Charlotte NC, Police shoot and kill man seeking help after wreck

[MyFred]

No, not cops are bad, however, the 95% that are give the others a bad rap.......

 

[AndeyHall]

No, not cops are bad, however, the 95% that are give the others a bad rap.......

Ha, cynical much? I've bad one bad experience with a cop, and it was enough to make me hate cops for the rest of my life. But I grew up and got over it. Since then I have come in contact with over a hundred cops who were all super great guys, and nothing like the one I had encountered before. If you can statistically justify hating all cops for the bad ones you come in contact with, then I guess given our criminal population, other countries that hate us are more than justified in saying that all Americans are horrible people. Or does that standard only work one way?

 

[BluesStringer]

I don't teach, I study. My credentials are that I know how not to jump to unfounded conclusions. When an officer winds up using deadly force, EVERYTHING is relevant. What he was doing that late at night could help determine his intentions in "trying to kick in the door" or at running at the police. What caused the wreck could factor in to drug or alcohol usage. Drug or alcohol usage could factor in to why he was running at the police and trying to kick a door. I don't buy in to your "extricate trapped passengers" response because someone who is able bodied enough to kick in a door should be able to extricate a trapped passenger just fine (which there turned out to be none anyways). And finally, there are PLENTY of people out there who do not run away from the police. In fact, from the cases I've studied there are probably as many people who engage an officer in violent manner as there are those that run. Cops get in fights with criminals on a daily basis. That's not unheard of at all, and the fact that you think it is shows me you watch a little too much tv and don't know much about what actually goes on vs what does on in Hollywood law enforcement. Yes, we know now that he wasn't armed. I know that pisses people off but at 2:30 in the morning, do you really think they could tell? To use deadly force, the officer only has to show 3 things: ABILITY, OPPORTUNITY, AND A REASONABLE PERCEPTION THAT THEY ARE AN IMMEDIATE AND IMMINENT THREAT OF DEATH OR CRIPPLING INJURY. If they can prove that it was too dark to determine if he had a weapon or not, ability may be thrown out. Opportunity will be determined by the distance the officer was from the individual. I haven't read in any reports how close they were, but the fact that he managed to hit 10 out of 12 under stress tells me they were pretty close. Officers rarely ever shoot that accurately in those cases. And the fact that he was running towards him would satisfy the reasonable perception argument. So honestly I could care less how impressed or not impressed with me you are, I've done my research and I know what I'm talking about.

You're going to make some department a fine jack-booted-thug someday.

 

[AndeyHall]

You're going to make some department a fine jack-booted-thug someday.

Ha, I figured you might follow me to this thread and make some more hypocritical remarks. So tell us omnipotent and all knowing Blues, since you were obviously there, why is this officer guilty? Because I never said he was innocent I simply said that the evidence that's been presented so far looks worse on the "victim" than it does the officer. But I'm starting to get the impression that when someone gets on your bad side, you're not going to agree with anything they say even if it means making a hypocrite out of yourself.

 

[BigSlick]

We picked this story apart in my Law Enforcement class 2 days ago. I honestly can find more fault with the "victim" than I can the officer. Here's the questions I'd like to see answered before I jump on the bandwagon to hang this cop:
1) What was he doing out at 2:30 in the morning?
2) What caused the wreck?
3) What's the toxicology report?
4) Why did the 911 caller say he was trying to kick the door in if he was just trying to get help?
5) If he wasn't under the influence of any substances, why was he running at the officers? I'm sure they were yelling demands at him. Anyone knows not to charge an officer.

Other things to realize: these officers were responding to a home invasion in progress at 2:30 in the morning, and when they get there this very large guy is charging them. It's very dark, so no he wasn't armed, but could they see that at the time. If I'm being charged, I'm not going to wait until the person is on top of me to determine if he is a legitimate threat. By then it's probably too late. This officer was also fresh out of the academy, so his training was still fresh in his brain. His fellow officer just tried to tase him and it didn't work, and now he's being charged. His brain jumps into training/survival mode. His training taught him to draw his weapon and neutralize the threat. They are not trained to take one shot and see what happens. They are trained to fire until the threat is gone. If that takes 12 rounds then so be it. If 10 rounds hit him in the chest, that means he was still coming at him by those last rounds. He did exactly what he was trained to do. Another thing to realize is that we and the prosecution have months to pick apart a decision this officer had to make in less than a second. All the facts that have been presented so far tell me the officer didn't do anything wrong.

Don't fall for these stupid media gimmicks where they said he was running to police like a child runs to his mother. That's just stupid.

I have to go with Mappow on this one. The only facts here are that a man crashed his car, tried to seek help and was shot dead by police. Your points draw to an incorrect conclusion. His own department said this: “Our investigation has shown that Officer Kerrick did not have a lawful right to discharge his weapon during this encounter". If officer Kerrick didn't do anything wrong as you stated then this man would still be alive. Your are correct that split second decisions have to be made but that doesn't mean police always make the right ones. He over reacted and took someones life and now he has to pay the price. If you are still blinded by your training and can't see how things like this can happen then maybe you should consider another career.

