Police Fire on Minivan fill of kids?...

[thereisnospoon]

Cop fires at minivan full of kids after traffic-stop scuffle in New Mexico - U.S. News

Really?...

There's a little more to that story.



peace...

Ya think?....Until the officer fired his gun, I see police acting responsibly.
What did the driver have to fear? Nothing. She should have accepted the traffic citation and went about her business.
It is my guess she could have: had an outstanding warrant. Had been driving while suspended/revoked. Kidnapped the children. Possession of drugs or drug paraphernalia. The vehicle was stolen.
Bottom line is she WAS hiding something.
Thing is the police suspected nothing. The van was stopped for a traffic violation.

 

[thereisnospoon]

DWI stops are not mandatory.

There is a lot of case law that contradicts that statement.

 

[thereisnospoon]

DWI stops are not mandatory.

What To Do At A DUI Roadblock

Assertion of Rights:

Officer, please understand:

I refuse to talk to you until I consult with my attorney. I also refuse to consent to any search of these premises or any other premises under my control, or in which I have a possessory, proprietary, or privacy interest, including my car, my body, or effects. I hereby demand to immediately be allowed the reasonable opportunity to obtain the advice of my attorney by telephone.
I desire to exercise all my rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this State, to be free from your interference with my person or affairs.
If you attempt to question me, I want my lawyer present. I refuse to participate in any line-up or to perform any physical acts, or to speak or display my person or property at your direction, without first conferring with my lawyer.
If I am under arrest, I wish to invoke and exercise my Miranda rights. If you ignore my exercise of these rights and attempt to procure a waiver, I want to confer with my lawyer prior to any conversations with you.
If I am to be taken into custody, removed from my present location, or separated from my property, I request a reasonable opportunity to make arrangements to secure my own property. I do not consent to any impoundment or inventory of my property. I do, hereby, waive any claim of liability for loss, theft, or damage against you, your superiors or any other authority, and agree to hold all harmless therefrom, if I am afforded the reasonable opportunity to arrange for the safekeeping of my own property. If this reasonable opportunity is denied or is unavailable, I demand that only such intrusion occur as is minimally necessary to secure such property, hereby waiving any claim of liability for your failure to scrutinize the property or its contents prior to it being secured.
If I am not under arrest, I want to leave. If I am free to leave, please tell me immediately so that I may go about my business.

 

[thereisnospoon]

DWI stops are not mandatory.

I could have sworn the SCOTUS ruled them constitutional, even with Scalia voting affirmative.

What To Do At A DUI Roadblock

 

[Lonestar_logic]

This looks like just about everyone acted badly. Based on what information is here, the mother deserves charges, the son, and both the officer with the baton and the one that fired at the van.

There needs to be a damn good reason to fire at a van with a 6 year old inside. Was there reason to think they were a threat?

Why use the baton to break the window? Again, was there a threat?

It looks like the officers were pissed because they were resisted. The resistance was almost surely wrong, but not reason for such violent and potentially lethal action IMO.

You're assuming the police knew there was a 6 year old child inside.

True, but I'm basing that assumption on the fact that at least one of the officers looked inside the van on multiple occasions.

The van had dark tinted windows.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

What was your ticket?... Evading is a hefty one, ain't it?

Thanks for Illustrating that you are only a Mouthy **** when you are Protected by the Anonymity of the Interwebs.



peace...

No worse than a speeding ticket.

Pure crap.

You did not 180 @ a Check Point and then have to be Chased by the Police where you Claim they tried to make you Lose Control and all you got was what amounted to a Speeding Ticket.

You are Completely Full of Shit... Not that I am surprised, of course.



peace...

He would have been charged with felony evasion. He's a liar.

 

[Katzndogz]

DWI stops are not mandatory.

What To Do At A DUI Roadblock

Assertion of Rights:

Officer, please understand:

I refuse to talk to you until I consult with my attorney. I also refuse to consent to any search of these premises or any other premises under my control, or in which I have a possessory, proprietary, or privacy interest, including my car, my body, or effects. I hereby demand to immediately be allowed the reasonable opportunity to obtain the advice of my attorney by telephone.
I desire to exercise all my rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this State, to be free from your interference with my person or affairs.
If you attempt to question me, I want my lawyer present. I refuse to participate in any line-up or to perform any physical acts, or to speak or display my person or property at your direction, without first conferring with my lawyer.
If I am under arrest, I wish to invoke and exercise my Miranda rights. If you ignore my exercise of these rights and attempt to procure a waiver, I want to confer with my lawyer prior to any conversations with you.
If I am to be taken into custody, removed from my present location, or separated from my property, I request a reasonable opportunity to make arrangements to secure my own property. I do not consent to any impoundment or inventory of my property. I do, hereby, waive any claim of liability for loss, theft, or damage against you, your superiors or any other authority, and agree to hold all harmless therefrom, if I am afforded the reasonable opportunity to arrange for the safekeeping of my own property. If this reasonable opportunity is denied or is unavailable, I demand that only such intrusion occur as is minimally necessary to secure such property, hereby waiving any claim of liability for your failure to scrutinize the property or its contents prior to it being secured.
If I am not under arrest, I want to leave. If I am free to leave, please tell me immediately so that I may go about my business.

At which time you will be detained. No one will search your car. You will merely be sitting there waiting until someone wants to yank your chain by getting a search warrant. Not because the police want one or need one, just to make you sit around watching others, not inclined to want a confrontation go on their way.

 

[Montrovant]

You're assuming the police knew there was a 6 year old child inside.

True, but I'm basing that assumption on the fact that at least one of the officers looked inside the van on multiple occasions.

The van had dark tinted windows.

The van had a dark tinted back window.

The officer appears to be speaking and looking at an open window at the beginning of the video. The officer leans into the driver's side of the van later in the video. When the driver's and passenger's doors are opened, the windows are either completely rolled down or not tinted at all.

I find it extremely unlikely that at least the original officer was unaware there were children in the van, even if you exclude the older ones from the use of the word children.

 

[thereisnospoon]

DWI stops are not mandatory.

What To Do At A DUI Roadblock

Assertion of Rights:

Officer, please understand:

I refuse to talk to you until I consult with my attorney. I also refuse to consent to any search of these premises or any other premises under my control, or in which I have a possessory, proprietary, or privacy interest, including my car, my body, or effects. I hereby demand to immediately be allowed the reasonable opportunity to obtain the advice of my attorney by telephone.
I desire to exercise all my rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this State, to be free from your interference with my person or affairs.
If you attempt to question me, I want my lawyer present. I refuse to participate in any line-up or to perform any physical acts, or to speak or display my person or property at your direction, without first conferring with my lawyer.
If I am under arrest, I wish to invoke and exercise my Miranda rights. If you ignore my exercise of these rights and attempt to procure a waiver, I want to confer with my lawyer prior to any conversations with you.
If I am to be taken into custody, removed from my present location, or separated from my property, I request a reasonable opportunity to make arrangements to secure my own property. I do not consent to any impoundment or inventory of my property. I do, hereby, waive any claim of liability for loss, theft, or damage against you, your superiors or any other authority, and agree to hold all harmless therefrom, if I am afforded the reasonable opportunity to arrange for the safekeeping of my own property. If this reasonable opportunity is denied or is unavailable, I demand that only such intrusion occur as is minimally necessary to secure such property, hereby waiving any claim of liability for your failure to scrutinize the property or its contents prior to it being secured.
If I am not under arrest, I want to leave. If I am free to leave, please tell me immediately so that I may go about my business.

At which time you will be detained. No one will search your car. You will merely be sitting there waiting until someone wants to yank your chain by getting a search warrant. Not because the police want one or need one, just to make you sit around watching others, not inclined to want a confrontation go on their way.

They would be in violation of the 4th amendment (searches and seizures, obtaining warrant without probable cause)and be subject to sanctions.
The cops can if they wish to take the chance they won't get caught, get a case of "amnesia" and pretend to forget you are there. But they'd be looking down the business end of a lawsuit and some very bad publicity. and there are tons of attorneys out there who specialize in dragging crooked or corrupt cops into court.
Years ago before the advent of video recorders, the cops could get away with being ball breakers. They have to be very careful now. They must assume that everyone is recording their actions.
If I get stopped by the police or if I roll through a check point I record the incident.
If they are not doing anything wrong, they have nothing to worry about.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

True, but I'm basing that assumption on the fact that at least one of the officers looked inside the van on multiple occasions.

The van had dark tinted windows.

The van had a dark tinted back window.

The officer appears to be speaking and looking at an open window at the beginning of the video. The officer leans into the driver's side of the van later in the video. When the driver's and passenger's doors are opened, the windows are either completely rolled down or not tinted at all.

I find it extremely unlikely that at least the original officer was unaware there were children in the van, even if you exclude the older ones from the use of the word children.

The windows were down, that's why he tried to break them.

By your own account you cannot say with certainty that the officer did in fact know that a 6 year old was in the vehicle.

 

[R.C. Christian]

DWI stops are not mandatory.

I could have sworn the SCOTUS ruled them constitutional, even with Scalia voting affirmative.

I believe it was the dirt bag O'Connor.

In any event you don't have to drive through one although I can't promise a "huey" or U turn won't get you a posse of badly trained, rhoided up, dumb sonsofbitches waiting to put a cap in your ass. Since Moonglow only lives like 12 miles apart from one another I can say with absolute certainty that I wouldn't want a Benton county pig or a McDonald county pig chasing my ass away from a scene like that in most situations.

 

[Montrovant]

The van had dark tinted windows.

The van had a dark tinted back window.

The officer appears to be speaking and looking at an open window at the beginning of the video. The officer leans into the driver's side of the van later in the video. When the driver's and passenger's doors are opened, the windows are either completely rolled down or not tinted at all.

I find it extremely unlikely that at least the original officer was unaware there were children in the van, even if you exclude the older ones from the use of the word children.

The windows were down, that's why he tried to break them.

By your own account you cannot say with certainty that the officer did in fact know that a 6 year old was in the vehicle.

I couldn't say it with certainty if the officer entered the van and sat in it for 5 minutes.

I can say I consider it beyond a reasonable doubt, however.

Are you just being argumentative or do you think it's likely that the man was unable to see or hear the multiple children inside the van on the multiple occasions he was standing next to or even partially inside the vehicle?

Are you trying to say the use of force was justified?

Are you trying to say you think the officer was so unobservant as to have missed a van full of children when standing next to and partially inside the vehicle?

Of course he wasn't trying to break down an open window. Of course, you can't say for certain that he was attempting to break the same window seen when the front passenger door is open, can you? The point, of course, was to highlight the fact that the officer seemed to have a clear enough view of the van to see there were children inside, and your original comment about tinted windows was asinine.

 

[MostCurious]

Not too long ago, a woman with a child were stopped in DC as a "security threat." She was shot at by 4 gunmen when she panicked at the Capitol's barricade. Then a pursuit ensued and she was eventually killed. Never once did she display a weapon of any kind. Officials simply killed her while her baby was in the car with her.
What mystifies me is that story died with the victim. My guess is the press wanted to avoid another Zimmerman-like incident; especially since race would have been a factor yet again.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

The officer was obviously shooting to kill someone in the van as you can see in the video. His stance is a common one that means he was holding the gun in both hands and shooting straight forward directly into the back of the vehicle and not at the tires.

How will the police lie their way out of this one. It will have to be a whopper.

They can't say that those shots could have stopped the van in any way other than nailing the driver with a bullet or nailing the kid, and then the mother would give up out of emotional collapse and seeing her son bleeding to death.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The van had a dark tinted back window.

The officer appears to be speaking and looking at an open window at the beginning of the video. The officer leans into the driver's side of the van later in the video. When the driver's and passenger's doors are opened, the windows are either completely rolled down or not tinted at all.

I find it extremely unlikely that at least the original officer was unaware there were children in the van, even if you exclude the older ones from the use of the word children.

The windows were down, that's why he tried to break them.

By your own account you cannot say with certainty that the officer did in fact know that a 6 year old was in the vehicle.

I couldn't say it with certainty if the officer entered the van and sat in it for 5 minutes.

I can say I consider it beyond a reasonable doubt, however.

Are you just being argumentative or do you think it's likely that the man was unable to see or hear the multiple children inside the van on the multiple occasions he was standing next to or even partially inside the vehicle?

Are you trying to say the use of force was justified?

Are you trying to say you think the officer was so unobservant as to have missed a van full of children when standing next to and partially inside the vehicle?

Of course he wasn't trying to break down an open window. Of course, you can't say for certain that he was attempting to break the same window seen when the front passenger door is open, can you? The point, of course, was to highlight the fact that the officer seemed to have a clear enough view of the van to see there were children inside, and your original comment about tinted windows was asinine.

I'm not going to assume I know what the police did or didn't see. I do know the officer that shot at the car was not the same officer that approached the car.

The front passenger door was open then it was shut and locked with the windows rolled up. Watch the video again.

The woman brought all of this onto herself and put her children in danger. But you bleeding heart liberals will give her a pass and blame the cops for simply doing their job.

 

[Montrovant]

The windows were down, that's why he tried to break them.

By your own account you cannot say with certainty that the officer did in fact know that a 6 year old was in the vehicle.

I couldn't say it with certainty if the officer entered the van and sat in it for 5 minutes.

I can say I consider it beyond a reasonable doubt, however.

Are you just being argumentative or do you think it's likely that the man was unable to see or hear the multiple children inside the van on the multiple occasions he was standing next to or even partially inside the vehicle?

