Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Opposing Views)   Forget for a moment that this cop fired 41 times at an unarmed man sitting in a pickup truck that was stuck between two police cars. Let's consider for a moment the fact that 38 of those shots missed   (opposingviews.com ) divider line
    More: Scary, Officer Tuter, patrol cars, Dallas County  
•       •       •

12569 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Nov 2013 at 10:31 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-13 01:55:16 PM  

trappedspirit: FarkedOver: skozlaw: FarkedOver: Since 9/11/2011 the police in this country have killed over 5,000 people.  Who are the real terrorists?

Your "news" article doesn't appear to bother to distinguish between innocents victims and people killed in justified shootings. And it sources a blog called "The Daily Sheeple" for the "estimate" it uses to build that 5000 number.

Seems reasonable and productive.

Cool! A police apologist!

LOL guess who has a hair trigger and authority issues?


LOL Who?

/why are we laughing out loud?
 
2013-11-13 01:57:41 PM  

skozlaw: This thread summed up already:

This guy, therefore all cops.

The other officer at the scene fired no shots and actually took cover behind his squad car as Tuter continued to pump bullets at the immobilized pickup truck.


So the other cops took NO ACTION to protect and serve the guy in the truck. No attempt to stop the shooting while in progress.

And.....

Originally, police claimed that Allen rammed Tuter's vehicle. But dashboard cam video showed that the reverse was actually the case.

So after they were forced to hide from a gun-crazy fellow cop they STILL decided to get together and lie and claim that the dead victim rammed the cop car.

Yeah.... one bad apple my arse.
 
2013-11-13 02:00:10 PM  

FarkedOver: Another Government Employee: So, what happens if you HAVE to engage with the police? Say, a family member is murdered?

You have the right to remain silent.


True that.

But...

Assuming you did not do it, how would you feel to know that who did would never see the inside of a courtroom? (And assuming you aren't an "eye for an eye" vigilante.)
 
2013-11-13 02:03:38 PM  

SpectroBoy: Yeah.... one bad apple my arse.


And, yet, the word several stubbornly refused to mean "all"...
 
2013-11-13 02:07:36 PM  

Another Government Employee: Assuming you did not do it, how would you feel to know that who did would never see the inside of a courtroom? (And assuming you aren't an "eye for an eye" vigilante.)


If you're a family member, you're one of the first people they are going to gun for.  Better to lawyer up immediately.
 
2013-11-13 02:08:19 PM  

vygramul: Now better, that's for certain. Of course, if a cop can't manage a single unarmed man with only 10 rounds, why are we demanding people in self-defense situations be limited to 10?

Lulz, don't make sense here.  It will not be stood for.

Nick Nostril: I'm guessing they are assuming the general public are better shots and don't need the extra five. This story is (anecdotal) evidence in support of that argument.

That makes so little sense that I'm guessing you'll be given a federal appointment from Feinstein very soon.
 
2013-11-13 02:08:35 PM  

Gecko Gingrich: He unloaded 41 rounds, pausing at least once to reload despite taking no return fire from Allen who was not in possession of a firearm.

If my research is correct, Dallas County cops are issued a Sig P226. Depending on whether its chambered in 9mm or .357 caliber, it carries either a 10, 12 or 15 round magazine. Even at 15 rounds, he'd had to have reloaded twice to fire off 41 shots. If it was a 10 round magazine, we're talking four times. Couple that with the fact that the other cop didn't fire a single round and was, in fact, ducking for cover; the dead guy never even had a gun, much less opened fire on the cop; and the cop lied about being rammed, when in fact he had been the one ramming, and I hope this guy ends up in a mental health treatment facility...oh who am I kidding? He's in Texas, if (big if) he's found guilty of murder (which it sounds like he should be) he'll be in the chair within a year.


I'd be OK with this. The cop murdered the guy in cold blood. Screw this "Manslaughter" nonsense. The cop has proven he is a deadly threat to society, and thus he needs to be permanently removed.
 
2013-11-13 02:09:23 PM  

SpectroBoy: skozlaw: This thread summed up already:

This guy, therefore all cops.

Interesting that  the other cops (who took cover during the shooting) didn't bust this guy. It was the dash cam that busted him.

This is not the story of one bad cop. It is the story of several. One was just worse than the others.


