Jaholder, what in the world did cops do before the State, in its wisdom, demanded that everyone carry traveling papers?

They probably stuck to doing their jobs: taking dangerous people into custody if they actually posed a threat to the lives, liberty and property of other individuals. And if they weren't really dangerous, well, yes, in fact, as surprising as it may sound to you, non-dangerous people were free to go, Jaholder. And if they were dangerous, they were probably still in prison, where they should have been.

Human nature hasn't changed in the past 100 years, Jaholder. But U.S. prison population rates have quadrupled, and society is still more dangerous than it was 100 years ago. Why is that?

-Sans Authoritas

Nate C.
April 27, 2008, 06:44 PM
Here we go again...

WSM MAGNUM
April 27, 2008, 07:02 PM
20 years? That's all?


That`s what I thought too. When he gets out, I hope his other eye will be looking down the barrel of a .500 S&W Magnum.

hankdatank1362
April 27, 2008, 08:02 PM
Sans Authoritas, why don't you highlight the second half of my statement?

The part where I said "I KNOW YOU CAN'T DO THAT" (beat suspects who have surrendered)

The desire is still there, if you have a heart beating in your chest... the desire for revenge is human nature. Police officers have to overcome that urge... when they don't, they break the laws they are sworn to uphold.

We all know you're an apologist for criminal society. We all know you have an intense dislike for any kind of lawful authority; that much is clear from reading your handle.

Please don't feel the need to invoke images of 1940's Germany and the SS Stormtroopers every time someone mentions an American police officer acting in a lawful capacity.


Statute Enforcement Officer

And the term is Law Enforcement Officer, because, whether you like it or not, this is a nation of laws. Some good, some bad, most unneccessary.

As far as the law is concerned (and police)you can try to change them from the outside (i.e. voting), you can change them from within (i.e., enroll in the Academy) you can whine about them (I'm sure you need no explaination there), or you can move to another country, where I'm sure their police will be much more amiable to your views. When they're not kicking down your doors and confiscating your firearms in the middle of the night, and trying you for made up crimes without a jury, or just shooting you outright, that is.

NG VI
April 27, 2008, 08:22 PM
That video made me feel sick. I can't believe he did not get charged with attempted murder on top of the other charges. It's unfortunate he didn't lose some gray matter.

jaholder1971
April 27, 2008, 08:45 PM
Jaholder, what in the world did cops do before the State, in its wisdom, demanded that everyone carry traveling papers?

traveling papers? Have you ever been stopped for a traffic violation? They're called drivers' license and vehicle registration.

Again, answer the question: He was trying to cite her for a traffic violation. How much longer was he supposed to let her refuse to give up her ID and vehicle registration and resist arrest?


They probably stuck to doing their jobs: taking dangerous people into custody if they actually posed a threat to the lives, liberty and property of other individuals. And if they weren't really dangerous, well, yes, in fact, as surprising as it may sound to you, non-dangerous people were free to go, Jaholder. And if they were dangerous, they were probably still in prison, where they should have been.

blah, blah-blah, blah, blah!

Gee, I guess in your world the law means nothing as long as no one gets hurt too bad, except for the cops. They must be fair game.

Human nature hasn't changed in the past 100 years, Jaholder. But U.S. prison population rates have quadrupled, and society is still more dangerous than it was 100 years ago. Why is that?

I dunno, maybe because we've skewed right and wrong behavior into shades of gray. Maybe because in some circles in society going to jail and prison is a status symbol.

Maybe because some folks like you are quick to point out their rights but have miserably failed to understand the responsibilities that come with them. Maybe because some folks have decided that the only laws they need to obey are the ones they decide need to be followed, not unlike most of the thinking you've expressed on THR. The only problem with that is is doesn't fly in a court of law and they end up in jail.

lloydkristmas
April 27, 2008, 08:49 PM
Did I hear the suspect say, "Don't shoot! Don't shoot!" right before you hear a rapid burst of 5 shots (which apparently failed to hit/kill the perpetrator?) Granted, if the man still had a weapon while saying this, it would be moot. I'm just wondering...

So who cares? I dont think anyone here is rooting for the bad guy.

jaholder1971
April 27, 2008, 11:26 PM
So who cares? I dont think anyone here is rooting for the bad guy.

Oh, there's at least one...

brigadier
April 28, 2008, 08:55 AM
Wondering what??? How to figure out a way to make the dirtbag who shot a cop the victim here???

We had a saying in my community growing up. 2 wrongs don't make a right. A scumbag being what he is is no reason for cops to stoop to his level. That said, I am not sure of what was being said or done. I imagine the other cop cars might have had some better audio and visual footage of what happened. It's not terribly uncommon for criminals to scream things like "don't shoot" while taking aim.
In any case, police officers (around here anyway) tend to be very prone to thuggish behavior, having a mentality that their badge somehow makes them partially above the law and exempt from certain penalties while violence against them should somehow warrant higher penalties then if inflicted against the average citizen, a very authoritarian counter liberty mentality that sadly has become commonplace among the gun enthusiast community, apparently in love with the gun rather then the reason we have a right to own guns in the first place.
Police officers job is to uphold and protect the constitution. A police officer who actually holds to his oath of office (never met or heard of one, but that doesn't mean they don't exist) has my dearest respect. A cop who just does his job with good intentions and effort, well, they are OK too I guess. Those who abuse their power need not get away with it.
Regarding witch hunts, witch hunts are probably the most volatile cultural movement there is. First off, the very definition to the "witch hunt" term as modern slang as opposed to historic definition, is reckless overreacting pursuit of people as result of irrational and overblown paranoia in response to a legitimate problem. In other words, the No.1 accomplishment of witch hunts is mass server punishment of innocent people on behalf of the hunters and their supporters emotions. Likewise, not only do ALLOT of innocent people go down, but the culture it's self decays in respect for each others lives and welfare, and we wonder why we are having all these mass school shootings.
In the case of this shooting, I do not know the facts, so I am in no position to be a judge or have an opinion as to "who was or wasn't justified." It's pretty clear that the officer shot was just doing his job. Whether or not he was a good cop, I don't know. All I saw is a cop get shot while doing his job. The shooter, obviously a criminal who needs to be behind bars. But for what happened off camera when the other officers arrived, I don't know.

Sans Authoritas
April 28, 2008, 09:16 AM
Hankdatank wrote: Sans Authoritas, why don't you highlight the second half of my statement?

The part where I said "I KNOW YOU CAN'T DO THAT" (beat suspects who have surrendered)

I did not highlight the second part of your statement because it was of little importance to the subject at hand: because in the heat of the moment, (which you were not in when you said "I hope they whaled on the guy") the afterthought "I know you can't do that" is pushed to the back burner, while the hope of "whaling on that guy" is what comes to the forefront. Unless you destroy those latent desires, they will manifest themselves at a very bad time.


We all know you're an apologist for criminal society. We all know you have an intense dislike for any kind of lawful authority; that much is clear from reading your handle.

Depends what you mean by "Criminal," Hank. Remember, in some countries, it's considered "criminal" to have more than one child. In some countries, it's considered "criminal" to have the means to effectively defend yourself from unjust aggressors. In some countries, it's considered "criminal" to have a rifle with a 15.75'' barrel, but a 16'' barrel is A-OK. In some countries, it was "criminal" to be a runaway slave. And in all those countries, there's always someone who justifies enforcing such statutes because it's a statute: not because it's just to do so, not because it's moral to do so, but merely because it's a statute they have "sworn to uphold." That's not honorable at all.

Nobody has any authority, (and all true authority ultimately must come from God) to enforce any of those "laws" that define such "criminal" acts, Hank. Do you understand that?