Are you trying to say the use of force was justified?

Are you trying to say you think the officer was so unobservant as to have missed a van full of children when standing next to and partially inside the vehicle?

Of course he wasn't trying to break down an open window. Of course, you can't say for certain that he was attempting to break the same window seen when the front passenger door is open, can you? The point, of course, was to highlight the fact that the officer seemed to have a clear enough view of the van to see there were children inside, and your original comment about tinted windows was asinine.

I'm not going to assume I know what the police did or didn't see. I do know the officer that shot at the car was not the same officer that approached the car.

The front passenger door was open then it was shut and locked with the windows rolled up. Watch the video again.

The woman brought all of this onto herself and put her children in danger. But you bleeding heart liberals will give her a pass and blame the cops for simply doing their job.

So now I'm a bleeding heart liberal?

I've already said the woman was wrong for what she did. That doesn't mean the police can't have been wrong in their reactions, too.

You are apparently fine with the police being totally unobservant idiots, if you think the first officer did not see the children inside the vehicle. If that's the case, however, I don't think the man should be a police officer.

The officer that fired may not have known that children were inside the van. However, that leaves me to wonder why the first officer didn't point that fact out. And either way, was there some imminent danger that required the firing of his weapon?

You seem to be taking the opposite view of the anti-cop people. You don't want to admit the possibility of any wrongdoing by police.

The woman deserves charges and conviction. It seems likely to me that the officer(s) involved deserve at least suspension, if not charges as well, based on the article and video.

 

[FJO]

Unlike the prevailing liberal opinion that police are either animals (i.e. PIGS) or robots, police are human beings who are proud to serve their locality, their county, their state and their country.

Knowing that, when I was stopped for speeding (based on my cruise control, I was 2 mph over the limit) I told the officer that yes, I was speeding, but the beautiful and smooth condition of the road made me forget the limit, you know, not being used to good roads where I came from, the officer gave me a smile, and a verbal warning before he let me go.

If Oriana Farrell had the same good sense, instead of the Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson infused victim attitude, this whole episode would be non-existent.

 

[Sarah G]

Unlike the prevailing liberal opinion that police are either animals (i.e. PIGS) or robots, police are human beings who are proud to serve their locality, their county, their state and their country.

Knowing that, when I was stopped for speeding (based on my cruise control, I was 2 mph over the limit) I told the officer that yes, I was speeding, but the beautiful and smooth condition of the road made me forget the limit, you know, not being used to good roads where I came from, the officer gave me a smile, and a verbal warning before he let me go.

If Oriana Farrell had the same good sense, instead of the Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson infused victim attitude, this whole episode would be non-existent.

Yeah, she should have kissed their asses but to be honest, the police were smashing in the windows before they fired on a van full of kids. Can you see how the entire family could have been scared out of their wits and just wanted to get to safety?

I don't know whether she had done anything wrong, if she had drugs in the car, whatever. The police handled the situation way more horribly than she did. They should be fired.

 

[FJO]

Unlike the prevailing liberal opinion that police are either animals (i.e. PIGS) or robots, police are human beings who are proud to serve their locality, their county, their state and their country.

Knowing that, when I was stopped for speeding (based on my cruise control, I was 2 mph over the limit) I told the officer that yes, I was speeding, but the beautiful and smooth condition of the road made me forget the limit, you know, not being used to good roads where I came from, the officer gave me a smile, and a verbal warning before he let me go.

If Oriana Farrell had the same good sense, instead of the Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson infused victim attitude, this whole episode would be non-existent.

Yeah, she should have kissed their asses but to be honest, the police were smashing in the windows before they fired on a van full of kids. Can you see how the entire family could have been scared out of their wits and just wanted to get to safety?

I don't know whether she had done anything wrong, if she had drugs in the car, whatever. The police handled the situation way more horribly than she did. They should be fired.

She was give choices, peacefully, calmly, reasonably and honestly. Two choices, neither of which would have put her children in any kind of jeopardy or danger, but she chose to be stubborn, be politically correct and exercise her Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson induced stupidity.

No police asked or demanded that she'd kiss their rear end. No window would have been smashed if she had had the common sense to be reasonable. No shots by police would have been fired if she only had used her self-promoted and self-over-estimated human worth. If she had had the common sense to show an example to her kids how to go along to get along, without losing dignity, she would receive my sympathy. As it is,all she gets from me is pity for her unfortunate (and more than likely, illegitimate) children.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

When there is nothing to hide, no one minds and when the law realizes the mistake they have made, you can tell them "Good luck with getting the gunk off their faces!"

God bless you and everyone involved always!!!

Holly