• Woman Shot by Border Patrol Agent After Running Him Over With Her Car
    129 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Irespawnoften;37866183]Should have shot her in the knees.[/QUOTE] Was going to say he should have tazed the car tires but you beat me to it
[QUOTE=Kopimi;37866252]just the part that says he approaches from the back of the car and begins shooting her, then shows his badge, and the complete lack of eyewitnesses reporting their little car crash[/QUOTE] That doesn't make much sense, if the picture shown is from the same incident, the the eyewitnesses state he started firing from behind the car, but the bullets entered through the windshield not exited through it. If the pictures from the incident is from the shooting, then t supports the border patrols story of shooting from the windshield.
snip, I really should refresh before posting, sorry.
[url]http://abcnews.go.com/US/valeria-alvarado-california-woman-fatally-shot-border-patrol/story?id=17359380#.UGksBa74Lo0[/url] op's source which he failed to post being a bum
[QUOTE=DaMastez;37866362]I'm guessing you're looking at something other than the OP, because the only time the OP mentions eye witnesses is Or perhaps I'm missing something.[/QUOTE] The OP didn't post the source link, there's a video with a couple eyewitnesses saying what happened.
[QUOTE=plunger435;37866353]That doesn't make much sense, if the picture shown is from the same incident, the the eyewitnesses state he started firing from behind the car, but the bullets entered through the windshield not exited through it. If the pictures from the incident is from the shooting, then t supports the border patrols story of shooting from the windshield.[/QUOTE] a. i don't see how its not possible for the bullets to have exited the windshield but thats beside the point because b. i don't think they're necessarily saying he was firing from behind, only that he approached the car from behind and then began shooting (presumably from the front)
Sorry if this sounds stupid, but wouldn't a few bullets to the engine block stop the car? Or have I just been watching too many movies?
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;37866371][url]http://abcnews.go.com/US/valeria-alvarado-california-woman-fatally-shot-border-patrol/story?id=17359380#.UGksBa74Lo0[/url] op's source which he failed to post being a bum[/QUOTE] Oh, my bad. I'll update it.
[QUOTE=racerfan;37866475]Oh, my bad. I'll update it.[/QUOTE] thank you.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;37866431]a. i don't see how its not possible for the bullets to have exited the windshield but thats beside the point because[/QUOTE] The windshield holes are most definitely entry holes, so it was shot from the front. Hell, shooting from the back and hitting the driver's seat and person in it, it would be near impossible to get them to exit the windshield at that angle.
[QUOTE=JLim;37866459]Sorry if this sounds stupid, but wouldn't a few bullets to the engine block stop the car? Or have I just been watching too many movies?[/QUOTE] Assuming the officer was using his standard carry .40 S&W loaded with hollowpoints, the rounds would have pancaked against the engine block even if he were in a position to shoot directly downwards at the engine.
[QUOTE=JLim;37866459]Sorry if this sounds stupid, but wouldn't a few bullets to the engine block stop the car? Or have I just been watching too many movies?[/QUOTE] oh christ if someone is attempting to run you the fuck over I really don't blame anyone who loses concern about his assailant's safety
[QUOTE=Kopimi;37866431]a. i don't see how its not possible for the bullets to have exited the windshield but thats beside the point because b. i don't think they're necessarily saying he was firing from behind, only that he approached the car from behind and then began shooting (presumably from the front)[/QUOTE] The bullets could have exited through the winds if he started firing from behind the car through the rear window, but of you examine the windshield you'll notice its pushed inwards, indicating the bullets were fired from thr front. If the border patrol agency says the officer was injured, and the bullet holes match the story, I'd say their the ones telling the truth, that and the family was going as far as to say the officer needs to be shot, which doesn't exactly make them all reliable witnesses.
[QUOTE=Greenen72;37866231]wow why didn't he tase her[/QUOTE] Brand new armor piercing TASER prongs. [editline]30th September 2012[/editline] Solid tungsten carbide penetrators for maximum effectiveness.
[QUOTE=plunger435;37866550]The bullets could have exited through the winds if he started firing from behind the car through the rear window. If the border patrol agency says the officer was injured, and the bullet holes match the story, I'd say their the ones telling the truth, that and the family was going as far as to say the officer needs to be shot, which doesn't exactly make them all reliable witnesses.[/QUOTE] the witnesses weren't family and there's no reason for you to assume that the police are telling the truth just because he shot from the front (which the eye witnesses already agree on).
[QUOTE=Kopimi;37866565]the witnesses weren't family and there's no reason for you to assume that the police are telling the truth just because he shot from the front (which the eye witnesses already agree on).[/QUOTE] There's no reason to believe the eyewitness accounts are accurate either.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;37866565]the witnesses weren't family and there's no reason for you to assume that the police are telling the truth just because he shot from the front (which the eye witnesses already agree on).[/QUOTE] And what reason do you have to assume the border patrol are all liars? Contrary to some FP members beliefs, not all law enforcement members are power hungry, abusive, serial killing liars.
