Justin
Moderator Emeritus
Due to thread drift, this one's going over to the L&P forum.
Trooper shot & killed by barricaded warrant suspect
- Thread starter TheeBadOne
- Start date
- Status
Travis McGee
Member
The cop was killed by "small caliber" bulllets, and despite what the PD spokesman said, I have seen pics of the cops at his house with M-4 or CAR-15 type weapons.
It's very possible the cop was killed in a manner similar to what happened in Lubbock TX last year. The homeowner got pissed at his old lady, and in her absence threw her stuff on his lawn. Natch, the SWAT team was dispatched.
A SWAT guy had an accidental discharge, and the backyard SWAT guys had a several hundred round exchange with the front yard SWAT guys. I kid you not, this was in all the papers in great detail...after the fact.
The wounded homeowner was arrested and charged with murder one for killing a cop. Lucky for him, he owned no .223 weapons, and the dead cop was killed by a .223 (like here in Michigan). After a week locked up, he was let go. His home was wrecked by the barrage of bullets. "SORRY!" (not!)
The point is, the cops lied through their teeth to pin the cross-fire killing on the innocent homeowner, who never touched a gun. If he had owned a .223 , he'd be on death row. Food for thought.
BTW, in my novel ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC, (going to the printer tomorrow after 3 years of writing) the bad guy tactical unit has an SOP of leaving drop guns to connect their dead victims to out of state "militias". This way, the anti gun and anti "militia" media will lap up their version of the killings. "Oh, he was a MILITIA gun nut! He was trying to kill the cops!" It plays very well in TV-land when "assault rifles" are pulled out of the ashes. Especially when the "assault rifle" is traced to some militia yahoo in Idaho. Easy as ABC-123.
It's very possible the cop was killed in a manner similar to what happened in Lubbock TX last year. The homeowner got pissed at his old lady, and in her absence threw her stuff on his lawn. Natch, the SWAT team was dispatched.
A SWAT guy had an accidental discharge, and the backyard SWAT guys had a several hundred round exchange with the front yard SWAT guys. I kid you not, this was in all the papers in great detail...after the fact.
The wounded homeowner was arrested and charged with murder one for killing a cop. Lucky for him, he owned no .223 weapons, and the dead cop was killed by a .223 (like here in Michigan). After a week locked up, he was let go. His home was wrecked by the barrage of bullets. "SORRY!" (not!)
The point is, the cops lied through their teeth to pin the cross-fire killing on the innocent homeowner, who never touched a gun. If he had owned a .223 , he'd be on death row. Food for thought.
BTW, in my novel ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC, (going to the printer tomorrow after 3 years of writing) the bad guy tactical unit has an SOP of leaving drop guns to connect their dead victims to out of state "militias". This way, the anti gun and anti "militia" media will lap up their version of the killings. "Oh, he was a MILITIA gun nut! He was trying to kill the cops!" It plays very well in TV-land when "assault rifles" are pulled out of the ashes. Especially when the "assault rifle" is traced to some militia yahoo in Idaho. Easy as ABC-123.
brownie0486
Member
Intune :
You know my take on the guy from earlier posts. Ya, I'm the one calling him a dirtbag, and I explained why he was called such.
He resisted arrest and got an officer killed for HIS actions. HIS actions were the reason they were there to begin with. HIS actions caused the standoff and ultimate death of an officer. HIS actions dictated the LE's responses.
Sounds like a dirtbag to me.
Chris Rhines: No response to your feelings comment and my reply to you?
Guess you can see how some of us here feel just like you at times hey?
"I don't recall ever doing this. I do recall saying that we should not allow emotional stories of cops gunned down in the line of duty to make us squeamish about aggressively challenging police corruption and civil rights abuses."
And how about all those emotional stories reported here about police corruption and civil rights abuses? Had any thoughts about people getting "squeamish" reading all the police corruption articles posted as well? Or is that more to your liking and in line with your thought process?
Good for one, good for all I would think unless you don't believe in fair play and an open forum and prefer to hear nothing but anti-establishment/police rhetoric day in and day out as is posted here continuously.
I read those posts and take no issues with their right to post. Why are you questioning anyones motives when the shoe is on the other foot? Biased against the LE community in general?
Inquiring minds want to know how you can claim someone is emotionally charging the forum with pro LE threads but not the same for the anti crowd here.
Brownie
You know my take on the guy from earlier posts. Ya, I'm the one calling him a dirtbag, and I explained why he was called such.
He resisted arrest and got an officer killed for HIS actions. HIS actions were the reason they were there to begin with. HIS actions caused the standoff and ultimate death of an officer. HIS actions dictated the LE's responses.
Sounds like a dirtbag to me.
Chris Rhines: No response to your feelings comment and my reply to you?
Guess you can see how some of us here feel just like you at times hey?
"I don't recall ever doing this. I do recall saying that we should not allow emotional stories of cops gunned down in the line of duty to make us squeamish about aggressively challenging police corruption and civil rights abuses."
And how about all those emotional stories reported here about police corruption and civil rights abuses? Had any thoughts about people getting "squeamish" reading all the police corruption articles posted as well? Or is that more to your liking and in line with your thought process?
Good for one, good for all I would think unless you don't believe in fair play and an open forum and prefer to hear nothing but anti-establishment/police rhetoric day in and day out as is posted here continuously.
I read those posts and take no issues with their right to post. Why are you questioning anyones motives when the shoe is on the other foot? Biased against the LE community in general?
Inquiring minds want to know how you can claim someone is emotionally charging the forum with pro LE threads but not the same for the anti crowd here.
Brownie
Could it be that recurring discussions of official malfeasance, result from officials' unwillingness to address and/or correct same? Previous posting by brownie excellent case in point. Posting 10, or 100 more articles from officerdown.com, somehow seen as "fair play"? Us vs. them personified.
Intune
Member
House burns after standoff
Police find man's backpack, but no trace of him
July 9, 2003
BY LAURA POTTS AND CHRIS CHRISTOFF
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITERS
FREMONT -- Police were uncertain Tuesday night whether a man who barricaded himself inside a house during a confrontation Monday that left a State Police trooper dead was alive.
Scott Woodring, 41, was believed to be in the home when police fired a stun grenade into the house Tuesday afternoon. Shortly afterward, the house went up in flames and burned down.
But two hours after the fire, officials found a backpack filled with food and ammunition about three-quarters of a mile from the wreckage, Michigan State Police communications officer Tracy Pardo said.
Woodring's wife identified the backpack as his, Pardo said.
Police searched the rubble late Tuesday afternoon but found no trace of Woodring, who lived in a rural area near Fremont.
State Police Inspector Barry Getzen said he assumed Woodring might still be in the basement, though he would not say whether he was dead. Getzen said police fired percussion rounds in the house to temporarily disable anyone inside because they did not believe Woodring would come out. They believed he may have had supplies to last a long time in a standoff.
Getzen said percussion rounds are capable of starting a fire, which he called unintended consequences. (Emph mine)
State Trooper Kevin Marshall, 33, died after he was shot as he and other State Police officers tried to enter the home Monday. Police said Woodring threatened police from Hesperia when they tried to serve him a felony warrant for soliciting a minor for immoral purposes.
They said Woodring fired shots at them as they tried to negotiate with him, prompting the State Police to rush the house.
Gov. Jennifer Granholm ordered flags at state buildings to be lowered to half staff Tuesday to honor Marshall. Flags will remain lowered until sundown of the day of Marshall's funeral, Granholm said.
"Michigan's citizens need only to see the regal blue of a state trooper's uniform to see a true hero in their midst," Granholm said.
Woodring was known for his outspoken antigovernment views, and had ties to a Michigan militia unit until he was kicked out. Tom Wayne, executive officer of the Michigan Militia Wolverine Corps, said Woodring was among a group who professed Christian Identity views, which promote white supremacy, anti-Semitism and self-rule government.
"He was misguided in a lot of his stuff. We used to be friends," Wayne said. "I tried to take him out of this stuff, but it was too ingrained with these other clowns.
"He was a nice guy."
Woodring modeled his beliefs after the Freemen of Montana, a Christian Identity sect that made national headlines in 1996 when they held off federal FBI agents in an 81-day standoff in Montana.
That year, Woodring ran unsuccessfully for the post of Dayton Township supervisor in rural Newaygo County on an antigovernment platform modeled after the Freemen.
Woodring's brother, Doug Woodring, 35, said Scott Woodring didn't trust authorities.
"To him, the authorities were a threat to his safety," Doug Woodring said. "He's a very loving person; he would never intentionally hurt anyone. The only way anyone would get hurt is if he felt threatened."
Rich and Ruth Lucas, neighbors of Woodring, said he was helpful, plowing their driveway after winter snowstorms. They said he had once worked at Gerber, a baby food manufacturer, but was unemployed.
"He would help you in any way he can, but he is very, very antigovernment," Rich Lucas said.
Police find man's backpack, but no trace of him
July 9, 2003
BY LAURA POTTS AND CHRIS CHRISTOFF
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITERS
FREMONT -- Police were uncertain Tuesday night whether a man who barricaded himself inside a house during a confrontation Monday that left a State Police trooper dead was alive.
Scott Woodring, 41, was believed to be in the home when police fired a stun grenade into the house Tuesday afternoon. Shortly afterward, the house went up in flames and burned down.
But two hours after the fire, officials found a backpack filled with food and ammunition about three-quarters of a mile from the wreckage, Michigan State Police communications officer Tracy Pardo said.
Woodring's wife identified the backpack as his, Pardo said.
Police searched the rubble late Tuesday afternoon but found no trace of Woodring, who lived in a rural area near Fremont.
State Police Inspector Barry Getzen said he assumed Woodring might still be in the basement, though he would not say whether he was dead. Getzen said police fired percussion rounds in the house to temporarily disable anyone inside because they did not believe Woodring would come out. They believed he may have had supplies to last a long time in a standoff.
Getzen said percussion rounds are capable of starting a fire, which he called unintended consequences. (Emph mine)
State Trooper Kevin Marshall, 33, died after he was shot as he and other State Police officers tried to enter the home Monday. Police said Woodring threatened police from Hesperia when they tried to serve him a felony warrant for soliciting a minor for immoral purposes.
They said Woodring fired shots at them as they tried to negotiate with him, prompting the State Police to rush the house.
Gov. Jennifer Granholm ordered flags at state buildings to be lowered to half staff Tuesday to honor Marshall. Flags will remain lowered until sundown of the day of Marshall's funeral, Granholm said.
"Michigan's citizens need only to see the regal blue of a state trooper's uniform to see a true hero in their midst," Granholm said.
Woodring was known for his outspoken antigovernment views, and had ties to a Michigan militia unit until he was kicked out. Tom Wayne, executive officer of the Michigan Militia Wolverine Corps, said Woodring was among a group who professed Christian Identity views, which promote white supremacy, anti-Semitism and self-rule government.
"He was misguided in a lot of his stuff. We used to be friends," Wayne said. "I tried to take him out of this stuff, but it was too ingrained with these other clowns.
"He was a nice guy."
Woodring modeled his beliefs after the Freemen of Montana, a Christian Identity sect that made national headlines in 1996 when they held off federal FBI agents in an 81-day standoff in Montana.
That year, Woodring ran unsuccessfully for the post of Dayton Township supervisor in rural Newaygo County on an antigovernment platform modeled after the Freemen.
Woodring's brother, Doug Woodring, 35, said Scott Woodring didn't trust authorities.
"To him, the authorities were a threat to his safety," Doug Woodring said. "He's a very loving person; he would never intentionally hurt anyone. The only way anyone would get hurt is if he felt threatened."
Rich and Ruth Lucas, neighbors of Woodring, said he was helpful, plowing their driveway after winter snowstorms. They said he had once worked at Gerber, a baby food manufacturer, but was unemployed.
"He would help you in any way he can, but he is very, very antigovernment," Rich Lucas said.
Intune
Member
Suspect missing after standoff; cops are baffled
Police search torched house; no body is found
July 10, 2003
BY LAURA POTTS
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER
FREMONT -- Under the watch of dozens of cops who believed he had killed one of their own, Scott Woodring -- amazingly -- slipped away.
That was the only conclusion left for authorities Wednesday after they had nearly finished sifting through the charred remains of Woodring's home, where police had stood watch for most of two days before it went up in flames.
Woodring, 40, should be considered armed and dangerous, Michigan State Police Inspector Barry Getzen said Wednesday afternoon.
"We have no idea when or how he exited that building," Getzen said, adding that police have found no evidence of tunnels or barracks rumored to have been built there by Woodring, who friends and acquaintances said espoused antigovernment beliefs and was equipped for living on the run.
On Tuesday evening, his family identified a backpack -- containing food, ammunition and survival materials -- as Woodring's.
Hesperia police say Woodring threatened them when they attempted to serve him with a felony warrant for soliciting a minor for immoral purposes. Monday, as State Trooper Kevin Marshall and other officers tried to enter Woodring's home, shots were fired from inside, police said. Marshall, 33, was shot four times with a "small-caliber, high-velocity type round," Getzen said. That finding dispelled reports that Marshall may have been killed by a bullet fired by another officer, Getzen said.
Woodring's family members have maintained his innocence on the initial felony charge and have said he would not turn violent unless threatened. Woodring feared law enforcement and did not trust the government, they said, and they believed the standoff could have been averted if police had allowed the family to help resolve it.
Police continued Wednesday to block roads near where Woodring's house had stood among cornfields, woods and orchards a few miles outside Fremont. Getzen said no one had been in contact with Woodring, including his family, since late Monday afternoon. His wife escaped the home early during the standoff.
Getzen said police have no information suggesting anyone -- including members of a Michigan Militia unit Woodring had been linked to -- was helping Woodring.
A train runs through downtown Fremont, where Woodring, who was unemployed, was a familiar sight on his bike. Next to the tracks, Woodring fed his lifelong fascination of trains, said Rob Zeldenrust, general manager of the Fremont Co-op. The grain elevator and feed and farm supply store is next to the tracks, where trains run from Muskegon to Grand Rapids.
When they attended Fremont High, Zeldenrust said, Woodring carried model trains in his pockets and created imaginary cargo lists.
Police search torched house; no body is found
July 10, 2003
BY LAURA POTTS
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER
FREMONT -- Under the watch of dozens of cops who believed he had killed one of their own, Scott Woodring -- amazingly -- slipped away.
That was the only conclusion left for authorities Wednesday after they had nearly finished sifting through the charred remains of Woodring's home, where police had stood watch for most of two days before it went up in flames.
Woodring, 40, should be considered armed and dangerous, Michigan State Police Inspector Barry Getzen said Wednesday afternoon.
"We have no idea when or how he exited that building," Getzen said, adding that police have found no evidence of tunnels or barracks rumored to have been built there by Woodring, who friends and acquaintances said espoused antigovernment beliefs and was equipped for living on the run.
On Tuesday evening, his family identified a backpack -- containing food, ammunition and survival materials -- as Woodring's.
Hesperia police say Woodring threatened them when they attempted to serve him with a felony warrant for soliciting a minor for immoral purposes. Monday, as State Trooper Kevin Marshall and other officers tried to enter Woodring's home, shots were fired from inside, police said. Marshall, 33, was shot four times with a "small-caliber, high-velocity type round," Getzen said. That finding dispelled reports that Marshall may have been killed by a bullet fired by another officer, Getzen said.
Woodring's family members have maintained his innocence on the initial felony charge and have said he would not turn violent unless threatened. Woodring feared law enforcement and did not trust the government, they said, and they believed the standoff could have been averted if police had allowed the family to help resolve it.
Police continued Wednesday to block roads near where Woodring's house had stood among cornfields, woods and orchards a few miles outside Fremont. Getzen said no one had been in contact with Woodring, including his family, since late Monday afternoon. His wife escaped the home early during the standoff.
Getzen said police have no information suggesting anyone -- including members of a Michigan Militia unit Woodring had been linked to -- was helping Woodring.
A train runs through downtown Fremont, where Woodring, who was unemployed, was a familiar sight on his bike. Next to the tracks, Woodring fed his lifelong fascination of trains, said Rob Zeldenrust, general manager of the Fremont Co-op. The grain elevator and feed and farm supply store is next to the tracks, where trains run from Muskegon to Grand Rapids.
When they attended Fremont High, Zeldenrust said, Woodring carried model trains in his pockets and created imaginary cargo lists.
Intune
Member
"Getzen said police fired percussion rounds in the house to temporarily disable anyone inside because they did not believe Woodring would come out. They believed he may have had supplies to last a long time in a standoff. "
I hereby state to all LEOs that I only have supplies for 24 hours. I will release the cat, dog and bird unharmed so you don't use them as an excuse for fodder. Please give me one last shot at life before you raze my humble abode. Never hurts to ask one last time, eh? Sorry about all that Freeman, independant citizen stuff. Don't know what got into me. Oh, who's AR-15 is this? It came through the back window and I already have a shotgun and 30-30. Thanks for thinking of me though.
I hereby state to all LEOs that I only have supplies for 24 hours. I will release the cat, dog and bird unharmed so you don't use them as an excuse for fodder. Please give me one last shot at life before you raze my humble abode. Never hurts to ask one last time, eh? Sorry about all that Freeman, independant citizen stuff. Don't know what got into me. Oh, who's AR-15 is this? It came through the back window and I already have a shotgun and 30-30. Thanks for thinking of me though.
brownie0486
Member
hammer4nc :
It's not an us vs. them thing with me. I was merely showing all the anti establishment posts here and wondering why the people who have no problem with those types of posts are having such a hard time with the articles from the officer down site.
Is it fair play for people here to continuously post the anti police/bad cop stories and then complain when others post about deeds performed or officers killed doing their job?
Seems the ones who are questioning why he is posting those articles are the ones who have more of an issue with the us vs them thang. They apparently do not like the idea of someone continuously posting about a cop getting killed or injured.
As stated by one in particular individual, he certainly would not want those postings to take anybodys minds off the injustices by LE's which are posted continuously here. I question his motives in questioning why anyone posts anything about LE injuries/deaths but has not come forward to do the same relative all the anti-LE postings here.
He still hasn't answered the question posed to him, think it is pretty obvious that he has the us vs them mentality here and doesn't like it when someone posts anything about the opposite end of the spectrum.
Is it because those posts may just bring thee threads here back to some sense of objectivity?
Brownie
It's not an us vs. them thing with me. I was merely showing all the anti establishment posts here and wondering why the people who have no problem with those types of posts are having such a hard time with the articles from the officer down site.
Is it fair play for people here to continuously post the anti police/bad cop stories and then complain when others post about deeds performed or officers killed doing their job?
Seems the ones who are questioning why he is posting those articles are the ones who have more of an issue with the us vs them thang. They apparently do not like the idea of someone continuously posting about a cop getting killed or injured.
As stated by one in particular individual, he certainly would not want those postings to take anybodys minds off the injustices by LE's which are posted continuously here. I question his motives in questioning why anyone posts anything about LE injuries/deaths but has not come forward to do the same relative all the anti-LE postings here.
He still hasn't answered the question posed to him, think it is pretty obvious that he has the us vs them mentality here and doesn't like it when someone posts anything about the opposite end of the spectrum.
Is it because those posts may just bring thee threads here back to some sense of objectivity?
Brownie
As more information surfaces.....
We find that maybe the rush to judgement may have been premature. The biggest thing that upsets me about this thread was the immediate posting of statements condemning the police and elevating Woodring to hero/freedom fighter status. Now as the story dribbles out, it becomes more and more apparent that this was not a case of gross police misconduct.
It's also looking like Woodring may have either set the fire himself or at least used it to facilitate his escape.
Lets reevaluate the situation based on what we know now:
So knowing this the police sent local officers who Woodring was at least likely to be familiar with if he didn't in fact know them to pick him up on the warrant. Hardly sounds like they were trying to set him up for execution for his anti government views. Seems to me like the initial attempt to serve the warrant was reasonable. Anyone disagree?
After Woodring refused to comply with the arrest warrant and barricaded himself in the house. The local police called for assistance from the state police tactical unit. Knowing the situation was bigger then they had the resources to handle, they called for assistance. Again I think this was the right call. Does anyone here think that they should have backed off, told the prosecution and the alleged victim that "Scott doesn't want to come in now, guess there isn't anything more to do." So the state police came in, took charge of the situation, established inner and outer perimeters and started talking. They talked for 40 hours. Then:
Again Woodring, not the police escalated the situation.
The reports are unclear as to if Woodring let his wife leave the house on her own or if the SWAT team got her out without his knowledge. But they suggest that he wasn't willing to let her leave. Who knows?
So at this stage of the operation we have Woodring barricaded in the home, firing at the police and negotiations are going nowhere. The following is speculation, based on how things are done here. I don't know if that's what happened there, but most tactical operations are conducted by certain SOPs regardless of who is conducting them, because these techniques work:
Behind the scenes investigators are trying to find out everything they can about Scott Woodring. They are also gathering any information on the inside of the house etc. This information is then given to the negotiator and SWAT team so they can more effectively end the standoff with no injuries. So I'm sure the negotiator and incident commander knew that:
This would have figured into the mix only to help the negotiator know how to talk to him, what buttons to push, which ones not to. And for the incident commander to be able to plan how to take him into custody without injury to anyone.
At some point this information and the experience of the negotiator in dealing with Woodring led to the decision being made that the only way to end this was to attempt an entry and to seize him. At which point distraction devices were fired into the house and the team effected entry. A word on the use of distraction devices in police operations. They aren't used to disorient the suspect so he's an easy target to shoot. They are used to disorient him enough so that the officers can be on him and physically take him into custody before he has time to react and force the officers to shoot him in self defense. Obviously something went wrong. Perhaps Woodring heard them approaching and was ready for them. I don't know. I doubt if anyone on the forum knows. We do know that he was ready for them and that he murdered Trooper Marshall.
We find that maybe the rush to judgement may have been premature. The biggest thing that upsets me about this thread was the immediate posting of statements condemning the police and elevating Woodring to hero/freedom fighter status. Now as the story dribbles out, it becomes more and more apparent that this was not a case of gross police misconduct.
It's also looking like Woodring may have either set the fire himself or at least used it to facilitate his escape.
Lets reevaluate the situation based on what we know now:
So knowing this the police sent local officers who Woodring was at least likely to be familiar with if he didn't in fact know them to pick him up on the warrant. Hardly sounds like they were trying to set him up for execution for his anti government views. Seems to me like the initial attempt to serve the warrant was reasonable. Anyone disagree?
After Woodring refused to comply with the arrest warrant and barricaded himself in the house. The local police called for assistance from the state police tactical unit. Knowing the situation was bigger then they had the resources to handle, they called for assistance. Again I think this was the right call. Does anyone here think that they should have backed off, told the prosecution and the alleged victim that "Scott doesn't want to come in now, guess there isn't anything more to do." So the state police came in, took charge of the situation, established inner and outer perimeters and started talking. They talked for 40 hours. Then:
Again Woodring, not the police escalated the situation.
The reports are unclear as to if Woodring let his wife leave the house on her own or if the SWAT team got her out without his knowledge. But they suggest that he wasn't willing to let her leave. Who knows?
So at this stage of the operation we have Woodring barricaded in the home, firing at the police and negotiations are going nowhere. The following is speculation, based on how things are done here. I don't know if that's what happened there, but most tactical operations are conducted by certain SOPs regardless of who is conducting them, because these techniques work:
Behind the scenes investigators are trying to find out everything they can about Scott Woodring. They are also gathering any information on the inside of the house etc. This information is then given to the negotiator and SWAT team so they can more effectively end the standoff with no injuries. So I'm sure the negotiator and incident commander knew that:
This would have figured into the mix only to help the negotiator know how to talk to him, what buttons to push, which ones not to. And for the incident commander to be able to plan how to take him into custody without injury to anyone.
At some point this information and the experience of the negotiator in dealing with Woodring led to the decision being made that the only way to end this was to attempt an entry and to seize him. At which point distraction devices were fired into the house and the team effected entry. A word on the use of distraction devices in police operations. They aren't used to disorient the suspect so he's an easy target to shoot. They are used to disorient him enough so that the officers can be on him and physically take him into custody before he has time to react and force the officers to shoot him in self defense. Obviously something went wrong. Perhaps Woodring heard them approaching and was ready for them. I don't know. I doubt if anyone on the forum knows. We do know that he was ready for them and that he murdered Trooper Marshall.
Alan Smithiee
Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2002
- Messages
- 248
when the Jews were rounded up they were rounded up under warrents and under existing German Law.
just because it was done under the law doesn't make it right.
we had a student die next town over a couple of years ago, they busted him on a obscure firearms law (he didn't have the right permit), into the local lockup, found dead the next morning hanging in his cell, some think things were "arranged" (I think it was suicide)
so we have a man dead because the police enforced a law most of us here think was wrong.
and before people start thinking I'm anti cop, I spent some time last night explaining to the lady next door why cops don't always have the option of non lethal response to a Suicide by Cop (had an attempted one the other night, guy with a long history of instability and police run ins, came at the cop with a large knife, cop shot him in the arm, he kept comeing, shot to COM, currenty in critical condition , Office unharmed, she gave me the "they should have used Pepper Spray/Batons/Stun gun argument. I tried to explain the reality to her.)
the problem isin't just the bad cops. the problem is those in positions of athority who issue the orders and pick those who lead.
"We'll make Officer So and So head of the SWAT Squad, he's a very very VERY anti gun and thinks all gun owners are trying to kill every cop"
THAT kinda of decision costs lives on all side is these issues
just because it was done under the law doesn't make it right.
we had a student die next town over a couple of years ago, they busted him on a obscure firearms law (he didn't have the right permit), into the local lockup, found dead the next morning hanging in his cell, some think things were "arranged" (I think it was suicide)
so we have a man dead because the police enforced a law most of us here think was wrong.
and before people start thinking I'm anti cop, I spent some time last night explaining to the lady next door why cops don't always have the option of non lethal response to a Suicide by Cop (had an attempted one the other night, guy with a long history of instability and police run ins, came at the cop with a large knife, cop shot him in the arm, he kept comeing, shot to COM, currenty in critical condition , Office unharmed, she gave me the "they should have used Pepper Spray/Batons/Stun gun argument. I tried to explain the reality to her.)
the problem isin't just the bad cops. the problem is those in positions of athority who issue the orders and pick those who lead.
"We'll make Officer So and So head of the SWAT Squad, he's a very very VERY anti gun and thinks all gun owners are trying to kill every cop"
THAT kinda of decision costs lives on all side is these issues
Travis McGee
Member
Jeff White:
All I am saying is BE SKEPTICAL. The perp sounds like a nutbar dirtbag. This, in a perverse way, tends to make it easier for the police to cover up an AD killing by one of their own...if that happened. IF that happened.
In the Lubbock case, cops and DAs lied through their teeth for a solid week to frame an innocent man for murder one. If the innocent homeowner had owned a .223, he'd be on death row and the cops would have skated.
If you were a police chief or DA, and you had a choice, all things being equal, and the evidence being, shall we say "malleable" (especially after the home "accidentally" burns to the ground) between pinning the death on a good cop who had an AD, or a militia nutburger, what would you do?
Ruin a good cops career, or pin it on a militia nutbar?
In Lubbock they tried for a solid week to railroad an innocent man. Only his having no rifle under .30 saved him.
I am only saying BE SKEPTICAL. Evidence can be "massaged" when you control the crime scene.
(This is a big part of my book BTW, where a truly evil "special unit" goes off the deep end in nailing "right wing militia gun nut kooks. It's very easy to do, when the dead "gun nut" is someone the media already wants to hate, and they "find" illegal assault rifles etc in the ashes.)
All I am saying is BE SKEPTICAL. The perp sounds like a nutbar dirtbag. This, in a perverse way, tends to make it easier for the police to cover up an AD killing by one of their own...if that happened. IF that happened.
In the Lubbock case, cops and DAs lied through their teeth for a solid week to frame an innocent man for murder one. If the innocent homeowner had owned a .223, he'd be on death row and the cops would have skated.
If you were a police chief or DA, and you had a choice, all things being equal, and the evidence being, shall we say "malleable" (especially after the home "accidentally" burns to the ground) between pinning the death on a good cop who had an AD, or a militia nutburger, what would you do?
Ruin a good cops career, or pin it on a militia nutbar?
In Lubbock they tried for a solid week to railroad an innocent man. Only his having no rifle under .30 saved him.
I am only saying BE SKEPTICAL. Evidence can be "massaged" when you control the crime scene.
(This is a big part of my book BTW, where a truly evil "special unit" goes off the deep end in nailing "right wing militia gun nut kooks. It's very easy to do, when the dead "gun nut" is someone the media already wants to hate, and they "find" illegal assault rifles etc in the ashes.)
Chris Rhines
Member
Brownie -
I don't generally read your posts. But since you asked, no, I don't feel anything of the sort.
- Chris
I don't generally read your posts. But since you asked, no, I don't feel anything of the sort.
- Chris
Ryder
Member
I believe this to be mistaken. I haven't the time to research this right now but I do recall that there is a Texas statute which provides for lethal resistance against an illegal arrest by an officer of the law. Anybody know what I am talking about
In the spirit of bridging the understanding between the two groups I'd like to say: From what I read here the "authorities' among us believe that the unavoidable consequence of death should be justification for complying with their demands? It doesn't work that way. People do take a stand for rights when they've done no wrong. That's just natural, get used to it, when you make a mistake consequences can and often do arise. You get so used to arresting people that you think it's no big deal. Just doing your job? Loss of freedom is the ultimate penalty. So an arrest is a penalty being incurred before a judgement of guilt. Submission is easy if we are guilty, hard if we are not.
Since the facts surrounding the warrant have come out it makes more sense to me. This sexual improprieties against minors thing has been a witch hunt for far too long. It kicked off with the best of intentions back in the 80's but got way out of hand thanks to the politically correct 90's. Who would expect justice to arise from such a railroading? I've got a lot of faith in judges but prosecutors are too well practiced at getting convictions using unethical tactics. The sentences are extremely stiff, if your life is to be ruined anyway then what's to lose? If one makes all decisions based on not having to suffer future regrets then dying is certainly one of the most assured ways to achieve that.
It's not just a case of bad laws, the potential penalties themselves are as much to blame. In other words if the penalty for shoplifting differs no less than that for murder then people will murder to get away with it. This is the reason we hear the words rape and murder used in the same breath so often nowadays. Why leave a witness? Why submit to arrest?
Y'all can post as many dead cop stories as you want as far as I'm concerned. Most of us read them the first time around though. It is more than a little odd to read them again at such a later date. You could try a search before posting one, or just stick to current events, that should have you appearing a little less strange to others for posting these
brownie0486
Member
Ryder :
Have you considered the possibility that the guy was actually guilty and his life would be ruined when the evidence came out?, and maybe thats why he resisted?
Instead of your ponderings about he may have been innocent and stood his ground as some injustice was being perpetrated agaisnt him for whatever reason? by whoever?
Death is always avoidable, well at least most of the time unless you are of the type who believes there is a vast conspiracy of police and prosecutors in this country who are outto get everyone for anything.
You mention you trust the judges but not the prosecutors, you do realize the judge would have had to see the statements from the girls and any and all other evidence to support the warrant right? So a judge decided there was enough evidence to issue the warrant.
Sexual improprieties? They happen all the time, more than we care to know. Look at the priests in the news, pedophiles, molesters, sex offenders who are registered etc. There are many out there preying on the general public. I'm not so sure these are witch hunts when the clergy admit guilt, as well as the church for looking the other way at the evidence before them over all those years.
I don't believe there are witch hunts by prosecutors or judges on a regular basis, but of course it does happen as in all things.
I don't believe there is an unavoidable consequence of death and this "People do take a stand for rights when they've done no wrong." would be just fine, but he statred shooting at the cops outside, is that taking a stand that we should admire or tolerate?
Where do his rights end? How about when his actions affects my rights. I don;t believe he has the right to shoot at police if in so doing he then is deemed taking mine [ as a police officer and human being ] away from me.
His shooting at the cops endangered the officers and the general public, what about their rights. There is a right and wrong way to take the "stand". Shooting at officers will never be considered one of the right ways to make your stand without the potential consequence of death in so doing.
"Who would expect justice to arise from such a railroading"--what injustice in this case? Are saying you think he was being railroaded.
So, lets assume that was the case [ which I don't think you will find to be true, but for the sake of argument ], he was being railroaded. Fine, does that mean you are right to attempt to murder others affectingthe judges order? It isn;t the cops who issued the warrant ot looked at the evidence to support the warrant, so how are they, by extension guilty of railroading him? If thats true, then does he have the right to attempt to murder them becuase someone else is railroading him and they were following orders of the court?
People seem to really have a problem here with their rights being violated by others. How about the rights of the police officers as well? After all, they have the same rights don't they? Wasn't this dirtbag violating their rights by his actions?
The one sided theories and conspiracy assumptions I see posted here against the LE community in general give ponderance as to who actually is being objective in their observations.
Brownie
Have you considered the possibility that the guy was actually guilty and his life would be ruined when the evidence came out?, and maybe thats why he resisted?
Instead of your ponderings about he may have been innocent and stood his ground as some injustice was being perpetrated agaisnt him for whatever reason? by whoever?
Death is always avoidable, well at least most of the time unless you are of the type who believes there is a vast conspiracy of police and prosecutors in this country who are outto get everyone for anything.
You mention you trust the judges but not the prosecutors, you do realize the judge would have had to see the statements from the girls and any and all other evidence to support the warrant right? So a judge decided there was enough evidence to issue the warrant.
Sexual improprieties? They happen all the time, more than we care to know. Look at the priests in the news, pedophiles, molesters, sex offenders who are registered etc. There are many out there preying on the general public. I'm not so sure these are witch hunts when the clergy admit guilt, as well as the church for looking the other way at the evidence before them over all those years.
I don't believe there are witch hunts by prosecutors or judges on a regular basis, but of course it does happen as in all things.
I don't believe there is an unavoidable consequence of death and this "People do take a stand for rights when they've done no wrong." would be just fine, but he statred shooting at the cops outside, is that taking a stand that we should admire or tolerate?
Where do his rights end? How about when his actions affects my rights. I don;t believe he has the right to shoot at police if in so doing he then is deemed taking mine [ as a police officer and human being ] away from me.
His shooting at the cops endangered the officers and the general public, what about their rights. There is a right and wrong way to take the "stand". Shooting at officers will never be considered one of the right ways to make your stand without the potential consequence of death in so doing.
"Who would expect justice to arise from such a railroading"--what injustice in this case? Are saying you think he was being railroaded.
So, lets assume that was the case [ which I don't think you will find to be true, but for the sake of argument ], he was being railroaded. Fine, does that mean you are right to attempt to murder others affectingthe judges order? It isn;t the cops who issued the warrant ot looked at the evidence to support the warrant, so how are they, by extension guilty of railroading him? If thats true, then does he have the right to attempt to murder them becuase someone else is railroading him and they were following orders of the court?
People seem to really have a problem here with their rights being violated by others. How about the rights of the police officers as well? After all, they have the same rights don't they? Wasn't this dirtbag violating their rights by his actions?
The one sided theories and conspiracy assumptions I see posted here against the LE community in general give ponderance as to who actually is being objective in their observations.
Brownie
TheeBadOne
Member
Trooper laid to rest
http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1356564
(Warren-AP-July, 11, 2003, 11:00 a.m.) Law enforcement officers saluted and church bells tolled as the funeral Mass for a slain state police trooper got under way this morning.
The service in Warren is being held for Trooper Kevin Marshall. The 33-year-old married father of two was a native of neighboring Sterling Heights. Eight troopers carried Marshall's casket inside the church.
Marshall was shot Monday afternoon when his tactical team stormed a western Michigan house during a stand-off that began the night before. The eight-year state police veteran died later that day during surgery.
Scott Allen Woodring managed to slip out of his home and past dozens of police officers who'd surrounded him during the 42-hour stand-off. He's still at large.
A memorial fund has been set up for Marshall's two children. Donations can be sent to Todd Pappas in care of Comerica Bank PO Box 75,000 Detroit 48275 - 2413. Checks should be made out to the Kevin Marshall Memorial Fund.
http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1356564
(Warren-AP-July, 11, 2003, 11:00 a.m.) Law enforcement officers saluted and church bells tolled as the funeral Mass for a slain state police trooper got under way this morning.
The service in Warren is being held for Trooper Kevin Marshall. The 33-year-old married father of two was a native of neighboring Sterling Heights. Eight troopers carried Marshall's casket inside the church.
Marshall was shot Monday afternoon when his tactical team stormed a western Michigan house during a stand-off that began the night before. The eight-year state police veteran died later that day during surgery.
Scott Allen Woodring managed to slip out of his home and past dozens of police officers who'd surrounded him during the 42-hour stand-off. He's still at large.
A memorial fund has been set up for Marshall's two children. Donations can be sent to Todd Pappas in care of Comerica Bank PO Box 75,000 Detroit 48275 - 2413. Checks should be made out to the Kevin Marshall Memorial Fund.
Cosmoline
Member
The old common law rule, modified by many states, is that you can resist an illegal arrest. Whether or not you can use force, let alone deadly force, varies. The traditional rule was that deadly force could only be used if the officer is about to kill you. This would not apply to resisting a warrant to search--you have no right to do that anywhere as far as I know. You can call your lawyer or the judge who issued the warrant to complain, but you can't stop them from searching.
How would you have an orderly and safe society??
Ryder,
Can someone be charged with Resisting Arrest in Texas? I don't know, I'm not from there. But I can't imagine how the courts function and anything gets done there if you are permitted to resist arrest. So you're telling me that everyone in jail for any offense in Texas, went in willingly out of the goodness of his or her heart in the interest of having an orderly society?
The founding fathers were very concerned with limiting the power of the government to interfere with the lives of the citizens. They finally settled on a Bill of Rights that were essentially laws restricting what the government could do. The states added to this when they created their constitutions and their criminal justice procedures. They built checks and balances into the system at all levels. Are there abuses sometimes? Yes. Human beings run the criminal justice system so it will be imperfect.
Do you know how hard it is to get arrested for a crime in most places? Unless a peace officer witnesses you commit the crime, you most likely will not be arrested on the spot. What happens is the victim reports the crime to the police. The police then take the victim's version of events in the form of a statement. Then they seek out other witnesses and attempt to gather physical evidence. If the suspect names you as the criminal, an officer will most likely speak to you (in most cases you aren't under arrest at this point and you don't have to speak with them) and get your side of the story (after advising you of your right not to tell your story and your right to be advised by counsel). At this point, you may or may not be arrested depending on the evidence. If they have you on video tape soliciting the girls at the gas station, you're probably going to be arrested then if the laws of the state your in permit that. If not the entire file will be forwarded to the prosecuting attorney, who will review it and decide if there is sufficient evidence to charge you. Depending on the laws in the state your in, he may or may not have to submit the case to a grand jury. Or he may have to submit it to a judge, who will sign the arrest warrant ordering all peace officers to take you into custody without delay.
