marsofold
Member
Lest we forget, until pronounced guilty by a jury, THIS MAN IS INNOCENT!
CCW'r Shoots Cop in Head 4 Times
- Thread starter Steve N
- Start date
- Status
SCKimberFan
Member
PRESUMED Innocent.
The Swede
Member
I don't get why people post this crap on here. There are visitors on here ALL the time. Some of them Anti's. It makes us look bad. I'm sick of it. Going on THR is a lot like watching the news. Lots of bad news.
fletcher
Member
^ We're better than the antis because we acknowledge and show the truth, even the parts we don't like. Aside from that, it's extremely important that we be informed of issues that may affect us.
brighamr
Member
"...Thompson was obviously one of them"
"This kid, literally, sounds like a punk that should have had this exact situation reversed upon him."
The new THR policy: read two small MEDIA articles, and instantly judge the person involved.
Yeah, I didn't think this forum had fallen so low. Apparently I was wrong.
My take: After a full investigation, by LEO and The Defense, I'm sure a lot more details will be revealed. The simple fact that there is a witness (possibly credible) makes a big difference IMO.
Time will tell
"This kid, literally, sounds like a punk that should have had this exact situation reversed upon him."
The new THR policy: read two small MEDIA articles, and instantly judge the person involved.
Yeah, I didn't think this forum had fallen so low. Apparently I was wrong.
My take: After a full investigation, by LEO and The Defense, I'm sure a lot more details will be revealed. The simple fact that there is a witness (possibly credible) makes a big difference IMO.
Time will tell
Another problem likely to plague the defense is overkill. 4 headshots denotes passion, and someone not in control of their emotions. I'm gonna say this guy is probably going down. It's a tragedy for the victim's family, and CCW holders everywhere.
It likely going ot pan out in an Occam's Razor kind of way, namely that the bag guy murdered the good guy to escape arrest.
All we know:
An early morning traffic stop made
An attempted arrest was made
Backup from another, presumably closer, agency was made
Almost simultaneously, a neighbor called 911
The bad guy shot the good guy four times in the head
Everything occurred in approximately 2 minutes
Three rounds were recovered at the scene having past through the officer's head to the ground
All we know:
An early morning traffic stop made
An attempted arrest was made
Backup from another, presumably closer, agency was made
Almost simultaneously, a neighbor called 911
The bad guy shot the good guy four times in the head
Everything occurred in approximately 2 minutes
Three rounds were recovered at the scene having past through the officer's head to the ground
packnrat
Member
what hand gun can put a bullet into the cement??
.
.
brighamr said;
You mean it's only ok to do that when the media article is about a police officer right? The shoe is now on the other foot and I sincerely hope that some members here choke on it now that it's found it's way to their mouth err keyboard. I absolutely love the irony in this thread.
How many threads are here that are 150+ posts calling for the head of a police officer based on ONE small media article? What makes you think that a rush to judgment is ok then?
It's fun to watch the Brotherhood of the CCW badge close around one of it's own, just like the police officers who are members here are accused of all the time.
I'm not going to comment on what happened because there isn't enough information to make a judgment. Maybe the lesson here is that we shouldn't judge any of these cases on limited information.
Jeff
You mean it's only ok to do that when the media article is about a police officer right? The shoe is now on the other foot and I sincerely hope that some members here choke on it now that it's found it's way to their mouth err keyboard. I absolutely love the irony in this thread.
How many threads are here that are 150+ posts calling for the head of a police officer based on ONE small media article? What makes you think that a rush to judgment is ok then?
It's fun to watch the Brotherhood of the CCW badge close around one of it's own, just like the police officers who are members here are accused of all the time.
I'm not going to comment on what happened because there isn't enough information to make a judgment. Maybe the lesson here is that we shouldn't judge any of these cases on limited information.