[QUOTE=plunger435;37866579]And what reason do you have to assume the border patrol are all liars? Contrary to some FP members beliefs, not all law enforcement members are power hungry, abusive, serial killing liars.[/QUOTE] no but i think a major law enforcement agency has much more incentive to gloss over an officer doing something wrong than a bunch of neighbors forming a consistent story via eyewitnesses to somehow cover the ass of their neighbor who indiscriminately tried murdering a cop. not to mention the eyewitnesses are eyewitnesses, the department wasn't even there.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;37866613]no but i think a major law enforcement agency has much more incentive to gloss over an officer doing something wrong than a bunch of neighbors forming a consistent story via eyewitnesses to somehow cover the ass of their neighbor who indiscriminately tried murdering a cop. not to mention the eyewitnesses are eyewitnesses, the department wasn't even there.[/QUOTE] I'm fairly certain that for her to be shot by a border patrol agent, the border patrol agent has to be there.
[QUOTE=MegaChalupa;37866578]There's no reason to believe the eyewitness accounts are accurate either.[/QUOTE] i believe multiple eyewitnesses more than a lone border agent who is accused of killing a woman [editline]1st October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=plunger435;37866618]I'm fairly certain that for her to be shot by a border patrol agent, the border patrol agent has to be there.[/QUOTE] im also fairly certain multiple eyewitnesses who ARENT covering their asses after killing someone are a bit more reliable than the guy who killed someone
If you've ever been in a situation like this and tried to provide an eye witness statement you will know how hard it is. Just throwing that in there, when people witness or are involved in highly stressful situations most of them will barely remember the incident at all. I wouldn't say eye witnesses are completely useless, but they're unreliable evidence. It seems like a reasonable enough story though. I can hardly see a border patrol agent gunning down some lady for little motive besides self-preservation which seems to be his argument.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;37866620]i believe multiple eyewitnesses more than a lone border agent who is accused of killing a woman [editline]1st October 2012[/editline] im also fairly certain multiple eyewitnesses who ARENT covering their asses after killing someone are a bit more reliable than the guy who killed someone[/QUOTE] The woman had a motive to run over the officer, since he was issuing a warrant, and she was trying t escape. The officer doesn't have a motive to just shoot her to death until she hits him with her car. The bullet holes in the windshield are in really close proximity, which means they were probably fired fairly quickly, if that's the case it matches up with him being rolled onto the hood and firing to stop the vehicle. Which is justified. The witness says he walked around the back, and started firing which doesn't really made sense unless he walked all the way around the car, and stood right infront of it, and just started shooting. Which brings up the question, if his intent was to murder her outright, why didn't he just shoot her through the side window where he wouldn't have been able to be hit, and had a better shot? The story fits the departments more.
[QUOTE=plunger435;37866671]The woman had a motive to run over the officer, since he was issuing a warrant, and she was trying t escape. [/QUOTE] The warrant was unrelated.
[QUOTE=Zero Ziat;37866686]The warrant was unrelated.[/QUOTE] Where does it say that?
[QUOTE=Kopimi;37866620]i believe multiple eyewitnesses more than a lone border agent who is accused of killing a woman [editline]1st October 2012[/editline] im also fairly certain multiple eyewitnesses who ARENT covering their asses after killing someone are a bit more reliable than the guy who killed someone[/QUOTE] Oh yes those two witnesses which each were given a solid five seconds of screentime are completely infallible. The physical evidence is a lore more in line with the border patrol's account than it was those two hastily pasted together eyewitness accounts.
[QUOTE=racerfan;37866475]Oh, my bad. I'll update it.[/QUOTE] You posted the source wrong... You gotta go to the page and copy the link from there. http://abcnews.go.com/US/valeria-alvarado-california-woman-fatally-shot-border-patrol/story?id=17359380#.UGk6v5jA8l9 is the proper link. [QUOTE=plunger435;37866693]Where does it say that?[/QUOTE] The video in the source says that. [quote]"...a plainclothes officer serving an arrest warrant to another individual in the neighborhood."[/quote]
[QUOTE=plunger435;37866671]The woman had a motive to run over the officer, since he was issuing a warrant, and she was trying t escape.[/quote] wrong. she wasn't involved, the officer was plain clothes and serving a warrant to someone else in the neighborhood. she had no need to escape. [QUOTE=plunger435;37866671]The officer doesn't have a motive to just shoot her to death until she hits him with her car.[/quote] yeah fair which is why i'm not saying what happened either way [QUOTE=plunger435;37866671]The bullet holes in the windshield are in really close proximity, which means they were probably fired fairly quickly, if that's the case it matches up with him being rolled onto the hood and firing to stop the vehicle. Which is justified.[/quote] yeah this is where the post crosses into bullshit guesswork and connecting dots that don't exist. the bullet holes are in close proximity which means he wasn't shooting from 10 yards away, thats about it. he could have been on the hood of the car, standing in front of it, or hanging from a tree [QUOTE=plunger435;37866671]The witness says he walked around the back, and started firing which doesn't really made sense unless he walked all the way around the car, and stood right infront of it, and just started shooting. Which brings up the question, if his intent was to murder her outright, why didn't he just shoot her through the side window where he wouldn't have been able to be hit, and had a better shot? The story fits the departments more.[/QUOTE] neither side of the story makes much sense, i'm not going to assume the eyewitnesses are lying just because if you were going to murder someone you'd use the driver side window [editline]1st October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=MegaChalupa;37866706]Oh yes those two witnesses which each were given a solid five seconds of screentime are completely infallible. The physical evidence is a lore more in line with the border patrol's account than it was those two hastily pasted together eyewitness accounts.[/QUOTE] what physical evidence? some bullet holes and a dead woman?
