Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Deputy Says He Shot 'Irrational' Marine to Protect Kids in Car
Camp Pendleton Patch ^ | February 10, 2012 | Roy Rivenburg

Posted on 02/11/2012 10:25:42 AM PST by brityank

Deputy Says He Shot 'Irrational' Marine to Protect Kids in Car

15-year veteran of Sheriff's Department says Sgt. Manny Loggins was about to drive away, so he opened fire to prevent a perceived danger to Loggins' daughters. One other deputy was nearby at the time.

Sgt. Manny L. Loggins & fellow student The deputy who shot and killed an unarmed Marine sergeant after a predawn traffic stop said the Marine was acting so "irrationally" that it seemed dangerous to let him drive away with his two daughters, an official said Friday.

So when the Marine -- later identified as Sgt. Manny Loggins Jr. of Camp Pendleton -- climbed back into his GMC Yukon and turned the ignition, the deputy opened fire, according to Jim Amormino, a spokesman for the Orange County Sheriff's Department.

Amormino stressed that he was merely relaying statements made by the deputy to investigators and "not defending" what happened.

"This was a very tragic event, we all feel bad for the family," Amormino said.

The deputy, a 15-year veteran, told investigators he was parked at San Clemente High School writing reports when he spotted Loggins driving "at a high rate of speed" before turning into the lot and crashing into a gate near the football field.

The deputy pulled up behind Loggins and radioed for backup. It was about 4:40 a.m. Tuesday.

Loggins, 31, stepped out of the Yukon and walked off into the darkness toward the football field, ignoring a series of commands made by the deputy. His two daughters, ages 9 and 14, remained in the vehicle.

Other deputies soon arrived and formed a perimeter around the back end of the football field in case Loggins was trying to flee, Amormino said. Because it was dark, nobody could see where Loggins was.

"About five minutes later, Loggins walked back toward the Yukon," Amormino said.

The deputy issued "a new set of commands" which Loggins again didn't follow, Amormino said.

"Due to Loggins' failure to follow the commands and his irrational behavior, including statements he made, the deputy had a deep concern for the safety of the children," Amormino said. "In the deputy's mind, it was unsafe for [Loggins] to drive away with the girls."

Amormino said he couldn't disclose what the alleged "irrational" behaviors or statements entailed, but said Loggins didn't appear to be intoxicated.

When Loggins got back into the Yukon and either started the engine or began trying to drive away, the deputy opened fire, shooting Loggins through the driver side window, which shattered. (The girls were in the back seat and not injured.)

Amormino acknowledged that this version of events differs from an earlier account released by the Sheriff's Department, in which the deputy reportedly opened fire because he feared for his own life.

"The real threat was for the lives of the children," Amormino said Friday. In a case like this, "some information becomes immediately available and some takes longer to get because witnesses have to be interviewed," he noted.

Amormino said this account came from the deputy who fired the shots. Another deputy was nearby, but "I don't know what he saw," Amormino said.

Loggins' daughters were also interviewed by investigators, but Amormino said he didn't know what they said or if their story lined up with the deputy's.

"Whatever the truth is will come out," Amormino said, noting that "a complete and thorough investigation" would be conducted by the Orange County District Attorney's office, which investigates all officer-involved shootings.

Results of the autopsy on Loggins probably won't be made public for a few weeks, after toxicology tests are finished and the sheriff reviews the findings, he said.

Loggins' friends and colleagues have questioned official accounts of what happened, describing the Illinois native as a kind and faith-filled Christian family man who would never disobey authorities or jeopardize the safety of his daughters.



TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: banglist; donutwatch; loggins; mannyloggins; manuelloggins; marine; ocsd; orangecounty; sgtloggins
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-194 last
To: dragnet2

Of course it’s possible but there is nothing about this caper, at least as it’s been reported to date, that leads me to believe that it is the case in this instance.


