jmbg29
member
Bwaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaa LMAO
Cop shooter feared for his life, court told
- Thread starter 2dogs
- Start date
- Status
H Romberg
Member
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.
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.
H Romberg,
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
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
Gmac
Member
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
member
Well, you did say something about being a hippie-liberaltarian, or some such hogwash.
Oh yeah, another big newsflash for you. The "tribes" immegranted
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.
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.
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'm sure they will find that a comfort.
Ugh!
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: 
H Romberg
Member
JMBG29,
This thread must be doing wonders for your blood pressure. 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.
This thread must be doing wonders for your blood pressure.
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
member
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!
H Romberg
Member
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
Member
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.
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
member
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.
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!
I almost never respond to threads on LEO’s but I will this time...
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.
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
Member
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:
and
to filter out before getting to the pearls of wisdom, not to mention a heck of a lot of posts to read. 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.
"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:
and to filter out before getting to the pearls of wisdom, not to mention a heck of a lot of posts to read.
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
member
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?
Filtered out for your perusal.
The
and the :banghead: :banghead: , and the 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?
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
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
- Status
