Kerrville Police Shooting Caught On Tape

Do you admit lack of knowledge in this area?
Click to expand...
I certainly have no special expertise in this area. I am capable of sorting through facts and drawing my own conclusions though. I do not pretend to be an LEO, or to ever having been one. As far as I recall no on in this thread has answered the following questions:

1. What was the legal basis for stopping him?

2. Where did you get the information that in a cell phone conversation that he threatened to kill cops - I would like to read about that.

3. What, if any, laws were broken by threatening suicide?

4. Are you now or were you ever an LEO?

Reasonable questions, no?
 
What was the legal basis for stopping him?
Click to expand...
You see butch, this is just one of the problems with your posts to this thread. You lack the most basic type of knowledge/experience dealing with the subject matter, yet you feel free to speculate and pass judgment. The fact that you admit to not knowing if this was a legal stop or not, then continue on and insinuate it was not, clearly shows bias (an unreasoned judgment).
 
And the legal basis was?

And the source of the threat to kill cops was?

And are you an LEO yourself with special knowledge?

And is threatening suicide a crime?
 
Butch.Your answer to my question as to whether a suicidal individual, armed with a handgun in your presence is or is not a threat to you or someone in your realm of care was, QUOTE, No more than anyone else and less than others, suicidal indicates he is interested in harming himself, if he wanted to harm others he would likely already have tried. END QUOTE.
That Butch is an irrational response. If you cannot see the danger that this individual poses to himself or others, that makes you irrational, if your job is law enforcement it also makes you irresponsible. You say if he wanted to harm others he would likely already have tried, how do you know he was not on his way to do so when he was stopped? You are right about one thing they were there to stop him from commiting ANY further crimes not kill him because he was suicidal. But when he failed to comply, he forced
law enforcement to respond with the only means possible to defend themselves and the community.
You are thinking irrationally.
 
You are thinking irrationally.
Click to expand...
I may be, but I don't think I am. Of course few insane people think they are insane, right? :D

However, irrational as I am: As far as I can tell, he had not committed a crime, the cops had no legal basis for pulling him off the road, and they may well have been violating his Constitutional Rights by pulling him off the road and ordering him out of his car.

Correct me where I am wrong on those points, if you please.

TBO - Do you, or do you not, have a source for the cell phone threat to kill cops? Are you yourself an LEO or former LEO as you seem to have implied?
 
However, irrational as I am: As far as I can tell, he had not committed a crime, the cops had no legal basis for pulling him off the road, and they may well have been violating his Constitutional Rights by pulling him off the road and ordering him out of his car.
Click to expand...
butch, it's up to you to prove yoru point. Prove they had no right to stop him, prove they violated his Constitutional Rights.

(or admit "it's just my opinon, based on, well, my opinion")
 
butch, it's up to you to prove yoru point. Prove they had no right to stop him, prove they violated his Constitutional Rights.

(or admit "it's just my opinon, based on, well, my opinion")
Click to expand...
Where is that written? And why do you not want to answer my simple yet relevant questions?
 
Where is that written? You are an adult, correct? Back your statements up (or admit you can not).

And why do you not want to answer my simple yet relevant questions? Do you really want to talk about not answering questions?
rotf.gif
Click to expand...

TBO
 
Whether or not they had a legal right to pull him over, I,as well as you, do not know. But he was pulled over, he did possess a firearm, he did refuse to drop it, and he did conceal ( at least to the camera) his hands and the firearm.
Had he not responded in this manner he may have had legal recourse at a later time. Who knows, possibly winning the case, however doubtful. That is not the path he chose, he chose to violate the law by threatening leo's as he exited his vehicle.
Again, regardless of the history leading up to the shooting, he still violated the law with a potentially deadly outcome( for himself and le ) on the video.
 
TBO: You have played the hiding game for quite awhile now. I have answered every question asked of me, you have not. You have made quite specific statements that are germaine to the discussion, but will not provide the source of those statements. You have in turn demanded that I "prove my point" when I ask questions to see if anyone on this thread has actual answers to relevant questions. In short, you have shown that you are not interested in discussing this shooting, you have shown that you are interested in inflammatory comments and remarks, and unsubstantiated factual statements. If you can/will answer the following questions, I will be happy to continue the discussion with you, otherwise I will ignore any and all future comments made by you on this thread as having no relevance, and will no longer respond to you.