151 posted on 02/12/2012 7:46:33 PM PST by absalom01 (You should do your duty in all things. You can never do more, you should never wish to do less.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: absalom01
it seems like the almost inevitable confusion that must, almost inevitably it seems, surround such a bizarre event.

Bizarre event?

You keep implying this is some complex, confusing incident or conspiracy involving all kinds of stuff. Ya got an UNARMED marine who was shot to death at close range through the driver side window..With two passengers in the vehicle.

To be honest, the only smoke, possible deception, distraction and confusion I see, are from your own comments.

152 posted on 02/12/2012 7:49:24 PM PST by dragnet2 (Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: dragnet2

You said: “Tell me, after about a week...”

I’ve asked a bunch of times “What’s the urgency? “ Why is it important to have a detailed public statement prior to the conclusion of the investigation?


153 posted on 02/12/2012 7:49:32 PM PST by absalom01 (You should do your duty in all things. You can never do more, you should never wish to do less.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: absalom01
“What’s the urgency? “

You think I've been evading this question?

I never suggested there was an urgency, those are your words.

My comments were in regards to and based on apparent discrepancies and other comments made by directly by OCSD.

My comments above and throughout the course of this thread can not possibly be any clearer.

154 posted on 02/12/2012 7:53:55 PM PST by dragnet2 (Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: dragnet2

“What do you think the DA bases their investigation on?”
They have their own investigators, sworn LE, detectives, called “DA Investigators”. They work for the DA. Not the sheriff.

I have no doubt that they have a very detailed policy manual on who, exactly, interviews witnesses after an OIS. Since they’ve gone to the trouble to set up an outside office for all OIS’s, it seems reasonable that they would have that office conduct the entire investigation, not just some small bits of it.


155 posted on 02/12/2012 7:54:42 PM PST by absalom01 (You should do your duty in all things. You can never do more, you should never wish to do less.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: absalom01
I ask again: why are you so concerned to have the case file opened up before the case is presented to the DA

What do you think the DA bases their investigation on?

It's based on witness statements and the deputy's statement obtained by OCSD investigators at the scene.

You do not know this?

They have their own investigators, sworn LE, detectives, called “DA Investigators”. They work for the DA. Not the sheriff.

Oh good grief! No kidding!

I said what do you think they BASE their investigations on?

It's based on reports, supporting documents from those involved, who were on the scene, the deputy, witnesses, digital images, radio traffic etc. Gezzz

Ya think the the DA comes out a week later and starts their own investigation from scratch, from a cleaned up, sanitized empty scene?

156 posted on 02/12/2012 8:02:59 PM PST by dragnet2 (Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: absalom01
So what? What is your point? I gather that you think that there is some sort of cover up/conspiracy or some other malfeasance on the part of the department and/or the deputy.

Question: Is it not possible for law enforcement agencies to deceive or twist a version of events to fit, in order to avoid career damage/criminal penalties and or extremely costly litigation?

Well?

Of course it’s possible but there is nothing about this caper, at least as it’s been reported to date, that leads me to believe that it is the case in this instance.

You see no issues here?

Oh boy....

This is a really naive statement or one which is very biased.

OCSD has finally admitted the Marine was *not* armed.

OCSD admitted, the Marine drove his own kids to the school.

OCSD said the deputy feared for his life.

OCSD now states the deputy feared for the kids lives.

OCSD admitted shooting to death an unarmed Marine from the driver side window, simply based on the deputy's comment, "The marine was acting or said something irrational and could not let the driver leave with the kids", the same kids he just drove to their school.

OCSD never once alleged the Marine was attempting to run over the deputy, as it's seems substantiated by the blown out driver side window.

Based on what is known, if you're in law enforcement and fail to see some disturbing facts here, I would find a different career.

157 posted on 02/12/2012 8:41:14 PM PST by dragnet2 (Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: FReepaholic

Change the story, protecting the children, of course. The fact that the children were forward of the firing line (see what the range officer says about this one) and the possibility of shot deflection from the glass, a skull, or the metal in the headrest would not in any way endanger the children. Trauma, no problem, kids are resilient...

Oh for the days of sanctuary cities and kinsmen redeemers who will execute justice when the state won’t. I am not an anarchist, but the state seems to be providing more danger to the public than protection, in a lot of ways.


158 posted on 02/12/2012 10:32:02 PM PST by Apogee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Tilted Irish Kilt

“Personally, I think that it is an over reaction following the Powell father “

BINGO.

You can not govern this way.


159 posted on 02/12/2012 10:43:42 PM PST by Apogee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy

Everybody! Take time to read the comments from Camp Pendleton and SGT Loggins’ immediate supervising officers. He is described as quiet spoken, extremely courteous to all, a mentor to junior Marines, dedicated to duty, a devoted husband and father and a committed Christian. Worked a 12 to 16 hour day and spent as much time as possible with his daughters. I can’t print what I would say about the so-called deputy.


160 posted on 02/13/2012 11:11:30 AM PST by ArmyTeach (OnyoneAur liberties we prize and our rig hts we will maintain ... USS Iowa BB 61)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: elvis-lives

Have you done your homework?

a. All reports indicate that the gates were normally open. The SGT probably did not expect them to be closed.
b. I have seen photos of the scene to include most of the front end of
Loggins’ vehicle. Very little if any evidence of damage, suggesting that the gate was not ‘crashed’
c. Loggins was highly respected and trusted by his superior officers and was a role model for the marines
who worked under him.
I give more credence to the military’s assessment of SGT Loggins than to the
obviously self-serving CYA report of the deputy. He’s making it up.


161 posted on 02/13/2012 11:37:25 AM PST by ArmyTeach (OnyoneAur liberties we prize and our rig hts we will maintain ... USS Iowa BB 61)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: ArmyTeach

Wow. I stand corrected. I didn’t know that there was only slight damage to his vehicle when he drove into the closed gate at 4:40 in the morning with two minor girls strapped in the backseat, fled the scene on foot refusing to obey commands of law enforcement officer to stop, later returning to his vehicle and further refusing to stop when he was told to, instead, fleeing in the vehicle with the girls still in the vehicle.

I’m sure that the deputy was only thinking warm fuzzy thoughts when a grown man tried to foricbly enter a school ground hours before dawn with two young girls in the back seat and then refused to answer a deputy sheriff’s questions.

here’s a hint. When a cop pulls you over, politely answer his questions. If he asks to search your vehicle or belongigngs, politely decline and wait for the warrant.


162 posted on 02/13/2012 12:05:01 PM PST by elvis-lives
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: dragnet2
Saw that. However, as the vehicle is on the truck being removed, two bent bars which are likely gate parts lie in front of the SUV.
163 posted on 02/13/2012 12:19:04 PM PST by ArmyTeach (OnyoneAur liberties we prize and our rig hts we will maintain ... USS Iowa BB 61)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: elvis-lives

Sorry, Elvis. I’m reiterating facts as I have read them in various news reports. You, on the other hand, are just reiterating the officer’s report, the details of which has changed at least twice.


164 posted on 02/13/2012 12:41:25 PM PST by ArmyTeach (OnyoneAur liberties we prize and our rig hts we will maintain ... USS Iowa BB 61)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: ArmyTeach

In your research, did you find out why this man did not simply answer questions that everyone who is pulled over is asked. Any explanation of why he is taking two young girls onto a closed school ground at 4:40 am? Any answers as where he went on the school grounds or why he tried to drive away?