Jeff
Samuel Adams
Member
Here is the latest from the Akron Beacon Journal:
Dispatch recording of Twinsburg traffic stop released
http://www.ohio.com/news/top_new/25524364.html?page=1&c=y
This story is being followed extensively in the Ohio CCW Forum.
http://ohioccwforums.org/viewtopic.php?t=21315&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
Dispatch recording of Twinsburg traffic stop released
http://www.ohio.com/news/top_new/25524364.html?page=1&c=y
This story is being followed extensively in the Ohio CCW Forum.
http://ohioccwforums.org/viewtopic.php?t=21315&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
jrfoxx
Member
Agreed.Even if, as unlikely as it is, the shoot was 100% legit and justified, and even with a credible witness (which will be iffy since she is a girfriend), I think this guy is hosed without video (or at least audio of the cop saying "I'm going to kill you" or something) to back up his, and his witness's story.
Without video proof, I just dont think the average jury will be convinced, unless something like a 3rd party witness, with NO connection to the cop, the shooter, or his witness, comes out with eyewitness evidence to support the shooter.THAT may save him without video, but I suspect VERY little else could.
I wont even guess at what actually happened, and if it was murder or self defense, but I will predict 2 thngs:
1) the shooter will be found guilty of murder and get a LONG sentence.
2) since there is no video, and the cop is dead,barring an independant 3rd party eyewitness to one side or the other (3rd party other than the GF) we will never know the truth for sure, unless the shooter confesses to murder.
Also, someone mentioned 4 shots=passion. very possibly, but 4 shots could also simply equal sheer panic due to fear of imminent death too, so I dont know if much can be inferred just from the number of shots alone.
Mossberg535
Member
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2008
- Messages
- 158
I got into the same kind of debate at another forum last week.
These anti gun nuts seem to think that the permit or the gun do the crime instead of the criminal doing the shooting, stabbing, etc.
This kid may have had a permit, but one has to wonder if he wasnt carrying long before and whether he'd have been carrying that day even without a permit.
Some gun hater told me that guns make it easier to kill but it wasnt too hard for me to find a story from Japan where they arent even allowed to own guns for the most part, where a guy ran a truck into a crowd, got out and started stabbing folks and managed to kill 8 and wound a bunch more in like 3 minutes.
People who are going to kill others for no reason are going to do it regardless of whether its with a gun or not.
I know one guy way back in the 70s in OH who didnt have a gun or any weapon at all who was pulled over by the cops.
He didnt want to go to jail so he waited till the cop was in just the right position, throws his car into gear and ran the cop over.
The LEO didnt die, thankfully, but nearly did.
These lunatics who think taking guns out of the picture will fix all of societies woes need to get their heads out of fantasy land and back into the real world
stevelyn
Member
Nothing of the sort was ever covered in my DUI training, but we did cover observable actions that indicate impaired driving which has nothing to do with decibels.
misANTHrope
Member
The Swede said:
What would you have us do? Pretend that bad things never happen involving guns, or carry permit holders?
If we expect to be taken seriously in the fight for our rights, then we need to acknowledge the facts, even if they don't support our views. Plugging our ears and pretending that every gun owner or permit holder is a saint does us absolutely no good; indeed. it portrays us as unreasonable folks who will go to any lengths to get what we want.
This isn't Democratic Underground. We don't suppress any discussion that's outside the status quo.
jaholder1971
Member
HO88 blurted
This is one of the most inane, asinine and low road statements I've seen on THR. A stronger message would follow, but you're not worth getting banned over.
There are some bad cops. There are some dirty cops. There a lot of mean cops. However suggesting that this officer deserved to get wasted because you don't like cops in general is beyond ridiculous.
This is one of the most inane, asinine and low road statements I've seen on THR. A stronger message would follow, but you're not worth getting banned over.
There are some bad cops. There are some dirty cops. There a lot of mean cops. However suggesting that this officer deserved to get wasted because you don't like cops in general is beyond ridiculous.
GlowinPontiac
Member
Why? This is America and we have the right to listen to our music as loud as we want providing we are not disturbing anyone. I can see if your blasting your stereo and creating a nuisance but I see nothing wrong with having a loud car stereo, in fact I have one myself. Most cars with loud high powered stereos are still nowhere near as loud as most Harley type bikes with open pipes or imports with big weed-eater sounding mufflers. Heck even your lawnmower makes more noise and the car is only in hearing distance for a few seconds until it drives away. Loud music does not mean a crime is being committed or is about to be committed.
It's going to be hard claiming self defense for shooting someone who was probably lying on the ground. If the officer was standing when shot the bullets would not have embedded themselves into the road.
whosyrdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 332
Originaly posted by mbt2001:
In a single short post you manage to bolster the plausibility of the Defendant's claim while demonstrating the prudence of his fleeing the scene. Good Job!
In a single short post you manage to bolster the plausibility of the Defendant's claim while demonstrating the prudence of his fleeing the scene. Good Job!
The U.S. legal system requires ONLY that the agents of the State (i.e. courts, judges etc.) must maintain a presumption of innocence.
As an individual citizen, I'm entitled to hold and publicly express the opinion that I think the punk is guilty as hell.
If it turns out that I'm wrong, then there's no harm-no foul, since merely expressing my personal opinion cannot harm him or send him to jail.
Lest you forget, there's the 1st amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees my right to hold and express my opinion.
GlowinPontiac said;
It seems that the people disagree with you. Tickets are written all the time for loud stereos and loud mufflers, some places even have laws on the books forbidding the use of Jake Brakes on trucks. There are even ordinances that establish zones where trains can't sound their horns or ring their bells at grade crossings. I'm not aware that a challenge to any of these laws has ever been upheld in court.
Here is an example of a state law about loud stereos:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...qEnd=131800000&ActName=Illinois+Vehicle+Code.
Other states have similar laws as do many municipalities. I don't know if Ohio has a similar law or if there is a county or municipal ordinance in effect there.
You quite clearly do not have the right to listen to your music as loud as you'd like in America.
If there is a state or local law about how loud the music can be played from a vehicle, then violation of that law is valid probable cause for a stop.
Jeff
It seems that the people disagree with you. Tickets are written all the time for loud stereos and loud mufflers, some places even have laws on the books forbidding the use of Jake Brakes on trucks. There are even ordinances that establish zones where trains can't sound their horns or ring their bells at grade crossings. I'm not aware that a challenge to any of these laws has ever been upheld in court.
Here is an example of a state law about loud stereos:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...qEnd=131800000&ActName=Illinois+Vehicle+Code.
Other states have similar laws as do many municipalities. I don't know if Ohio has a similar law or if there is a county or municipal ordinance in effect there.
You quite clearly do not have the right to listen to your music as loud as you'd like in America.
If there is a state or local law about how loud the music can be played from a vehicle, then violation of that law is valid probable cause for a stop.
Jeff
evan price
Member
From what we gather on OFCC this fella's CCW was revoked for carrying in a bar (forbidden to carry in a premises that serves alcohol in Ohio) and getting into a fight at that bar.
Apparantly a judge allowed him to do some unspecified diversion program and regain his CCW.
Apparantly a judge allowed him to do some unspecified diversion program and regain his CCW.
How in this day and age does a police vehicle not have a dashboard cam with an audio feed? Before you all start chiming in on the cost, think about the cost of not having them.
Wouldn't the cost of these electronics be offset by proving or disproving cases of misconduct by officers or suspects? Or having strong evidence in a lawsuit or even a murder trial? Having a recording of events, whether vidieo or audio, quickly cuts through the BS of He said-She said.
Wouldn't the cost of these electronics be offset by proving or disproving cases of misconduct by officers or suspects? Or having strong evidence in a lawsuit or even a murder trial? Having a recording of events, whether vidieo or audio, quickly cuts through the BS of He said-She said.
Big45
member
Bravo. How very Highroad of you.
lookn4varmints
Member
Good job, Defensory!!! +1
I'm glad to know someone understands this concept, because it gets lost VERY often in the media and elsewhere.- Status
