41 votes

State cop shoots at minivan full of kids.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

More to this story,,,,,, Pay the fine now or go see the Judge?

After being issued the citation, the officer wrote that Ferrell proceeded to drive north in her Kia Sedona minivan after declining to pay the fine or return to Taos to contest it before a judge.

The officer followed the 39-year-old Memphis resident for about one half-mile at which point she pulled to the side of the road. A struggle ensued, the officer wrote, as he attempted to remove Ferrell from the vehicle and was confronted by her 14-year-old son. http://www.taosnews.com/news/article_401433ae-4d74-11e3-9e84...

thank you--this is important.

thank you--this is important.

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

Two wrongs will never make a right

It should be admitted that both parties were wrong, there is no defense for either side of this argument.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

Even If So....

...the police officer was WAY more wrong than the lady (and/or her 14 year old son). That police officer should get a long jail sentence for attempted murder.

Is beating by police officers...

considered to be an assumption of guilt?

"Backup drives up and sees two colleagues beating on a car" So that must mean they are automaticly guilty and justifies shooting at the vehicle!?
Your painting this Mom as some sort of serial killer or something.
There are very few instances that justify a high speed chase, and this is not one of them.

"That mother definitely put her kids in harms way" That mother was trying to rescue her kids from the officers that where putting her kids in harms way.

I don't hate police officers, I have worked with them and most are good people trying to do the right thing, but this was not the right way to react.

Yes the mother did not react wisely either, but when you fear for the safety of yourself and children, one will react in self-defense.

EDIT this was meant as a reply to the comment below:
http://www.dailypaul.com/305555/state-cop-shoots-at-minivan-...

Then why don't the good cops speak out about the bad ones?

You said most are good. I am an ex leo and disagree. MOST ARE THUGS, and the good ones are too scared to speak out. They don't want to get shot in the back! The state police is nothing but the state blackjack Nazi's to enforce their unconstitutional laws!

so much fail everywhere

Mother should not have placed her kids in danger with those thugs. Take the ticket, and fight it later when your kids are nice and safe somewhere. What was she thinking.

The gangster thug firing bullets into a car full of innocent kids should be locked up forever.

The 14 year old gets props in my book. I don't know why, but for whatever reason I thought he was brave. Maybe its my bias against gangsters.

I'm With You In Defense Of The 14 Year Old

It felt to me like he was just trying to come to the defense of his mother. You can't blame him for that. I hope (though doubt) the court system will see it that way.

The police didn't do a very good job of containing the

threat to public safety.
Only crazy people do what this woman did.

You get a speeding ticket, you accept the fact that you were caught.

You drive away from a traffic stop , you expect trouble.

You then go on a high speed chase and jeopardize everyone else's safety, then expect deadly force to match the deadly force you use with that 4,000 pound missile.

Very simple.

i agree the mother F'd up

But that thug firing shots into a car full of innocent kids needs to go to jail....

thank you

Everyone here sympathizing with the mother who acted like a felon needs to look at yesterdays post from the History Channel on body language.

Last 20 min or so, there is a stop, no different than this. Old man. Gets out of car. Wow, how different, not a threat at all. Dances around.

Then he pulls a gun and kills the officer, and gets to go on his merry way.

You all have no idea what the officer running up knew, and if she ran into your family member you would sue the station that he didn't do more to stop her. Stop looking for reasons to bash cops. Anything they did to stop this woman and her kid would have involved violence against a woman and child because of her actions. Not theirs.

No logic there, Taz41...

So we should execute people now for what we think they might potentially do in the worst case scenario?

"You all have no idea what the officer running up knew, and if she ran into your family member you would sue the station that he didn't do more to stop her"

1. Maybe he should have found out what was going on before opening fire on a random vehicle?

2. No I wouldn't. Even if I did, I wouldn't win anyway.

Moronic...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvJiYrRcfQo

NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.

