• Woman Shot by Border Patrol Agent After Running Him Over With Her Car
    129 replies, posted
[QUOTE=FreakyMe;37867448]Why is this necessary?[/QUOTE] if you're being carried along by someone who hit you with a car, I don't think you're going to be thinking in the right mindset for minimal force
[QUOTE=JerryK;37865997]i guess she didn't [B]car[/B]e for the law she must not have [B]car[/B]efully though it through[/QUOTE] Here's a general tip when making puns. If you have to bold it out to make people understand, you're doing it wrong.
[quote] "Where's the evidence that my wife threatened a trained officer? You know? He's a trained officer to use lethal force, shoot my wife like that [B]and just not even call an ambulance[/B]?" Gilbert Alvarado said.[/quote]All things aside, I'm personally wondering about this part if it has any merit. The ambulance part specifically. [editline]1st October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Barbarian887;37866195]inb4 boxbot the golden and maloof suggest her gas peddle got stuck and her brakes went out causing panic causing her to forget to shut the engine off :downs: [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Meme Response" - Terrenteller))[/highlight][/QUOTE] Wow, I mean you don't see me going around in completely random threads being all like "inb4 Barbarian says something dumb" My feelings are hurt.
It could have been something to do with being plain clothed. Maybe the gun on a plain clothed guy spooked her and she ran into him in self defence or something I can see the plain clothed aspect of this situation being quite confusing
[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] police don't carry handguns in .50BMG I think you're confusing this with the engine block stopping bullets. [editline]1st October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Apache249;37866556]Brand new armor piercing TASER prongs. [editline]30th September 2012[/editline] Solid tungsten carbide penetrators for maximum effectiveness.[/QUOTE] you can now tase someone through someone else! [editline]1st October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=No Party Hats;37867161]So what he was holding onto the hood for dear life while unloading into the windshield? ok dont get me wrong this is sad and all but holy shit he just literally lived an action movie moment[/QUOTE] makes me wonder what injuries he had after this. No details have been release, I'd expect him to have at least some bruises or damage if he got hit. There's not that much reporting on that, that could be the key determinant between his story and the other stories.
Wouldn't it have been better just to shoot into the car in her general direction rather than actually trying to hit her? Surely that would have been enough to get her to stop unless she was crazy insane
[QUOTE=FreakyMe;37867448]Why is this necessary?[/QUOTE] I was more asking 'Why is the detail necessary'. I don't understand why the journalist involved needed to ask witnesses intrusive questions like that, or why they put it in the article.
Considering it is a low car, the caved in windshield is most likely from the border patrol agent hitting the windshield as he went up onto the hood. He probably got up on his knees. I count 11 bullet holes in the windshield, and the news reports the driver was hit 5 times. What the witnesses saw was quite possibly a second officer coming up behind the car after the one on the hood shot the driver. Source: I watch a lot of CSI and Law & Order.
[QUOTE=Rents;37867444]Maybe if he had an assault rifle instead of a pistol that was probably loaded with hollow points.[/QUOTE] why would you try using hollowpoints on metal? Wouldn't it better to use FMJs or something similar?
[QUOTE=RobbL;37869988]Wouldn't it have been better just to shoot into the car in her general direction rather than actually trying to hit her? Surely that would have been enough to get her to stop unless she was crazy insane[/QUOTE] If you just got hit by a car and you're still on it when it's moving the first thing that should pop up in your head is to stop the car and the only way to do that in his position is to shoot the person controlling the car.
[QUOTE=Boxbot219;37868427]All things aside, I'm personally wondering about this part if it has any merit. The ambulance part specifically.[/QUOTE] Well you gotta remember that cops are only supposed to use a gun to kill. So we don't have people strolling around in wheelchairs because a bullet fucked them up but didn't kill them. perhaps he should call a coroner to get the body?
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;37870287]why would you try using hollowpoints on metal? Wouldn't it better to use FMJs or something similar?[/QUOTE] the point is it WAS loaded with HPs so he aimed at the driver not the engine
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;37870287]why would you try using hollowpoints on metal? Wouldn't it better to use FMJs or something similar?[/QUOTE] They expect to be fighting living creatures, so they are going to carry what works best on them. Besides, it's not like he'd be able to do a mag change to switch ammo types while on the hood of a moving vehicle.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;37870410]the point is it WAS loaded with HPs so he aimed at the driver not the engine[/QUOTE] I mis read is post, I thought he was saying if you should shoot the engine block of a car with a rifle loaded with hollow points. Dyslexia is a bitch.
I like how the family calls the killing (which seems justified at this time) 'senseless' and then the husband calls for the border agent to be shot (pretty much killed)... Stay classy.
[QUOTE=Zero Ziat;37866255]Just noticed the OP forgot to post the source.[/QUOTE] So? Just because there isn't an immediate source for you, it doesn't mean somebody didn't get shot to death.
You know, shooting the driver would be more dangerous than jumping off or continuing to wait. Especially if there were children on board.
""Where's the evidence that my wife threatened a trained officer?" ..she didn't have to threaten him SHE ALREADY RAN HIM OVER WITH HER CAR [editline]2nd October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=newbs;37870841]You know, shooting the driver would be more dangerous than jumping off or continuing to wait. Especially if there were children on board.[/QUOTE] Dunno if this is the officers reasoning but if that was me I'd probably of panicked like fuck and just done the very first thing I thought of really :v:
[QUOTE=newbs;37870841]You know, shooting the driver would be more dangerous than jumping off or continuing to wait. Especially if there were children on board.[/QUOTE] Jumping off the front of a speeding car is a good way to really hurt yourself or get run over and I dont think waiting to get thrown off is any better. The best thing for him to do was to stop the car as quick as possible.
I dunno. Sure, there were TWO eyewitnesses sharing a story. But there were also several (more than 2) policemen sharing a story. I tend to trust policemen more than Random citizens. But again, I/we should wait for the full investigation before making a decision.
[QUOTE=Boxbot219;37868427]All things aside, I'm personally wondering about this part if it has any merit. The ambulance part specifically. [editline]1st October 2012[/editline] Wow, I mean you don't see me going around in completely random threads being all like "inb4 Barbarian says something dumb" My feelings are hurt.[/QUOTE] you don't see me replying to people during a debate with nothing more than "wow you're so dumb either dumb or trolling"
[QUOTE=Barbarian887;37873710]you don't see me replying to people during a debate with nothing more than "wow you're so dumb either dumb or trolling"[/QUOTE] Yeah, cause you're too busy talking about how seeing a sex scene in a movie is sufficient sex education for a 5 year old. Why are you trying to derail this thread?
[QUOTE=Boxbot219;37873780]Yeah, cause you're too busy talking about how seeing a sex scene in a movie is sufficient sex education for a 5 year old. Why are you trying to derail this thread?[/QUOTE] no man i was trying to say that it's a way to find out about sex
[QUOTE=Barbarian887;37873847]no man i was trying to say that it's a way to find out about sex[/QUOTE] Except we were talking about education on safe sex, which includes proper use of a condom so that it doesn't break or slip during sex. For some reason you brought up your idea that most 5 year olds know that condoms prevent pregnancy, which doesn't address the issue of teen pregnancy due to the lack of an education on proper condom use. Anyways I'm done. Don't bother posting about what happened in that thread in this one. Bump that one if you really need to continue that.
On one hand, I really don't think he needed to kill her. The man was a trained government agent. He should know how to shoot to disable. On the other hand, if I were in his position, I probably wouldn't take the time to aim too well. I'd be too busy trying to avoid becoming roadkill.
[QUOTE=Strongbad;37874189]On one hand, I really don't think he needed to kill her. The man was a trained government agent. He should know how to shoot to disable. On the other hand, if I were in his position, I probably wouldn't take the time to aim too well. I'd be too busy trying to avoid becoming roadkill.[/QUOTE] You don't shoot to disable. You always shoot to kill when you shoot at someone. That's why it's called lethal force. Plus even if shooting to disable was a thing, I'm sure it would be difficult to pull off while being rammed by a car.
[QUOTE=Strongbad;37874189]On one hand, I really don't think he needed to kill her. The man was a trained government agent. He should know how to shoot to disable. On the other hand, if I were in his position, I probably wouldn't take the time to aim too well. I'd be too busy trying to avoid becoming roadkill.[/QUOTE]You never shoot to disable. You shoot to kill. Rule 1 of Firearms Handling: Never point a firearm at something you do not intend to destroy. Simple as that. Second, disabling shots are incredibly difficult and in most cases a myth. As shot to the let is actually quite likely to be fatal because if the major arteries there. Third, he was stuck to the hood of her car like a bug, can't exactly make called shots.
[QUOTE=FreakyMe;37867448]Why is this necessary?[/QUOTE] Because handguns strike with very very little force. You have to strike something vital in order to successfully stop someone. The number of vital things in the body that sustaining damage to will definitely result in your near immediate demise is limited to pretty much your heart and your brain stem. Getting shot in the face does not guarantee an immediate stop, it is merely likely. Getting shot in the torso anywhere other than a direct hit to the heart has little chance of immediately stopping you and virtually zero chance of immediately killing you. Shots to the arms and legs do basically nothing. Even shots which cause significant bone damage to those areas can be ignored or even not noticed by someone with adrenaline running through their system. Handgun wounds can still certainly be fatal, but the primary cause of death from handgun calibers is bleeding. As you might imagine, in the overwhelming majority of cases, bleeding to death from tiny holes poked in your body tends to take a bit of time. [editline]1st October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Strongbad;37874189]On one hand, I really don't think he needed to kill her. The man was a trained government agent. He should know how to shoot to disable. On the other hand, if I were in his position, I probably wouldn't take the time to aim too well. I'd be too busy trying to avoid becoming roadkill.[/QUOTE] Aye, as has been pointed out, there are virtually zero situations where you shoot to disable. The only exceptions I have ever encountered have been police sharpshooters using rifles with telescopic sights shooting to disable people who are threatening suicide with a firearm or have a firearm which they refuse to surrender, but are not actively threatening anyone. So even police marksmen firing from stable positions using rifles with several orders of magnitude the power of a handgun, will only risk a disable shot if nobody's life is in immediate danger. Even then it is not common and is used as a last resort for the obvious reasons. EVERYONE else, from SWAT to border patrol officers, are going to shoot to stop. That means shooting vital areas of the human body in order to make continued progress physically or mentally impossible.
[QUOTE=simsfreak63;37873539]I dunno. Sure, there were TWO eyewitnesses sharing a story. But there were also several (more than 2) policemen sharing a story. I tend to trust policemen more than Random citizens. But again, I/we should wait for the full investigation before making a decision.[/QUOTE] uh no? there was a police commissioner or whatever talking in a press conference parroting what the one officer on the scene said. it's the eyewitnesses vs the officer in question, thats about it. [QUOTE=HkSniper;37870793]I like how the family calls the killing (which seems justified at this time) 'senseless' and then the husband calls for the border agent to be shot (pretty much killed)... Stay classy.[/QUOTE] i know its so ridiculous that a grieving family isn't exactly logical with regards to revenge and justice fuckin lunatics!! [QUOTE=fritzel;37867528]panic.[/QUOTE] over what exactly [editline]1st October 2012[/editline] everyone keeps saying her motive was panic over having a warrant served which makes me think its almost as if nobody read the OP or watched the video in which they specifically state the warrant wasn't being served to her, but to someone else in the neighborhood.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;37874504]everyone keeps saying her motive was panic over having a warrant served which makes me think its almost as if nobody read the OP or watched the video in which they specifically state the warrant wasn't being served to her, but to someone else in the neighborhood.[/QUOTE] She could've still panicked when she saw them, plenty of people have things to hide, she might've thought the warrant was for her.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.