 

[AndeyHall]

I have to go with Mappow on this one. The only facts here are that a man crashed his car, tried to seek help and was shot dead by police. Your points draw to an incorrect conclusion. His own department said this: “Our investigation has shown that Officer Kerrick did not have a lawful right to discharge his weapon during this encounter". If officer Kerrick didn't do anything wrong as you stated then this man would still be alive. Your are correct that split second decisions have to be made but that doesn't mean police always make the right ones. He over reacted and took someones life and now he has to pay the price. If you are still blinded by your training and can't see how things like this can happen then maybe you should consider another career.

I was actually getting ready to post an updated message about an article I just found about the information you just referenced. However the information you just referenced was just released last night, which was after my last post. My last post was on articles I had read from the original time of the incident which was a week ago. Based on the information they released at that time I stand behind what I said. However, as you said, his police chief is now saying that it is evident from the video that he was "clearly unarmed". So that being the case, I'm leaning more towards it not being a justified shooting now. But having not seen any of the video myself, I'll say the same thing I said about the Zimmerman trial..."there's three sides to every story: yours, mine, and the truth."

 

[BluesStringer]

Ha, I figured you might follow me to this thread and make some more hypocritical remarks. So tell us omnipotent and all knowing Blues, since you were obviously there, why is this officer guilty? Because I never said he was innocent I simply said that the evidence that's been presented so far looks worse on the "victim" than it does the officer. But I'm starting to get the impression that when someone gets on your bad side, you're not going to agree with anything they say even if it means making a hypocrite out of yourself.

Even if I am a "hypocrite," how does disagreeing with you support that contention? You should be taking English 101 instead of jack-booted-thug 101, and learn the meaning of the word hypocrite before throwing it around in ways that make no sense.

Here's the deal when it comes to this story. No matter what circumstances might enure to the cops' side of the equation, the guy was unarmed, perhaps severely injured, and there is no evidence that I've read about that he was doing anything but trying to get help. He was gunned down for that, no matter what other factoids (or made-up crap) badgefluffers might come up with.

You said in your previous post:

4) Why did the 911 caller say he was trying to kick the door in if he was just trying to get help?

Who cares what the 911 operator said? The linked article says:

He ran to the closest house for help.


The woman inside thought it was her husband.


"To her surprise, it was an individual that she did not know or recognize," Monroe told WBTV. "She immediately closed the door, hit her panic alarm, called 911."


The man stood outside and "continued to attempt to gain the attention of the homeowner," a police statement said.

Have you heard a 911 tape? How do you know what the 911 caller said to them? I've read both articles linked in this thread and watched the video at the first link, and nowhere is a 911 Dispatcher quoted as saying Mr. Ferrell "was trying to kick the door in."

I'd say it has been determined beyond question that the lady in the house filed a false report, as neither the other two cops at the scene perceived him to be a deadly threat, and the subsequent investigation has so far been so unambiguous about Mr. Ferrell's innocence that night that it has been determined that he was just looking for help. So confident is the agency that Kerrick (the murdering cop) worked for in that determination that they charged him within hours of the shooting. Yet here you are, Junior-Jack-Booted-Thug, demanding to know what an adult free man was doing out at "2:30 in the morning."

You're asking questions about a person who was killed by cops for seeking help from them or anyone after a bad car wreck. He's dead and can't answer your questions, Junior. Just the fact that you jump straight to questions that presume some incriminating answers if he could answer them is evidence enough to me that you have already taken on the "never-criticize-a-fellow-LEO" blood-oath on behalf of rogue murdering cops, and the really strange thing is, that's evident in your posts even in light of the fact that the murdering cop's own agency isn't joining you in standing silent in the face of murder. While I believe he has been woefully under-charged, at least the department and prosecutor's office isn't covering for him.

I would seriously like to know why you think there's any legal significance whatsoever in the fact that the 911 call happened around 2:30 am? How long was Mr. Ferrell trapped in the car after the wreck? Does anybody know? Does anybody know if he was knocked unconscious? If he was, might a closed-skull brain injury explain whatever "strange" behavior followed, if indeed it is "strange" to look for help or run towards cops after a car wreck? Do the cop cars that responded have the words "To Protect and Serve" emblazoned near their jurisdictional seal? Might it be prudent to remove such dishonest propaganda if they do?

All of your questions in Post #18 and every post since drips with the cynicism of defending a cop who has already been deemed by his department as having acted with excessive force, and that stands whether or not the court finds him guilty. For the public, you are starting your cop-life in the scariest, most insidiously deceptive way possible. For cops, they are likely as proud of their training program as they can be going only by what you're writing here.

Betrayal is the only truth that sticks. Telling the truth about a cop's abuse of power will get you tagged as a betrayer, and that will stick with you for the rest of your career, or until you end up like Johnathan Ferrell. You're learning well.

Blues

 

[AndeyHall]

Even if I am a "hypocrite," how does disagreeing with you support that contention? You should be taking English 101 instead of jack-booted-thug 101, and learn the meaning of the word hypocrite before throwing it around in ways that make no sense.

Here's the deal when it comes to this story. No matter what circumstances might enure to the cops' side of the equation, the guy was unarmed, perhaps severely injured, and there is no evidence that I've read about that he was doing anything but trying to get help. He was gunned down for that, no matter what other factoids (or made-up crap) badgefluffers might come up with.