165 posted on 02/13/2012 12:49:29 PM PST by elvis-lives
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: elvis-lives

Now that is a good question, and I don’t know. A lot of us have asked the same question. This behavior is completely out of character, according to everyone who knew him. Pure speculation, but a minor stroke or seizure? If so, it will show up in the autopsy. If not, then well, I just couldn’t know. He was a military man, and his superiors attest that he always followed orders.
As for the early hours, people who knew him said that this wasn’t unusual, although in all honesty I can see how the deputy would be concerned. The SGT typically was due at work at 6 am (0600) and frequently worked a 12 to 16 hour day, so you can guess that his time with his growing girls was limited. His wife usually accompanied them, but she is expecting a baby within the month. His friends and family said that he and the girls walked the track and read and discussed the Bible. He was a dedicated church man. And these seem to be all level headed solid citizens.
I also read that the gate was usually opened, so in all probability he didn’t see it until too late. Mild concussion? Maybe he got out to assess the damage-my speculation. It’s what I would do.
That’s what I’ve read.
Thanks


166 posted on 02/13/2012 1:34:29 PM PST by ArmyTeach (OnyoneAur liberties we prize and our rig hts we will maintain ... USS Iowa BB 61)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: elvis-lives

Can you take more? Being so concerned, I should think the deputy might have fired a warning shot or a disabling shot and saved a life and saved the girls from a trauma they will live with for their entire lives.


167 posted on 02/13/2012 1:44:32 PM PST by ArmyTeach (OnyoneAur liberties we prize and our rig hts we will maintain ... USS Iowa BB 61)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: ArmyTeach

All that matters very little. Everyday unarmed people ignore police requests and demands...This probably happens 300x per day in the U.S.

The fact is, this does not give a cop the legal authority to shoot to death, *unarmed* people who ignored a cops demand or command. End of story.


168 posted on 02/13/2012 1:51:23 PM PST by dragnet2 (Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: elvis-lives; ArmyTeach; dragnet2
Thanks for all the added info and conjecture, I suspect the outcome will please no one.
Let me try to put what I've gleaned into my opinion of the activities:
  1. Sgt. Loggins - as he normally does around 04:30 daily - drives into the area not expecting to hit an obstruction.
  2. He hits something - there is blue transfer on the white plastic bumper of his Yukon's right side and damage to the headlight on the left side - and pulls down and stops to ascertain the damage. He may have gone to the field to find whatever he hit as it doesn't show on any photos released so far.
  3. The OCSD Deputy - alerted/woken by the clash - drives up when Loggins is out of the vehicle with no lights or siren to alert Loggins, to 'catch him in the deed' - and fails to notice the kids in the rear.
  4. The Deputy walks out yelling, but fails to fully identify himself.
  5. Bear in mind it's dark, no or few lights, and tinted windows.
  6. Loggins, concerned for his kids and a possible robbery or worse from unknown assailant(s) yells back and attempts to get away from this assailant to protect his kids.
  7. The Deputy - also uncertain of what he's stumbled onto - is now on full "respect my authority" mode, and shoots at Loggins either as he's getting in or seated in the Yukon. (I had seen a report early on that Loggins was shot in the back.) Loggins is hit, and the window is blown out of the driver's door. (Where did the shards go, inside or on the ground?)
  8. Screaming kids alert the Deputy that they are in the Yukon.
I don't believe either Loggins or his daughters in the Yukon knew that it was a Deputy until after the shooting. The Deputy broadcast that the call for "HIT AND RUN AND CHILD ENDANGERMENT" three minutes after his initial report of the stop; less than two minutes later he's calling for Medical Support. So I question as to whether the Deputy fired before or after 04:44.

Had the Deputy known the kids were in the Yukon prior to him shooting or putting out the call at 04:44 don't you think his first response would be to move them to the relative safety of his cruiser? That he didn't says either he didn't know or didn't care.

Still too many inconsistencies.

169 posted on 02/13/2012 2:19:05 PM PST by brityank (The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: dragnet2

My issue is the way cops are trained now. The concept of being a “Peace Officer” has just gone out the window (i.e. that the cop’s job is to “keep the peace”).