Re: Thank you......

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.........

SHOOTING AT A VAN FULL KIDS?

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, pffff............

Because: Some animals are more equal than other animals. -Animal Farm-

What the? > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MTIwY3_-ks

Will there ever.

Be mandatory testing for steroids for police.

Money talks and dogs bark

Probably not

just like there will be no intelligence testing before hiring, and no training on the public's rights before hiring. It's ALL about revenue.

The only people who win are the lawyers, who get to keep prices for justice artificially high because of the BAR scam!

America, it was a good idea for a while, then the people got lazy and went to sleep!

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
--Voltaire

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

Not sure how this situation

Not sure how this situation got so extreme. We are not offered the full conservation upon the initial stop.

I don't see that the cops did anything wrong, up to the point of using unwarranted force, thus putting children in further danger. Let me clarify.... Once the woman had exited her vehicle upon the second stop, the officer had every right, in my opinion, to prevent her , by force, from reentering the van. That was the point when force was not only justified, but wise. Once that opportunity was lost, then the subsequent use of force needed to be more controlled and even wiser for the sake of innocent children, if for no other reason.

It appears to me that the officer who fired shots may have been aiming for tires, which is absurd anyway. Regardless of his intentions in targeting, it was a boneheaded thing to do with a van full of minors and a charge of speeding and resisting arrest. Those conditions do not warrant the use of numerous bullets fired at a vehicle full of kids - Plain and simple.

you have no idea

He knew it was a van fun of minors. As you can see, he comes running into the scene only to see his fellow officers beating a window. You have no idea what he knows.

And if one could look at what the mother actually did after that point, drive so recklessly she could have killed many innocent people...

How can you say trying to shoot out tires is wrong?

You and everyone else here would be saying otherwise if she rammed head-on into the car of someone you knew. You would be saying why did that officer not shoot.

I certainly DON"T know

I certainly DON'T know whether the officer discharging his weapon knew who was in the van. Perhaps he did not know the number or relative ages of the occupants... which would be all the more reason to question his judgment! He ran up on a situation where he had less knowledge than the other officers (who obviously chose not to fire) and starts shooting? And that is supposed to answer my points?

Whatever

There are rules in place for the use

of deadly force. She wasn't armed. She didn't hurt anyone and she didn't destroy anyone's property. Question: What crime does an individual commit where the state can justify the taking of a life? Speeding? Speaking out? Open carry?

The subject of this video centers on a question requiring a conversation that is long overdue.

It costs all taxpayers when the police act out of stupidity rather than follow the rules and common sense:

"The arrested man is being represented in Metropolitan Court by well-known civil rights attorney Joseph Kennedy. It seems likely that, after beating the trumped up criminal charges, Kennedy is looking forward to a juicy civil rights lawsuit against the Albuquerque Police Department, a department whose misconduct has cost city taxpayers more than 30 million dollars in the last decade."

http://ericpetersautos.com/2012/11/06/hero-cops-dont-underst...

30 million dollars in one city...how much has the illegal actions of local or state police cost in your state?

I hate to be the one

I hate to be the one defending the police here, but I don't really have too much of a problem with what they did aside from the guy who decided to start shooting (which was crazy). You drive away from a traffic stop before you are "free to go" and what do you expect to happen? Your teenage son jumps out of the car and starts trying to fight with the police, what do you think is going to happen? And with respect to the child abuse charge, it's not like they took her kids away because she was smoking pot. She got into a high speed chase over a speeding ticket with 5 kids in the car for crying out loud.

exactly

Backup drives up and sees two colleagues beating on a car, car taking off... give me a break. That mother definitely put her kids in harms way multiple times. Def child abuse when you are driving the wrong way down the street. Too many here looking to see police doing wrong instead of thinking what exactly you would do in their shoes. Aweful to think someone would have died. Mother had as much potential of killing self, kids, and cop during encounter. You saw they were on a highway when mom and son attacked cop?

so the Nazi's were beating on your car and started shooting

at you and the mother is nuts for running? Wow I am not defending the mothers action up to when the cops started going off on her car and shooting at her kids and her. Stay in the Republican party because you sure act like a Nazi Republican.