In reality, the only "criminal" act is a violent or fraudulent act which actually poses a threat to the life, health, liberty or property of another person. According to you, it could be any of the above victimless acts, and several thousand more acts prohibited by "laws" that stupidly attempt to prevent other victimless "crimes."

Now please, Hank, (or Jaholder), tell me when I have ever advocated any action that is an act of violence toward any other human beings' life, liberty or property? Including terrorist acts, robbery, theft, vandalism, pollution, using drugs, lying, rape, murder, or even wars started for fraudulent reasons and fought by sadly misled people?

Nothing? Then show some manly honor and stop your vile slander.

Please don't feel the need to invoke images of 1940's Germany and the SS Stormtroopers every time someone mentions an American police officer acting in a lawful capacity.

Sometimes, Hank, it's really not necessary to invoke 1940's Germany when American police are acting in a "lawful" capacity. Most police states are very diligent about operating within the "law." They just don't care what "laws" they're enforcing, or whose law it is. (Whether it is trying to enforce God's law, or regulations that actually protect people from actual or potential harm.) They just care that it's a "law." Because enforcing the "law" is their job.

I have the utmost of respect for someone whose job it is to protect the lives, liberty and property of other people. As long as that is all they ever do. As it is, I don't have much respect for a barber who juggles knives while he's cutting my hair, and I don't have much respect for a butcher who plants explosives in roast beef. Those kind of actions don't help people. They hurt people, and those actions have absolutely nothing to do with their jobs.

-Sans Authoritas

Sans Authoritas
April 28, 2008, 09:22 AM
Brigadier, well said, sir.

As Brigadier said, we might be dealing with two criminals here. The action of the thug who shot the cop was entirely unjustified. A gross violation of the proper escalation of force.

On the other hand, it seems that we hear the shot officer scream, "Shoot him! Shoot him!" And then a little later, the original thug screams, "Don't shoot! Don't shoot!" If the original thug had thrown his weapon away and put his hands up before we hear those rapid shots ring out, it seems that we are now dealing with two thugs. Granted, the officer who shot the first thug would be a lot less culpable for his actions than the first thug, but he would be a thug nonetheless. Would anyone here defend the officer's action as just, if he had, in fact, shot an unarmed man who no longer posed a threat? Hank? Jaholder?

As for myself? I'd like to see justice done for all parties who have done evil.

-Sans Authoritas

hankdatank1362
April 28, 2008, 09:47 AM
Would anyone here defend the officer's action as just, if he had, in fact, shot an unarmed man who no longer posed a threat? Hank? Jaholder?


Nope, and I would hope that he would be prosecuted just like any other criminal.

Nobody has any authority, (and all true authority ultimately must come from God) to enforce any of those "laws" that define such "criminal" acts, Hank. Do you understand that?


I understand the idea you are attempting to express... unfortunately, that is not how it works. Anywhere on Earth. Maybe if you buy your own island and start your own country (what were those people who bought that oil rig and declared soviergnity?)

Since Hammurabi, written regulations has been the laws of the land, whether you like it or not. And, more often than not, there were people paid to enforce the laws. (I'm familiar with the concept of "posse comitatus", but even then, there was a Reeve to act as the chief law enforcement officer of the Shire.)

I also agree with you in that most so-called crimes nowadays are mala prohibitum, rather than mala en se. I'm sure we're all up for suggestions on how to change that.

As for myself? I'd like to see justice done for all parties who have done evil.

Amen brother.

Sans Authoritas
April 28, 2008, 09:55 AM
Sans Authoritas wrote:
Nobody has any authority, (and all true authority ultimately must come from God) to enforce any of those "laws" that define such "criminal" acts, Hank. Do you understand that?


Hankdatank wrote: I understand the idea you are attempting to express... unfortunately, that is not how it works. Anywhere on Earth.

Whether or not "that's how it works," that's how it IS. You do not have the "authority" to enforce such laws. You have power to do so, just like Pilate had the power to kill Jesus, but not the authority to do so. Pilate was afraid to do what was just because earthly powers above him would have his job and/or head. That does not justify his action.

And the only way to make it not the way it works is to get people to realize that they are getting into the wrong job, if they value integrity in their own actions. We need more people to stop becoming Pilates, and more people to stop supporting the ideas that allow Pilates to do what they do.

Pilate said, "I find no cause of guilt in this man," and, having essentially condemned an innocent man to punishment, washed his hands of the matter, saying for all practical purposes, "I value my position more than doing what is right."

-Sans Authoritas

hankdatank1362
April 28, 2008, 10:04 AM
Whether or not "that's how it works," that's how it IS.

It must hurt to be so much wiser than any government or civilization in the entire history of man.

Or maybe... since admittedly, no place on Earth does things the way you think they should be done...you ever think the problem lied with your thinking rather than everyone else?

Sans Authoritas
April 28, 2008, 10:10 AM
Hank, a government can't be wise. Nor can a civilization. Only individuals can be wise. There is no such thing as collective wisdom.

Show me the wisdom in WWII Germany, or in governments and whole societies that supported slavery. Show me the wisdom in supporting the existence of tax-based government, which was the only entity that had the incentive and means to kill 200,000,000 people in a single century. And did.

Why not counter my points, Hank? Show me that what I believe is not founded on truth.


-Sans Authoritas

hankdatank1362
April 28, 2008, 10:31 AM
Ok. Imagine the world works your way. There is no lawful authority. The only law is "God's Law" (which, will vary from person to person depending on their religion.)

The strong prey on the weak. Those with more firepower become warlords. Rape, pillage, murder become the way of the world.

You want ot see what happens when you eradicate any form of lawful authority? Look at Africa. Roving gangs of militaristic terrorist warlords roam the countryside taking what they want, raping who they want, cutting off hands, arms, breasts, and eyes, killing who they want, with impunity, because there is no one to stop them.

Governments cannot be evil. Only the men that control them can be evil. (Just like firearms)

Sure, governments controlled by evil men killed millions. Do we hold the idea of government responsible, or the evil men that were in power at the time?

To think that the planet would be a much more peaceful place without any sort of lawful authority is asinine.

It would look like any post-apocalyptic B movie you see on the sci-fi channel. Complete anarchy.

Look at post-Katrina NOLA. No lawful authority ot protect the weak... roving gangs took what they wanted...including lives. Ask anyone that was there. They all say it was the closest thing to SHTF that they had ever seen.

You want to see that on a worldwide scale?

Phil DeGraves
April 28, 2008, 11:19 AM
"U.S. prison population rates have quadrupled, and society is still more dangerous than it was 100 years ago. Why is that?"

Because in those days, those criminals would have been killed, either during arrest or after conviction. Therefore, they wouldn't be taking up space in prison and recidivism would be reduced.

"On the other hand, it seems that we hear the shot officer scream, "Shoot him! Shoot him!" And then a little later, the original thug screams, "Don't shoot! Don't shoot!" If the original thug had thrown his weapon away and put his hands up before we hear those rapid shots ring out, it seems that we are now dealing with two thugs. Granted, the officer who shot the first thug would be a lot less culpable for his actions than the first thug, but he would be a thug nonetheless. Would anyone here defend the officer's action as just, if he had, in fact, shot an unarmed man who no longer posed a threat? Hank? Jaholder?"

A lot of "seems" and "ifs" in that paragraph. In other words a lot of conjecture and Monday Morning Quarterbacking. I wasn't there and neither were you. What I did see was a bad guy attempt to kill a police officer. That's good enough for me.

Soybomb
April 28, 2008, 12:34 PM
20 years? That's all?
Thats really what I like to see all of that work for the restoration of firearm rights start hammering on more. We have to fight every day against people want to strip us of the right to defend ourselves, if its allowed at all and at the same time we're letting the violent people that use weapons against others walk away with a slap on the wrist. Everytime someone talks about "the gun show loophole", assault weapons, and common sense gun laws we need to grill them on why we let the people that have shown they will use firearms out of malice walk the streets.

"U.S. prison population rates have quadrupled, and society is still more dangerous than it was 100 years ago. Why is that?"

Because in those days, those criminals would have been killed, either during arrest or after conviction. Therefore, they wouldn't be taking up space in prison and recidivism would be reduced.
My thoughts went down a different road. 100 years ago what percentage of people in prison were really bad guys? What percentage of today's inmates is made up of drug offenders who we should be letting sit at home quietly killing themselves if they so choose? Maybe the problem is we need to go back to worrying about locking up the really bad people.

Reyn
April 28, 2008, 01:09 PM
What percentage of today's inmates is made up of drug offenders who we should be letting sit at home quietly killing themselves if they so choose

Or breaking into your home,robbing stores and killing to get the money needed for their next fix.

EmGeeGeorge
April 28, 2008, 01:11 PM
drug offenders hardly only affect themselves... people gripe about illegals sucking up the health care... dopers are just as bad... if all the dope in the world was free, dopers will still steal cars(for fun), rob houses(for fun and money) and hurt people(while robbing houses, stealing cars and being high)...

this is a stupid thread... it started as a look at this video type deal, and all the "cops are bad" folks, and all the other assorted idiots jumped in and ran away with it...

300 ppl need structure to survive in a society, therefore 300 million need it too... it would be so cool if everyone could be self sufficient and grow their own food and hunt their own meat and make their own clothes and ignore gov't admin but alas, aint gonna happen.... I guess you can always pray for some form of apocolypse that lets you live out your survivor fantasy life but then again, who'll keep the servers up so you can post and show what a cool, off the grid, self-sufficient dude you are... people will form happy little villages and not commit crimes and blah blah blah blah...

Regen
April 28, 2008, 02:12 PM
There's that "rules for the sake of rules" attitude again.

Absolutely. Every worker-unit must surrender its traveling papers if demanded by a representative of the State, because it is a RULE, and it is a rule because it is a RULE! Failure to follow the RULES results in being Tasered into compliance. Before the Taser, it should have resulted in getting batoned or OC'ed. Because failing to show your papers is a threat to the life and safety of the State and its Agent. Absolutely unacceptable.
So tell us what he was supposed to do? He had the right to ask for ID and vehicle paperwork, was he just supposed to let her go?

If the officer believes a crime has been committed and the woman refuses to identifier herself, she should be arrested and charged with the crime. The tasering should only occur if necessary to facilitate the arrest (sorry haven't seen video yet due to the site being very slow).

peacenik
April 28, 2008, 04:03 PM
.... I guess I shouldn't have said 'we gotta have rules'. But we do, Sans Authoritas, though I would agree with 'the fewer the better'. I take it you're a libertarian. If I recall my Robert Nozick properly, I believe that even the hard-cores admit that there has to be some government, but the aim should be to keep the level of government to a minimum.

As to this explosive statement: Nobody has any authority, (and all true authority ultimately must come from God) to enforce any of those "laws" that define such "criminal" acts, Hank. Do you understand that?

(1) No authority can be proven to ultimately come from God, without taking the word of an intermediary. That might be someone cool like Jesus, but it might be a jackass like Khomeini or Ahmenidijad( I really don't care if I misspelled that).

(2) Actually, authority is invested in the state by means of a social contract, represented (roughly) by the Constitution and the subsequent body of laws. Like it or not, continuing to live in the U.S. means honoring that contract.

(3) Earlier, I used the wrong summation for 'driver's license, registration, and proof on insurance', when I used the much shorter 'papers'. Of course, this gives the opinion an eerie, Nazi-like feel, and maybe I should have gone the extra yard, typing-wise. We should keep 'papers' to a minimum, in the spirit of my, er, opening remarks in this post. But I'm not asking her to show a passport, have an eye-scan or probe for a biometric marker - just driver's license, registration, and proof on insurance. We should draw the line there.

Because you gotta have some rules, but not too many.

chieftain
April 28, 2008, 04:57 PM
Sans Authoritas,

Sir you reject all and any authority. Legal, law bidding or otherwise. You only want the authority you want and accept. I reject that out of hand.

You sir, are an anarchist. And I say that as a bad thing.


I don't, in fact, vote. Voting is an act of aggression. The act of voting is the act of deciding who is going to implement policies coercively funded (through force or threat thereof) by other people's money (taxes.) I don't have any right to your money. None whatsoever. So I won't vote and vicariously choose someone to force you to pay taxes to support a policy I might like to see implemented.
--Sans Authoritas

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=4081575&highlight=Sans+Authoritas#post4081575

This ainít about rule of law, or innocent people. In an Anarchy there is no innocence and only law by strength. I sir, for one reject that.

I accept the rule of law, accepting that not all of them are perfect, and reject the rule of the jungle of Anarchy.

You frankly have nothing to add to this discussion about a law Enforcement Officer. You don't accept the rule of law.

Go figure.

Fred

Henry Bowman
April 28, 2008, 05:14 PM
Could we get this thread back on track now? Otherwise the mods--who do have the authority and power--will lock it.

Erik
April 28, 2008, 08:04 PM
"Did I hear the suspect say, "Don't shoot! Don't shoot!" right before you hear a rapid burst of 5 shots (which apparently failed to hit/kill the perpetrator?)"

You're hearing, iirc, the shot officer yelling to the arriving back-up to shoot the gunman.

Erik
April 28, 2008, 08:13 PM
Perfectly understandable, given his point of view: injured, having just learned the hard way who and what he was dealing with, and trying to ensure the responders don't have to learn the same lessons.

As for the rounds not killing him, most rounds don't kill people. There's something like a 70% survival rate for gunshot wounds. I'm sure somebody will come along with the exact numbers.

Sans Authoritas
April 28, 2008, 09:41 PM
Erik, listen to the audio again. You'll hear a very clear "Shoot him! Shoot him!" coming from the shot officer. Then you hear a not so clear "Don't shoot! Don't shoot!" coming from a distance.

Also, to most of those who posted replies, I sent a reply to each, addressing your points, in order to respect the moderator's wishes.
-Sans Authoritas

Erik
April 28, 2008, 11:54 PM
"Then you hear a not so clear "Don't shoot! Don't shoot!" coming from a distance."

Yes, you do. I cannot remember if that's attributed to another officer or the gunman, though I want ot say it was the gunman. (It was bundled with others in training that blurrs together now.)

Someone yelling not to shoot is not a reason not to shoot. I've yelled it more than once in training playing the role as the badguy... often right before I shoot someone.

It is what they are doing that is important. Still have the gun, given what was going on? Still a shoot situation. A good one, at that.

Sans Authoritas
April 29, 2008, 12:04 AM
Erik wrote:
Someone yelling not to shoot is not a reason not to shoot. I've yelled it more than once in training playing the role as the badguy... often right before I shoot someone.

It is what they are doing that is important. Still have the gun, given what was going on? Still a shoot situation.

Precisely what I said in post #12:

Granted, if the man still had a weapon while saying this, it would be moot.

And again in #31:

If the original thug had thrown his weapon away and put his hands up before we hear those rapid shots ring out, it seems that we are now dealing with two thugs.

-Sans Authoritas

loneviking
April 29, 2008, 02:21 AM
Sorry guys to disagree with some of you, but if I'm an LEO on the scene with another LEO on the ground--shot--screaming 'shoot him'....the PERP gets shot!

As backup, I'd have to believe that the LEO on the ground knows something about this BG that makes him believe that the BG is still a threat. BG has shown absolute disregard for authority; BG has shown a willingness to kill; BG doesn't get a second chance!

If you enjoyed reading about "Intense video - SC trooper shot" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!