Now I think they are being trained as some sort of quasi-militarized enforcement squad. The kind of police you have in hard left regimes and/or dictatorships. I think cops are now taught to “over-react” - to do “takedowns” no matter what the situation. This is extremely creepy behavior. This ‘us vs them’ mentality cops seem to have nowadays is also a bit twisted. That’s the attitude in a dictatorship - not in the United States!

I went looking through news about it - here’s what they say about the Marine:

“A Marine shot to death by an Orange County sheriff’s deputy in a high school parking lot was deeply religious and regularly took early morning prayer walks with his daughters, a supervisor said.

Sgt. Manuel Loggins Jr. was a devout Christian who walked at the San Clemente High School track with his family early in the morning, Maj. Christopher Cox told the Los Angeles Times”

“Loggins’ wife usually walked with the family but had stopped going because she is pregnant, Cox said.

“He was a mentor, somewhat of a father figure, to a number of the Marines,” Cox told the newspaper. “He was very soft-spoken, very nonconfrontational — very, very respectful. He was just the epitome of respect.”

“Loggins received multiple medals and commendations from the military.”


170 posted on 02/13/2012 2:29:03 PM PST by LibertyLA (fighting libtards and other giant government enablers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: dragnet2

Thank you, absolutely true.


171 posted on 02/13/2012 2:29:54 PM PST by ArmyTeach (OnyoneAur liberties we prize and our rig hts we will maintain ... USS Iowa BB 61)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: brityank

Thanks!


172 posted on 02/13/2012 2:38:52 PM PST by ArmyTeach (OnyoneAur liberties we prize and our rig hts we will maintain ... USS Iowa BB 61)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: brityank

I haven’t read very many of the posts on this thread, but from the story alone this appears to be a tragic overreaction by the deputy. I’ve never had a bad experience with law enforcement, but it does seem that there are some badly trained, emotionally unsuitable and intellectually unequipped law enforcement types out there.


173 posted on 02/13/2012 2:40:35 PM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trisham
" I've never had a bad experience with law enforcement... "

My jaw dropped.

174 posted on 02/13/2012 2:49:11 PM PST by AnTiw1 (I lived through a mormon hell, I will not live in a country with a mormon president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: trisham
Look at #169 for my take so far. Thanks.
175 posted on 02/13/2012 2:49:31 PM PST by brityank (The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: LibertyLA; dragnet2
Now I think they are being trained as some sort of quasi-militarized enforcement squad. The kind of police you have in hard left regimes and/or dictatorships. I think cops are now taught to “over-react” - to do “takedowns” no matter what the situation. This is extremely creepy behavior. This ‘us vs them’ mentality cops seem to have nowadays is also a bit twisted. That’s the attitude in a dictatorship - not in the United States!

Sadly I believe you are right.
I had a talk many moons back with a cop who had been asked to join a SWAT Team in a large town, and both of us had the same opinion back then -- SWAT should only be under State control, not the individual local forces. Make the Governor and Legislature fully responsible for their actions in our neighborhoods, and keep the locals as Peace Officers. (He turned it down.) I'm not a cop, but I've known quite a few from years past and none I knew of were bad apples.

176 posted on 02/13/2012 2:59:44 PM PST by brityank (The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: matthew fuller

This is a civilian law enforcement issue, but my gut feeling is that NCIS is gearing up its own investigation. JAG will be all over it.


177 posted on 02/13/2012 2:59:53 PM PST by ArmyTeach (OnyoneAur liberties we prize and our rig hts we will maintain ... USS Iowa BB 61)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: brityank

I am truly concerned about the daughters, whether they had a lawyer or child advocate available to them, and whether an attempt was made to influence their testimony.