I think the problem is that when choosing between a random civilian and a colleague, cops will tend to side with a colleague. This is not unique to their profession; we all tend to do it to at least some degree. Members of our tribe outrank unknown, random persons. The consequences of bad behaviour and subsequent coverup by cops are not the same as union auto workers covering for each other, or IT professionals doing the same, but the underlying reasons are not much different.
 
2013-11-13 02:13:40 PM  

Rising_Zan_Samurai_Gunman: Unfortunately, they somehow only charged him with manslaughter.


Because it's important to hold cops to a lower standard than the rest of us little people.
 
2013-11-13 02:14:14 PM  

CruiserTwelve: JohnnyC: How is it manslaughter? Shouldn't that be a murder charge instead? Isn't "manslaughter" when you accidentally kill someone? Somehow firing 41 shots (with no returned fire) constitutes accidentally killing him.

Murder requires premeditation. Manslaughter isn't necessarily accidental, it's just a killing done "in the heat of passion" or without premeditation. Basically a killing based on emotion and not as a result of preplanning and with criminal intent.


Considering the extreme number of shots fired and the fact that he had to reload at least once, if not 3 times to fire that many, the heat of the moment really doesn't explain his actions.  I think they're letting him off easy intentionally so as to make a show that they're doing  something about the guy, but know it's going to result in nothing that will ultimately hurt him that much in the long run.  It's like they're going to have to punish him, but are making it as light as possible.  Increasing his bail really doesn't do anything worse to him either.  He's going to get off very lightly or walk completely after all the evidence is lost, eyewitness accounts are dealt with, and several years pass so people forget about it before it goes to trial.
 
2013-11-13 02:19:46 PM  

Another Government Employee: (And assuming you aren't an "eye for an eye" vigilante.)


Well there's your problem.
 
2013-11-13 02:19:52 PM  

doubled99: Who are any of you to judge?
This is the ultimate alpha male job. It's for the toughest and strongest, both mentally and physically. They live by a warrior's code, something most of you cannot begin to understand


LOL WHUT?
Are you high?
 
2013-11-13 02:22:25 PM  

mediablitz: "More and more, we're learning that the account given by the police officer is not what actually occurred,"

Welcome to any time prior to dashboard cams...


In their defense, stress and combat does WIERD things to human perception, especially once the heart rate gets up above 175 BPM or so.  It's ENTIRELY possible that he thought he saw what he's saying he saw.

On Combat, The Psychology and Physiology of Deadly Conflict in War and in Peace
 
2013-11-13 02:22:45 PM  

ThatGuyOverThere: vygramul: Now better, that's for certain. Of course, if a cop can't manage a single unarmed man with only 10 rounds, why are we demanding people in self-defense situations be limited to 10?
Lulz, don't make sense here.  It will not be stood for.

Nick Nostril: I'm guessing they are assuming the general public are better shots and don't need the extra five. This story is (anecdotal) evidence in support of that argument.
That makes so little sense that I'm guessing you'll be given a federal appointment from Feinstein very soon.


I think you have reading comprehension issues. The statement is simple and direct (if cynical)
 
2013-11-13 02:26:40 PM  

capt.hollister: I think the problem is that when choosing between a random civilian and a colleague, cops will tend to side with a colleague. This is not unique to their profession; we all tend to do it to at least some degree. Members of our tribe outrank unknown, random persons.


You're claims are valid in a purely "armchair psychology" way, but it just isn't anything close to a valid comparison.

I can say without hesitation that I draw the line LONG before motherfarkers get killed.

I would turn my own mother in if she reloaded whilst shooting at an unarmed man for ramming our car.
 
2013-11-13 02:27:06 PM  

alice_600: and there is another reason why pot heads will never get legal weed.


A couple of states would beg to differ with you...
 
2013-11-13 02:30:18 PM  

FarkedOver: trappedspirit: FarkedOver: skozlaw: FarkedOver: Since 9/11/2011 the police in this country have killed over 5,000 people.  Who are the real terrorists?

Your "news" article doesn't appear to bother to distinguish between innocents victims and people killed in justified shootings. And it sources a blog called "The Daily Sheeple" for the "estimate" it uses to build that 5000 number.

Seems reasonable and productive.

Cool! A police apologist!

LOL guess who has a hair trigger and authority issues?

LOL Who?

/why are we laughing out loud?


"WE" aren't.  At least, you don't seem like the laughing type.
 
2013-11-13 02:32:12 PM  

trappedspirit: "WE" aren't. At least, you don't seem like the laughing type.


Ok great! Thanks for your contribution.  Have a great day!

L O L
 
2013-11-13 02:32:19 PM  

Silverstaff: n case you were wondering what an actual weapon marksmanship standard is (at least the one I have to shoot) for comparison:

Weapon is a Glock 22, aiming at a human silhouette target (with the head and upper torso area outlined). Hits on the target are 1 point, hits in the head/upper torso vitals area are worth 2 points.

50 rounds.

First table of fire is a 10 round magazine, from 15 yards. Draw the weapon and fire all 10 rounds in 60 seconds.
Second is another 10 round magazine, from 15 yards. Draw the weapon and fire all 10 rounds in 45 seconds.
Third is another 10 round magazine, again from 15 yards. Draw the weapon and fire all 10 rounds in 30 seconds.
Fourth is a 14 round magazine, from 7 yards. Draw the weapon and fire a controlled pair into the target in 6 seconds. Repeat this 7 times.
Fifth is a 6 round magazine, from 7 yards. Draw the weapon and fire two rounds into the chest and one round into the head. Repeat twice.

To qualify, you have to get at least 70 points, with at least 1 headshot.

I shot a 77. 49 of the 50 rounds hit the target, with 2 headshots (i.e. both attempts).

By policy no official record of score is kept though, for legal reasons.


So when I subpoena your employment records, and you can't prove you passed the marksmanship standard, what do you think I'm going to do to you on the stand?
 
2013-11-13 02:35:02 PM  

GanjSmokr: alice_600: and there is another reason why pot heads will never get legal weed.

A couple of states would beg to differ with you...


As a non pothead posting from Seattle, etc...
 
2013-11-13 02:35:55 PM  

RINO: 5000 killed since 9/11 comes out to ~417 per year. Including federal agencies there are ~800,000 LEOs in the US. That works out to (I think) one half of one ten thousandth of one percent.


That's 1 per 2000 LEOs, per year.

That's 0.05% annually.
 
2013-11-13 02:39:20 PM  

budrojr: Considering the extreme number of shots fired and the fact that he had to reload at least once, if not 3 times to fire that many, the heat of the moment really doesn't explain his actions.  I think they're letting him off easy intentionally so as to make a show that they're doing  something about the guy, but know it's going to result in nothing that will ultimately hurt him that much in the long run.  It's like they're going to have to punish him, but are making it as light as possible.  Increasing his bail really doesn't do anything worse to him either.  He's going to get off very lightly or walk completely after all the evidence is lost, eyewitness accounts are dealt with, and several years pass so people forget about it before it goes to trial.


He's not charged with murder because his actions don't constitute the necessary elements of murder. His actions obviously make you angry, but that doesn't change the law. Also, your assumptions about what's going to happen in the future doesn't change the facts of the case.
 
2013-11-13 02:39:54 PM  

CruiserTwelve: JohnnyC: How is it manslaughter? Shouldn't that be a murder charge instead? Isn't "manslaughter" when you accidentally kill someone? Somehow firing 41 shots (with no returned fire) constitutes accidentally killing him.

Murder requires premeditation. Manslaughter isn't necessarily accidental, it's just a killing done "in the heat of passion" or without premeditation. Basically a killing based on emotion and not as a result of preplanning and with criminal intent.


Police are supposedly trained to resist "in the heat of passion" actions, and they should be judged against a higher standard accordingly.
 
2013-11-13 02:40:42 PM  

This text is now purple: Silverstaff: n case you were wondering what an actual weapon marksmanship standard is (at least the one I have to shoot) for comparison:

Weapon is a Glock 22, aiming at a human silhouette target (with the head and upper torso area outlined). Hits on the target are 1 point, hits in the head/upper torso vitals area are worth 2 points.

50 rounds.

First table of fire is a 10 round magazine, from 15 yards. Draw the weapon and fire all 10 rounds in 60 seconds.
Second is another 10 round magazine, from 15 yards. Draw the weapon and fire all 10 rounds in 45 seconds.
Third is another 10 round magazine, again from 15 yards. Draw the weapon and fire all 10 rounds in 30 seconds.
Fourth is a 14 round magazine, from 7 yards. Draw the weapon and fire a controlled pair into the target in 6 seconds. Repeat this 7 times.
Fifth is a 6 round magazine, from 7 yards. Draw the weapon and fire two rounds into the chest and one round into the head. Repeat twice.

To qualify, you have to get at least 70 points, with at least 1 headshot.

I shot a 77. 49 of the 50 rounds hit the target, with 2 headshots (i.e. both attempts).

By policy no official record of score is kept though, for legal reasons.

So when I subpoena your employment records, and you can't prove you passed the marksmanship standard, what do you think I'm going to do to you on the stand?


Well counselor, how did you get to the courthouse today?  You drove?  Let me see your score.  You don't have your score?  Well then how do I know you passed the driving standard?
 
2013-11-13 02:41:12 PM  

CruiserTwelve: JohnnyC: How is it manslaughter? Shouldn't that be a murder charge instead? Isn't "manslaughter" when you accidentally kill someone? Somehow firing 41 shots (with no returned fire) constitutes accidentally killing him.

Murder requires premeditation. Manslaughter isn't necessarily accidental, it's just a killing done "in the heat of passion" or without premeditation. Basically a killing based on emotion and not as a result of preplanning and with criminal intent.


Here's your premeditation:  Stopping to reload the gun.

And then firing at least another 20 shots into an unarmed, trapped, non-responsive person sitting in a stopped car.

At the very least, shot number 41 had 40 shots of preplanning and, arguably, passed the line into criminal intent.

Especially for a police officer.
 
2013-11-13 02:43:18 PM  

lennavan: This text is now purple: Silverstaff: n case you were wondering what an actual weapon marksmanship standard is (at least the one I have to shoot) for comparison:

Weapon is a Glock 22, aiming at a human silhouette target (with the head and upper torso area outlined). Hits on the target are 1 point, hits in the head/upper torso vitals area are worth 2 points.

50 rounds.

First table of fire is a 10 round magazine, from 15 yards. Draw the weapon and fire all 10 rounds in 60 seconds.
Second is another 10 round magazine, from 15 yards. Draw the weapon and fire all 10 rounds in 45 seconds.
Third is another 10 round magazine, again from 15 yards. Draw the weapon and fire all 10 rounds in 30 seconds.
Fourth is a 14 round magazine, from 7 yards. Draw the weapon and fire a controlled pair into the target in 6 seconds. Repeat this 7 times.
Fifth is a 6 round magazine, from 7 yards. Draw the weapon and fire two rounds into the chest and one round into the head. Repeat twice.

To qualify, you have to get at least 70 points, with at least 1 headshot.

I shot a 77. 49 of the 50 rounds hit the target, with 2 headshots (i.e. both attempts).

By policy no official record of score is kept though, for legal reasons.

So when I subpoena your employment records, and you can't prove you passed the marksmanship standard, what do you think I'm going to do to you on the stand?

Well counselor, how did you get to the courthouse today?  You drove?  Let me see your score.  You don't have your score?  Well then how do I know you passed the driving standard?


How did you manage to get his attorney on the stand?
 
2013-11-13 02:43:35 PM  

CruiserTwelve: He's not charged with murder because his actions don't constitute the necessary elements of murder. His actions obviously make you angry, but that doesn't change the law. Also, your assumptions about what's going to happen in the future doesn't change the facts of the case.


You're wrong. If he was a "civilian" as you like to say, reloading=intent.
 
2013-11-13 02:44:41 PM  

AFKobel: lennavan: This text is now purple: Silverstaff: n case you were wondering what an actual weapon marksmanship standard is (at least the one I have to shoot) for comparison:

Weapon is a Glock 22, aiming at a human silhouette target (with the head and upper torso area outlined). Hits on the target are 1 point, hits in the head/upper torso vitals area are worth 2 points.

50 rounds.

First table of fire is a 10 round magazine, from 15 yards. Draw the weapon and fire all 10 rounds in 60 seconds.
Second is another 10 round magazine, from 15 yards. Draw the weapon and fire all 10 rounds in 45 seconds.
Third is another 10 round magazine, again from 15 yards. Draw the weapon and fire all 10 rounds in 30 seconds.
Fourth is a 14 round magazine, from 7 yards. Draw the weapon and fire a controlled pair into the target in 6 seconds. Repeat this 7 times.
Fifth is a 6 round magazine, from 7 yards. Draw the weapon and fire two rounds into the chest and one round into the head. Repeat twice.

To qualify, you have to get at least 70 points, with at least 1 headshot.

I shot a 77. 49 of the 50 rounds hit the target, with 2 headshots (i.e. both attempts).

By policy no official record of score is kept though, for legal reasons.

So when I subpoena your employment records, and you can't prove you passed the marksmanship standard, what do you think I'm going to do to you on the stand?

Well counselor, how did you get to the courthouse today?  You drove?  Let me see your score.  You don't have your score?  Well then how do I know you passed the driving standard?

How did you manage to get his attorney on the stand?


The same way he managed to assert a LEO can't prove he passed the marksmanship standard.  I defiance of all logic, I imagined it to be true.
 
2013-11-13 02:45:19 PM  

lennavan: So when I subpoena your employment records, and you can't prove you passed the marksmanship standard, what do you think I'm going to do to you on the stand?

Well counselor, how did you get to the courthouse today? You drove? Let me see your score. You don't have your score? Well then how do I know you passed the driving standard?


The first time my motions kill someone, we can discuss my bar exam results.
 
2013-11-13 02:47:39 PM  
He should just say that he thought it was his taser and he'd pulled his gun by mistake. That worked for some subway cop who shot some poor slob who was already handcuffed and face down on the ground. Seems like authority is an antidote for just punishment.
 
2013-11-13 02:47:41 PM  

SpectroBoy: So the other cops took NO ACTION to protect and serve the guy in the truck. No attempt to stop the shooting while in progress.


There was only one other cop at the scene. What would you have him do? Seriously, what could the other cop have done to stop this shooting in progress?

And.....

So after they were forced to hide from a gun-crazy fellow cop they STILL decided to get together and lie and claim that the dead victim rammed the cop car.


They lied? Where does it say the other cops lied? In fact, where does it say there were any more than one other cop at the scene? More likely the other cop at the scene testified against the shooter which is why he was indicted.

Get your facts straight.
 
2013-11-13 02:49:58 PM  

Pangea: capt.hollister: I think the problem is that when choosing between a random civilian and a colleague, cops will tend to side with a colleague. This is not unique to their profession; we all tend to do it to at least some degree. Members of our tribe outrank unknown, random persons.

You're claims are valid in a purely "armchair psychology" way, but it just isn't anything close to a valid comparison.

I can say without hesitation that I draw the line LONG before motherfarkers get killed.

I would turn my own mother in if she reloaded whilst shooting at an unarmed man for ramming our car.


Absolutely, and you are not the only one. That is why I said they tend to act one way as opposed to stating that they always act that way. I wasn't trying to describe an absolute rule where none exists.

In the case in TFA, the police have turned against one of their own. Even the colleague who was with the indicted cop at the scene appears to be willing to testify against him, however his reaction at the time of the incident wasn't strong enough to cause him to turn against a fellow cop as the latter fired shot, after shot, after shot at an unarmed civilian. An unarmed civilian died because a bad cop shot him and a good cop did nothing to stop the bad cop.
 
2013-11-13 02:50:07 PM  

lennavan: AFKobel: lennavan: This text is now purple: Silverstaff: n case you were wondering what an actual weapon marksmanship standard is (at least the one I have to shoot) for comparison:

Weapon is a Glock 22, aiming at a human silhouette target (with the head and upper torso area outlined). Hits on the target are 1 point, hits in the head/upper torso vitals area are worth 2 points.

50 rounds.

First table of fire is a 10 round magazine, from 15 yards. Draw the weapon and fire all 10 rounds in 60 seconds.
Second is another 10 round magazine, from 15 yards. Draw the weapon and fire all 10 rounds in 45 seconds.
Third is another 10 round magazine, again from 15 yards. Draw the weapon and fire all 10 rounds in 30 seconds.
Fourth is a 14 round magazine, from 7 yards. Draw the weapon and fire a controlled pair into the target in 6 seconds. Repeat this 7 times.
Fifth is a 6 round magazine, from 7 yards. Draw the weapon and fire two rounds into the chest and one round into the head. Repeat twice.

To qualify, you have to get at least 70 points, with at least 1 headshot.

I shot a 77. 49 of the 50 rounds hit the target, with 2 headshots (i.e. both attempts).

By policy no official record of score is kept though, for legal reasons.

So when I subpoena your employment records, and you can't prove you passed the marksmanship standard, what do you think I'm going to do to you on the stand?

Well counselor, how did you get to the courthouse today?  You drove?  Let me see your score.  You don't have your score?  Well then how do I know you passed the driving standard?

How did you manage to get his attorney on the stand?

The same way he managed to assert a LEO can't prove he passed the marksmanship standard.  I defiance of all logic, I imagined it to be true.


I get it, but his comment was in response to one individual's comment about how no record of the score was kept.   The response to no record of the score being kept, is, something along the lines of, "that doesn't mean no record of pass/fail wasn't kept, based on the score."

Comparing someone being unable to produce their score, after discovery request, to someone being asked, on the spot, to produce their automobile licensing testing results, is, in a word, ludicrous.
 
2013-11-13 02:53:10 PM  

hitlersbrain: He should just say that he thought it was his taser and he'd pulled his gun by mistake. That worked for some subway cop who shot some poor slob who was already handcuffed and face down on the ground. Seems like authority is an antidote for just punishment.


that asshole cop did 2 years ... with no gun upgrade because the judge tossed it... farkers
best part, the cop lied on his first report .... really???
asshole
 
2013-11-13 02:53:40 PM  

CruiserTwelve: SpectroBoy: So the other cops took NO ACTION to protect and serve the guy in the truck. No attempt to stop the shooting while in progress.

There was only one other cop at the scene. What would you have him do? Seriously, what could the other cop have done to stop this shooting in progress?

And.....

So after they were forced to hide from a gun-crazy fellow cop they STILL decided to get together and lie and claim that the dead victim rammed the cop car.

They lied? Where does it say the other cops lied? In fact, where does it say there were any more than one other cop at the scene? More likely the other cop at the scene testified against the shooter which is why he was indicted.

Get your facts straight.


Possibly off topic...
How do you feel about requiring all 'patrol' officers being required to wear body cameras?
 
2013-11-13 03:00:00 PM  

This text is now purple: lennavan: So when I subpoena your employment records, and you can't prove you passed the marksmanship standard, what do you think I'm going to do to you on the stand?

Well counselor, how did you get to the courthouse today? You drove? Let me see your score. You don't have your score? Well then how do I know you passed the driving standard?

Fark me, I just realized how dumb my comment was.  Can I crack a joke and hope to move on?  Here, here's my joke:The first time my motions kill someone, we can discuss my bar exam results.


Hehe, good one.  High five dude, glad we could work it out.
 
2013-11-13 03:02:19 PM  

CruiserTwelve: SpectroBoy: So the other cops took NO ACTION to protect and serve the guy in the truck. No attempt to stop the shooting while in progress.

There was only one other cop at the scene. What would you have him do? Seriously, what could the other cop have done to stop this shooting in progress?

And.....

So after they were forced to hide from a gun-crazy fellow cop they STILL decided to get together and lie and claim that the dead victim rammed the cop car.

They lied? Where does it say the other cops lied? In fact, where does it say there were any more than one other cop at the scene? More likely the other cop at the scene testified against the shooter which is why he was indicted.

Get your facts straight.


If they had to rely on the video camera to get the correct story, that means the other cop lied or omitted relevant data.

As far as what the other cop could have done? Well, lets assume a cop came across me unloading a glock into a truck with someone inside it. What do you think he would do?
 
2013-11-13 03:04:42 PM  

Madbassist1: CruiserTwelve: He's not charged with murder because his actions don't constitute the necessary elements of murder. His actions obviously make you angry, but that doesn't change the law. Also, your assumptions about what's going to happen in the future doesn't change the facts of the case.

You're wrong. If he was a "civilian" as you like to say, reloading=intent.


Intent of what? You realize just throwing out the word intent doesn't mean a farking thing, right?

Intent is not a synonym for premeditation, champ.
 
2013-11-13 03:05:07 PM  

Madbassist1: If they had to rely on the video camera to get the correct story, that means the other cop lied or omitted relevant data.

As far as what the other cop could have done? Well, lets assume a cop came across me unloading a glock into a truck with someone inside it. What do you think he would do?


THIS
charge the other cop on the scene with conspiracy after the fact and aiding and abetting.
 
2013-11-13 03:05:11 PM  

CruiserTwelve: SpectroBoy: So the other cops took NO ACTION to protect and serve the guy in the truck. No attempt to stop the shooting while in progress.

There was only one other cop at the scene. What would you have him do? Seriously, what could the other cop have done to stop this shooting in progress?

And.....

So after they were forced to hide from a gun-crazy fellow cop they STILL decided to get together and lie and claim that the dead victim rammed the cop car.

They lied? Where does it say the other cops lied?


In the article?  Police initially said Tuter opened fire after Allen rammed a patrol car trying to pin him into the dead-end street. However, police dashboard video later showed that it was Tuter's patrol car that crashed into the truck, not the other way around.
 
2013-11-13 03:10:38 PM  

Perpetuous Procrastination: Madbassist1: CruiserTwelve: He's not charged with murder because his actions don't constitute the necessary elements of murder. His actions obviously make you angry, but that doesn't change the law. Also, your assumptions about what's going to happen in the future doesn't change the facts of the case.

You're wrong. If he was a "civilian" as you like to say, reloading=intent.

Intent of what? You realize just throwing out the word intent doesn't mean a farking thing, right?

Intent is not a synonym for premeditation, champ.


Classic.  Exactly the type of douchiness one would expect.

Also: "Originally, police claimed that Allen rammed Tuter's vehicle."  Do you think the word "police" refers to the one police officer?    It would be shocking to learn that the other police officer is the one who turned this guy in.

You tell people to get their facts straight... and then invent your own.   Well done, champ.
 
2013-11-13 03:11:41 PM  
ITT: Cops protecting other cops...... SHOCKING!
 
2013-11-13 03:14:27 PM  

CruiserTwelve: budrojr: Considering the extreme number of shots fired and the fact that he had to reload at least once, if not 3 times to fire that many, the heat of the moment really doesn't explain his actions.  I think they're letting him off easy intentionally so as to make a show that they're doing  something about the guy, but know it's going to result in nothing that will ultimately hurt him that much in the long run.  It's like they're going to have to punish him, but are making it as light as possible.  Increasing his bail really doesn't do anything worse to him either.  He's going to get off very lightly or walk completely after all the evidence is lost, eyewitness accounts are dealt with, and several years pass so people forget about it before it goes to trial.

He's not charged with murder because his actions don't constitute the necessary elements of murder. His actions obviously make you angry, but that doesn't change the law. Also, your assumptions about what's going to happen in the future doesn't change the facts of the case.


The fact that I have an opinion about this that differs from yours does not mean in any way, shape, or form that I'm emotionally invested in this or angry about it.  My opinion is that he is getting special treatment due to his status as a police officer (hence the singular manslaughter charge with no additional charges instead of murder and a wagonload of additional ancillary charges).

I disagree with you and hold that what he did should be construed as murder.  Look up the law in Texas where that's concerned.  He knowingly and intentionally caused the death of another person (he fired 41 shots, it's not like he didn't know what would happen), and/or intended to cause serious bodily injury while committing an act that was clearly dangerous to human life and this act caused the death of an individual.  Manslaughter only requires that his actions were reckless and caused a death.  What he did went beyond reckless and was way out of line with what was expected for the situation.  He could try the heat of passion defense, but if I were on the jury I wouldn't be buying it.  He should have started out being charged with murder, then defended or pleaded down to manslaughter.  Manslaughter would be appropriate if he had fired a warning shot or two which ricocheted into his head, killing the driver.  This cop wasn't just reckless, he was murderous.
 
2013-11-13 03:16:31 PM  

CruiserTwelve: JohnnyC: How is it manslaughter? Shouldn't that be a murder charge instead? Isn't "manslaughter" when you accidentally kill someone? Somehow firing 41 shots (with no returned fire) constitutes accidentally killing him.

Murder requires premeditation. Manslaughter isn't necessarily accidental, it's just a killing done "in the heat of passion" or without premeditation. Basically a killing based on emotion and not as a result of preplanning and with criminal intent.


And in most civilized jurisdictions, stopping to reload, then opening fire again, all without being in a life-threatening situation, is plenty of time, legally speaking, to form the premeditated intent necessary to bump the charge up from manslaughter.

And no, your own ricochets don't count towards making the situation life-threatening...