You said in your previous post:



Who cares what the 911 operator said? The linked article says:



Have you heard a 911 tape? How do you know what the 911 caller said to them? I've read both articles linked in this thread and watched the video at the first link, and nowhere is a 911 Dispatcher quoted as saying Mr. Ferrell "was trying to kick the door in."

I'd say it has been determined beyond question that the lady in the house filed a false report, as neither the other two cops at the scene perceived him to be a deadly threat, and the subsequent investigation has so far been so unambiguous about Mr. Ferrell's innocence that night that it has been determined that he was just looking for help. So confident is the agency that Kerrick (the murdering cop) worked for in that determination that they charged him within hours of the shooting. Yet here you are, Junior-Jack-Booted-Thug, demanding to know what an adult free man was doing out at "2:30 in the morning."

You're asking questions about a person who was killed by cops for seeking help from them or anyone after a bad car wreck. He's dead and can't answer your questions, Junior. Just the fact that you jump straight to questions that presume some incriminating answers if he could answer them is evidence enough to me that you have already taken on the "never-criticize-a-fellow-LEO" blood-oath on behalf of rogue murdering cops, and the really strange thing is, that's evident in your posts even in light of the fact that the murdering cop's own agency isn't joining you in standing silent in the face of murder. While I believe he has been woefully under-charged, at least the department and prosecutor's office isn't covering for him.

I would seriously like to know why you think there's any legal significance whatsoever in the fact that the 911 call happened around 2:30 am? How long was Mr. Ferrell trapped in the car after the wreck? Does anybody know? Does anybody know if he was knocked unconscious? If he was, might a closed-skull brain injury explain whatever "strange" behavior followed, if indeed it is "strange" to look for help or run towards cops after a car wreck? Do the cop cars that responded have the words "To Protect and Serve" emblazoned near their jurisdictional seal? Might it be prudent to remove such dishonest propaganda if they do?

All of your questions in Post #18 and every post since drips with the cynicism of defending a cop who has already been deemed by his department as having acted with excessive force, and that stands whether or not the court finds him guilty. For the public, you are starting your cop-life in the scariest, most insidiously deceptive way possible. For cops, they are likely as proud of their training program as they can be going only by what you're writing here.

Betrayal is the only truth that sticks. Telling the truth about a cop's abuse of power will get you tagged as a betrayer, and that will stick with you for the rest of your career, or until you end up like Johnathan Ferrell. You're learning well.

Blues

I called you a hypocrite because you were so fixated on that comment that I made saying that an officer has every right to get in your face and ask you question, and you insisted that I was wrong. Yet another individual posted in another thread that "a cop can ask you anything" and you liked his post. I found that interesting because, unless you know of some law that I don't that says when a cop asks you questions they have to do so in a nice way, then what he said and what I said are no different. Whether they want to be nice or an ass is totally up to them. Yet you criticized me and liked his...I call that being a hypocrite.

But I could really care less what you think about what I said about this issue because you've clearly established that you think all cops are "jack booted thugs" and are always going to take the side against the officer despite what the facts (or lack of) are.

 

[BluesStringer]

I called you a hypocrite because you were so fixated on that comment that I made saying that an officer has every right to get in your face and ask you question, and you insisted that I was wrong. Yet another individual posted in another thread that "a cop can ask you anything" and you liked his post. I found that interesting because, unless you know of some law that I don't that says when a cop asks you questions they have to do so in a nice way, then what he said and what I said are no different. Whether they want to be nice or an ass is totally up to them. Yet you criticized me and liked his...I call that being a hypocrite.

HOLY CRAP!! Non-sequitur much? I've given over 5,000 Likes in the last 18 months or so, so I have no freakin' clue what you're talking about here. Perhaps you have a link? Or is this just another hemorrhoid-poppin' turd that you yanked out of your hairless hiney, Junior?

Besides, even if I said (or Liked) something like that in a very similar context to what you mention above (which I highly, and I do mean highly doubt), my opinions on such matters only count for just that - my opinions. When you say something like that, a kid who has said he's already hired to be a cop, that it's all over but the paperwork, you're talking as a cop who will soon have the power to put it into practice. I've got zero power, you're going to have people's lives in your hands, and if your take on this story carries through to how you perform your duties on the street, you are going to be as dangerous to society as Kerrick is/was. There's a big damned difference between what I think and what you think, Junior. My opinions amount to a flea farting in the wind. Yours opinions on what cops can or cannot do could result in the death of a young man just approaching you for help.

What you don't get is that I've got a few thousand words to make you think about the kind of danger to society a cop can be. Your new co-workers are going to have you for the next 30 or 40 years. That scares me for whatever communities you "serve" during that time.

But I could really care less what you think about what I said about this issue because you've clearly established that you think all cops are "jack booted thugs" and are always going to take the side against the officer despite what the facts (or lack of) are.

That's hilarious kid. I definitely do "take the side against the officer" Kerrick, not despite what the facts are, but because of what his freakin' Chief and the Prosecutor say the facts are. You? As far as you'll go is that you kinda sorta "lean" towards thinking he was not justified in shooting. I'm sure the family of Johnathan Ferrell appreciates your non-committal "leanings," just as all the citizens who have to deal with your ilk in the real world do.