George Washington was right when he said that government is force. Which is why we have so many restrictions on when and how the government may use the force. But he didn't say that the government shouldn't be force and all of the founding fathers recognized that there were circumstances where the government would have to use force. So they struck a balance between the government's need to use force in order to ensure domestic tranquility and the right of the citizens to go about their lives free from unreasonable intrusions of government force.
But nowhere did the give anyone the legal right to resist arrest They built enough checks and balances into the system including provisions forbidding the setting of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment that they expected people to settle things in court. Not on the street with violence.
The system provides for them to take a stand when they've done no wrong. In court The system provides them with legal counsel to help them make their stand if they can't afford to hire their own.
I'm unclear about this. Who made the mistake?
No it's almost always a big deal. And this is going to really frost you, but I often get a sense of a job well done when I make an arrest. It can be especially satisfying to know that a violent or predatory person is no longer free to harm others due to my work.
No, loss of life is the ultimate penalty. But the founders knew that loss of freedom is a terrible penalty and thoughtfully provided for bail so that you can go about your life while you are settling your differences with the state in court. Don't have a job you say, no money...not a problem, many people are released on their own recognisance (a verbal promise to the judge to show up in court when they are supposed to be there) if their crime is too serious. Been accused of a serious crime where ROR isn't possible, there is an entire industry of bail bondsmen who will loan you the money.
What would you propose as an alternative? The government doesn't have a right to compel you to appear in court? The government doesn't have a right to detain you to make certain you appear? You have the right to resist and after you've killed oh just for the sake of arguement,10 officers attempting to arrest you, you are declared the winner and your charges are dismissed? You are tried in absentia and only arrested after conviction? But how would you present your case?
I'm sorry but you have no right to resist arrest. In fact most state constitutions give peace officers the authority to use whatever force is necessary to effect the arrest. If you had the right to resist arrest, there would be no sense having police or courts.
Jeff
Ryder,
Can someone be charged with Resisting Arrest in Texas? I don't know, I'm not from there. But I can't imagine how the courts function and anything gets done there if you are permitted to resist arrest. So you're telling me that everyone in jail for any offense in Texas, went in willingly out of the goodness of his or her heart in the interest of having an orderly society?
The founding fathers were very concerned with limiting the power of the government to interfere with the lives of the citizens. They finally settled on a Bill of Rights that were essentially laws restricting what the government could do. The states added to this when they created their constitutions and their criminal justice procedures. They built checks and balances into the system at all levels. Are there abuses sometimes? Yes. Human beings run the criminal justice system so it will be imperfect.
Do you know how hard it is to get arrested for a crime in most places? Unless a peace officer witnesses you commit the crime, you most likely will not be arrested on the spot. What happens is the victim reports the crime to the police. The police then take the victim's version of events in the form of a statement. Then they seek out other witnesses and attempt to gather physical evidence. If the suspect names you as the criminal, an officer will most likely speak to you (in most cases you aren't under arrest at this point and you don't have to speak with them) and get your side of the story (after advising you of your right not to tell your story and your right to be advised by counsel). At this point, you may or may not be arrested depending on the evidence. If they have you on video tape soliciting the girls at the gas station, you're probably going to be arrested then if the laws of the state your in permit that. If not the entire file will be forwarded to the prosecuting attorney, who will review it and decide if there is sufficient evidence to charge you. Depending on the laws in the state your in, he may or may not have to submit the case to a grand jury. Or he may have to submit it to a judge, who will sign the arrest warrant ordering all peace officers to take you into custody without delay.
George Washington was right when he said that government is force. Which is why we have so many restrictions on when and how the government may use the force. But he didn't say that the government shouldn't be force and all of the founding fathers recognized that there were circumstances where the government would have to use force. So they struck a balance between the government's need to use force in order to ensure domestic tranquility and the right of the citizens to go about their lives free from unreasonable intrusions of government force.
But nowhere did the give anyone the legal right to resist arrest They built enough checks and balances into the system including provisions forbidding the setting of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment that they expected people to settle things in court. Not on the street with violence.
The system provides for them to take a stand when they've done no wrong. In court The system provides them with legal counsel to help them make their stand if they can't afford to hire their own.
I'm unclear about this. Who made the mistake?
No it's almost always a big deal. And this is going to really frost you, but I often get a sense of a job well done when I make an arrest. It can be especially satisfying to know that a violent or predatory person is no longer free to harm others due to my work.
No, loss of life is the ultimate penalty. But the founders knew that loss of freedom is a terrible penalty and thoughtfully provided for bail so that you can go about your life while you are settling your differences with the state in court. Don't have a job you say, no money...not a problem, many people are released on their own recognisance (a verbal promise to the judge to show up in court when they are supposed to be there) if their crime is too serious. Been accused of a serious crime where ROR isn't possible, there is an entire industry of bail bondsmen who will loan you the money.
What would you propose as an alternative? The government doesn't have a right to compel you to appear in court? The government doesn't have a right to detain you to make certain you appear? You have the right to resist and after you've killed oh just for the sake of arguement,10 officers attempting to arrest you, you are declared the winner and your charges are dismissed? You are tried in absentia and only arrested after conviction? But how would you present your case?
I'm sorry but you have no right to resist arrest. In fact most state constitutions give peace officers the authority to use whatever force is necessary to effect the arrest. If you had the right to resist arrest, there would be no sense having police or courts.
Jeff
Cosmoline,
How do you know the arrest is illegal? How does the officer know? it's an illegal arrest? Warrants around here aree worded something like: To all peace officers. You are hereby commanded to take John Doe into custody for the crime of ____________ You will bring him before this court without delay (This is paraphrased I don't have a warrant in front of me).
How about warrants that are entered into the computer? Most jurisdictions just have a requirement for the officer to know that the warrant exisits and he is compelled to make the arrest or he could be found in contempt and charged with official misconduct. The officer does not have to have the actual warrant in hand. He just has to know it exists.
So please give me an example of an illegal arrest and how one should resist. I suppose if the authorities showed up to arrest you for a crime that didn't exisit, say breathing untaxed air, you could say that that was an illegal arrest. So give me a practical example of an illegal arrest.
Jeff
How do you know the arrest is illegal? How does the officer know? it's an illegal arrest? Warrants around here aree worded something like: To all peace officers. You are hereby commanded to take John Doe into custody for the crime of ____________ You will bring him before this court without delay (This is paraphrased I don't have a warrant in front of me).
How about warrants that are entered into the computer? Most jurisdictions just have a requirement for the officer to know that the warrant exisits and he is compelled to make the arrest or he could be found in contempt and charged with official misconduct. The officer does not have to have the actual warrant in hand. He just has to know it exists.
So please give me an example of an illegal arrest and how one should resist. I suppose if the authorities showed up to arrest you for a crime that didn't exisit, say breathing untaxed air, you could say that that was an illegal arrest. So give me a practical example of an illegal arrest.
Jeff
benewton
Member
Brownie
" If you choose to go down fighting you will lose. A prudent person would recognize that fact and act accordingly unless they didn't care about themselves or others they would be affecting by their actions."
The point that you miss is that that will be the effect no matter what he did, guilty or innocent, once the LEO's, followed by the prosecuters, got involved.
On essence, the is no EFFECTIVE defense, in the sense that if you are exonerated, there isn't any cost to your finances or reputation.
Having set up a situation where the person WILL lose, no matter what follows, I think you're a bit hypocritical to claim the merely rolling over will satisfy the situation. It might suit the LEO's point of view better, but it'd not change the actual end result in the least for HIS point of view, except, maybe, for his time of death, and the financial resources left to his kin.
And I ask again, why do you wonder that he chose to fire, assuming that he did, taking the "irresistable force" way out rather than simply rolling over and accepting the "suicide by prison" option?
Ah, but all he had to do was submit, as you say, and things would progress to redress later.
"They" will, I think, come for the registered weapons, sooner rather than later.
And, there are the forms that we all fill out to buy our legal weapons, which, of course, while they must be maintained by the FFL, assuming, of course, that the instant check isn't kept or backed up, doesn't constitute registration.
And, of course, they've no idea who ownes weapons, so perhaps door to door searches are in order?
And we should do what?
'cause if we'd only roll over, all problems would be solved, right?
And I'm still waiting for the "Aw ****" list, promoted by the LEO crowd, to
highlight their mistakes. After all, of you want "glory" for your sacrifice, surely you must admit, with the same level of publicity, to your errors. In particular since, it seems to me, you most often "accident" those unable to resist in any effective manner.
Also, I wonder about the "hero" designation: there seem to be a bit too many around these days, and, live or die, how does doing your job constitute heroism?
As for this particular case, I've not enough information to judge the mess, but I am sure that that published will be crap, and, as usual, regardless, I've no option to do anything about it. As I said, it'll be a "good" shoot, or burn, or whatever, but the person that was pissing off the powers that be, and their employees sent to neutralize him, will be gone, and, after all, isn't it only thing that matters?
But I am sure that my time will come, with luck giving me time to make a choice, but if SWAT works, and the dogs don't, maybe not. Don't know, haven't placed sensors around the place, etc., but I'd rather take one along than die in bed, home or jail.
I do know that, given that I know the "legal" offense, I'd fire before I'd be cuffed.
5' 8.5" isn't all that big, but standing vrs knees is, to my mind.
You, of course, can chart your own course, but I'd ask you how you'd handle an order to collect civilian arms, except that I already know the answer.
" If you choose to go down fighting you will lose. A prudent person would recognize that fact and act accordingly unless they didn't care about themselves or others they would be affecting by their actions."
The point that you miss is that that will be the effect no matter what he did, guilty or innocent, once the LEO's, followed by the prosecuters, got involved.
On essence, the is no EFFECTIVE defense, in the sense that if you are exonerated, there isn't any cost to your finances or reputation.
Having set up a situation where the person WILL lose, no matter what follows, I think you're a bit hypocritical to claim the merely rolling over will satisfy the situation. It might suit the LEO's point of view better, but it'd not change the actual end result in the least for HIS point of view, except, maybe, for his time of death, and the financial resources left to his kin.
And I ask again, why do you wonder that he chose to fire, assuming that he did, taking the "irresistable force" way out rather than simply rolling over and accepting the "suicide by prison" option?
Ah, but all he had to do was submit, as you say, and things would progress to redress later.
"They" will, I think, come for the registered weapons, sooner rather than later.
And, there are the forms that we all fill out to buy our legal weapons, which, of course, while they must be maintained by the FFL, assuming, of course, that the instant check isn't kept or backed up, doesn't constitute registration.
And, of course, they've no idea who ownes weapons, so perhaps door to door searches are in order?
And we should do what?
'cause if we'd only roll over, all problems would be solved, right?
And I'm still waiting for the "Aw ****" list, promoted by the LEO crowd, to
highlight their mistakes. After all, of you want "glory" for your sacrifice, surely you must admit, with the same level of publicity, to your errors. In particular since, it seems to me, you most often "accident" those unable to resist in any effective manner.
Also, I wonder about the "hero" designation: there seem to be a bit too many around these days, and, live or die, how does doing your job constitute heroism?
As for this particular case, I've not enough information to judge the mess, but I am sure that that published will be crap, and, as usual, regardless, I've no option to do anything about it. As I said, it'll be a "good" shoot, or burn, or whatever, but the person that was pissing off the powers that be, and their employees sent to neutralize him, will be gone, and, after all, isn't it only thing that matters?
But I am sure that my time will come, with luck giving me time to make a choice, but if SWAT works, and the dogs don't, maybe not. Don't know, haven't placed sensors around the place, etc., but I'd rather take one along than die in bed, home or jail.
I do know that, given that I know the "legal" offense, I'd fire before I'd be cuffed.
5' 8.5" isn't all that big, but standing vrs knees is, to my mind.
You, of course, can chart your own course, but I'd ask you how you'd handle an order to collect civilian arms, except that I already know the answer.
Anyone have a response to the statement issued by the Woodring family late Wed. night? I don't think its been posted yet. It contains some details about the "standoff" (pre-shooting) that have not been discussed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1354579&nav=0RceGoqA
Woodring family releases statement
Email to a Friend
Printer Friendly Version
(Fremont, July 9, 2003, 11:43 p.m.) The Woodring family issued a statement today.
The Woodring family statement:
Our sympathy, thoughts, and prayers are with Trooper Kevin Marshall's family.
Before the standoff started, the family feels that the whole ordeal could have been prevented. We know that a family member contacted authorities with specific information on the best way she felt they could have served the original warrant to Scott, where he would be located during daylight hours on July 4th when he would be with family members for support. But, for reasons unknown to us they chose not to use this information.
We find it hard to believe Scott would intentionally harm anyone unless it was from a feeling of self-defense. The statement presented at the news conference this morning would indicated otherwise.
To clarify previous statements about Scott's wife's removal from the home, she wants it known that she left willingly.
We KNOW that Scott did not prevent her from leaving.
The authorities say communication with Scott ceased at approximately 2:30 p.m. Monday, July 7th. Up to that point, family members had direct contact with Scott via cell phones and amateur radio, and he was talking calmly and rationally with us. The authorities were surprised to discover we had been communicating with Scott. Shortly thereafter Scott's telephone number was disabled. The authorities apologized to the family for "ACCIDENTALLY" knocking down Scott's amateur radio tower he had been using to communicate with his wife. The authorities told the family they had Scott's telephone number changed. Family members requested the new phone number, and this request was denied. After all communication with family members was cut off, we know Scott would refuse to communicate with authorities due to his distrust of them.
Later in the chain of events, the family requested that two family ministers be allowed to talk to Scott and was refused.
We are strongly urging Scott to peacefully surrender to authorities. Your family is willing to support you in any possible way. Scott, we love you and are praying for you and your safety.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(emphasis added)
Isn't it curious how the details mentioned above differ markedly from the "official" statements? Those who are defending the actions of the authorities, portray how avoidance of injuries is paramount when dealing with this type of situation. Went so far as to chastise me for posting a Waco analogy.
One of the big themes learned from Waco (in post-op analyses) was NOT to isolate the suspect; keep lines of communication open; esp. with a suspect whose distrust in govt. is well known and documented going in? Yet, it seems the actions described above go completely opposite...many actions to isolate the suspect - way beyond "accidental" knocking down of a radio tower (yeah, right). At least they didn't play "These Boots are Made for Walkin" at 140 db in the middle of the night (so we've made progress, eh?)
If the authorities were "bending over backwards" to avoid injuries, how do you explain all these actions to intentionally ISOLATE the subject?
Its apparent in this thread that one side is predisposed to believe the authroities, and make rational arguments for defendants to "trust the system". The rhetorical alternative posed is nothing short of anarchy.
Perhaps there's a third path, where official response takes into account the DISTRUST people have for the officials going in (for whatever reason...larger issues in society or whatever), not assuming that the other side shares your faith in the system. Seems like some missed opportunities in this case, eh?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1354579&nav=0RceGoqA
Woodring family releases statement
Email to a Friend
Printer Friendly Version
(Fremont, July 9, 2003, 11:43 p.m.) The Woodring family issued a statement today.
The Woodring family statement:
Our sympathy, thoughts, and prayers are with Trooper Kevin Marshall's family.
Before the standoff started, the family feels that the whole ordeal could have been prevented. We know that a family member contacted authorities with specific information on the best way she felt they could have served the original warrant to Scott, where he would be located during daylight hours on July 4th when he would be with family members for support. But, for reasons unknown to us they chose not to use this information.
We find it hard to believe Scott would intentionally harm anyone unless it was from a feeling of self-defense. The statement presented at the news conference this morning would indicated otherwise.
To clarify previous statements about Scott's wife's removal from the home, she wants it known that she left willingly.
We KNOW that Scott did not prevent her from leaving.
The authorities say communication with Scott ceased at approximately 2:30 p.m. Monday, July 7th. Up to that point, family members had direct contact with Scott via cell phones and amateur radio, and he was talking calmly and rationally with us. The authorities were surprised to discover we had been communicating with Scott. Shortly thereafter Scott's telephone number was disabled. The authorities apologized to the family for "ACCIDENTALLY" knocking down Scott's amateur radio tower he had been using to communicate with his wife. The authorities told the family they had Scott's telephone number changed. Family members requested the new phone number, and this request was denied. After all communication with family members was cut off, we know Scott would refuse to communicate with authorities due to his distrust of them.
Later in the chain of events, the family requested that two family ministers be allowed to talk to Scott and was refused.
We are strongly urging Scott to peacefully surrender to authorities. Your family is willing to support you in any possible way. Scott, we love you and are praying for you and your safety.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(emphasis added)
Isn't it curious how the details mentioned above differ markedly from the "official" statements? Those who are defending the actions of the authorities, portray how avoidance of injuries is paramount when dealing with this type of situation. Went so far as to chastise me for posting a Waco analogy.
One of the big themes learned from Waco (in post-op analyses) was NOT to isolate the suspect; keep lines of communication open; esp. with a suspect whose distrust in govt. is well known and documented going in? Yet, it seems the actions described above go completely opposite...many actions to isolate the suspect - way beyond "accidental" knocking down of a radio tower (yeah, right). At least they didn't play "These Boots are Made for Walkin" at 140 db in the middle of the night (so we've made progress, eh?)
If the authorities were "bending over backwards" to avoid injuries, how do you explain all these actions to intentionally ISOLATE the subject?
Its apparent in this thread that one side is predisposed to believe the authroities, and make rational arguments for defendants to "trust the system". The rhetorical alternative posed is nothing short of anarchy.
Perhaps there's a third path, where official response takes into account the DISTRUST people have for the officials going in (for whatever reason...larger issues in society or whatever), not assuming that the other side shares your faith in the system. Seems like some missed opportunities in this case, eh?
Orthonym
Member
Hey, guys,
The common law right to resist a false arrest, as far as I know, depends on one's being pretty sure that the arresting officer knows that HE is in the wrong. If the officer is handed a warrant and told to go bring someone in, he is required to obey the warrant if said warrant appears lawful on its face.
That said, I am reminded of a case here in FL a few years back. A rather high-ranking officer in the Miami-Dade (Metro) police department got traffically stopped on, I believe, I-95 in Broward or Volusia County. The video tape from the police car was played on national TV because there were (ugh!) racial issues involved. I think it was found that he really was, as he said at the time, falsely arrested. He resisted and it did him no good because Florida is one of those states which has adopted the "Uniform Law of Arrest", I think it's called. Texas has it right, I think. If a false arrest is a felony, why can't one use deadly force to resist such a felony?
CAVEAT :If the troopers serving the warrant were acting in good faith, my non-lawyer opinion is that they could not possibly be doing a false arrest!
The common law right to resist a false arrest, as far as I know, depends on one's being pretty sure that the arresting officer knows that HE is in the wrong. If the officer is handed a warrant and told to go bring someone in, he is required to obey the warrant if said warrant appears lawful on its face.
That said, I am reminded of a case here in FL a few years back. A rather high-ranking officer in the Miami-Dade (Metro) police department got traffically stopped on, I believe, I-95 in Broward or Volusia County. The video tape from the police car was played on national TV because there were (ugh!) racial issues involved. I think it was found that he really was, as he said at the time, falsely arrested. He resisted and it did him no good because Florida is one of those states which has adopted the "Uniform Law of Arrest", I think it's called. Texas has it right, I think. If a false arrest is a felony, why can't one use deadly force to resist such a felony?
CAVEAT :If the troopers serving the warrant were acting in good faith, my non-lawyer opinion is that they could not possibly be doing a false arrest!
benewton
Member
Concur with Hammer4nc.
There'd better be a middle ground, and I think the LEO had better find it, lest we all go down the tubes 'till we find the ground ourselves.
I'm not so sure that the LEO's, once called Peace Officers have much of a role unless they understand the problem.
And I don't think that they do.
But, sometimes, I hope...
There'd better be a middle ground, and I think the LEO had better find it, lest we all go down the tubes 'till we find the ground ourselves.
I'm not so sure that the LEO's, once called Peace Officers have much of a role unless they understand the problem.
And I don't think that they do.
But, sometimes, I hope...
Orthonym
Member
Hmm... this begins to smell bad.
I just now read the Woodring family's statement again, somewhat more carefully. Knocked down the antenna tower? This sounds sort of Feddish to me. I recall reading in a short-wave listeners' magazine that the Feds at the Waco massacre jammed the ham radio transmissions of David Whatshisname, in contravention of a treaty signed by a president and ratified by the Senate.
I just now read the Woodring family's statement again, somewhat more carefully. Knocked down the antenna tower? This sounds sort of Feddish to me. I recall reading in a short-wave listeners' magazine that the Feds at the Waco massacre jammed the ham radio transmissions of David Whatshisname, in contravention of a treaty signed by a president and ratified by the Senate.
Sir Galahad
member
A little over a couple years back, Flagstaff had an officer shot and killed in the line of duty. See, the dirty lowdown jackboot was infringing on a young tweekers Gawd-given Constitush 'nal right to blast music in a neighborhood at one in the morning. Some dadblamed people that wanted to sleep called the police. The jackboot told the young freedom fighter to please turn down his radio. As the gestapo officer turned away to go back to is car, the brave young upstanding citizen struck a blow for freedom and shot the cop in the back and killed him. After two years of playing the not guilty by reason of insanity card and losing, he now says he was in Page the whole time. But we all know the answer don't we? It's---THE COP'S FAULT!!! The cop should be exhumed and tried posthumously for infringing on that poor freedom fighter's rights! Then they can lock the remains up in the Poeples' Jail for enemies of the right to be an utter and complete idiot. All cops are jackboots, don't ya know? And all blacks________and all Hispanics_______and all Jews________. I guess it's ok to stereotype cops, though, because they're safe to hate. Just ask the remaining alive former members of the Symbionese Liberation Army, Weather Underground, and Students for a Democratic Society what a proud American tradition there is in hating cops and painting "Off the pigs!" on walls when no one is looking.
"Helter skelter, doodoodoodeedeedeedoo, helter skelter, doodoodoodeedoo..." It's like the late '60s in some of these threads.
"Helter skelter, doodoodoodeedeedeedoo, helter skelter, doodoodoodeedoo..." It's like the late '60s in some of these threads.
Edward429451
member
Oh I feel sorry for the poor cop, I think. But all this under color of law and in good faith and just doing his job, is crap. Plain & simple. They were attacking his house with what amounted to grenades, and tear gas, and weapons and little old dirtbag scott cant defend himself? This is gestapo tactics. The community was not in danger, they had him contained. Cut his phone lines, tear down his radio tower, stick a few labels on him and oh what a dirtbag and good job cops.
Burn you out if you don't come out? Anybody see a pattern here?
This smells like Hitler is alive and well.
I think TBO likes starting fires and watching them burn.
Burn you out if you don't come out? Anybody see a pattern here?
This smells like Hitler is alive and well.
I think TBO likes starting fires and watching them burn.
- Status