/likes good cops
//despises incompetent trigger happy assholes, whether or not they're wearing a badge.
 
2013-11-13 03:17:22 PM  

CruiserTwelve: The bad cops get all the publicity though.


Not always.

Just most of the time....
 
2013-11-13 03:17:24 PM  

This text is now purple: RINO: 5000 killed since 9/11 comes out to ~417 per year. Including federal agencies there are ~800,000 LEOs in the US. That works out to (I think) one half of one ten thousandth of one percent.

That's 1 per 2000 LEOs, per year.

That's 0.05% annually.


Thank you. Fancy mathamaticals were never my strong point.
 
2013-11-13 03:18:14 PM  

budrojr: CruiserTwelve: budrojr: Considering the extreme number of shots fired and the fact that he had to reload at least once, if not 3 times to fire that many, the heat of the moment really doesn't explain his actions.  I think they're letting him off easy intentionally so as to make a show that they're doing  something about the guy, but know it's going to result in nothing that will ultimately hurt him that much in the long run.  It's like they're going to have to punish him, but are making it as light as possible.  Increasing his bail really doesn't do anything worse to him either.  He's going to get off very lightly or walk completely after all the evidence is lost, eyewitness accounts are dealt with, and several years pass so people forget about it before it goes to trial.

He's not charged with murder because his actions don't constitute the necessary elements of murder. His actions obviously make you angry, but that doesn't change the law. Also, your assumptions about what's going to happen in the future doesn't change the facts of the case.

The fact that I have an opinion about this that differs from yours does not mean in any way, shape, or form that I'm emotionally invested in this or angry about it.  My opinion is that he is getting special treatment due to his status as a police officer (hence the singular manslaughter charge with no additional charges instead of murder and a wagonload of additional ancillary charges).

I disagree with you and hold that what he did should be construed as murder.  Look up the law in Texas where that's concerned.  He knowingly and intentionally caused the death of another person (he fired 41 shots, it's not like he didn't know what would happen), and/or intended to cause serious bodily injury while committing an act that was clearly dangerous to human life and this act caused the death of an individual.  Manslaughter only requires that his actions were reckless and caused a death.  What he did went beyond reckless and was way o ...


Don't be ridiculous.

He clearly knows better than everyone else.

You're just wrong.
 
2013-11-13 03:21:33 PM  
The second cop should probably be charged with negligence, or dereliction of duty, for not shooting the first one.
 
2013-11-13 03:21:42 PM  

RINO: This text is now purple: RINO: 5000 killed since 9/11 comes out to ~417 per year. Including federal agencies there are ~800,000 LEOs in the US. That works out to (I think) one half of one ten thousandth of one percent.

That's 1 per 2000 LEOs, per year.

That's 0.05% annually.

Thank you. Fancy mathamaticals were never my strong point.


Wow, guess not.

I think you said it was this:

0.00005%

And it was this:

0.05%

I think you were off by a factor of one hundred brazillion, but I'm not strong at maths either....
 
2013-11-13 03:22:22 PM  

alice_600: cryinoutloud: skozlaw: These threads are NEVER about the actual abuses that are occurring, they're just biatch fests from losers who had run-ins with cops because they were doing stupid shiat and they want to whine about the chips on their shoulders.
Farkers seem to have a very hard time distinguishing between cops in riot gear with heavy armaments that kick in a door and shoot the dog in the face because some guy was smoking dope in his living room and the time they got stopped on the sidewalk because they were stumbling around drunk.

Doubtful. You know why I hate cops? Because when I was afraid for my life, the cops in my little tiny town, who knew me personally, covered up domestic abuse, deleted 911 calls, harassed me, threatened to have my dog killed, and threw away a police report where they documented that my ex was beating on me, right in front of the police station.

This all happened before I joined the Fark hate train. I really had no opinion about police in general, until I saw for myself what a bunch of lying, abusive, cowardly assholes a lot of them are.

You know that sounds very delusional right?


If this happened in the county that I believe it happened in, not only is it not delusional, but pretty goddamned common. I'm guessing in a county in extreme Northern California (no I'm not stalking you, cryinoutloud, you mentioned living there once and I'm from up the road 20 miles or so) where both the Sheriff Department and the local police are primarily good-ol'-boy networks. I hope it wasn't there, but I'd totally not be surprised.
 
Displayed 50 of 313 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 »
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