Blues

 

[AndeyHall]

HOLY CRAP!! Non-sequitur much? I've given over 5,000 Likes in the last 18 months or so, so I have no freakin' clue what you're talking about here. Perhaps you have a link? Or is this just another hemorrhoid-poppin' turd that you yanked out of your hairless hiney, Junior?

Besides, even if I said (or Liked) something like that in a very similar context to what you mention above (which I highly, and I do mean highly doubt), my opinions on such matters only count for just that - my opinions. When you say something like that, a kid who has said he's already hired to be a cop, that it's all over but the paperwork, you're talking as a cop who will soon have the power to put it into practice. I've got zero power, you're going to have people's lives in your hands, and if your take on this story carries through to how you perform your duties on the street, you are going to be as dangerous to society as Kerrick is/was. There's a big damned difference between what I think and what you think, Junior. My opinions amount to a flea farting in the wind. Yours opinions on what cops can or cannot do could result in the death of a young man just approaching you for help.

What you don't get is that I've got a few thousand words to make you think about the kind of danger to society a cop can be. Your new co-workers are going to have you for the next 30 or 40 years. That scares me for whatever communities you "serve" during that time.



That's hilarious kid. I definitely do "take the side against the officer" Kerrick, not despite what the facts are, but because of what his freakin' Chief and the Prosecutor say the facts are. You? As far as you'll go is that you kinda sorta "lean" towards thinking he was not justified in shooting. I'm sure the family of Johnathan Ferrell appreciates your non-committal "leanings," just as all the citizens who have to deal with your ilk in the real world do.

Blues

Link Removed

I'm still not sure what it is that I've said that's got you so concerned. I've simply stated what cops have the right to do, but should have the discretion not to do (insinuating I would take the nice guy route). I also don't get why exactly I'm such a bad guy for, based on the initial stories (which didn't say anything about his own police chief of anyone else other than Ferrell's family attorney and the NAACP saying it wasn't a justified shooting), presenting another possible side to the story other than the one that everyone wants to follow based on the ever-so-biased media version of the story. I hate that this kid had to die, and I think it was a senseless death that could have probably been avoided on the officers part. But there are a plethora of officer deadly force incidents that probably could have been avoided, but the officer simply made a split second decision based on the circumstances that were present. Based on what I know now I don't think he should have shot him. But I'm not going to sit here on my high horse, and I don't think anyone can, and say they wouldn't have done the same thing. Why? Because I WASN'T THERE!! We can easily say what we would and wouldn't have done now cause we're playing armchair quarterback.

 

[BluesStringer]

I was actually getting ready to post an updated message about an article I just found about the information you just referenced. However the information you just referenced was just released last night, which was after my last post.

Absolutely wrong. What BigSlick referenced (actually quoted from) was from the first link in the thread, the one in the OP. That article was last updated on Sept. 16, which means it may well have been first published even before that.

My last post was on articles I had read from the original time of the incident which was a week ago. Based on the information they released at that time I stand behind what I said.

You made the above statement yesterday, 9/22/13. The OP article was written no later than 9/16/13. That's six days. The two reports linked in this thread, which is what everybody but you is going by, only says that the accident happened "over the weekend." That would put the accident on either the 14th or the 15th, and both the stories linked in this thread were published on Monday, 9/16.

So tell us what information that is so divergent from the two accounts in the two linked articles you were drawing from? Because the information we're all going on was from six days before the post in which you said you scrutinized info a "week ago," and based on that info at the time, you would still stand by your conclusions. One of those conclusions was, "I honestly can find more fault with the "victim" than I can the officer." No matter what info you were going off of, you came to the conclusion that the dead man was only worthy of being called a victim if you put it in quotation marks. So when an unarmed man comes to you for help when you're out there just "doing your job," is your report after you shot him dead going to be that he was a suspect or a "victim" with the dismissive quotation marks left intact?

However, as you said, his police chief is now saying that it is evident from the video that he was "clearly unarmed".

BigSlick didn't say any such thing, and where did you get the information that there's a video of the incident? I'm not saying there's not, I'm asking where you got that info, because you didn't get that from BigSlick's post as you said you did.

And please, don't try to slough this off as you're just not as good as me or anyone else at saying what they mean. If you've pulled info out of your butt just to make some unknown "point," at least own up to it, but short of that much integrity, don't exacerbate the faux pas by making weak excuses for it.

Link Removed

I freakin' knew it would be some passing, out-of-context reference!* Good grief, I even gave you an out to back away from this idiotic "hypocrisy" meme before you embarrassed yourself. I emphasized that if I said (or Liked) something that was said in the same or similar context as what you said here:

Cops have every right to get an attitude with you and get in your face when they wanna ask you questions.

Listen up Junior - Cops have NO rights when it comes to interactions with citizens, they only have granted authorities.

Your statement is wrong on so many levels, but the simple statement that wolf_fire made, in the context in which he made it, is 100% true and accurate. He gave basically the same answer I did when you went off the rails with quoted statement above. You conveniently left out the sentence that followed the one you claim shows my "hypocrisy."

A police officer can ask you anything. You do not need to answer him.

Why do you not need to answer a cop's question(s)? As wolf_fire explained before ever uttering the words you attribute to my "hypocrisy," because of the 5th Amendment right to not be forced to testify against yourself, just as I said in response to that idiotic statement quoted above when I asked incredulously:

Exactly where in the 5th Amendment does it say that????

I'm still not sure what it is that I've said that's got you so concerned. I've simply stated what cops have the right to do, but should have the discretion not to do (insinuating I would take the nice guy route).

I've explained my problems with the statement quite clearly in the thread where you posted it. Now, with that link to what wolf_fire said, you have cross-threaded this thread so that nobody knows what's being discussed anymore. If you really don't understand what my problem is with that utterance, go back and read my answers to it in that thread.

I also don't get why exactly I'm such a bad guy for, based on the initial stories (which didn't say anything about his own police chief of anyone else other than Ferrell's family attorney and the NAACP saying it wasn't a justified shooting)

This is just wrong Andey. All you have to do is read the links in this thread and see that they quote a statement 'by police" that says unequivocally that Kerrick was outside of his authority to discharge his weapon at all, much less doing a mag-dump and hitting Mr. Ferrell 10 freakin' times! All you gotta do is read man, preferably before you post these fantasies about the cops having not made clear statements about it.

presenting another possible side to the story other than the one that everyone wants to follow based on the ever-so-biased media version of the story. I hate that this kid had to die, and I think it was a senseless death that could have probably been avoided on the officers part. But there are a plethora of officer deadly force incidents that probably could have been avoided, but the officer simply made a split second decision based on the circumstances that were present.

And this is exactly the kind of cavalier attitude that makes excuses for killer-cops that prompted me to say, "You're going to make some department a fine JBT someday." The circumstances weren't present for the killer-cop to open fire! Just say it and stop making excuses for murderers!

Based on what I know now I don't think he should have shot him. But I'm not going to sit here on my high horse, and I don't think anyone can, and say they wouldn't have done the same thing. Why? Because I WASN'T THERE!! We can easily say what we would and wouldn't have done now cause we're playing armchair quarterback.

Based on this "logic" then no shooting anywhere by anyone can ever be scrutinized and/or discussed in as much detail as we can gather because none of us WERE THERE!! Absolutely ridiculous. Luke might as well just shut down the site based on such pretzel logic.

You're not willing to say unequivocally that this cop, Kerrick, is a brutal murderer for only one reason; he's a cop. Your adherence to not crossing that thin blue line is as transparent as it can be. And you haven't even started on the streets yet. God help those that are the victims (notice no quotation marks) of your "service."

Blues

*Edited for accuracy and clarity.

 

[AndeyHall]

Absolutely wrong. What BigSlick referenced (actually quoted from) was from the first link in the thread, the one in the OP. That article was last updated on Sept. 16, which means it may well have been first published even before that.



You made the above statement yesterday, 9/22/13. The OP article was written no later than 9/16/13. That's six days. The two reports linked in this thread, which is what everybody but you is going by, only says that the accident happened "over the weekend." That would put the accident on either the 14th or the 15th, and both the stories linked in this thread were published on Monday, 9/16.

So tell us what information that is so divergent from the two accounts in the two linked articles you were drawing from? Because the information we're all going on was from six days before the post in which you said you scrutinized info a "week ago," and based on that info at the time, you would still stand by your conclusions. One of those conclusions was, "I honestly can find more fault with the "victim" than I can the officer." No matter what info you were going off of, you came to the conclusion that the dead man was only worthy of being called a victim if you put it in quotation marks. So when an unarmed man comes to you for help when you're out there just "doing your job," is your report after you shot him dead going to be that he was a suspect or a "victim" with the dismissive quotation marks left intact?



BigSlick didn't say any such thing, and where did you get the information that there's a video of the incident? I'm not saying there's not, I'm asking where you got that info, because you didn't get that from BigSlick's post as you said you did.

And please, don't try to slough this off as you're just not as good as me or anyone else at saying what they mean. If you've pulled info out of your butt just to make some unknown "point," at least own up to it, but short of that much integrity, don't exacerbate the faux pas by making weak excuses for it.



I freakin' knew it would be some passing, out-of-context reference!* Good grief, I even gave you an out to back away from this idiotic "hypocrisy" meme before you embarrassed yourself. I emphasized that if I said (or Liked) something that was said in the same or similar context as what you said here:



Listen up Junior - Cops have NO rights when it comes to interactions with citizens, they only have granted authorities.

Your statement is wrong on so many levels, but the simple statement that wolf_fire made, in the context in which he made it, is 100% true and accurate. He gave basically the same answer I did when you went off the rails with quoted statement above. You conveniently left out the sentence that followed the one you claim shows my "hypocrisy."



Why do you not need to answer a cop's question(s)? As wolf_fire explained before ever uttering the words you attribute to my "hypocrisy," because of the 5th Amendment right to not be forced to testify against yourself, just as I said in response to that idiotic statement quoted above when I asked incredulously:





I've explained my problems with the statement quite clearly in the thread where you posted it. Now, with that link to what wolf_fire said, you have cross-threaded this thread so that nobody knows what's being discussed anymore. If you really don't understand what my problem is with that utterance, go back and read my answers to it in that thread.



This is just wrong Andey. All you have to do is read the links in this thread and see that they quote a statement 'by police" that says unequivocally that Kerrick was outside of his authority to discharge his weapon at all, much less doing a mag-dump and hitting Mr. Ferrell 10 freakin' times! All you gotta do is read man, preferably before you post these fantasies about the cops having not made clear statements about it.