Is beating by police officers...

considered to be an assumption of guilt?

"Backup drives up and sees two colleagues beating on a car" So that must mean they are automaticly guilty and justifies shooting at the vehicle!?
Your painting this Mom as some sort of serial killer or something.
There are very few instances that justify a high speed chase, and this is not one of them.

"That mother definitely put her kids in harms way" That mother was trying to rescue her kids from the officers that where puttinh her kids in harms way.

I don't hate police officers, I have worked with them and most are good people trying to do the right thing, but this was not the right way to react.

Yes the mother did not react wisely either and either, but when you fear for the safety of yourself and children, one will react in self-defense.

Notice how they charged her

Notice how they charged her with child abuse????? What part of this indicated that she was abusive to her kids? Mark my word - child abuse acccusations are the WMD government weapon of choice against families.

Good point.

You know what. I wanted to try and chastise her decision to drive away, like what does she expect to happen? And as short sided as that decision might be, it was the officer that decided to pursue. What had she done? Speeding? I don't care if she was going 180 mph, shots fired period is not a reasonable response to speeding. Even if your just going for the tires.

What benefit to society is it if tires are destroyed, and labor is wasted fixing the tire, just because someone was going faster than you'd like.

I think the original officer was relatively reasonable, at least compared to most police videos I see. But regardless, his decision to pursue placed an inherent risk upon the children in that car. Something he should be liable for.

You could argue that the driver's decision to pull away was what placed the inherent risk upon the children. I could re-argue that the officer's decision to detain per se a woman and her 3 kids for a non-violent action of one of them, well that is the action that placed inherent risk upon these children. The original officer would be liable for any harm done, if the law reflected human morals.

"Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito."

uh...

Speeding? You think she just sped?

Forget the fleeing? The assault? Why is it you minimize her actions? Is it to make you right?

You think someone that assaults and flees shows the behavior of someone who is likely to have nothing to hide?

Go and watch the History Channel video posted yesterday on body language. I'm sure you also thought the guy at the end was just dancing around. Oh, he just sped. His aggressive dancing was just dancing too. Until he killed the cop. And could have gone on and killed as many people as he wanted at that point and wouldn't have made a difference to him.

Why, because she's not the

Why, because she's not the one who shot at someone. If the officer didn't pursue, No one would have gotten hurt. It was the officer, claiming he knows best, that created a risky situation that wouldn't have happened otherwise. Sure you may call it assault, but to common law, the officer committed assault too. Why don't you see that aspect?

"Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito."

fleeing?

She was ticketed and released the cop followed her. She pulled over on her own, then he went off his own testimony. The video was rigged to make you believe something else http://www.taosnews.com/news/article_401433ae-4d74-11e3-9e84...

I was not going to watch this. Now I have.

:(

Defeat the panda-industrial complex

I am dusk icon. anagram me.

I don't know....if I were the cop

I think after she fled the first time, the second time I caught-up with her, the first thing I would have done was stick a knife in two of her tires.

Then I'd ask her calmly to step out of the vehicle. If she refused, I would have stuck the other two, got back into my car and drove off.

When she came to the station to file a complaint, then she would have been arrested for evading and speeding.

Why spend the energy to make her comply when you can make her come to you? If she didn't come in to file a complaint, then she would have 4 tires to buy.

I know many would disagree but she was the one that escalated the situation by acting like a rebellious fool.

I have a feeling after I flatten one of her tires, she would have stepped out of the vehicle.

The cops handled this badly. The one that fired the shots should never be allowed to carry a gun again. The one that smashed the window needs to be a desk cop only.

This is what happens when stupid meets stupid.