Considering the location of the bullet holes and the fact the driver was struck by them, he would need to be either in line of the right turn signal if he wasn't on the hood of the car, and the car would need to be stationary or he would need to be moving the same speed as the vehicle to get that kind of grouping, not to mention the fact the impact would be different than what it is if the dent was caused by bullets. A bullet goes far too quickly to deform the windshield that much, making the she hit him scenario more likely, heck bulletproof ones don't even deform that much and they have to catch the bullet. Based on vehicle condition, I think she hit him, flipping him so his back hit the windshield, causing the round indentation and he held on and rolled over to face his front to her and fired the gun with one hand from the hip, possibly impacting the slide against himself in the process(causing the massive variance in shot location, despite being near point blank) and used his shot pattern to actually hit her.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;37866738]wrong. she wasn't involved, the officer was plain clothes and serving a warrant to someone else in the neighborhood. she had no need to escape. yeah fair which is why i'm not saying what happened either way yeah this is where the post crosses into bullshit guesswork and connecting dots that don't exist. the bullet holes are in close proximity which means he wasn't shooting from 10 yards away, thats about it. he could have been on the hood of the car, standing in front of it, or hanging from a tree neither side of the story makes much sense, i'm not going to assume the eyewitnesses are lying just because if you were going to murder someone you'd use the driver side window [editline]1st October 2012[/editline] what physical evidence? some bullet holes and a dead woman?[/QUOTE] Honestly both accounts don't make that much sense. Let's just leave it to the guys with the money to do what they do when there's an officer involved in an unclear shooting. [editline]1st October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=deadoon;37866746]Considering the location of the bullet holes and the fact the driver was struck by them, he would need to be either in line of the right turn signal if he wasn't on the hood of the car, and the car would need to be stationary or he would need to be moving the same speed as the vehicle to get that kind of grouping, not to mention the fact the impact would be different than what it is if the dent was caused by bullets. A bullet goes far too quickly to deform the windshield that much, making the she hit him scenario more likely, heck bulletproof ones don't even deform that much and they have to catch the bullet. Based on vehicle condition, I think she hit him, flipping him so his back hit the windshield, causing the round indentation and he held on and rolled over to face his front to her and fired the gun with one hand from the hip, possibly impacting the slide against himself in the process(causing the massive variance in shot location, despite being near point blank) and used his shot pattern to actually hit her.[/QUOTE] Firing a pistol from the hip while prone on a moving car hood doesn't sound like a good idea. Yet again, everything is unclear.
[QUOTE=deadoon;37866746]Considering the location of the bullet holes and the fact the driver was struck by them, he would need to be either in line of the right turn signal if he wasn't on the hood of the car, and the car would need to be stationary or he would need to be moving the same speed as the vehicle to get that kind of grouping, not to mention the fact the impact would be different than what it is if the dent was caused by bullets. A bullet goes far too quickly to deform the windshield that much, making the she hit him scenario more likely, heck bulletproof ones don't even deform that much and they have to catch the bullet. Based on vehicle condition, I think she hit him, flipping him so his back hit the windshield, causing the round indentation and he held on and rolled over to face his front to her and fired the gun with one hand from the hip, possibly impacting the slide against himself in the process(causing the massive variance in shot location, despite being near point blank) and used his shot pattern to actually hit her.[/QUOTE] Yeah, that's what I think happened. [editline]1st October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Zero Ziat;37866730]You posted the source wrong... You gotta go to the page and copy the link from there. [url]http://abcnews.go.com/US/valeria-alvarado-california-woman-fatally-shot-border-patrol/story?id=17359380#.UGk6v5jA8l9[/url] is the proper link. The video in the source says that.[/QUOTE] Ah, that explains it, I can't watch the video on my iPad, so I just went off what Kopimi said the witnesses said.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.