And this is exactly the kind of cavalier attitude that makes excuses for killer-cops that prompted me to say, "You're going to make some department a fine JBT someday." The circumstances weren't present for the killer-cop to open fire! Just say it and stop making excuses for murderers!



Based on this "logic" then no shooting anywhere by anyone can ever be scrutinized and/or discussed in as much detail as we can gather because none of us WERE THERE!! Absolutely ridiculous. Luke might as well just shut down the site based on such pretzel logic.

You're not willing to say unequivocally that this cop, Kerrick, is a brutal murderer for only one reason; he's a cop. Your adherence to not crossing that thin blue line is as transparent as it can be. And you haven't even started on the streets yet. God help those that are the victims (notice no quotation marks) of your "service."

Blues

*Edited for accuracy and clarity.

I started reading your post and had an epiphany about 3 sentences in...your posts are WAY goo damn long. I never really had it, but I have just run out of the time and patience to argue with your long winded posts. And by your condescending name referring to my age (Junior) perhaps I should get my face out of this forum (or at least this thread and any of your posts) and quit listening to the rants of some narrow minded, hypocritical geezer so that I actually have time to get out in the world and get some experience. And on that same token, by the length of your posts and by the volume of likes you said you give out, that indicates to me that you obviously spend so much time here reading these threads and writing counter posts that you have zero time to get out in the world to know anything about it, and that you see the world only through the eyes of this forum. You can respond if you want, but just letting you know that even if I had the time to read such a long winded, exhausting rant about absolutely nothing, I would give you the pleasure of reading it anyways.

But just as a final FYI, perhaps I misplaced the word "authority" with "right", so let me reword: the police have the complete authority to get all up in your face with an attitude when they want to ask you questions. Now as wolf said in slightly different wording, you have every right to tell them to go ******* themselves. And if they do it with such an attitude I completely recommend doing so. But unless you can find me some particular law that states that the police have to ask you questions with a specific attitude, then you are wrong that I am wrong, and also hypocrite.

 

[mappow]

Boring, really boring Andey.........Just admit defeat, learn from others and move forward. Kinda what this site is all about. OR don't learn from others and continue stagnated in your own ego. JUZ saying.......

 

[Deanimator]

But unless you can find me some particular law that states that the police have to ask you questions with a specific attitude, then you are wrong that I am wrong, and also hypocrite.

If the police choose to act like a hostile army of occupation, they shouldn't complain when they get treated like one.

I have no illusions about the police respecting the law or being my "friends".

It's an adversarial relationship, and by the doing of the police.

I obey the law, including in interactions with the police. They get what the law REQUIRES of me to give, and NOTHING more.

That MUST be what the police WANT, because they've done so much to cause so many to act in a like manner.

Just don't whine about it, like Ariel Castro whining about what a great guy he is (was) and how unfair people's attitudes toward him are (were).

 

[Kasper]

But just as a final FYI, perhaps I misplaced the word "authority" with "right", so let me reword: the police have the complete authority to get all up in your face with an attitude when they want to ask you questions. Now as wolf said in slightly different wording, you have every right to tell them to go ******* themselves. And if they do it with such an attitude I completely recommend doing so. But unless you can find me some particular law that states that the police have to ask you questions with a specific attitude, then you are wrong that I am wrong, and also hypocrite.

AndeyHall I hope that is not what they are teaching you cause you will have lots of problems if you are going to act like that while wearing a badge and uniform. Because I treat people the way they treat me and if you got in my face acting like that you would not like how I respond to your questions. Police have no authority to act like ******** they are there to serve and protect and acting like an ******* is not serving anyone. Because I feel you should treat people the way you want to be treated I would understand a police officer acting like an ******* if the person he stopped started by acting like an ******* to the police officer. But the best thing for the police officer to do is remain acting professional and not take on the attitude of the person they stopped.

Also Andeyhall you seem to be missing the point BluesStringer was trying to get you to understand. Which was you jumped behind supporting the officer who shot an unarmed man who was running toward him for help. The 5 questions you came up with for supporting the officer were all invalid questions that would not have had anything to do with the actions the officer took that night. Then BluesStringer pointed out that the police officer's chief did not stand behind his officer's actions and said that the officer had no justifiable reason to shoot the victim and you still would not stop backing the murdering officer saying now with these facts I am leaning towards the "victim". When you place "" around the word victim it come of as you still do not see anything wrong with the police offers actions that night. Or I should say that is the way I take it after reading your post. So we might be interpreting your post the wrong way. If that is the case please correct us and let us know what your point was.

 

[AndeyHall]

AndeyHall I hope that is not what they are teaching you cause you will have lots of problems if you are going to act like that while wearing a badge and uniform. Because I treat people the way they treat me and if you got in my face acting like that you would not like how I respond to your questions. Police have no authority to act like ******** they are there to serve and protect and acting like an ******* is not serving anyone. Because I feel you should treat people the way you want to be treated I would understand a police officer acting like an ******* if the person he stopped started by acting like an ******* to the police officer. But the best thing for the police officer to do is remain acting professional and not take on the attitude of the person they stopped.

Also Andeyhall you seem to be missing the point BluesStringer was trying to get you to understand. Which was you jumped behind supporting the officer who shot an unarmed man who was running toward him for help. The 5 questions you came up with for supporting the officer were all invalid questions that would not have had anything to do with the actions the officer took that night. Then BluesStringer pointed out that the police officer's chief did not stand behind his officer's actions and said that the officer had not justifiable reason to shoot the victim and you still would not stop backing the murdering officer saying now with these facts I am leaning towards the "victim". When you place "" around the word victim it come of as you still do not see anything wrong with the police offers actions that night. Or I should say that is the way I take it after reading your post. So we might be interpreting your post the wrong way. If that is the case please correct us and let us know what your point was.

What we are taught is that if we behave that way, our asses will be in the unemployment line. However the point I was trying to make is that if the agency is willing to tolerate it, then there's no law against a police officer being a ****. Yes, it is extremely frowned upon, and no, I would never behave that way. Actually I simply do not have that abrasive of an attitude even if I wanted to be like that. I do not treat people how they treat me. I treat people with respect even when they don't treat me with respect, because I know better than to further escalate an already tense situation. That's a good way to get yourself killed, or at least a good ass kicking. Our captain explained to us the best way to look at it (this was during the use of force section): there are gonna be times when someone you're arresting or questioning is going to make you see red. But our job as law enforcement is to put the bad guys in jail. What's the job of the bad guys? To stay out of jail. So if he spits in your face or hits or kicks you, he's just doing his job, and it's nothing personal. That, to me, has been the best advice I've heard so far.

As for the information pertaining to this thread. As never read the specific article in the OP. I had already read 3 different articles and just happened to come across the thread so I figured I'd weigh in. I referred to Ferrell as the "victim" because none of the initial articles I had read said anything about his captain saying it was unjustified. So based on the facts that were presented, I quoted victim because without it, it means that the other party is by default the guilty one. The quotes were simply implying that I did not really believe or disbelieve that the person being referred to as the victim really was the victim. That is all. I was trying not to let the media or interest groups influence the way in which I labeled certain individuals.

 

[BluesStringer]

I started reading your post and had an epiphany about 3 sentences in...your posts are WAY goo damn long. I never really had it, but I have just run out of the time and patience to argue with your long winded posts. And by your condescending name referring to my age (Junior) perhaps I should get my face out of this forum (or at least this thread and any of your posts) and quit listening to the rants of some narrow minded, hypocritical geezer so that I actually have time to get out in the world and get some experience. And on that same token, by the length of your posts and by the volume of likes you said you give out, that indicates to me that you obviously spend so much time here reading these threads and writing counter posts that you have zero time to get out in the world to know anything about it, and that you see the world only through the eyes of this forum. You can respond if you want, but just letting you know that even if I had the time to read such a long winded, exhausting rant about absolutely nothing, I would give you the pleasure of reading it anyways.

I'm sure I'll regret this, but....

"Geezer" is not an insult to me, but nice try anyway. I have some very good friends both in, and associated with, a world-renowned 60's/70's rock band who are still touring to this day, and I consistently refer to them as a "geezer-rock" band. They laugh and tell me I ain't no spring chicken myself, and I most certainly ain't. It's been a joke between us probably since you were still riding a bike with training wheels, Junior.

While I wish I could give you credit for getting something right, I think it's more that you just stumbled on a related truth - I do indeed have too much time on my hands. Advanced liver disease has made that circumstance unavoidable for me, and no, it's not because I'm a drunk. Haven't had so much as a single beer in over 15 years, probably much longer than that, but who's countin'? Never did drink much anyway. Doesn't matter how I got it, I just got it, and I don't think I've mentioned it on this forum more than once or twice (if that), so save the "you're just trying to get sympathy to excuse being an a-hole" meme. Not making excuses for anything, just confirming that you (finally) got something right - I spend entirely too much time here.

The time I spend here though, is to keep me intellectually-stimulated, which is often the result, but then I got caught in this toilet-bowl vortex with you and honestly, I feel dumber for it. Oops. I'm usually not so easily sucked into extended conversations with intellectual lightweights who think that "getting in my face" with a stanky attitude whenever they "wanna ask me questions" is an authority granted to someone who swears an oath to protect and defend the Constitution that guarantees my rights to be protected from such abuses under color of lawful authority. As a cop, you have no rights or authorities to "get in my face" (invade my personal space) unless and until you have an articulable suspicion that I have committed, or am about to commit, a crime. What wolf_fire said is absolutely nothing like what you said, and speaking of that, if you want to know why I "Liked" his post, look directly underneath his post and see where I actually expounded on an unrelated part of it to what you claimed was a "Like" for no other reason than him saying something to the effect of, "A cop can ask you questions."

But unless you can find me some particular law that states that the police have to ask you questions with a specific attitude, then you are wrong that I am wrong, and also hypocrite.

Alright Junior. Are you ready? Here's that "particular" law:

The 5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

"I don't answer questions outside the presence of my attorney, Officer Thug-Life, and especially not when your halitosis is freakin' melting my glasses because you're in my face!"

That's the "particular law" that says that "Cops [don't] have every right [or authority] to get an attitude with you and get in your face when they wanna ask you questions," Junior.