What is the factual basis for your specific statement that the cops contacted Ramirez by cell phone and he threatened to kill cops and others?

What is your special expertise in the area of law enforcement that you seem to imply you have? Since you find relevance in my admitted non-LEO standing, it is fair to know what your LEO standing is.
 
Again, regardless of the history leading up to the shooting, he still violated the law with a potentially deadly outcome( for himself and le ) on the video.
Click to expand...
If a cop pulls you over illegally, it is relevant to what happens afterwards.
 
butch many people are uninformed on "Police" matters. The difference with you is quite different. You let your bias run rampant painting a picture which suits your world view.

I will explain something to you (and others) and hope it illuminates some things that will allow you to better understand LE issues.

Police Stops: Police stops don't equal custody.
Secondly, "The Police" can stop and detain someone who "has committed no crime".

You see, people understand Police arrest people for violating the law, but don't understand the term/function of "Investigation".

investigate
Etymology: Latin investigatus, past participle of investigare to track, investigate, from in- + vestigium footprint, track
transitive senses : to observe or study by close examination and systematic inquiry
intransitive senses : to make a systematic examination; especially : to conduct an official inquiry

"The Police" may stop and investigate based on "Reasonable Suspicion". That is how someone who "has broken no law" can be contacted and detained (ie: the suspicious person hanging around outside the local stop & rob).

Also, "The Police" can take people into custody who "have broken no law" against their will.

This mostly deals with "Welfare", the ability for a person to care for themself and/or the danger they may pose to themselves or others. (ie: the person drunk out of their mind stumbling in the street. "The Police" can take them against their will to Detox).
Suicidal people are the responsibility of "The Police", based under the same reasoning.
 
Good job for the police. They did exactly what they needed to. What the mother said makes no sense; someone should have gone over and talked to him?! :eek: :confused: When he was holding a gun? What the heck? That would put the police in great danger, approaching a man with a gun who does not drop it when commanded to. I wonder if the police officer who shot intended to kill the guy? He should have, then they wouldn't have to deal with any BS court case.
 
If le. pulls you over illegally (whether this is the case here we cannot say), law abiding people do not exit their vehicle armed with a weapon. Rational people also understand this butch. Whether it was a legal stop or not, reasonable people do not say to themselves " Hey, I was not doing anything illegal, I think I should confront these guys with a weapon" do they Butch? :D
 
Whether it was a legal stop or not, reasonable people do not say to themselves " Hey, I was not doing anything illegal, I think I should confront these guys with a weapon" do they Butch
Click to expand...
No sir, reasonable and rational people do not act that way. His actions definitely led to his being shot. But, then again being unreasonable or irrational are not, in and of themselves, either illegal or cause for shooting people. If the cops were threatened with an immediate threat then they have cause to shoot - whether or not the stop was legal - but the cops were not in immediate threat.

The question of whether or not the stop was legal is a big question, not a small question. Should the cops have even been there stopping him? If they were, then what was the legal reason to stop him. If not, then the whole shooting was bad for the simple fact that it should never have happened in the first place. Or do you disagree with that concept?
 
But, then again being unreasonable or irrational are not, in and of themselves, either illegal or cause for shooting people.
Click to expand...

In and of themselves, no. When the irrational person is brandishing a gun he is a threat. Regardless of how bullet-proof you think you or the cops are.

If the cops were threatened with an immediate threat then they have cause to shoot - whether or not the stop was legal - but the cops were not in immediate threat.
Click to expand...

Immediate threat. I hope you really don't think an irrational person brandishing a gun in hand isn't an immediate threat. I'm tired of hearing this macho, don't-need-to-shoot-until-the-gun-is-pointed-at-me-'cause-I'm-so-fast attitude. If you really think you are that fast and that the cops should be, you need to rethink this before you get hurt. This isn't Hollywood and you won't be around for the sequel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top