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 94
    More: Florida, Hernando County Sheriff's Office, cross  
•       •       •

30470 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Oct 2012 at 9:45 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-10-21 09:49:07 PM  
13 votes:
FTFA: "She was literally walking down the road straight at us," Collins said. "So, we pulled up alongside of her, and at that point I looked out the window and I asked her, I said, 'Are you alright?' And she said, 'Yeah, but I'm a little bit confused.'"
Collins said the woman then walked away into the wooded area, and they snapped the photos of her. They said they took the photos, thinking that no one would believe them without photographic evidence that they had seen the woman.


Thank god neither of you two sh#tbags thought to help a confused, naked woman walking off into the woods, or she might still be alive today. Good on you for getting those cell pics, though. Very helpful.
2012-10-21 09:52:40 PM  
7 votes:
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.
2012-10-21 09:32:42 PM  
7 votes:
Proving yet again that you should never trust the cops side of the story. It's always a lie.
2012-10-21 10:05:50 PM  
5 votes:

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 10:04:47 PM  
5 votes:

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.


Yeah, throwing people into jail for longer sentences than murderers and rapists get because they smelled sort of like pot makes far more sense.
2012-10-21 08:04:10 PM  
5 votes:
And this is why cops should not be allowed near guns.
2012-10-21 09:58:23 PM  
4 votes:

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.
2012-10-21 09:57:26 PM  
4 votes:
guns do not kill people, police do!
2012-10-21 09:52:51 PM  
4 votes:

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.


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.
2012-10-21 09:51:53 PM  
4 votes:

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.
2012-10-21 09:51:27 PM  
4 votes:
Fail subby...even TFA says she pointed a gun at them. Should the cops ask people if the gun works or not before protecting themselves?

But hey, this is Fark. Why let facts get in the way of your cop hate.

/meow
2012-10-21 10:05:03 PM  
3 votes:

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.
2012-10-21 10:03:24 PM  
3 votes:

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?
2012-10-21 09:57:26 PM  
3 votes:
I guess she was right about the end being near.
2012-10-21 09:28:47 PM  
3 votes:
img2.bdbphotos.com

RIP
2012-10-21 10:52:18 PM  
2 votes:

Relatively Obscure: skullkrusher: Of course, a civilian would likely just run away if that were at all possible while a cop is required to stand his ground and take care of the situation.

I don't think they are, but otherwise (to the rest of the post), yeah.


TFA is terrible and there are certainly cases where police use inappropriate force but it just doesn't sound like this is one of those cases. A crazy person is just as capable of pulling a trigger as a sane one. You threaten someone with a weapon, whether it can fire or not, you're probably gonna be shot. In this case it just seems as if it was a tragic turn of events for a woman with clear mental issues
2012-10-21 10:46:23 PM  
2 votes:

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


This. It always amazes me when people show signs of obvious mental illness, but because they've included religious themes into their crazy people act like it's totally okay and they're just 'extra religious'. Many people get away with being totally out to farking lunch for years because they believe god, the devil or an angel is talking to them instead of aliens or the CIA.
2012-10-21 10:46:12 PM  
2 votes:

untaken_name: Right, because we wouldn't want officers to be able to not kill people while off duty. Brave, brave officers who bravely gunned down a naked woman holding a cross. Brave, brave police officers. Those two cellphone guys are lucky they got out of there alive, what with her having a dangerous cross and all. She could have blessed them! So glad the brave police officers bravely gunned down a naked crazy chick. So brave.


Strawman Hyperbole is fun, isn't it?

www.troll.me
2012-10-21 10:42:51 PM  
2 votes:

untaken_name: slayer199: Yes, she was crazy. But she also went home and picked up a gun. At that point there's no way for the cops to know it couldn't fire. I supposed farkers would be happier if cops get shot in these situations.

You'd almost think they were getting paid to take risks that people who aren't getting paid shouldn't take. But, of course, we know that isn't true. The Supreme Court said so. Better they gun down innocent dogs, innocent people, and crazy people than they endure any risk. Better a thousand civilians dead than one cop inconvenienced.


I'm as vocal as the next guy when cops overstep the bounds, but there's no sane world where someone can point a gun at a cop (or refuse to drop one when ordered to do so) and the blame falls on the cops when they get shot. In a situation like that, the police are literally a fraction of a second away from potentially being killed, and there's no amount of pay that should make them accept that risk.
2012-10-21 10:41:40 PM  
2 votes:
There have been way too many mass-murders by crazy white people in the past decade to expect cops to just hold fire when someone acting crazy suddenly shows up with a gun and starts aiming it.

I have a couple psychotic twigs on my family tree, and I would hope the cops would not try to stop and reason with them if they got hold of guns. Because I know, from some traumatic experiences, that nothing short of force would stop them from firing at the cops and bystanders given an opportunity.
2012-10-21 10:24:03 PM  
2 votes:

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 10:19:40 PM  
2 votes:

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 10:13:28 PM  
2 votes:

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 10:06:38 PM  
2 votes:

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 10:02:55 PM  
2 votes:

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.
2012-10-21 09:56:34 PM  
2 votes:

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.


/yes...they could have..if 1. they were ON DUTY with them available, and 2. had a chance to get to them before she opened fire. They were off duty, but with their service weapons. Im sure they don't just carry tasers and bean bags around with them all the time....facepalms
2012-10-21 09:50:45 PM  
2 votes:

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.
2012-10-21 09:48:09 PM  
2 votes:

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


this
2012-10-21 09:29:42 PM  
2 votes:
Were the cops Jewish?
2012-10-21 09:20:55 PM  
2 votes:
Florida is a banana republic in all but name.
2012-10-21 09:15:57 PM  
2 votes:
Did she attack them with a cross?
2012-10-21 09:00:01 PM  
2 votes:
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?
2012-10-21 08:59:22 PM  
2 votes:
Klan meeting.
Over zealous cops.
Done.
2012-10-22 03:19:34 PM  
1 votes:

mccallcl: namegoeshere: So instead of tossing down an actual functioning small handgun (which would have made a hell of a lot more sense if they were faking a scene, and would remove the claim that they should somehow have known the gun was non functional) they, having foreknowledge of this gun, steal to support their made up story this awkward, non-functioning weapon? And think to remove the cross from the original scene?

Right, so instead of tossing down a gun they found that she could have possibly had access to, they were supposed to drop, what? Their service pistol? Something from the evidence locker? How would they explain how she had it? Remember, they're lying in this scenario, so unlike reality, they have to craft an explanation, it won't be born out by facts.

Think to remove the cross from the original scene? Where does it say there was anything at the scene? All it says is that they told the bf they found the cross at his place. They could have made up the story at any time after the shooting, we don't even know what the story they made up even was. If I were them, I'd go to her place, the bf's place, and everywhere in between to see if I could find something like a gun, then claim that was what she was holding when I shot her. That plan would take 30 seconds to conceive and could be executed by all the conspirators in parallel. Cop 1 heads to the bf's house with the cross and gets lucky when he finds a gun-like item there.

Because people instantly stop asking questions as soon as the cop says they were scared, a working gun or a fake one would function the same for this story. No need to get fancy.

I'm happy to speculate if we're both speculating and it's interesting to talk about, but not if I have to accept your speculation as fact. You can make whatever world you want for me to have to argue in, and that's not fun or fair for me.


I am amused as to how hard you are bending over backwards to make this a case of murder. We get it. You hate all cops. But those are some intense mental contortions even for you.
2012-10-22 08:10:47 AM  
1 votes:
You know, whenever there is acutal evidence of police brutality I am right with everyone calling for fair prosecution. (I am not however anywhere near you nutters calling for the murder of all LEO's. You whackadoodles are on your own with that.) I do think the cops screwed up here by not calling it in the first time she showed up nekkid and crazy. Doing so would likely have saved her life. Bad on them.

But holy smokes the mental gymnastics you guys are playing at to make this shooting a bad one! They should have examined the weapon first to make sure it no longer fired. She couldn't possibly have raised the gun, as weak and feminine as her crazy self was. And my favorite: The police shot her unarmed, then somehow knew that there was an antique non firing gun in the home of her boyfriend and that she had just been there so they secretly snuck over there and planted the cross and took the gun (having used their psychic cop powers to deduce where it was kept) without being seen by the boyfriend, then snuck back to the scene and planted the gun on the dead naked lady.

Look for one minute past your blind cop hate and imagine if this was not two off duty cops, but a family in the woods. Crazy lady shows up ranting with a gun. The guy shoots her. Are your still going to be on about how he should have pulled a tazer out of his ass, or assumed she couldn't hit the broad side of a barn? Or asked her pretty please to have a good look at the weapon before he shot her to make sure it worked?

If you point a gun at a cop, or any other armed person, you are very likely going to be shot. Don't like it? Don't point guns at people.

Police misconduct and the coverup of such is a problem in this country, and it must be addressed. But just like the "Hurr durr kill all cops" nutters, YOU'RE NOT HELPING.
2012-10-22 03:07:53 AM  
1 votes:

mccallcl: This is a non-sequitor. Police can arrest anyone at any time.