I wouldn't blame you at all for not wanting to reply to this post - the previous "contributions" of yours confirm its accuracy, and you can really only do more damage to your already well-established vapidity by continuing.

Next.

Blues

 

[AndeyHall]

I'm sure I'll regret this, but....

"Geezer" is not an insult to me, but nice try anyway. I have some very good friends both in, and associated with, a world-renowned 60's/70's rock band who are still touring to this day, and I consistently refer to them as a "geezer-rock" band. They laugh and tell me I ain't no spring chicken myself, and I most certainly ain't. It's been a joke between us probably since you were still riding a bike with training wheels, Junior.

While I wish I could give you credit for getting something right, I think it's more that you just stumbled on a related truth - I do indeed have too much time on my hands. Advanced liver disease has made that circumstance unavoidable for me, and no, it's not because I'm a drunk. Haven't had so much as a single beer in over 15 years, probably much longer than that, but who's countin'? Never did drink much anyway. Doesn't matter how I got it, I just got it, and I don't think I've mentioned it on this forum more than once or twice (if that), so save the "you're just trying to get sympathy to excuse being an a-hole" meme. Not making excuses for anything, just confirming that you (finally) got something right - I spend entirely too much time here.

The time I spend here though, is to keep me intellectually-stimulated, which is often the result, but then I got caught in this toilet-bowl vortex with you and honestly, I feel dumber for it. Oops. I'm usually not so easily sucked into extended conversations with intellectual lightweights who think that "getting in my face" with a stanky attitude whenever they "wanna ask me questions" is an authority granted to someone who swears an oath to protect and defend the Constitution that guarantees my rights to be protected from such abuses under color of lawful authority. As a cop, you have no rights or authorities to "get in my face" (invade my personal space) unless and until you have an articulable suspicion that I have committed, or am about to commit, a crime. What wolf_fire said is absolutely nothing like what you said, and speaking of that, if you want to know why I "Liked" his post, look directly underneath his post and see where I actually expounded on an unrelated part of it to what you claimed was a "Like" for no other reason than him saying something to the effect of, "A cop can ask you questions."



Alright Junior. Are you ready? Here's that "particular" law:



"I don't answer questions outside the presence of my attorney, Officer Thug-Life, and especially not when your halitosis is freakin' melting my glasses because you're in my face!"

That's the "particular law" that says that "Cops [don't] have every right [or authority] to get an attitude with you and get in your face when they wanna ask you questions," Junior.

I wouldn't blame you at all for not wanting to reply to this post - the previous "contributions" of yours confirm its accuracy, and you can really only do more damage to your already well-established vapidity by continuing.

Next.

Blues

Wow, finally a post short enough for me to read and have the time to respond to. If you're quoting the 5th amendment, and somebody has to be wrong, then it has to be wolf_fire cause it sure as heck ain't me. He was the one who said that the police have the right to ask you questions (which is a post you liked). That is the only thing the 5th amendment would pertain to in this context. And according to the SCOTUS, as long as you are read your Miranda rights, it's open season as far as questions go. And technically it's open season before that, they are just inadmissible in court. I simply said they can get in your face with an attitude when they ask you those questions. Our 5th amendment doesn't mention anything about what attitude those questions must be asked with. So please, work on finding a law that actually debunks what I said.

Next

 

[Kasper]

As for the information pertaining to this thread. As never read the specific article in the OP. I had already read 3 different articles and just happened to come across the thread so I figured I'd weigh in. I referred to Ferrell as the "victim" because none of the initial articles I had read said anything about his captain saying it was unjustified. So based on the facts that were presented, I quoted victim because without it, it means that the other party is by default the guilty one. The quotes were simply implying that I did not really believe or disbelieve that the person being referred to as the victim really was the victim. That is all. I was trying not to let the media or interest groups influence the way in which I labeled certain individuals.

Ok AndeyHall I see where the problem is coming from we all are going by the links posted in this thread by the op and you were going from the 3 different articles you had read and weighed in by posting your opinion. That is why we all are wondering what the hell is AndeyHell thinking. Now that I know you are going from 3 different articles then the ones linked to by the OP I can see why you might be backing this officer. Please save yourself the hassle and read the full post before weighing in on it. Also please post links to what articles you have read so that we can read them to and inform an opinion from them.

Also I like what you had to say about how you treat people I wish I could be more like you when it comes down to it but I am not I treat people the way they treat me.

 

[AndeyHall]

Ok AndeyHall I see where the problem is coming from we all are going by the links posted in this thread by the op and you were going from the 3 different articles you had read and weighed in by posting your opinion. That is why we all are wondering what the hell is AndeyHell thinking. Now that I know you are going from 3 different articles then the ones linked to by the OP I can see why you might be backing this officer. Please save yourself the hassle and read the full post before weighing in on it. Also please post links to what articles you have read so that we can read them to and inform an opinion from them.

Also I like what you had to say about how you treat people I wish I could be more like you when it comes down to it but I am not I treat people the way they treat me.

Next time I definitely will do. One story was our local newspaper (which I would have no clue where to find online), the second was the article our teacher pulled up in class and I have no idea where he got it, and the last one has been updated to the most recent information. Apparently most sites just update the already existing story rather than writing a whole new updated story. I first found that out with The State, South Carolina's most liberal and anti-gun newspaper in circulation.