Charlotte NC, Police shoot and kill man seeking help after wreck - Page 3
Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 92

Thread: Charlotte NC, Police shoot and kill man seeking help after wreck

  1. #21
    No, not cops are bad, however, the 95% that are give the others a bad rap.......
    A man must do what he has to do, ain't none of us getting out of this alive....I have it from a reliable source....
    There can be no love without pain; to show you the value of love......

  2.   
  3. Quote Originally Posted by MyFred View Post
    No, not cops are bad, however, the 95% that are give the others a bad rap.......
    Ha, cynical much? I've bad one bad experience with a cop, and it was enough to make me hate cops for the rest of my life. But I grew up and got over it. Since then I have come in contact with over a hundred cops who were all super great guys, and nothing like the one I had encountered before. If you can statistically justify hating all cops for the bad ones you come in contact with, then I guess given our criminal population, other countries that hate us are more than justified in saying that all Americans are horrible people. Or does that standard only work one way?

  4. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,421
    Quote Originally Posted by AndeyHall View Post
    I don't teach, I study. My credentials are that I know how not to jump to unfounded conclusions. When an officer winds up using deadly force, EVERYTHING is relevant. What he was doing that late at night could help determine his intentions in "trying to kick in the door" or at running at the police. What caused the wreck could factor in to drug or alcohol usage. Drug or alcohol usage could factor in to why he was running at the police and trying to kick a door. I don't buy in to your "extricate trapped passengers" response because someone who is able bodied enough to kick in a door should be able to extricate a trapped passenger just fine (which there turned out to be none anyways). And finally, there are PLENTY of people out there who do not run away from the police. In fact, from the cases I've studied there are probably as many people who engage an officer in violent manner as there are those that run. Cops get in fights with criminals on a daily basis. That's not unheard of at all, and the fact that you think it is shows me you watch a little too much tv and don't know much about what actually goes on vs what does on in Hollywood law enforcement. Yes, we know now that he wasn't armed. I know that pisses people off but at 2:30 in the morning, do you really think they could tell? To use deadly force, the officer only has to show 3 things: ABILITY, OPPORTUNITY, AND A REASONABLE PERCEPTION THAT THEY ARE AN IMMEDIATE AND IMMINENT THREAT OF DEATH OR CRIPPLING INJURY. If they can prove that it was too dark to determine if he had a weapon or not, ability may be thrown out. Opportunity will be determined by the distance the officer was from the individual. I haven't read in any reports how close they were, but the fact that he managed to hit 10 out of 12 under stress tells me they were pretty close. Officers rarely ever shoot that accurately in those cases. And the fact that he was running towards him would satisfy the reasonable perception argument. So honestly I could care less how impressed or not impressed with me you are, I've done my research and I know what I'm talking about.
    You're going to make some department a fine jack-booted-thug someday.
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  5. Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    You're going to make some department a fine jack-booted-thug someday.
    Ha, I figured you might follow me to this thread and make some more hypocritical remarks. So tell us omnipotent and all knowing Blues, since you were obviously there, why is this officer guilty? Because I never said he was innocent I simply said that the evidence that's been presented so far looks worse on the "victim" than it does the officer. But I'm starting to get the impression that when someone gets on your bad side, you're not going to agree with anything they say even if it means making a hypocrite out of yourself.

  6. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    TN, the patron state of shootin stuff
    Posts
    1,399
    Quote Originally Posted by AndeyHall View Post
    We picked this story apart in my Law Enforcement class 2 days ago. I honestly can find more fault with the "victim" than I can the officer. Here's the questions I'd like to see answered before I jump on the bandwagon to hang this cop:
    1) What was he doing out at 2:30 in the morning?
    2) What caused the wreck?
    3) What's the toxicology report?
    4) Why did the 911 caller say he was trying to kick the door in if he was just trying to get help?
    5) If he wasn't under the influence of any substances, why was he running at the officers? I'm sure they were yelling demands at him. Anyone knows not to charge an officer.

    Other things to realize: these officers were responding to a home invasion in progress at 2:30 in the morning, and when they get there this very large guy is charging them. It's very dark, so no he wasn't armed, but could they see that at the time. If I'm being charged, I'm not going to wait until the person is on top of me to determine if he is a legitimate threat. By then it's probably too late. This officer was also fresh out of the academy, so his training was still fresh in his brain. His fellow officer just tried to tase him and it didn't work, and now he's being charged. His brain jumps into training/survival mode. His training taught him to draw his weapon and neutralize the threat. They are not trained to take one shot and see what happens. They are trained to fire until the threat is gone. If that takes 12 rounds then so be it. If 10 rounds hit him in the chest, that means he was still coming at him by those last rounds. He did exactly what he was trained to do. Another thing to realize is that we and the prosecution have months to pick apart a decision this officer had to make in less than a second. All the facts that have been presented so far tell me the officer didn't do anything wrong.

    Don't fall for these stupid media gimmicks where they said he was running to police like a child runs to his mother. That's just stupid.
    I have to go with Mappow on this one. The only facts here are that a man crashed his car, tried to seek help and was shot dead by police. Your points draw to an incorrect conclusion. His own department said this: “Our investigation has shown that Officer Kerrick did not have a lawful right to discharge his weapon during this encounter". If officer Kerrick didn't do anything wrong as you stated then this man would still be alive. Your are correct that split second decisions have to be made but that doesn't mean police always make the right ones. He over reacted and took someones life and now he has to pay the price. If you are still blinded by your training and can't see how things like this can happen then maybe you should consider another career.
    Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress;
    but I repeat myself.
    Mark Twain

  7. Quote Originally Posted by BigSlick View Post
    I have to go with Mappow on this one. The only facts here are that a man crashed his car, tried to seek help and was shot dead by police. Your points draw to an incorrect conclusion. His own department said this: “Our investigation has shown that Officer Kerrick did not have a lawful right to discharge his weapon during this encounter". If officer Kerrick didn't do anything wrong as you stated then this man would still be alive. Your are correct that split second decisions have to be made but that doesn't mean police always make the right ones. He over reacted and took someones life and now he has to pay the price. If you are still blinded by your training and can't see how things like this can happen then maybe you should consider another career.
    I was actually getting ready to post an updated message about an article I just found about the information you just referenced. However the information you just referenced was just released last night, which was after my last post. My last post was on articles I had read from the original time of the incident which was a week ago. Based on the information they released at that time I stand behind what I said. However, as you said, his police chief is now saying that it is evident from the video that he was "clearly unarmed". So that being the case, I'm leaning more towards it not being a justified shooting now. But having not seen any of the video myself, I'll say the same thing I said about the Zimmerman trial..."there's three sides to every story: yours, mine, and the truth."

  8. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,421
    Quote Originally Posted by AndeyHall View Post
    Ha, I figured you might follow me to this thread and make some more hypocritical remarks. So tell us omnipotent and all knowing Blues, since you were obviously there, why is this officer guilty? Because I never said he was innocent I simply said that the evidence that's been presented so far looks worse on the "victim" than it does the officer. But I'm starting to get the impression that when someone gets on your bad side, you're not going to agree with anything they say even if it means making a hypocrite out of yourself.
    Even if I am a "hypocrite," how does disagreeing with you support that contention? You should be taking English 101 instead of jack-booted-thug 101, and learn the meaning of the word hypocrite before throwing it around in ways that make no sense.

    Here's the deal when it comes to this story. No matter what circumstances might enure to the cops' side of the equation, the guy was unarmed, perhaps severely injured, and there is no evidence that I've read about that he was doing anything but trying to get help. He was gunned down for that, no matter what other factoids (or made-up crap) badgefluffers might come up with.

    You said in your previous post:

    Quote Originally Posted by Andey
    4) Why did the 911 caller say he was trying to kick the door in if he was just trying to get help?
    Who cares what the 911 operator said? The linked article says:

    He ran to the closest house for help.


    The woman inside thought it was her husband.


    "To her surprise, it was an individual that she did not know or recognize," Monroe told WBTV. "She immediately closed the door, hit her panic alarm, called 911."


    The man stood outside and "continued to attempt to gain the attention of the homeowner," a police statement said.
    Have you heard a 911 tape? How do you know what the 911 caller said to them? I've read both articles linked in this thread and watched the video at the first link, and nowhere is a 911 Dispatcher quoted as saying Mr. Ferrell "was trying to kick the door in."

    I'd say it has been determined beyond question that the lady in the house filed a false report, as neither the other two cops at the scene perceived him to be a deadly threat, and the subsequent investigation has so far been so unambiguous about Mr. Ferrell's innocence that night that it has been determined that he was just looking for help. So confident is the agency that Kerrick (the murdering cop) worked for in that determination that they charged him within hours of the shooting. Yet here you are, Junior-Jack-Booted-Thug, demanding to know what an adult free man was doing out at "2:30 in the morning."

    You're asking questions about a person who was killed by cops for seeking help from them or anyone after a bad car wreck. He's dead and can't answer your questions, Junior. Just the fact that you jump straight to questions that presume some incriminating answers if he could answer them is evidence enough to me that you have already taken on the "never-criticize-a-fellow-LEO" blood-oath on behalf of rogue murdering cops, and the really strange thing is, that's evident in your posts even in light of the fact that the murdering cop's own agency isn't joining you in standing silent in the face of murder. While I believe he has been woefully under-charged, at least the department and prosecutor's office isn't covering for him.

    I would seriously like to know why you think there's any legal significance whatsoever in the fact that the 911 call happened around 2:30 am? How long was Mr. Ferrell trapped in the car after the wreck? Does anybody know? Does anybody know if he was knocked unconscious? If he was, might a closed-skull brain injury explain whatever "strange" behavior followed, if indeed it is "strange" to look for help or run towards cops after a car wreck? Do the cop cars that responded have the words "To Protect and Serve" emblazoned near their jurisdictional seal? Might it be prudent to remove such dishonest propaganda if they do?

    All of your questions in Post #18 and every post since drips with the cynicism of defending a cop who has already been deemed by his department as having acted with excessive force, and that stands whether or not the court finds him guilty. For the public, you are starting your cop-life in the scariest, most insidiously deceptive way possible. For cops, they are likely as proud of their training program as they can be going only by what you're writing here.

    Betrayal is the only truth that sticks. Telling the truth about a cop's abuse of power will get you tagged as a betrayer, and that will stick with you for the rest of your career, or until you end up like Johnathan Ferrell. You're learning well.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  9. Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    Even if I am a "hypocrite," how does disagreeing with you support that contention? You should be taking English 101 instead of jack-booted-thug 101, and learn the meaning of the word hypocrite before throwing it around in ways that make no sense.

    Here's the deal when it comes to this story. No matter what circumstances might enure to the cops' side of the equation, the guy was unarmed, perhaps severely injured, and there is no evidence that I've read about that he was doing anything but trying to get help. He was gunned down for that, no matter what other factoids (or made-up crap) badgefluffers might come up with.

    You said in your previous post:



    Who cares what the 911 operator said? The linked article says:



    Have you heard a 911 tape? How do you know what the 911 caller said to them? I've read both articles linked in this thread and watched the video at the first link, and nowhere is a 911 Dispatcher quoted as saying Mr. Ferrell "was trying to kick the door in."

    I'd say it has been determined beyond question that the lady in the house filed a false report, as neither the other two cops at the scene perceived him to be a deadly threat, and the subsequent investigation has so far been so unambiguous about Mr. Ferrell's innocence that night that it has been determined that he was just looking for help. So confident is the agency that Kerrick (the murdering cop) worked for in that determination that they charged him within hours of the shooting. Yet here you are, Junior-Jack-Booted-Thug, demanding to know what an adult free man was doing out at "2:30 in the morning."

    You're asking questions about a person who was killed by cops for seeking help from them or anyone after a bad car wreck. He's dead and can't answer your questions, Junior. Just the fact that you jump straight to questions that presume some incriminating answers if he could answer them is evidence enough to me that you have already taken on the "never-criticize-a-fellow-LEO" blood-oath on behalf of rogue murdering cops, and the really strange thing is, that's evident in your posts even in light of the fact that the murdering cop's own agency isn't joining you in standing silent in the face of murder. While I believe he has been woefully under-charged, at least the department and prosecutor's office isn't covering for him.

    I would seriously like to know why you think there's any legal significance whatsoever in the fact that the 911 call happened around 2:30 am? How long was Mr. Ferrell trapped in the car after the wreck? Does anybody know? Does anybody know if he was knocked unconscious? If he was, might a closed-skull brain injury explain whatever "strange" behavior followed, if indeed it is "strange" to look for help or run towards cops after a car wreck? Do the cop cars that responded have the words "To Protect and Serve" emblazoned near their jurisdictional seal? Might it be prudent to remove such dishonest propaganda if they do?

    All of your questions in Post #18 and every post since drips with the cynicism of defending a cop who has already been deemed by his department as having acted with excessive force, and that stands whether or not the court finds him guilty. For the public, you are starting your cop-life in the scariest, most insidiously deceptive way possible. For cops, they are likely as proud of their training program as they can be going only by what you're writing here.

    Betrayal is the only truth that sticks. Telling the truth about a cop's abuse of power will get you tagged as a betrayer, and that will stick with you for the rest of your career, or until you end up like Johnathan Ferrell. You're learning well.

    Blues
    I called you a hypocrite because you were so fixated on that comment that I made saying that an officer has every right to get in your face and ask you question, and you insisted that I was wrong. Yet another individual posted in another thread that "a cop can ask you anything" and you liked his post. I found that interesting because, unless you know of some law that I don't that says when a cop asks you questions they have to do so in a nice way, then what he said and what I said are no different. Whether they want to be nice or an ass is totally up to them. Yet you criticized me and liked his...I call that being a hypocrite.

    But I could really care less what you think about what I said about this issue because you've clearly established that you think all cops are "jack booted thugs" and are always going to take the side against the officer despite what the facts (or lack of) are.

  10. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,421
    Quote Originally Posted by AndeyHall View Post
    I called you a hypocrite because you were so fixated on that comment that I made saying that an officer has every right to get in your face and ask you question, and you insisted that I was wrong. Yet another individual posted in another thread that "a cop can ask you anything" and you liked his post. I found that interesting because, unless you know of some law that I don't that says when a cop asks you questions they have to do so in a nice way, then what he said and what I said are no different. Whether they want to be nice or an ass is totally up to them. Yet you criticized me and liked his...I call that being a hypocrite.
    HOLY CRAP!! Non-sequitur much? I've given over 5,000 Likes in the last 18 months or so, so I have no freakin' clue what you're talking about here. Perhaps you have a link? Or is this just another hemorrhoid-poppin' turd that you yanked out of your hairless hiney, Junior?

    Besides, even if I said (or Liked) something like that in a very similar context to what you mention above (which I highly, and I do mean highly doubt), my opinions on such matters only count for just that - my opinions. When you say something like that, a kid who has said he's already hired to be a cop, that it's all over but the paperwork, you're talking as a cop who will soon have the power to put it into practice. I've got zero power, you're going to have people's lives in your hands, and if your take on this story carries through to how you perform your duties on the street, you are going to be as dangerous to society as Kerrick is/was. There's a big damned difference between what I think and what you think, Junior. My opinions amount to a flea farting in the wind. Yours opinions on what cops can or cannot do could result in the death of a young man just approaching you for help.

    What you don't get is that I've got a few thousand words to make you think about the kind of danger to society a cop can be. Your new co-workers are going to have you for the next 30 or 40 years. That scares me for whatever communities you "serve" during that time.

    Quote Originally Posted by AndeyHall View Post
    But I could really care less what you think about what I said about this issue because you've clearly established that you think all cops are "jack booted thugs" and are always going to take the side against the officer despite what the facts (or lack of) are.
    That's hilarious kid. I definitely do "take the side against the officer" Kerrick, not despite what the facts are, but because of what his freakin' Chief and the Prosecutor say the facts are. You? As far as you'll go is that you kinda sorta "lean" towards thinking he was not justified in shooting. I'm sure the family of Johnathan Ferrell appreciates your non-committal "leanings," just as all the citizens who have to deal with your ilk in the real world do.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  11. Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    HOLY CRAP!! Non-sequitur much? I've given over 5,000 Likes in the last 18 months or so, so I have no freakin' clue what you're talking about here. Perhaps you have a link? Or is this just another hemorrhoid-poppin' turd that you yanked out of your hairless hiney, Junior?

    Besides, even if I said (or Liked) something like that in a very similar context to what you mention above (which I highly, and I do mean highly doubt), my opinions on such matters only count for just that - my opinions. When you say something like that, a kid who has said he's already hired to be a cop, that it's all over but the paperwork, you're talking as a cop who will soon have the power to put it into practice. I've got zero power, you're going to have people's lives in your hands, and if your take on this story carries through to how you perform your duties on the street, you are going to be as dangerous to society as Kerrick is/was. There's a big damned difference between what I think and what you think, Junior. My opinions amount to a flea farting in the wind. Yours opinions on what cops can or cannot do could result in the death of a young man just approaching you for help.

    What you don't get is that I've got a few thousand words to make you think about the kind of danger to society a cop can be. Your new co-workers are going to have you for the next 30 or 40 years. That scares me for whatever communities you "serve" during that time.



    That's hilarious kid. I definitely do "take the side against the officer" Kerrick, not despite what the facts are, but because of what his freakin' Chief and the Prosecutor say the facts are. You? As far as you'll go is that you kinda sorta "lean" towards thinking he was not justified in shooting. I'm sure the family of Johnathan Ferrell appreciates your non-committal "leanings," just as all the citizens who have to deal with your ilk in the real world do.

    Blues
    http://www.usacarry.com/forums/showpost.php?p=470162

    I'm still not sure what it is that I've said that's got you so concerned. I've simply stated what cops have the right to do, but should have the discretion not to do (insinuating I would take the nice guy route). I also don't get why exactly I'm such a bad guy for, based on the initial stories (which didn't say anything about his own police chief of anyone else other than Ferrell's family attorney and the NAACP saying it wasn't a justified shooting), presenting another possible side to the story other than the one that everyone wants to follow based on the ever-so-biased media version of the story. I hate that this kid had to die, and I think it was a senseless death that could have probably been avoided on the officers part. But there are a plethora of officer deadly force incidents that probably could have been avoided, but the officer simply made a split second decision based on the circumstances that were present. Based on what I know now I don't think he should have shot him. But I'm not going to sit here on my high horse, and I don't think anyone can, and say they wouldn't have done the same thing. Why? Because I WASN'T THERE!! We can easily say what we would and wouldn't have done now cause we're playing armchair quarterback.

Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast