I didnt see this posted yet

Edited for link:

[url]http://arizonarepublic.com/arizona/articles/1014Copshoot14.html[/url]

I'm looking for stories online right now, I'll post a link in aa little while hopefully.

Ive done my best to piece it together, so here's what Ive found out so far...

-Woman tried to fill a forged prescription at local Walgreen's

-Cops are called

-Motorcycle cop pulls up behind her, woman freaks out

-Woman backs into motorcycle, officer is clear

-Woman ends up dead

-No bullet holes found in car, etc, etc

-Now released today is the fact that she was shot in the back while pulling AWAY from the officer

BTW, this same officer was responsible for the death of a college student a few years ago.

Im sorry for lack of completeness, there will be more info here in a little while for those who care.



The news of the woman being shot in the back was released today on TV, so the newspaper should be running a story tomorrow.

Does Arizona law allow you to shoot a fleeing felon?

From what I heard he pulled infront of her while she was moving and she didn't stop and she could see him so he shot her. Plus she had 2 kids in the car with her. Oh yeah she got shot in the chest. Thats what I heard. I used to live in Chandler, I wonder where this was at

btt

So if I read that right, the woman possibly forged a presription, took her child along while she was involved in a felony, and hit a police motorcycle, and a was stopped up against a police car.

One might wonder if she accidentally bumped the motorcycle, or she was willing to commit other felonies in order to escape capture form the forgery, with a samll child in the car.

If you "freak out" that easily you probab;y don't have the judgement neccesary to operate the most deadly device that most people will ever touch, A CAR.

Topcrest, way to distort the truth. The college student was killed in a crash. The crash was with a stolen vehicle, the student was not in a stolen veh, the stolen vehicle was being pursued by the police at the time.

From the story it says witnesses said the officer was 1-2 car lenghts behind the stolen vehicle. If that is true how did the officer manage not to get involved in the crash??????????

Who is responsible for that death? THE CAR THEIF FELEEING THE POLICE. But suing him is fruitelss as he will have very little earnings potential in prison.

It was determined that she never touched the cops bike in any way shape or form.  It was determined that the officer was never in any immediate danger of loss of life or grievous bodily harm.  The lady was in fact, shot in the back.

Arizona law (ARS tile 13) stipulates that the above must be happening to use lethal use force.  Not maybe that it would happen or after it happen, but while in progress.

As for the chase, the officer was told more than once to terminate pursuit, he did not.  His lack of obedience and respect for authority directly resulted in the innocent, uninvolved party being killed.

Well it is impossible to tell anything defeinte about the shooting from that article.

Nor does it add your comments about be ordered to terminate the pursuit in the article.

The person responsible for the crash is THE THIEF.

I know an AZ DPS trooper just went to prison for a car chase, of a stolen vehicle, that resulted in a fatal crash, after he was told to terminate the pursuit. Are you sure you aren't thinking of that incident?

Oh yeah, investigation in progress, rumors of homicide charges.

Officer was arrested today, charged with second degree murder...

Ill link a newspaper site tomorrow.

I think it's silly to suggest that an officer bears NO responsibility for a fatality caused during a pursuit when the pursuit has progressed to a point at which others are put in danger. Unless the person being pursued is determined to cause death to someone if they are not pursued, the risks don't outweigh the benefits.

Of course the criminal shoudn't flee and put others at risk. On the other hand, it seems irresponsible to take the position that once the criminal makes that decision the police have no responsibility for death resulting from a pursuit, particularly when the person is being pursued for shoplifting, grand theft auto, etc. The car, the shoplifted item, whatever it is, is not worth someone losing a life over. Just because the criminal refuses to recognize that, the police shouldn't refuse to do so as well. In fact, as police, they ought to have a higher degree of responsibility. After all, the police are the guys with training, a chain of command, equipment (including radios and helicopters)and backup. Furthermore, the primary function of the police is to protect an orderly society and the people who constitute it.

This is particularly true where helicopter support, video evidence, etc. can be used to track the fleeing person so that they may be arrested and convicted later.

Her back was to him.  

I'm not sure what part of my post you think is silly... the only two issues you address are the availability of helicopters and backup. While it's true that helicopters are not always available, there are a number of other resources available that can lead to an arrest. You will note that at no point does my post suggest that pursuit should never be engaged in because helicopters and backup are always available. Obviously, even when such resources are available, they don't, by themselves, obviate the necessity of a pursuit

As to backup, whether it is available or not is debatable and it sounds like neither one of us has the knowledge to speak authoritatively on that subject.

Let's pretend that only one officer is ever available, no helicopter is available and the video camera in the pursuing officer's car will not aid in capture or identification and neither will the officer's own observations as remembered or relayed to dispatch.

Notwithstanding, the risk is not worth the potential benefits created by pursuit in many situations. This is the main thrust of my post. The availability of helicopters in some locations, (often those that have the most problems with pursuits I would bet), backup in many areas (I know that in my county we have way too many city police on patrol and a generous number of state officers on patrol at any given time although we have few county officers as well), and the equipment and training that LE has make the risks outweigh the benefit that much more.

I've been saying it since day one. The officer made a very poor choice, now it's time to pay the price. We don't need cops on the street that are willing to fire on any person for a illegal prescription drug buy. The cop took a shot from the drivers door and back a little, unless the lady was driving a forklift and could swing around he was not in a life threatening situation.

The places that have "non-pursuit" policies almost immediately have an upsurge in people refusing to stop for the police. Which is more dangerous 1 pursuit a month or 5 "I ain't stopping because you can't pursue me's" a week, even if the speeds are lower?

It also means that they "hand off" their problems to other agencies. Boston Police have a strict no chase policy, no matter what the crime is. Besides having an enormous upswing in criminals fleeing, and attmepting to run over police officers, it means the Mass. State Police get involved in more pursuits in the Boston area to catch fleeing felons, that endangered other people, that BPD just waved good bye to.

Just as bad is the pursue no matter what agencies.

Pursuits should be monitored, and there should be a police supervisor, not actively engaged in the pursuit, that has the authority to terminate the pursuit.

A pursuit should be constantly reevaluated as to whether it should continue or not.

Some of the factors considered should be,
severity of offense,
is the offender known,
danger posed to the public during the pursuit,
danger to the public if the offnder escapes,
road conditions,
traffic conditions,
if pedestrians are the near pursuit,
vehicle capabilities,
driver capabilites,
did the pusuit start because of dangerous driving, which is likelt to CONTINUE OR GET WORSE even if the pursuit is terminated.

During a pursuit the police still need to drive in a reasonable and prudent manner, ie no illegal passing, no damage to other people's property or vehicles, etc.

There should also be a plan to end the pursuit, spikes, PIT, boxing in, ramming, roadblocks, etc. If those measures can't be justified the pursuit probably can't be either.  

Trickshot, if a criminal broke into your house and was attacking your wife, with his back to you, would it be unjustiifed for you to shoot the criminal??

If there is PC to believe the officer in the story originally linked here committed a crime he should be arrested and tried.

Never got an answer the first time i asked.

Does Arizona Law allow you to shoot a fleeing felon?

... Yes you do have a bad attitude. This "thief" didn't get the chance to tell her side of the story because she was [b]SHOT and KILLED in the F*CKING BACK[/b] in front of her infant in the back-seat for Chrissakes [b]thebeekeeper1[/b].
Don't give us the grown up poor pity story, so has the majority of this board! I damn well bet you if given the information you know about this case was applied to one of your loved ones and child you would come completely and understandably unglued!

Look, the locals around here are fed up with these kinds of stories. Not all of them make it to this site, but there are plenty to tell.

FWIW, there is a trend here. Most seasoned LEOs around here are caring, generous, astute folks. They avoid lethal force at all costs. They have been around long enough to know you don't shoot J-walkers and petty thieves to stop a misdemeanor. They realize they are people. Then you have a bunch of newbies, wannabe Rambos that all shave there heads up to the crown of their heads, wear those thin, cheesy sunglasses and generally project the image of Joe badass; [u]not public servant[/u].

I hope if this murderer is found guilty of charges levied he gets full punishment he deserved. I also hope the City gets their collective asses sued and invest in some training and weed out these rogue assholes.

... [s]I'm ashamed of your response, that is not like you[/s].


( Edited to include an apology to [b]thebeekeeper1[/b] for flying off the handle)

i vas yust followink ze orderz!

zat vomen was a mental defect und ze final solution order states she must be shot!

ya...but i made it home mit der safety!

And you didn't.  The news was yesterday, it came out in thte newspaper today, jerkass.

[url]http://www.arizonarepublic.com/news/articles/1108chandlercop08.html[/url]

The police report [url]http://www.azcentral.com/news/chandlerreport.pdf[/url]


Here's the article about another person being murdered by a police officer.  [url]http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1108chandlerreax.html[/url]

There's really a drug names "Soma"?
I thought that was just made up in Orwell's "1984"?

Looks like the husband may just have traded his druggie wife for $20 milliion or so.  Good judgment on the cops part, relying on the victim's body as a backstop to protect the infant.

Well, looks like the cop will get his day in court.  Hopefully justice will be served fairly this thime......rarely is it.

Sgtar15

Soma is a very powerful muscle relaxant.  My Doctor nick named it "Coma" because two can put you down for a long while.  It won't make a person violent or such, but lack of it can make a person skittish, especially if they are in pain.

Sgtar15

There's bad judgement all over this.

Nelson, BRINGING A CHILD WHILE SHE COMMITS A FELONY. Nice example.

Trying to drive away from LEO skippy.

LEO Skippy,

Coming from home for a RX forgery? How large is Chandler that he needs to do that. Was that approved? Is that standard?

Was he in full uniform? Was the bike a police vehicle or his own?

Why did he contact Nelson, apparently thinking she might flee, and order her to put her keys on the dashboard, THEN WALK AWAY FROM HER TO GET THE VEHICLE LICENSE PLATE? Why didn't he have her hand out the keys, step out of the car, or something else to seperate her from the controls of the vehicle? Why didn't he get the plate info BEFORE talking to her if possible? Why was it so important to get the plate info AFTER he was in contact.

Why park a vehicle, in front of a suspect vehicle, to initiate a police contact? Why not sneak up get the plate info, and then approach the driver, before the driver knows that an officer is there or why they are there?

As far as the "outrage of the union", Tough. Many times people that are accused of crimes will be "surrendered" usually through an arrangement of their lawyer, and the police dept. Or just with the say so of the invesigating officer.  He's probably lucky they didn't send the SWAT team out to snag him. It was hardly a street arrest. The charge here is MURDER, that isn't one of those "we can make an arrangement" type of crimes.

I think the important thing to remember here is that the officer made it home safe. Even if it costs a mothers' life.

Absolutely correct and civilians, don't you forget that.

your last sentence could be used in all walks of life.

Sorry if I'm taking up bandwidth TRYING to discuss something when it's merely wasting room that could be better spent on wisecracks

good post.[}:D]

The dumbass trigger happy POS/LEO executed this mother in front of her infant. For no reason! Most of you guys are just as stupid, by the way you post.
AB

no offense taken beekeeper. I thought perhaps that you may have misconstrued my somewhat unclear, roving, rant.

I hope they roast this POS.

Even other cops think this is way outta line.

Over the years Chandler PD has taken on the snotty, ill-mannered, and belligerent attitude akin to Scottsdale PD, whose idiocy and disregard for individual rights is well known throughout the US.

Even Mesa PD is getting bad, a couple years ago, some car thief, who (TTBOMK) had no other serious charges pending was penned in at a convenience store in a stolen 4 Runner.

He backed into one of the PD cars and they all opened up on him and his unarmed, no threat girlfriend sitting in the front seat.

One of the detectives on-scene emptied 14 rounds from an MP5 in full-auto into the young girl as she sat in the passenger seat.

Half a magazine.

Not a single shot, not a three round burst. Half a mag!

Of course, since they were "bad" people, the "Wrongful Death" lawsuit filed by the dead girl's family didn't go anywhere.

...As we spiral downward, who watches the watchers?.......

D.

INDEED!!
AB