If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Bay News 9)   A naked woman in Florida walking around the road holding a cross eventually goes home... Just kidding. She eventually gets shot and killed by the cops after some passersby take a few cell phone pics   (baynews9.com) divider line 338
    More: Florida, Hernando County Sheriff's Office, cross  
•       •       •

30465 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Oct 2012 at 9:45 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



338 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-21 10:05:07 PM
the article stated she was armed
and nutso!
 
2012-10-21 10:05:50 PM

GAT_00: Smackledorfer: GAT_00: Proving yet again that you should never trust the cops side of the story. It's always a lie.

And yet you support the drug war that has directly resulted in more crime and more risk for cops, leading them deeper into militarization.

I don't care what the penalties are. I just refuse to change laws because criminals want the laws to change. It's this thing called nuance that so many people are completely unable to get.


Right, because only criminals want the War on Drugs to end, not rational people who realize that having the largest prison population on the planet and treating addicts like felons is a massive drain on our society and is leading to all sorts of ill effects.

What a dumbass.
 
2012-10-21 10:05:58 PM

Smackledorfer: Keizer_Ghidorah: Bit'O'Gristle: vudukungfu: GAT_00: Proving yet again that you should never trust the cops side of the story. It's always a lie.

this

/try rtfa, it says she stole a gun from a man, and that's what she was holding when the officers were forced to put her down.

They couldn't use the tasers and bean bags? They're usually so quick to whip those out every chance they get.

Deadly force is deadly force. Either the suspect has means, opportunity, and intent and the cops shouldn't take on extra risk, or they don't and a gun shouldn't be used.

I hate police brutality but I wouldn't ask a cop to bring bean bags to a gun fight.


They've done that plenty of times before. Batter the person with the bean bags until they're down and disarmed.
 
2012-10-21 10:06:11 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: David Simpson, who described himself as Swanson's boyfriend, said she was very religious and that she thought "the end times were near." He said she had attended Bible study earlier in the week.

/See? there was your mistake right there...she was farking nuts to begin with, and "obviously" the drugs she was on made her totally lose whatever mind she had left. I'm just glad nobody else got hurt.


Don't forget the catalyst of nutcracker religion.
 
2012-10-21 10:06:38 PM

Guntram Shatterhand: Gyrfalcon: That is one of the weirdest stories I've ever seen.

A woman is walking around naked in the woods carrying a cross and is seen by two men...who apparently don't think this is odd enough to alert the authorities, although they do take a few pictures.

The woman's boyfriend knows she is wandering around in the woods and knows she has a gun, which looks like a gun and although he knows it doesn't fire, he doesn't bother telling the authorities that his girlfriend is a) crazy as a loon and b) is carrying a weapon that doesn't fire so c) if you see her, please don't kill her.

A couple OFF-DUTY cops are hanging around in these same woods and see this same crazy lady who shows up, acts crazy, then leaves and comes back. A short time later, she's dead.

I have this feeling there's a big part of the story missing, that it involves the two men who "just happened" to take a couple pictures conveniently proving they didn't kill this woman--see? see? here's our pictures to prove it!--and the boyfriend who "just happened" to let her roam around with a conveniently non-firing gun. We'll see how it plays out in weeks to come.

This all smells fake. They happen upon a naked woman in some kind of mental issue and just leave her there? Really? That's standard procedure?

Bullshiat. There's something going on, and the cops are covering up something.


Yeah, everyone's stories stink. The boyfriend's, the two men's, and the cops. I mean, I can see any one story MAYBE being true, if that was all that happened...but all together, they're rotten. You don't see a woman wandering around naked in the forest, click a couple pics with your cellphone, and go on about your business, and then when she turns up dead just happen to think "Hey, maybe that was that dame we saw the other day! Think we should tell someone?" Did they rape her? Is that what made her go back to her boyfriend's and get the gun?

A woman suddenly bursting into a Bible study group or a revival meeting with a gun could by itself warrant a shooting, and it might just be a coincidence that a couple cops were there--it happens. So then it becomes odd that the cops had already had contact with this woman and hadn't said "Gee, maybe we should tell someone." You know, like most people would if psychos were roaming the woods. (Unless it's one of those woods like in slasher flicks where everyone is crazy and nobody really notices anymore) (In which case, make sure you don't break down anywhere near this town or you'll be eaten)

Somebody knows something. This will probably turn up on "48 Hours" or something in a year or two.
 
2012-10-21 10:06:59 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Bit'O'Gristle: vudukungfu: GAT_00: Proving yet again that you should never trust the cops side of the story. It's always a lie.

/try rtfa, it says she stole a gun from a man, and that's what she was holding when the officers were forced to put her down.

They couldn't use the tasers and bean bags? They're usually so quick to whip those out every chance they get.


Jesus Christ on a nude woman's cross... don't you people read?

They were off-duty. Meaning, no Tasers, no batons.

GAT_00: Bit'O'Gristle: vudukungfu: GAT_00: Proving yet again that you should never trust the cops side of the story. It's always a lie.

/try rtfa, it says she stole a gun from a man, and that's what she was holding when the officers were forced to put her down.

Right, the naked woman who was previously holding a cross and completely non-violent a short time before she was shot suddenly stole a gun.

If you are dumb enough to believe that, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.


You too.

The boyfriend identified the gun as one she'd removed from his house.

FARK is fun. Sadly, at times, FARK is also very predictable.


/ English, motherfarkers, do yall speak it?
 
2012-10-21 10:07:39 PM
RTFA again.

Deputies have not confirmed that Swanson was holding the antique gun at the time of the shooting.

I wonder if the officers said she was holding the gun after they heard that she had allegedly stolen it.
 
2012-10-21 10:08:35 PM

Sure are a lot of people here that are unhappy with police potentially abusing their authority to harm or even kill civilians.

I'll wait patiently while you guys stop the pointless complaining on Fark, and go do something to change that.

Oh, wait, no, you can't. You can't do anything about that. Cops have power, you don't. Hmm.

Well, I guess there is only one other option:

ts3.mm.bing.net

Deal with it.
 
2012-10-21 10:08:41 PM
Good god you cop haters are pathetic. You're only allowed to shoot after she kills one of you!
 
2012-10-21 10:08:41 PM
Deputies have not confirmed that Swanson was holding the antique gun at the time of the shooting.

Since she was naked if she wasn't holding it then where.... ewwwwwww.
 
2012-10-21 10:09:13 PM

GAT_00: skullkrusher: GAT_00: Smackledorfer: GAT_00: Proving yet again that you should never trust the cops side of the story. It's always a lie.

And yet you support the drug war that has directly resulted in more crime and more risk for cops, leading them deeper into militarization.

I don't care what the penalties are. I just refuse to change laws because criminals want the laws to change. It's this thing called nuance that so many people are completely unable to get.

like abolitionists who freed slaves. Stupid criminals wanting the law to change. Why don't people understand your nuance?

Ah yes, comparing yourself to a slave because you want to fire up a bong. Real good argument there. I'm totally convinced.


why are you missing my nuance? Your argument is that criminals want laws changed and you refuse to change laws for criminals. Abolitionists freed slaves - they were criminals. So now you want to add whatever GAT_00's subjective feelings about the law into the mix? Tell ya what, you draw up a list of laws that are bad and that should change and why you feel the criminals who break those laws are in the right and we'll just follow your lead, ok?
 
2012-10-21 10:10:12 PM

FF Mac: Should the cops ask people if the gun works or not before protecting themselves?


Nobody else in this story who saw the woman that night felt the need to "protect themselves". Something's not right about this story.

BTW, yes they should figure out if a gun is loaded or operational before opening fire. Maybe if cops exchanged a few words with their victims first, there wouldn't be so many people shot reaching for their cell phone. A little pause to ask the person wtf is up would probably save a lot of lives.
 
2012-10-21 10:11:32 PM

GAT_00: Smackledorfer: GAT_00: Proving yet again that you should never trust the cops side of the story. It's always a lie.

And yet you support the drug war that has directly resulted in more crime and more risk for cops, leading them deeper into militarization.

I don't care what the penalties are. I just refuse to change laws because criminals want the laws to change. It's this thing called nuance that so many people are completely unable to get.


So the laws must continue to be so harsh that drugs are a gold mine for smugglers and criminal orgs, who are now willing to kill to both profit and avoid prison, and it is all ok because fark those pothead criminals trying to get laws changed?

You speak of nuance but it is you who lacks the ability to handle the complex. You whine about cops constantly; asking them to risk more to satisfy your principle that potheads shouldn't get what they want.

It would be funny if it weren't sad.
 
2012-10-21 10:11:39 PM

Mr. Chainsaw: RTFA again.

Deputies have not confirmed that Swanson was holding the antique gun at the time of the shooting.

I wonder if the officers said she was holding the gun after they heard that she had allegedly stolen it.


why else would 2 guys shoot a naked stranger in the woods? She was naked, if she'd stolen the gun where was it if she wasn't holding it?
 
2012-10-21 10:12:39 PM

skullkrusher: why are you missing my nuance?


No, you're a mental reject who compared yourself to an abolitionist. You've hurt your own argument better than I ever have by saying perhaps the most nonsensical thing you could have.

CK2005: Good god you cop haters are pathetic. You're only allowed to shoot after she kills one of you!


She walked up to them. I'm around 99% sure she was within taser range if they weren't lying about that.
 
2012-10-21 10:12:57 PM

RandomCommenter: Barfmaker: This is so clearly her own fault for not being armed. Once again, if everyone had been armed this situation would have never happened. Why do people need to make things so complicated?

She was armed; her boyfriend reported that she put the cross down and grabbed an antique shot gun with 1 bullet, and that is what the cops saw her carrying.

I feel bad for everyone involved, and wish this had been handled differently, but the gun she was carrying puts a different spin on this story than if it were a cross.

Of course the article doesn't mention the gun till the very end.



That is an updated version of the article. The version I read (and posted in reference to) did not identify the weapon that the officers saw - I presumed it was the cross,


/Antichrist, Antichrist - this thread is over!
 
2012-10-21 10:13:08 PM

skullkrusher: Mr. Chainsaw: RTFA again.

Deputies have not confirmed that Swanson was holding the antique gun at the time of the shooting.

I wonder if the officers said she was holding the gun after they heard that she had allegedly stolen it.

why else would 2 guys shoot a naked stranger in the woods? She was naked, if she'd stolen the gun where was it if she wasn't holding it?


Maybe there was a strap on it.
 
2012-10-21 10:13:28 PM

GAT_00: Smackledorfer: GAT_00: Proving yet again that you should never trust the cops side of the story. It's always a lie.

And yet you support the drug war that has directly resulted in more crime and more risk for cops, leading them deeper into militarization.

I don't care what the penalties are. I just refuse to change laws because criminals want the laws to change. It's this thing called nuance that so many people are completely unable to get.


EH??

You don't think the narcotraficantes are supremely alarmed by the spectre of legalization? Major cartels=politicians=banks=DEA?

Can I suggest a little visit to history (know what that is?), like around the time of Prohibition?

Rise of organized crime, which continued its majestic business progression through the war and into heroin times?

Not to mention the DEA, which (like the useless tits-on-a-boar-hog TSA and HS) would be looking for part-time work as a security guard at Walmart.
 
2012-10-21 10:13:30 PM
when you are attending group therapy in a locked mental health hospital ward they emphasize the importance of proper behavior in public. because the police will neither know or care that you are not properly medicated, are suffering a breakdown or are simply having a horrible mental health day. you, as a mental health patient, are told that you have to present yourself in a presentable and non-threatening manner. i don't understand how you are supposed to look and act like everything is just fine when you are in bits and pieces, but that's what they tell you.
 
2012-10-21 10:14:00 PM

Smackledorfer: asking them to risk more to satisfy your principle that potheads shouldn't get what they want.


By everyone's arguments ever, potheads are not violent. What is the risk in arresting someone stoned?
 
2012-10-21 10:15:02 PM

GAT_00: Smackledorfer: GAT_00: Proving yet again that you should never trust the cops side of the story. It's always a lie.

And yet you support the drug war that has directly resulted in more crime and more risk for cops, leading them deeper into militarization.

I don't care what the penalties are. I just refuse to change laws because criminals want the laws to change. It's this thing called nuance that so many people are completely unable to get.


I can appreciate that. But what about when the people in question are normal, everyday law-abiding people, except for the one specific law in question that they're lobbying to change? Or non-marijuana users that support decriminalization / legalization?

It seems obvious that the repeal of *any* law would be supported by the people who are currently criminalized by that law, so is there *any* path on your flowchart that would lead you to support the repeal of *any* law?
 
2012-10-21 10:15:05 PM

GAT_00: She walked up to them. I'm around 99% sure she was within taser range if they weren't lying about that.


and tasers are always 100% effective, great when someone is brandishing a firearm at you.
 
2012-10-21 10:15:23 PM

namegoeshere: Guntram Shatterhand: This all smells fake. They happen upon a naked woman in some kind of mental issue and just leave her there? Really? That's standard procedure?

What kind of "gathering" was it? And why, upon seeing the crazy nekkid woman in the woods the first time when she was armed only with the cross did the off duty cop not call for an on duty cop and medical but instead left the area to go get his service weapon, during which time she went and got herself a non-functioning weapon? And they met up again and the cops shot her?

The freakin' Blair Witch Project made more sense than this story.


Okay, my bad: the off duty cop didn't leave and get his gun. She did. But I still ask:

Why when a naked crazy woman interrupted their gathering, whatever the hell it was, didn't they call for on duty cops and medical?
 
2012-10-21 10:17:00 PM
FTA - Swanson's boyfriend, said she was very religious and that she thought "the end times were near."

She was right.
 
2012-10-21 10:19:18 PM
What I find interesting in all the speculation about a story that doesn't seem to add up, is that nobody has put forth "crappy reporter" as an option.

/just sayin
 
2012-10-21 10:19:29 PM
She's coming right for us!
up-ship.com

/BLAM
/RIP poor troubled Lady
 
2012-10-21 10:19:40 PM

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: GAT_00: She walked up to them. I'm around 99% sure she was within taser range if they weren't lying about that.

and tasers are always 100% effective, great when someone is brandishing a firearm at you.


Especially if you are off duty and don't have a taser.

I find fault with the cops for not calling the appropriate people (like the ones who might have a tazer on them, or some good meds or something) as soon as a naked crazy woman made her first appearance. Bad cops for that.

I can't really fault them for shooting her if she waved a gun at them.They didn't have any less-lethal tools at their disposal.
 
2012-10-21 10:21:04 PM
The government wants to hire and put more cops on the street.
Stimulus, meant to do good things like shooting mentally confused naked women.....who may or may not have an antique.

Atta' boy cops.
 
2012-10-21 10:21:24 PM

ScottRiqui: GAT_00: Smackledorfer: GAT_00: Proving yet again that you should never trust the cops side of the story. It's always a lie.

And yet you support the drug war that has directly resulted in more crime and more risk for cops, leading them deeper into militarization.

I don't care what the penalties are. I just refuse to change laws because criminals want the laws to change. It's this thing called nuance that so many people are completely unable to get.

I can appreciate that. But what about when the people in question are normal, everyday law-abiding people, except for the one specific law in question that they're lobbying to change? Or non-marijuana users that support decriminalization / legalization?

It seems obvious that the repeal of *any* law would be supported by the people who are currently criminalized by that law, so is there *any* path on your flowchart that would lead you to support the repeal of *any* law?


Oh it's more than possible. But you have got to keep the stoners away from the rallies. The single worst argument for legalization is a bunch of stoned morons yelling about how pot should be legal.
 
2012-10-21 10:22:12 PM
Religious fanatics, talk of "end times", getting nekkid for Jebus, trigger happy yahoos with badges. Yup, all fine traditions of the American South.

/Time for the North to secede
 
2012-10-21 10:22:39 PM
It happened in Florida...that probably says a lot more about the situation than anything else.
 
2012-10-21 10:24:03 PM

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: and tasers are always 100% effective, great when someone is brandishing a firearm at you.


Cops are idiots and ironically the least capable of handling a situation like this. I would bet a paycheck (a real one, not a $600 cop paycheck), that they both screamed contradictory orders at her until she did something that scared one of them. "Why did you shoot her?" "I thought you were going to shoot her!" "I thought you were going to shoot her!"

In the dark, in the woods, naked lady, off duty, DO NOT SHOOT NAKED LADY. Meanwhile these two bozos are soaking up sympathy at the moment for being "forced" to shoot a naked lady and how sad that is for them. What a couple of pussies!
 
2012-10-21 10:24:10 PM
It was the best of times, it was the end of times
 
2012-10-21 10:24:55 PM

KrispyKritter: when you are attending group therapy in a locked mental health hospital ward they emphasize the importance of proper behavior in public. because the police will neither know or care that you are not properly medicated, are suffering a breakdown or are simply having a horrible mental health day. you, as a mental health patient, are told that you have to present yourself in a presentable and non-threatening manner. i don't understand how you are supposed to look and act like everything is just fine when you are in bits and pieces, but that's what they tell you.


There is, or should be, a learning curve on both sides. Crazy people should learn or at least understand that the cops do not realize what they are facing is a mentally ill person having problems; cops should learn or at least understand that what they are facing is not just a crackhead being defiant. And to be fair to both sides, things have gotten (marginally) better than they used to be.

What needs to happen, of course, is that mentally ill people need to understand AND be able to get help BEFORE they are in "bits and pieces" as you say; they need to have both the insight and the ability to get their meds adjusted or therapy, or their housing taken care of or whatever stressors are causing their breakdowns BEFORE it reaches the level of seeing space aliens landing in Dealey Plaza. Police, on their side, need to realize that just because a person doesn't react instantly when they scream "GET ON THE GROUND NOW!!!!!" does not mean that that person is going to kill them in the next second, but may simply need more time to process the statement, or may need a better explanation of what is required. Assessing police for combat shock might be in order as well--mentally ill people aren't the only ones experiencing life stressors nowadays.
 
2012-10-21 10:24:56 PM

EatenTheSun: Were the cops Jewish?


collider.com

"Jew cops? Where??"
 
2012-10-21 10:24:56 PM
If cops were held to the same standards that physicians were when they killed someone, this country would be better off.
 
2012-10-21 10:27:38 PM
What the hell, Fark?

Another Christian is dead. I figured this would be cause for celebration. I thought you wanted all of them to die...
 
2012-10-21 10:27:55 PM
It's usually not a good idea to start waving guns around, antique or no.
 
2012-10-21 10:27:56 PM

GAT_00: Smackledorfer: asking them to risk more to satisfy your principle that potheads shouldn't get what they want.

By everyone's arguments ever, potheads are not violent. What is the risk in arresting someone stoned?


You obviously have strong opinions on the subject, so perhaps you've answered this question in the past - how do you rationalize a society where alcohol is legal (subject to restrictions) and marijuana isn't? I can't help but think that if the practice of drinking alcohol had never begun, and it were suddenly introduced tomorrow, that it would/should be treated the same way we're currently treating marijuana. Does alcohol enjoy the protection it does for any reason other than longevity/tradition?
 
2012-10-21 10:28:21 PM

mccallcl: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: and tasers are always 100% effective, great when someone is brandishing a firearm at you.

Cops are idiots and ironically the least capable of handling a situation like this. I would bet a paycheck (a real one, not a $600 cop paycheck), that they both screamed contradictory orders at her until she did something that scared one of them. "Why did you shoot her?" "I thought you were going to shoot her!" "I thought you were going to shoot her!"

In the dark, in the woods, naked lady, off duty, DO NOT SHOOT NAKED LADY. Meanwhile these two bozos are soaking up sympathy at the moment for being "forced" to shoot a naked lady and how sad that is for them. What a couple of pussies!


/ 1/10..you're trying too hard.
 
2012-10-21 10:28:22 PM

mccallcl: FF Mac: Should the cops ask people if the gun works or not before protecting themselves?

Nobody else in this story who saw the woman that night felt the need to "protect themselves". Something's not right about this story.

BTW, yes they should figure out if a gun is loaded or operational before opening fire. Maybe if cops exchanged a few words with their victims first, there wouldn't be so many people shot reaching for their cell phone. A little pause to ask the person wtf is up would probably save a lot of lives.


Please tell me how you're supposed to tell from any amount of distance that a gun is loaded and operational.
 
2012-10-21 10:29:10 PM

Britney Spear's Speculum: If cops were held to the same standards that physicians were when they killed someone, this country would be better off.


Uh. I fail to see the logic. Sometimes police have to kill people. There is no situation where a doctor has to kill someone.

/Kevorkian notwithstanding
 
2012-10-21 10:29:21 PM

WhippingBoy: Hurr...


Thanks for contributing.
 
2012-10-21 10:29:28 PM

GAT_00: Smackledorfer: GAT_00:

Nothing you've yet to say has disproved my view of you as an ignorant tool

 
2012-10-21 10:29:35 PM

powerplantgirl: mccallcl: FF Mac: Should the cops ask people if the gun works or not before protecting themselves?

Nobody else in this story who saw the woman that night felt the need to "protect themselves". Something's not right about this story.

BTW, yes they should figure out if a gun is loaded or operational before opening fire. Maybe if cops exchanged a few words with their victims first, there wouldn't be so many people shot reaching for their cell phone. A little pause to ask the person wtf is up would probably save a lot of lives.

Please tell me how you're supposed to tell from any amount of distance that a gun is loaded and operational.


It's a troll, he has no answer to that.
 
2012-10-21 10:29:40 PM
So this report suggests that Xtians have in fact NOT stopped seeking martyrdom? Hmm?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/10/chr i stian_martyrdom_when_did_christians_stop_trying_to_die_for_god.html
 
2012-10-21 10:30:04 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: vudukungfu: GAT_00: Proving yet again that you should never trust the cops side of the story. It's always a lie.

this

/try rtfa, it says she stole a gun from a man, and that's what she was holding when the officers were forced to put her down.


I find it fascinating that you say "put her down", like one would for an animal.
 
2012-10-21 10:30:12 PM

GAT_00: Smackledorfer: asking them to risk more to satisfy your principle that potheads shouldn't get what they want.

By everyone's arguments ever, potheads are not violent. What is the risk in arresting someone stoned?


I assumed you were referring to not changing drug laws because you didn't want to let criminals get what they want. To whom were you referring?
 
2012-10-21 10:30:26 PM

GAT_00: No, you're a mental reject who compared yourself to an abolitionist. You've hurt your own argument better than I ever have by saying perhaps the most nonsensical thing you could have.


hehe, sorry buddy, but no. You said you don't favor changing rules because criminals want them to change. I am just pointing out that this is not an absolute stance and you really just don't favor changing drug laws because you agree with them - it has nothing to do with whether criminals want the law changed. I don't do drugs and I want to see our drug policies undergo a massive overhaul because they are immoral, unfair and draconian. My argument isn't hurt by pointing out how you're an inconsistent jackhole
 
2012-10-21 10:30:50 PM

WhippingBoy: What the hell, Fark?

Another Christian is dead. I figured this would be cause for celebration. I thought you wanted all of them to die...


I thought Christians want everyone to die, horribly, if possible.
 
Displayed 50 of 338 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report