Yeah. Not exactly true. That depends on the state and even jurisdiction the police officer is in, and what they are doing at the time. An off-duty police officer only has the same power to arrest in this case as a civilian does executing a citizens arrest, and many departments discourage it.

mccallcl: Another non-sequitor


mccallcl: And another.


Photographic evidence which directly disproves your claim that a woman could not accurately shoot a ten pound rifle is a non-sequitor?

Damn. I wish I could throw out evidence I was blatently wrong like that. Here's some more evidence you're full of crap.

3.bp.blogspot.com

www.brooklynmuseum.org

i.dailymail.co.uk

mccallcl: I don't care what you think, I'm going to assume that a crazy naked lady with a gun standing there in the dark is not going to be able to shoot me, because I've shot a gun before and I wouldn't be able to hit shiat like that. Neither would you and neither would anyone, including the ladies in those pictures. Pretending you don't know that is weak.


i.huffpost.com

Begs to differ. He found it quite easy to shoot people while crazy and in the dark.

4.bp.blogspot.com

This guy didn't seem to have a problem with it either.

You seem to think the fact that she might not hit anyone matters. It doesn't. Again, the cops don't have to have someone take a slug, and neither does a homeowner, before they shoot someone brandishing a gun at them.

It's not my fault that your anecdote and ignorance isn't reality. I guess more wishful thinking on your part.

mccallcl: I don't care what "could" happen, I live in real America, where things are either likely or unlikely. How likely is it do you think that those cops would have gotten shot if it were a real gun? I think not very. You are saying "very"? Is that right?


No. Everyone here is saying you have no clue what you're talking about, and it's made painfully obvious by the conjecture and wishful thinking you demonstrate in regards to justification of lethal force. There's a big difference.

Stop watching movies and educate yourself.
2012-10-22 01:05:18 AM  
1 votes:

mccallcl: Ha ha, arresting her is what I have been arguing they should have done the whole time. Thanks for paying attention, numbnuts.


FTFA: They were off duty.

Two cops fatally shoot naked woman.

This article from 3 hours ago states she had been using LSD, and was waving a gun around. For all she knew, if this were the case, she was playing super mario brothers, and the cops were the goombas.

mccallcl: 10 lbs is pretty heavy to fire without leaning on something, even for men, and you wouldn't expect to hit anything.


i.ytimg.com

That's an 8 year old shooting a 50 caliber rifle.

3.bp.blogspot.com

That's a 17 year old girl who shot a deer with a .58 cal musket.

Please, admit you're just trolling at this point?
2012-10-22 12:42:53 AM  
1 votes:

mccallcl: Somebody should have told the cops that I guess. There's no way in Hell a crazy lady with a broken gun is going to shoot anybody. It's not a movie, she's as likely to not have cocked it as she is to have done so. That rifle would take forever to raise and fire, it was probably too heavy for her to even look down the sight. I bet it looked absurd.



Rifles aren't *that* heavy, even for women. And how do you know where it was pointing when the cops shot her? You make it sound like she walked out from behind a tree with the rifle over her shoulder and the cops just lit her up on general principle.
2012-10-22 12:18:33 AM  
1 votes:

mediablitz: Seriously? That is how far up the police's ass you are? You are pretending there is no grey area that is traversed daily? No laws on the books that make it simple for you to be arrested when "needed"? No "stop resisting" errors that are prevalent?


Answer the question. You made the claim that the cops are taught to shoot mentally ill first, ask questions later. Prove your statement, or look like an idiot who's making straw man arguments.

I mean, you have proof of that, right? Even anecdotal proof? Because I've got the same proof that they're not. Oh, and the fact that no where in the United States will you find "mentally ill" as a justification to shoot someone.

mediablitz: I have a dad who is a retired cop. No. they won't let you suck their cock...


I don't care who your dad is, or who's cock he sucks. (Seriously, you're going to drag homophobia into this? Look, it's cool if your dad is gay.) If you're going to make claims, be ready to back them up.

mediablitz: He LAUGHS at how you defend the indefensible


Funny how I'm not defending anything. You're welcome to point out where I've defended someone being shot for being mentally ill. I'm pointing out the stupidity of your claim.
2012-10-22 12:15:03 AM  
1 votes:
cdn.uproxx.com
2012-10-21 11:57:30 PM  
1 votes:

mccallcl: BronyMedic: But it doesn't take an idiot to understand that a .45-70 Goverment shot from a lever action rifle will punch a hole the size of a fist through someone.

And a car driven into your house will kill your family, but we don't shoot every naked asshole we find in a car, do we? We wait for the car to be started, moving, and headed straight towards the house, because otherwise we might just be shooting some Zulu Wars historical re-enactor driving on her way to throw her fake gun down a well.


I want you to say something with me.

Real life does not work like Hollywood.

Say that with me nice and slow. Wait a moment before typing a rebutal. Let that thought permiate through your brain for a second, and override the wishful thinking you demonstrate.

In addition, your argument is a fallicious comparison. If you are naked, in a car, and driving with the intent of running someone over, that is very damn well a justified reason for the use of deadly force. Someone who's ran a car through a house is no longer a threat.

mccallcl: Guns are dangerous, but they are readily available here in the US and often carried around in the woods. You don't get to shoot every person you see with a gun, so neither should cops.


So what you're saying is a flint lock or percussion lock pistol can't kill someone? Because if so, hundreds of thousands of people who died in the time before the use of cartridges in weapons might beg to differ on that.

If someone pulls a gun on me, Tennessee state law states that I have no duty to retreat, and I can shoot them dead on the spot out of fear of my life. If you draw a gun on the cops, and you make any intention known that you're going to go active, they could empty two magazines a piece into you and it'd be kosher.

It'd be nice if everyone was Arnold Schwarzenegger in Last Action Hero and could simply wrestle a gun away, but that's no real life.
2012-10-21 11:46:31 PM  
1 votes:

AbbeySomeone: Klan meeting.
Over zealous cops.
Done.


davidphogan: Did she attack them with a cross?


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.

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.

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.


Is reading the article really that difficult?

FTFA:
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.

Simpson said deputies found the cross that Collins and Eylward said Swanson had been carrying inside his home after the shooting. Simpson said the investigators told him she had left the cross in his home and taken his antique gun.

The gun is what Simpson said the off-duty officers saw her wielding when they opened fire.


There. How hard was that?
2012-10-21 11:41:58 PM  
1 votes:

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Clutch2013: Serious Post on Serious Thread: mccallcl: powerplantgirl: Please tell me how you're supposed to tell from any amount of distance that a gun is loaded and operational.

In that same situation, because I don't have a gun or a badge on me when I get drunk in the woods at night, I would call more people, get some lights on the scene, get some medical and psychiatric help, try to talk it out, piss my pants, cast Magic Missle, whatever not-gun-using options were at my disposal. I would figure that she's been assaulted, in a car wreck, or escaped from a hospital or mental ward and needs my help. Whatever I noticed in her hand would be secondary because I don't approach every situation looking for a threat to my pussy-ass life. Not that I'm not a pussy, I just can't shoot people with impunity so it changes my tactics a little bit. I probably wouldn't leave her wandering around and go somewhere else to get a gun, because another gun is not what the situation calls for. Less guns is the desired effect here..

SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUP!! YER RUINING MY FANTASY OF BEING A HERO WITH MY DICKGUN!!!!

*raises hand*

I have a question. What is it with people who are against define themselves with guns/sport cars/the like and male genitalia?


I know you're a troll, but seriously. Speak for yourself, at least. Why is it, always, if someone gets a new Corvette or buys a new shotgun or dresses well or has a decent amount of money or anything like that, they're "compensating for something"?
2012-10-21 11:41:13 PM  
1 votes:
I want a dick gun....
2012-10-21 11:35:01 PM  
1 votes:
www.baynews9.com
bigfoot-sasquatch.yolasite.com
2012-10-21 11:34:05 PM  
1 votes:

Serious Post on Serious Thread: BronyMedic: Serious Post on Serious Thread: BronyMedic: untaken_name: This is what cops perceive as a threat deserving of deadly force:

[www.thenerdlist.com image 480x360]

This is what an idiot thinks is a water pistol.

[www.gunblast.com image 640x480]

[www.theboxotruth.com image 540x404]

[www.shootersforum.com image 512x404]

Let me guess, you have a lot free time you fill with shooting guns. Life well spent, tard.

[fc01.deviantart.net image 522x451]

Actually, I haven't shot a gun since basic training. But it doesn't take an idiot to understand that a .45-70 Goverment shot from a lever action rifle will punch a hole the size of a fist through someone.

Soooo, you obsess about guns but don't even shoot them, somehow that makes you...even sadder.


He's a paramedic, last I checked.

In that line of work, it probably helps to know just what kind of damage gunshot wounds can do. So there's that.

/There's also the possibility you're a farking idiot
2012-10-21 11:30:15 PM  
1 votes:

mccallcl: I would call more people, get some lights on the scene, get some medical and psychiatric help, try to talk it out, piss my pants, cast Magic Missle, whatever not-gun-using options were at my disposal.


Which is not going to be anywhere in the line of fire if the person in question is pointing a gun at the cops. They'd only come into the scene after the person either drops the gun, or is made to drop it through lead poisoning.

You honestly expect someone to run at someone who has a gun and stab them through the shoulder with a syrenge full of haldol? Real life doesn't work like the movies, Kid.

mccallcl: You're mom's a farking troll. They did not properly assess the threat and killed a woman who, as it turns out, was only a danger to herself. These cops made a mistake out of cowardice and thoughtlessness. That mistake resulted in the death of a person. Usually somebody goes in front of a judge when that happens.


I seriously hope you're trolling on this. Do you actually think that someone pointing a gun at the cops is only a threat to themselves? If so, you're the most nieve person I've ever met. Even someone who's seeking to suicide-by-cop is a threat to anyone as long as they get their way.

people.virginia.edu
2012-10-21 11:22:17 PM  
1 votes:

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.


Nuance, huh? Your attitude would have prevented the first Prohibition from being repealed. It would have prevented laws against miscegenation from being overturned. It would have prevented almost all civilized advances in our justice system.

Get a clue. Some laws are simply bad, and should be overturned even if "criminals" want themoverturned. If you still have trouble with this concept, consider that certain criminals, such as powerful and ruthless drug lords, would really hate to see the drug war ended. Someone who actually understood the concept of nuance would perhaps consider whether it's better for society if drug users or drug lords are unhappy .
2012-10-21 11:19:16 PM  
1 votes:
The Lord works in mysterious ways.
2012-10-21 11:15:02 PM  
1 votes:

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


In that same situation, because I don't have a gun or a badge on me when I get drunk in the woods at night, I would call more people, get some lights on the scene, get some medical and psychiatric help, try to talk it out, piss my pants, cast Magic Missle, whatever not-gun-using options were at my disposal. I would figure that she's been assaulted, in a car wreck, or escaped from a hospital or mental ward and needs my help. Whatever I noticed in her hand would be secondary because I don't approach every situation looking for a threat to my pussy-ass life. Not that I'm not a pussy, I just can't shoot people with impunity so it changes my tactics a little bit. I probably wouldn't leave her wandering around and go somewhere else to get a gun, because another gun is not what the situation calls for. Less guns is the desired effect here.

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: It's a troll, he has no answer to that.


You're mom's a farking troll. They did not properly assess the threat and killed a woman who, as it turns out, was only a danger to herself. These cops made a mistake out of cowardice and thoughtlessness. That mistake resulted in the death of a person. Usually somebody goes in front of a judge when that happens.
2012-10-21 11:05:07 PM  
1 votes:

phrawgh: ISO15693: phrawgh: Have the Mormons baptized her yet?

She hasn't been dead a year, Snarky McSnarktroll.

Why the wait?


To see if anyone cares.
2012-10-21 11:03:21 PM  
1 votes:

GAT_00: ScottRiqui: 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?

Basically, I see no real reason to change the status quo. I wouldn't argue to decriminalize alcohol, but I wouldn't argue to criminalize it either. If pot was legal, I wouldn't argue to criminalize it. I have no problem with the people who don't use pot who want it legalized, but best I can tell, that is a small minority of the legalization supporters. What I argue from is I see no reason to listen to someone who is committing a criminal act tell me why they shouldn't be treated as a criminal. You wouldn't listen to a robber tell you why robbery should be legal because they don't want to go to jail. You don't listen to a speeder who says there shouldn't be speed limits because they don't want to pay the fine. It's stupid.

And I have no problem with the penalties being reduced, drastically even. It is stupid that possession carries heavier sentence than it has any right too. So change the penalties. But you still have to watch the above. And be careful about the arguments you make. There is no rights violations when it comes to drug use, like the guy upthread with the abolition argument.


That is quite the hard line approach for a cop hater.

You cannot find goodness in the pothead, but the cops should pause when a gun is pointed at them and take the time to break out the beanbags.

Strange dichotomy. So basically you are a hardline authoritarian (criminals are criminal) but hate those who enforce your laws?

How do you feel about immigration (which yes, has plenty of criminal statutes)? Surely we cannot change immigration laws at the behest of those who have broken them? In fact, like those filthy hippies, immigration must be fully enforced until the illegals stop having an opinion.

You really show your true self in these threads.
2012-10-21 11:02:16 PM  
1 votes:

ISO15693: phrawgh: Have the Mormons baptized her yet?

She hasn't been dead a year, Snarky McSnarktroll.


Why the wait?
2012-10-21 10:58:01 PM  
1 votes:
David Simpson, who described himself as Swanson's boyfriend, said she was very religious and that she thought "the end times were near."

And she was right.
2012-10-21 10:52:37 PM  
1 votes:

ScottRiqui: untaken_name: slayer199: They're paid to take risks, not get killed. It's a shiatty job and I know it firsthand.

That's why they should shoot BACK. That's taking risks. Shooting first, that's avoiding risks. I guess any time police see anything out of the ordinary, they should just shoot first and ask question later. Oh, right, they won't do the asking questions later part.

An armed suspect goes way beyond the pale of simply "something out of the ordinary". Are you seriously advocating for a policy of waiting for an armed, erratic, uncooperative suspect to take the first shot?


Yes, he is advocating that. That is a position he's taken in past cop threads, even if it wasn't about questionable circumstances.

untaken_name is also one of the farkers, I believe, who thinks that a cop should just shoot the gun out of their hand, or wrestle it away rather than killing someone. After all, that's what they're paid to do.
2012-10-21 10:51:28 PM  
1 votes:

ScottRiqui: untaken_name: slayer199: Yes, she was crazy. But she also went home and picked up a gun. At that point there's no way for the cops to know it couldn't fire. I supposed farkers would be happier if cops get shot in these situations.

You'd almost think they were getting paid to take risks that people who aren't getting paid shouldn't take. But, of course, we know that isn't true. The Supreme Court said so. Better they gun down innocent dogs, innocent people, and crazy people than they endure any risk. Better a thousand civilians dead than one cop inconvenienced.

I'm as vocal as the next guy when cops overstep the bounds, but there's no sane world where someone can point a gun at a cop (or refuse to drop one when ordered to do so) and the blame falls on the cops when they get shot. In a situation like that, the police are literally a fraction of a second away from potentially being killed, and there's no amount of pay that should make them accept that risk.


The risk was all in their heads. They should at least verify that there is actual risk. THAT IS WHY THEY GET PAID. We hear all the time that cops put their lives on the line, except that any time there's any possibility that they might actually have to, they just start blasting away instead. How do we know she even pointed anything at them? We take their word. At least if she had actually fired (which she COULD NOT do since the gun doesn't fire), they would have the proof that there was actually enough danger to excuse taking someone's life. In this case, they had a naked crazy lady who may or may not have had a non-functioning gun. Man, I've had a gun pointed at me, and while unpleasant, I somehow managed to survive the incident, and even without killing anyone. I wasn't even getting paid for it. Just because there's a gun within 20 feet of an officer, that doesn't excuse the officer shooting someone.
2012-10-21 10:49:37 PM  
1 votes:

untaken_name: slayer199: They're paid to take risks, not get killed. It's a shiatty job and I know it firsthand.

That's why they should shoot BACK. That's taking risks. Shooting first, that's avoiding risks. I guess any time police see anything out of the ordinary, they should just shoot first and ask question later. Oh, right, they won't do the asking questions later part.


An armed suspect goes way beyond the pale of simply "something out of the ordinary". Are you seriously advocating for a policy of waiting for an armed, erratic, uncooperative suspect to take the first shot?
2012-10-21 10:47:39 PM  
1 votes:

untaken_name: slayer199: They're paid to take risks, not get killed. It's a shiatty job and I know it firsthand.

That's why they should shoot BACK. That's taking risks. Shooting first, that's avoiding risks. I guess any time police see anything out of the ordinary, they should just shoot first and ask question later. Oh, right, they won't do the asking questions later part.


"They've got a gun!"
"Woah, slow down there, rookie. It's not like they've pulled the trigger or anything. This could be nothin'."
*BLAM*
"Oh. Okay. Well, sometimes it's not nothin'. Hey, can we get another rookie over here, please?"
2012-10-21 10:43:41 PM  
1 votes:

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.


FTFA They were off-duty. In addition, not every police department uses either of those. The jurisdiction I'm in won't issue the tasers because they would have to switch pepper spray to a more expensive, water-based brand.

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.


I have a feeling that there's a lot more to this story that the article left out.
2012-10-21 10:43:39 PM  
1 votes:

GAT_00: 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.


But it is totally worth more deaths if it means preventing the stoners from winning, right?

I mean, thatis what's important right?
2012-10-21 10:40:35 PM  
1 votes:

untaken_name: slayer199: Yes, she was crazy. But she also went home and picked up a gun. At that point there's no way for the cops to know it couldn't fire. I supposed farkers would be happier if cops get shot in these situations.

You'd almost think they were getting paid to take risks that people who aren't getting paid shouldn't take. But, of course, we know that isn't true. The Supreme Court said so. Better they gun down innocent dogs, innocent people, and crazy people than they endure any risk. Better a thousand civilians dead than one cop inconvenienced.


/yes.i agree all the police everywhere should let the suspect shoot first, it's only fair ...rolls eyes.
2012-10-21 10:40:07 PM  
1 votes:

untaken_name: Relatively Obscure: untaken_name: Right, because we wouldn't want officers to be able to not kill people while off duty. Brave, brave officers who bravely gunned down a naked woman holding a cross.

Incorrect.

We have pictures of her holding a cross. We have cops saying she was holding a gun. Cops are more likely to lie than pictures, although it's true that pictures can be misinterpreted. I believe the pictures. You believe whatever you want.


I didn't say she didn't have a cross at some point in the day. From TFA, though, it doesn't appear that she had said cross when the confrontation took place. Rather, that cross was located at the residence from which the gun was taken.
2012-10-21 10:38:37 PM  
1 votes:

untaken_name: slayer199: Yes, she was crazy. But she also went home and picked up a gun. At that point there's no way for the cops to know it couldn't fire. I supposed farkers would be happier if cops get shot in these situations.

You'd almost think they were getting paid to take risks that people who aren't getting paid shouldn't take. But, of course, we know that isn't true. The Supreme Court said so. Better they gun down innocent dogs, innocent people, and crazy people than they endure any risk. Better a thousand civilians dead than one cop inconvenienced.


funny, if this were a civilian who shot a deranged person with a gun, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Of course, a civilian would likely just run away if that were at all possible while a cop is required to stand his ground and take care of the situation. Unfortunately, in this case a mentally ill woman who was no danger was killed but there was no way for the cops to know her gun did not fire. I don't think taking the "risk" that it was a replica is the sort of risk we should be asking police officers to take
2012-10-21 10:38:33 PM  
1 votes:

untaken_name: Right, because we wouldn't want officers to be able to not kill people while off duty. Brave, brave officers who bravely gunned down a naked woman holding a cross. Brave, brave police officers. Those two cellphone guys are lucky they got out of there alive, what with her having a dangerous cross and all. She could have blessed them! So glad the brave police officers bravely gunned down a naked crazy chick. So brave.


They didn't shoot the naked lady with the cross. They let her leave and go to her boyfriend's house. She left the cross there and came back with a gun. They shot the naked lady with the gun.

Like I said, they made a large mistake when they let her leave the first time without calling for help. She is dead because of that choice. But when they shot her, she was armed.

And when the cell phone guys met her, she was naked with a cross, not yet naked with a gun.
2012-10-21 10:35:02 PM  
1 votes:

slayer199: Yes, she was crazy. But she also went home and picked up a gun. At that point there's no way for the cops to know it couldn't fire. I supposed farkers would be happier if cops get shot in these situations.


You'd almost think they were getting paid to take risks that people who aren't getting paid shouldn't take. But, of course, we know that isn't true. The Supreme Court said so. Better they gun down innocent dogs, innocent people, and crazy people than they endure any risk. Better a thousand civilians dead than one cop inconvenienced.
2012-10-21 10:33:43 PM  
1 votes:

GAT_00: But you have got to keep the stoners away from the rallies.


There shouldn't even be any rallies. Where were the rallies calling for an invasion of Iraq? Bush crammed that trillion dollar dick up our asses like a BOSS with no support from stoners, jocks, dweebs, spazzes, band nerds, cheerleaders, AP kids, or even the preps. We need a GW Bush of doing drugs.
2012-10-21 10:32:56 PM  
1 votes:

Amos Quito: And this is why cops should not be allowed near guns.


Didn't anyone RTFA?

It's the cops' fault that she was wielding a gun? When the cops are overzealous, I'm one of the first people to shout about it (case and point, the kid that allegedly shot himself while handcuffed in the back of a squad car).

Yes, she was crazy. But she also went home and picked up a gun. At that point there's no way for the cops to know it couldn't fire. I supposed farkers would be happier if cops get shot in these situations.
2012-10-21 10:30:26 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:30:04 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:28:22 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:27:56 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:27:38 PM  
1 votes:
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 10:24:56 PM  
1 votes:
If cops were held to the same standards that physicians were when they killed someone, this country would be better off.
2012-10-21 10:24:55 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:19:29 PM  
1 votes:
She's coming right for us!
up-ship.com

/BLAM
/RIP poor troubled Lady
2012-10-21 10:15:02 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:13:30 PM  
1 votes:
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 10:12:57 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:11:32 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:07:39 PM  
1 votes:
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 10:06:11 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:05:07 PM  
1 votes:
the article stated she was armed
and nutso!
2012-10-21 10:05:06 PM  
1 votes:
Looks like she may have been carrying an antique pistol that didn't fire. That's a better story than she was carrying a cross. Yeah, that's the ticket.

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.

Simpson said deputies found the cross that Collins and Eylward said Swanson had been carrying inside his home after the shooting. Simpson said the investigators told him she had left the cross in his home and taken his antique gun.

The gun is what Simpson said the off-duty officers saw her wielding when they opened fire. Simpson said the gun is very old, that it holds one bullet and that it doesn't fire.

Simpson said deputies had him identify Swanson's body and the antique gun on Sunday.

Deputies have not confirmed that Swanson was holding the antique gun at the time of the shooting.
2012-10-21 10:04:42 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2012-10-21 10:03:14 PM  
1 votes:

MrHappyRotter: TuteTibiImperes: 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.

It does say they were off duty, so likely not carrying beanbag guns or tasers. Of course, why the off duty cops were carrying regular firearms in the middle of the woods is another good question.

To state the obvious....

They are closeted homosexuals, perusing the forest for anonymous gay sex partners who use the area as a local cruise spot. When you're a homo, looking for a man on man bareback forest fark and suddenly all you see are boobs and hips racing towards you -- what do you do? Duh! You wipe the cum off your lips and mustache, whip out your pistol and fire on that biatch.


/wonders how you know that the parks are hang outs for gays looking for bootie? Steps back slowly...
2012-10-21 10:02:57 PM  
1 votes:

Barricaded Gunman: FTFA: "She was literally walking down the road straight at us," Collins said. "So, we pulled up alongside of her, and at that point I looked out the window and I asked her, I said, 'Are you alright?' And she said, 'Yeah, but I'm a little bit confused.'"
Collins said the woman then walked away into the wooded area, and they snapped the photos of her. They said they took the photos, thinking that no one would believe them without photographic evidence that they had seen the woman.

Thank god neither of you two sh#tbags thought to help a confused, naked woman walking off into the woods, or she might still be alive today. Good on you for getting those cell pics, though. Very helpful.


Yeah, they should have called the cops.
2012-10-21 10:02:04 PM  
1 votes:

TuteTibiImperes: 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.

It does say they were off duty, so likely not carrying beanbag guns or tasers. Of course, why the off duty cops were carrying regular firearms in the middle of the woods is another good question.


To state the obvious....

They are closeted homosexuals, perusing the forest for anonymous gay sex partners who use the area as a local cruise spot. When you're a homo, looking for a man on man bareback forest fark and suddenly all you see are boobs and hips racing towards you -- what do you do? Duh! You wipe the cum off your lips and mustache, whip out your pistol and fire on that biatch.
2012-10-21 10:01:54 PM  
1 votes:

TuteTibiImperes: 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.

It does say they were off duty, so likely not carrying beanbag guns or tasers. Of course, why the off duty cops were carrying regular firearms in the middle of the woods is another good question.


/In most departments (as in my department) you are expected to carry pretty much at all times. As you are never officially (not a police officer) even when off duty, you are expected to react to criminal or dangerous situations, and take whatever measures necessary. That means you carry your sidearm and your badge.
2012-10-21 10:01:33 PM  
1 votes:

zato_ichi: Eh, I side with the cops.

That cross could have been a dagger. And, they did find a replica pistol.

The family probably tampered with the scene to make it look like the crazy wasn't trying to attack the cops to ensure a future lawsuit.


It wasn't a replica, it was an antique gun.

Not sure if the cops did anything wrong here, but somebody farked up. Probably the douchebags who saw a naked woman wandering around rambling about the end times and just took pictures rather than reporting her.
2012-10-21 10:01:23 PM  
1 votes:

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.

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.

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.


The article states at the end that her boyfriend was the one that said she stole the gun from him.

Who am I not supposed to believe?
2012-10-21 09:59:07 PM  
1 votes:

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.


It does say they were off duty, so likely not carrying beanbag guns or tasers. Of course, why the off duty cops were carrying regular firearms in the middle of the woods is another good question.
2012-10-21 09:52:38 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2012-10-21 09:52:17 PM  
1 votes:
god damn the cops
2012-10-21 09:52:00 PM  
1 votes:

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


The cross was a weapon to them.
 
Displayed 94 of 94 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report