The citizen claimed that the vehicle in which she was riding made a threatening gesture as it approached him. He then followed it into a parking lot confronting the occupants of the offending vehicle. It seems she answered the citizen with strong language, possibly in Spanish. The citizen called the police and told them she was in the parking lot with a gun. (A person reported with a gun is a priority call for the officer getting their attention instantly) One could easily assume the citizen was aware of this. When the officer arrives he ordered the woman out of the vehicle possibly opening the door with gun drawn. The woman reached down to unlatch her seat belt and the officer shot her. She fell to the pavement and the officer shot her two more times. They were unable to locate any gun she was accused of having, by the citizen word as saying she had one.
The woman has been accused as being here illegally whereas she probably is a descendant of one of the three empires that existed here a thousand years before England established a prison camp to colonize America or a descendant of the Spanish Conquistadores’.
The officials conclude that the officer actions were justified.
If the above be true do you believe the citizen should not be punished for giving false information?
Do you believe more training should be given for those who are entrusted with our live?
Do you believe that under “open carry” that no weapon should be carried concealed in order that such incidents possibly could happen, if it is assumed to be a deteriorate to crime?
If nobody answers shadows, he will probably go away. I think he is like a Tyrannasaurus Rex. If you don't move, he can't see you.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 18, 2012, 10:46:08 PM
If nobody answers shadows, he will probably go away.
I doubt it.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 18, 2012, 10:46:08 PM
If nobody answers shadows, he will probably go away. I think he is like a Tyrannasaurus Rex. If you don't move, he can't see you.
...
Spoken like a true plutocrat seeking to be include within the circle of good buddies whereas as a conflict of interest exist that is confined only to those who are permitted in the back rooms of the glass tower that we were able to purchase for them at such a bargain of only twice the appraised value where the hazard of the line of those wanting to rent rooms in it was blocking the street.
As it is written “Girt up thy loins and answer thou me.”
Quote from: shadows on May 19, 2012, 12:48:07 AM
...
Spoken like a true plutocrat seeking to be include within the circle of good buddies whereas as a conflict of interest exist that is confined only to those who are permitted in the back rooms of the glass tower that we were able to purchase for them at such a bargain of only twice the appraised value where the hazard of the line of those wanting to rent rooms in it was blocking the street.
As it is written "Girt up thy loins and answer thou me."
Wow. Someone is punctuation-challenged. That was the most ignorant run-on sentence I ever read.
Can you cite the original story? If it's true, I hope her family gets millions.
As for your questions:
If you can't prove it was intentional, then no.
Police always need more training and more accountability.
The nice thing about open carry is that you look at their guns, not the one I have concealed.
Quote from: TeeDub on May 19, 2012, 06:26:08 AM
Can you cite the original story? If it's true, I hope her family gets millions.
It would come out of our pockets, though, not theirs.
I would also like to see the citation... or at least an explanation as to how you unbuckle a seat belt without reaching for your waistband.
Quote from: Hoss on May 19, 2012, 02:04:32 AM
Wow. Someone is punctuation-challenged. That was the most ignorant run-on sentence I ever read.
...
You might try the Christian book of Job.
Quote from: shadows on May 19, 2012, 11:55:33 AM
...
You might try the Christian book of Job.
I'll pass on that.
Quote from: TeeDub on May 19, 2012, 06:26:08 AM
Can you cite the original story? If it's true, I hope her family gets millions.
Zack Stoycoff wrote the article of the explanation of the Fox watching the henhouse door in the local section of the Tulsa World printed on May 16 under the heading of "DA RULES POLICE SHOOTING JUSTIFIED".
There seem to be a discrepancy between the Fox explanation and previous stories as if the woman was seated in the vehicle or had exited it before being shot the first time. It is reported that the woman acted like she had a gun but the citizen called the police and said she had a gun. It is not now reported of the woman reaching at her waist indicating she neither had a gun nor if she was ask if she was here legally before shooting her. Now she is charged with assaulting the citizen (may have been in Spanish) who alarmed the police with a false story that she had a gun.
If I were to cite the positions of all the stories printed on the incident, that fellow who keeps sniffing that pink gas at the glass cube would find something wrong with the truth. I believe he expects to get the keys to the glass cube but I am not sure even the mayor has a set.
The city motto is "always protect our conflict of interest turf".