178 posted on 02/13/2012 3:10:36 PM PST by ArmyTeach (OnyoneAur liberties we prize and our rig hts we will maintain ... USS Iowa BB 61)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: ArmyTeach

By now I would hope the family has a lawyer, and that he’s a real bulldog! You have to know those kids were scared witless - a supposed ‘good guy’ cop just killed their Dad, and he wants them to obey him? I’d be damned surprised if there isn’t influence cast on them.


179 posted on 02/13/2012 3:22:49 PM PST by brityank (The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: brityank

I have friends who are cops - can’t see them doing what this deputy did.

I think you may have a “Farva” here who woke up, was out of control and pulled the trigger. Maybe trying to ‘control’ the situation when he should have just followed the car until it could be pulled over. Overreactive policing is the same thing that happened in Waco when BATF pushed to attack as opposed to just pulling Koresh in when he was in town.

Again, this is why I think the concept of the “peace officer” is the best policing model. It usually avoids escalations and mistakes and with it the bad PR that all good cops then get painted with. But the edicts from on high are pushing the ‘new’ militarized model on all the departments - ultimately this is not a good idea. And it certainly isn’t American.


180 posted on 02/13/2012 3:31:51 PM PST by LibertyLA (fighting libtards and other giant government enablers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: elvis-lives

>But this guy driiving at a high rate of speed, crashing into a gate with his two daughters strapped in the back seat at 4:40 in the morning and refusing to obey legitimate commands of a law enforcement officer isn’t making you curious?

Question: What constitutes a legitimate command from a law-enforcement officer?

1) Would the command to divest myself of my weapon upon entry of a [county or municipal] courthouse be legitimate? (Assume it is posted on the courthouse.)
2) Even if there is no state-law concerning it?
3) Even if such a State Law would be null and void because the State Constitution says: “No law shall abridge the the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense [...]”?
4) Even if the State Constitution flatly prohibits any county/municipality from regulating “in any way” an incident to keep and bear arms?

So, would that be a legitimate command?


181 posted on 02/13/2012 4:30:55 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

How about, “License and registration please.”


182 posted on 02/13/2012 5:08:47 PM PST by elvis-lives
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: elvis-lives

>Sorry. A nutjob had already crashed his vehicle into a gate, refused an order to stop. Returned to the vehicle and with two female minors in the back seat attempted to flee. The deputy did not know if the girls were kidnapped sex slaves, illeghal aliens or escaped mental patients. Deputy deserved a medal.

Ah, so let me get this straight: you want to give him a medal for acting not on facts, nor even allegations, but on the assumption that “it could be...”
I am REALLY uncomfortable with that sentiment; if followed across the board any LEO could get himself a medal for just out-and-out killing ME because I “could be” a terrorist.


183 posted on 02/13/2012 5:43:31 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

I get it. The deputy acted “stupidly”, right Professor Gates.


184 posted on 02/13/2012 5:52:11 PM PST by elvis-lives
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: elvis-lives

>I get it. The deputy acted “stupidly”, right Professor Gates.

No, that’s not what I’m getting at.
What I’m getting at is that in my training in the Army, and even in the civilian world, it is ALWAYS stressed that you are RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERY ROUND YOU PUT DOWNRANGE.
To endorse a “give him a medal” attitude like you did for operating on complete unknowns (and ignoring that he was WRONG) is to completely absolve the shooter of responsibility.

We already have a tradition in the “justice” system that absolves people of their duty: unqualified immunity for prosecutors. This means that a prosecutor cannot be held criminally liable for, say, withholding evidence that tends to justify or vindicate the person that he is prosecuting; in fact there was recently a case where just that happened, and the accused went to jail for about a decade (IIRC, I don’t remember the exact numbers) and won a civil suit against the prosecutor (on a due process clause in the Constitution) of several million dollars... this case then made its way to the Supreme Court where it was [sadly] overturned.

The practical ramifications of the above is that the government agents DO NOT have to provide [substantial] training in order to comply with providing ‘due process.’
If that is extended to “Law Enforcement” then we must *expect* a rise in such shootings as this; and, if coupled with a “give them a medal” attitude, then they will be encouraged to do so.


185 posted on 02/13/2012 6:29:36 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: elvis-lives

>How about, “License and registration please.”

To be technical, that sounds more like a request than a command.

But let’s assume that such *is* a legitimate command/request; is there a gap between “License and registration please” & the use of lethal force?
Of course there is!

But there’s nothing in the account that indicates anything in between; IOW, it is the gap itself that is so disconcerting.
That’s why the story smells so bad; even the WestPointGrad/Costco shooting had more details than this (granted there were a lot of witnesses) and there was SOME* (very small, but still existent) reason for the police to use force in that situation... in this case: nothing.

* And that story was a really bad shoot in itself; there were multiple officers issuing multiple commands such that the compliance with any command was non-compliance with another.


186 posted on 02/13/2012 6:38:06 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

And when an unidentified man, at 4:40 am crashes through a gate at a school, ignores calls to stop, tries to drive away with two young girls strapped into the back seat, you recommend that the deputy waves and hollers very loudly, “Have a good day.”

I have a daughter and granddaughter. As far as this deputy knew he was saving a member of my family, or yours. God bless him. He has my support.

You and your Occupy buddies hate the cops, I don’t.


187 posted on 02/13/2012 6:45:38 PM PST by elvis-lives
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

If you do your civic duty and cooperate with the legitimate authorities and offer your license and registration and answer Constitutionally sanctioned questions honestly, there is a great distance between, “License and registration”, and the use of lethal force.

Everything is a learning opportunity. You can take this from the events. When a deputy approaches you at 4:40 in the morning after you crash your car into a locked school yard gate, he calls to you to stop, but you flee only to return to the vehicle to try to drive away with two young girls strapped in the back seat- you are going to be shot. Hopefully we have afforded our law enforcement officeres with enough training that you will not be wounded, you will be killed. God bless the men and women in law enforcement.


188 posted on 02/13/2012 6:59:17 PM PST by elvis-lives
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: elvis-lives

>You and your Occupy buddies hate the cops, I don’t.

I’ve not said one word about the Occupy movement; why do you think to assume I have *any* association with them at all?

But, even more to the point, why do you think I hate the police? What have I said, on this thread, that makes me a “cop hater”?
Is it because I said that I was trained to believe that one legally and morally responsible for discharging their weapon?
Is it because I expect those in authority to bear more responsibility than those not in authority?

So, what exactly makes me a “cop hater?”


189 posted on 02/13/2012 7:53:32 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: elvis-lives

>If you do your civic duty and cooperate with the legitimate authorities and offer your license and registration and answer Constitutionally sanctioned questions honestly, there is a great distance between, “License and registration”, and the use of lethal force.

Ok, let’s use a bit of formal logic here.
{A -> B, read IF A THEN B, says nothing about B when A is false.}
“IF you do your civic duty and cooperate with the legitimate authorities [THEN] there is a great distance between, “License and registration”, and the use of lethal force.”
This says nothing about the case of when civic duty or non-cooperation is done; in fact by itself it would mean that there is only a great distance between ‘license and registration’ and the use of lethal force when you are cooperating!

Don’t you see how horribly dangerous such a mentality is?

>When a deputy approaches you at 4:40 in the morning after you crash your car into a locked school yard gate, he calls to you to stop, but you flee only to return to the vehicle to try to drive away with two young girls strapped in the back seat- you are going to be shot.

Ah, so there is no need for a judge, or jury, or warrant, or hell even allegations!
All an officer has to do is shoot first and then concoct some trail of COULD HAVE and MIGHT HAVE reasoning?
Which part of that justifies lethal force, anyway? (Or is it some magic combination of all of them?)
— Being up at 4:40? (Because nobody who is law-abiding is active at those hours! Forget about night-watchmen!)
— Crashing into a gate? (Because nobody who is a law-abiding citizen ever has an accident! Forget about any inclement-weather/accident correlations!)
— Him telling you to stop and you not complying? (Because nobody might possibly not hear you! Forget about deaf people.)
— Having two young girls in his car? (Because no law abiding male citizen would have females in his vehicle! Forget about a family coming home from a long road-trip!)

I did not spend near a decade in the Army to defend THAT.


190 posted on 02/13/2012 8:02:55 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

If this dangerous, selfish, moron wanted to speak to a judge or answer a warrant, he was granted the opportunity. All he had to do was obey the deputy and he would have had an opportunity to be heard by a judge.

Instead he obviously had the same ego that you have and believed that laws do not apply to him. He endangered his daughters and community because he didn’t have to follow the same laws that the rest of us do.

You have some sort of freakish Occupy Wall Street hatred for law enforcement- more power to you. Crank up the ham radio and enjoy your survival rations. I instead will live on earth.

Don’t bother responding. I’m done with your ignorance.


191 posted on 02/13/2012 8:13:24 PM PST by elvis-lives
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: elvis-lives

>All he had to do was obey the deputy and he would have had an opportunity to be heard by a judge.

Nothing in the story indicates that was the case. All we really have is a sequence of events, as told by the deputy:
1) There was a crash,
2) There was an unidentified male walking back to the vehicle,
3) There was a command to stop,
4) There was a shot fired.

At first the statement was that the officer was in fear for his own life, then the story changed to in fear for the safety of the children; granted the two may not be mutually exclusive... but only the first case (belief his own safety was immediately imperiled) offers any measure of the justification of the use of lethal force... except that the man was LEAVING.

Now, you may not have heard but generally the law takes a VERY dim view of non-LEOs who shoot someone who is retreating.

>If this dangerous, selfish, moron wanted to speak to a judge or answer a warrant, he was granted the opportunity.

Why do you speak so much ill of the dead; most especially attributing to him character traits that seem so at-odds with everything else reported about his character?
Did you know him?

Furthermore, I ask, WHEN was he granted the opportunity? (I don’t believe there was near enough time for him to do so between the crash and being shot.)
Or, did you perhaps mean to say “He would have been granted the opportunity”?

>Instead he obviously had the same ego that you have and believed that laws do not apply to him.

Where have I said that the laws do not apply to me? Or to him? WHERE?

>He endangered his daughters and community because he didn’t have to follow the same laws that the rest of us do.

Which laws was he disobeying? More importantly, weren’t his children put in more danger being in front of the deputy’s line of fire than by their father’s minor fender-bender?

>You have some sort of freakish Occupy Wall Street hatred for law enforcement- more power to you.

I asked you before: WHAT is it that makes you think I’m a cop-hater?
Seriously; I want to know.


192 posted on 02/13/2012 8:30:26 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: elvis-lives
I have a daughter and granddaughter. As far as this deputy knew he was saving a member of my family, or yours. God bless him. He has my support.

From the article:

Loggins, 31, stepped out of the Yukon and walked off into the darkness toward the football field, ignoring a series of commands made by the deputy. His two daughters, ages 9 and 14, remained in the vehicle.

Other deputies soon arrived and formed a perimeter around the back end of the football field in case Loggins was trying to flee, Amormino said. Because it was dark, nobody could see where Loggins was.

"About five minutes later, Loggins walked back toward the Yukon," Amormino said.

____________________________________________________________

If the deputy was concerned about the safety of the two girls in the back seat, explain why he took no measures to secure them when Loggins walked away into the darkness for 5 minutes.

193 posted on 02/13/2012 9:04:38 PM PST by Ken H (Austerity is the irresistible force. Entitlements are the immovable object.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: All

An update to the case is here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2856163/posts

Marine’s daughters held 13 hours after he was shot, attorney says


194 posted on 03/07/2012 10:33:27 PM PST by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-194 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson