Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Should cops be able to shoot random (Innocent) people? [Not Confirming who they shoot at]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-torrance-shooting-20130209,0,4414028.story

Dorner had a Grey Toyota Tundra. One of the vehicles they shot up was a Blue Toyota Tacoma.

And they didn't accidentally shot one bullet into this innocent civilians truck. I counted 46 (I might be off by one or two).



The second victim of Police shooting also the wrong color and model. And inside a skinny white guy.




And this isn't even the end. The Supsect is a tall (Near 6 feet), black, and 270 lbs.

They have shot at a truck with two Asian mexican ladies. And a truck with a white guy in it.

So unless two asian mexican ladies look like a black guy or a blue truck looks like a gray truck (Differen't model as well) something is clearly wrong here.

Someone made a joke that if you are a tall black man you need to stay inside for a few days. But since we have two asian mexican ladies and a white guy being shot at. It is pretty clear that if cops are around you are in danger (If you are in southern california at the moment).

Quote:

Two people were struck by gunfire and transported to an area hospital with unknown injuries, Chase said. No officers were injured.

The second incident, which involved Torrance police, occurred at Flagler Lane and Beryl Street about 5:45 a.m. No injuries were reported in that incident.

I agree this guy needs to be stopped. But is shooting 40+ bullets at every shadow that might be him really the best way to "catch" him?

An easy, "Please Come out with your hands up" Would have worked. Those people would have walked out of their vehicles and not been shot. Calling backup and following the vehicles would have worked as well.

Running the license plate numbers would show who they are as well.

This upsets me to no ends.


Normally there is a, "But if you look at it from this point it makes sense" Direction from the action Police perform.

But how do you shoot at the wrong truck 40+ times (That is the wrong color and model number) and they look nothing like the suspect. Or shoot at two asian mexican ladies, or a white guy when you are looking for a 6 foot, 270 lb, black guy?


Join us on the 99% Moms group!
The Ninety-Nine Percent Moms   

If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

by on Feb. 7, 2013 at 11:22 PM
Replies (351-360):
brookiecookie87
by Platinum Member on Feb. 11, 2013 at 12:22 PM


So to you. Deflection is directly answering your question?

You ask, "Why did they shoot?". Everyone agrees. They fired because it was a case of mistaken identity (This means they thought the people were Christopher Dorner).

That is an answer. Not a defelection but what actually happened, according to the Police and two groups of victims.

Another lie from you. I NEVER claimed they were the same make and model or color. But the Police statements that have been released all claimed they thought the vehicles were a "match". Notice how I normally put the word match in quotes? It's because despite that they say there were a match the vehicles were not matches.

And as the Police statement said. Their tensions are high.

Clearly you are not reading anything about the situation. They haven't said it was a mistaken identity?


Quote:

In an interview with The Times on Friday, LAPD Chief Charlie Beck outlined the most detailed account yet of how the shooting unfolded. Margie Carranza, 47, and her mother, Emma Hernandez, 71, were the victims of "a tragic misinterpretation" by officers working under "incredible tension," he said. Just hours before, Dorner allegedly shot three police officers, one fatally. And, in an online posting authorities attributed to him, Dorner threatened to kill more police and seemed to take responsibility for the slaying over the weekend of the daughter of a retired LAPD captain and her fiance.


Quoting AMBG825:

 More deflection from you.

 

Why did they mistake this particular vehicle as one being driven by your homicidal hero? What caused them to think that this vehicle ...who on one hand you say is the same make and model and similar and then in the next post you say is completely different ..... was being driven by your hero the cop killing maniac? What are the police saying happened that led them to believe that these women were the man they were looking for?

 

They haven't said anything along those lines other than "it was mistaken identity." At least not that you or anyone else has posted.

Quoting brookiecookie87:


There goes more lies. I never said there wasn't an answer.

I have given you several answers. Just because they refute what you say and you ignore them after doesn't mean they don't exist.

The Police said it was a case of mistaken identity.

Do you know what that means?

That means, "We thought they were some one else so we shot at them. It wasn't the person we thought it was. It was a case of mistaken identity".

Just because you refuse to believe the Police and refuse to believe what everyone else is reporting-Doesn't make it false. You are the only person clinging to this false delusion.

The Police agree with what happened. The two groups of people agree with what happened. The only person who doesn't agree with what happened is you. You are all alone in this.


Quoting AMBG825:

 Just because you don't know the answer doesn't mean there isn't one.

 

The police have said nothing as to why it happened other than it was a case of mistaken identity. We knew that already. That's how I know you are just plain avoiding having to say the words "I don't know" is because you don't know. No one has come forward with that information.

 

So the absence of that information is not the same thing as it never happened. It happened. We know it did. But just because you don't know doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Quoting brookiecookie87:


Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean it doesn't exsit. I have told you several times.

The police agree with the reason, the reporters agree with the reason, everyone agrees with the reason-Except you.

They shot at these (There is TWO of them not one) vehicles because they thought it matches Dorner's truck description.

Again, repeat. They shot at these vehicles because they thought it matches Dorner's truck description.

Notice how I directly answered your question? I have done this every time you have asked the question. Noticed how you dodged my question and offered no examples? See how you dodged questions and how I answered it?

Notice how you are the only person suggesting cars drive themselves? No one has said that. Notice whenever someone ask you to prove that statement you dodge giving any proof? (Because none exist)

Quoting AMBG825:

 Then just answer the question that I'm asking. Why did they shoot at this vehicle?

 

There is a reason for it. If you won't answer the question then everyone is left up to determine what you THINK that reason is.

 

There is no question dodging except by you. IF you want people to make a judgement call about an event, then we need to know EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED with that event. Only putting out an exaggerated version of half of the story is not enough for intelligent people to make a judgement call. All this bullshit about cars driving themselves is just an attempt to avoid answering a very simple question.

Quoting brookiecookie87:

You have said people are saying that Police are shooting random vehicles. No one has said that. You have been asked several times to prove it. You haven't shown one example.

You have said people are saying the Police are shooting people for fun. No one has said that. You have been asked several times to prove someone has said something like that. You haven't shown one example.

You are dodging questions.

The only questions I have dodged from you are the silly ones. Like you asking if there are flying cars, or cars that drive themselves (Though if you look at google they do have cars that do that but that is a moot point).

And again. You are the ONLY person who disagrees with the chain of events.

The police agree. It was a tragic case of Mistaken Identity. They have offered to replace the truck that belonged to the two women. And I imagine they will be offering them a size-able settlement (Since that is what their lawyer asked for).

They have offered to pay the white guy to get a rental car and his medical expenses and he has lawyered up as well (And I imagine he will get a sizeable settlement as well).

Both people state that there was no warning, no commands, and no orders.Jut gun fire.

If they did something to provoke gun fire do you think it would be called a, "Tragic case of mistaken identity"? Do you think the Police would be doing their hardest to accommodate them? If they shot at them because they did something don't you think they would add that in their press release?

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-torrance-shooting-20130209,0,4414028.story

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/09/local/la-me-torrance-shooting-20130210



 



Join us on the 99% Moms group!
The Ninety-Nine Percent Moms   

If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

brookiecookie87
by Platinum Member on Feb. 11, 2013 at 12:26 PM


The word random is exaggerated. Hyperbole is an obvious and intentional exaggeration.  But to not confuse/mislead people I added the word Innocent next to it.

So people would understand the word random is hyperbole and I am talking about Innocent. And incase people were still confused I added, "Not Confirming who they shoot at" afterwards.

You are the only person who cannot grapsed that concept.

Quoting AMBG825:

So then why did you admit you exaggerated it?

Quoting brookiecookie87:

There go more lies from you.

I have never admitted the whole title was an attempt to garner attention. Can you prove this?

I pointed out the word (Do you know what a word is?) Random (<---That is a word) is an exaggeration (Hyperbole). I also pointed out that the word Innocent is there to clarify I mean Innocent in case someone like you exist that might miss the word random is hyperbole. And to further clarify in brackets is the phrase, "Not Confirming who they shoot at".

There is only one other person who didn't understand that and when I pointed out the rest of the title they understood. You are the only person who doesn't understand what the word next to random (Innocent) means and does not understand what the phrase Not Confirming who they shoot at] is doing. You are the only one lacking these comprehension skills.

We don't have one side of the story. We have the story of the Officers. And the story of the two groups that were shot at. The two ladies have said there were no warnings, no commands, and no orders-Just gun fire. The guy states that he was pulled over and asked where he was going. After the officer sends him off he is shot at (and rammed).

All three stories paint the same exact picture.

There is no "Half" of the situation.

Quoting AMBG825:

 Look at your title. It specifically says "should cops be able to shoot random innocent people." We already know it wasn't a random incident. You've already admitted the whole title was an attempt to garner attention and not really fact.

 

Put these random letters together to answer the question.

 

I. Don't. Know.

 

You don't know the answer to the question I asked because we only have half the information. We only have one side of the story. Without that other side, the only response that can be made is a knee jerk reaction that isn't based on all the facts. If all you want is a knee jerk reaction that may or may not be appropriate then say that. But if you want a reaction that will actually do something then there are other questions that need to be answered before a reaction can be made.

Quoting brookiecookie87:


There you go lying again. No one has "made up" anything.

Look at the tittle. Should cops be able to shoot random (Innocent) people? [Not Confirming who they shoot at]

What do you think the word Innocent is there for? Do you think the word is random, has no meaning, and put itself there by accident? Or can you understand it is there to point out that Random is hyperbole and that I am suggesting the people are innocent.

Why do you think, "Not Confirming who they shoot at" is there? Do you think I typed random letters and they just accidentally formed those words? Or can you understand that it is to further clarify the point that the Police didn't confirm WHO they shot at.

People. Who. People. Not vehicles. They thought the vehicles matched. But they didn't verify who was driving. So the vehicle was not random. The people. They don't know who is driving. So the people are random.

It's not a difficult concept. Well not for most people.

Quoting AMBG825:

 There is no "regardless of why and how"

 

those are 2 very important questions that need to be answered if you want people to take action. And since Frito has already admitted she made up parts of the story for attention grabbing effect then the real story is important if action is to be taken.

 

Anyone who says "regardless of how and why we need to take action" is not someone that people should be taking advice from.

Quoting __Heather__:

Quoting AMBG825:



I believe you ARE being deliberately obtuse. I'm glad we finally agreed on the journalistic basics of who, what, when, and where...
The How and Why now need to be answered. That's what you seem like an idiot on quite frankly.
The how and why involve cops that, regardless of why and how, acted OBVIOUSLY criminal. What their intent was, I and others may never know although it should and will be investigated. The why and how are less important than the insane, outrageous, over-reaching, criminal actions of these officers and this department. The FACT that these actions appear to be a trend also further answers the how and why for any open-eyed, free-thinking individual. But why we are even still debating over this is stupid. Every police officer I know that have seen these news reports are horrified. They say these cops don't have a leg to stand on legally and criminal charges SHOULD be filed and the officers relieved of duty immediately. If you still have questions, I can't help you. You need to take charge of educating and informing yourself.

 



 



 



Join us on the 99% Moms group!
The Ninety-Nine Percent Moms   

If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

AMBG825
by on Feb. 11, 2013 at 12:32 PM

 No it is not. That is not an answer to the question asked.

 

How the fuck did the cops mistake this car, with 2 women in as being your hero? What happened to cause them to think that? It was a case of mistaken identity is the question?

 

I get why the car got their attention and it wasn't because Optimus Prime was parading around in a George Jetson costume. I get that part. I do get that they weren't standing in front of the vehicle shooting over the top of it while the bullets pulled some Kennedy magic bullet act and do a uturn in midflight. So I get that they were standing behind Optimus Prime in his George Jetson costume in the dark, trying to see through the tinted windows and not getting a good look at the driver. I get that part. I even get why they had their guns drawn as they got near the car.

 

What I'm not getting, and you're not answering despite pretending to be this all-knowing person when it comes to virtually everythign you know nothing about, is what caused them to panic? What event sent them into a panic mode. It wasn't Optimus Prime in his George Jetson costume sitting there looking pretty. Something happened that made them panic. What?

Quoting brookiecookie87:

 

So to you. Deflection is directly answering your question?

You ask, "Why did they shoot?". Everyone agrees. They fired because it was a case of mistaken identity (This means they thought the people were Christopher Dorner).

That is an answer. Not a defelection but what actually happened, according to the Police and two groups of victims.

Another lie from you. I NEVER claimed they were the same make and model or color. But the Police statements that have been released all claimed they thought the vehicles were a "match". Notice how I normally put the word match in quotes? It's because despite that they say there were a match the vehicles were not matches.

And as the Police statement said. Their tensions are high.

Clearly you are not reading anything about the situation. They haven't said it was a mistaken identity?


Quote:

In an interview with The Times on Friday, LAPD Chief Charlie Beck outlined the most detailed account yet of how the shooting unfolded. Margie Carranza, 47, and her mother, Emma Hernandez, 71, were the victims of "a tragic misinterpretation" by officers working under "incredible tension," he said. Just hours before, Dorner allegedly shot three police officers, one fatally. And, in an online posting authorities attributed to him, Dorner threatened to kill more police and seemed to take responsibility for the slaying over the weekend of the daughter of a retired LAPD captain and her fiance.


Quoting AMBG825:

 More deflection from you.

 

Why did they mistake this particular vehicle as one being driven by your homicidal hero? What caused them to think that this vehicle ...who on one hand you say is the same make and model and similar and then in the next post you say is completely different ..... was being driven by your hero the cop killing maniac? What are the police saying happened that led them to believe that these women were the man they were looking for?

 

They haven't said anything along those lines other than "it was mistaken identity." At least not that you or anyone else has posted.

Quoting brookiecookie87:

 

There goes more lies. I never said there wasn't an answer.

I have given you several answers. Just because they refute what you say and you ignore them after doesn't mean they don't exist.

The Police said it was a case of mistaken identity.

Do you know what that means?

That means, "We thought they were some one else so we shot at them. It wasn't the person we thought it was. It was a case of mistaken identity".

Just because you refuse to believe the Police and refuse to believe what everyone else is reporting-Doesn't make it false. You are the only person clinging to this false delusion.

The Police agree with what happened. The two groups of people agree with what happened. The only person who doesn't agree with what happened is you. You are all alone in this.


Quoting AMBG825:

 Just because you don't know the answer doesn't mean there isn't one.

 

The police have said nothing as to why it happened other than it was a case of mistaken identity. We knew that already. That's how I know you are just plain avoiding having to say the words "I don't know" is because you don't know. No one has come forward with that information.

 

So the absence of that information is not the same thing as it never happened. It happened. We know it did. But just because you don't know doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Quoting brookiecookie87:

 

Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean it doesn't exsit. I have told you several times.

The police agree with the reason, the reporters agree with the reason, everyone agrees with the reason-Except you.

They shot at these (There is TWO of them not one) vehicles because they thought it matches Dorner's truck description.

Again, repeat. They shot at these vehicles because they thought it matches Dorner's truck description.

Notice how I directly answered your question? I have done this every time you have asked the question. Noticed how you dodged my question and offered no examples? See how you dodged questions and how I answered it?

Notice how you are the only person suggesting cars drive themselves? No one has said that. Notice whenever someone ask you to prove that statement you dodge giving any proof? (Because none exist)

Quoting AMBG825:

 Then just answer the question that I'm asking. Why did they shoot at this vehicle?

 

There is a reason for it. If you won't answer the question then everyone is left up to determine what you THINK that reason is.

 

There is no question dodging except by you. IF you want people to make a judgement call about an event, then we need to know EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED with that event. Only putting out an exaggerated version of half of the story is not enough for intelligent people to make a judgement call. All this bullshit about cars driving themselves is just an attempt to avoid answering a very simple question.

Quoting brookiecookie87:

You have said people are saying that Police are shooting random vehicles. No one has said that. You have been asked several times to prove it. You haven't shown one example.

You have said people are saying the Police are shooting people for fun. No one has said that. You have been asked several times to prove someone has said something like that. You haven't shown one example.

You are dodging questions.

The only questions I have dodged from you are the silly ones. Like you asking if there are flying cars, or cars that drive themselves (Though if you look at google they do have cars that do that but that is a moot point).

And again. You are the ONLY person who disagrees with the chain of events.

The police agree. It was a tragic case of Mistaken Identity. They have offered to replace the truck that belonged to the two women. And I imagine they will be offering them a size-able settlement (Since that is what their lawyer asked for).

They have offered to pay the white guy to get a rental car and his medical expenses and he has lawyered up as well (And I imagine he will get a sizeable settlement as well).

Both people state that there was no warning, no commands, and no orders.Jut gun fire.

If they did something to provoke gun fire do you think it would be called a, "Tragic case of mistaken identity"? Do you think the Police would be doing their hardest to accommodate them? If they shot at them because they did something don't you think they would add that in their press release?

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-torrance-shooting-20130209,0,4414028.story

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/09/local/la-me-torrance-shooting-20130210

 

 

 

 

 

 






 

AMBG825
by on Feb. 11, 2013 at 12:34 PM

 And if you go back through the 5 pages of you trying to convince me that the car was on autopilot, then through the 10 pages of you trying to define the word random, you'll find I was the one who pointed out your exaggeration of this being a random encounter.

 

It's pretty safe to say it wasn't a random act despite you trying to defend your initial use of the word.

Quoting brookiecookie87:

 

The word random is exaggerated. Hyperbole is an obvious and intentional exaggeration.  But to not confuse/mislead people I added the word Innocent next to it.

So people would understand the word random is hyperbole and I am talking about Innocent. And incase people were still confused I added, "Not Confirming who they shoot at" afterwards.

You are the only person who cannot grapsed that concept.

Quoting AMBG825:

So then why did you admit you exaggerated it?

Quoting brookiecookie87:

There go more lies from you.

I have never admitted the whole title was an attempt to garner attention. Can you prove this?

I pointed out the word (Do you know what a word is?) Random (<---That is a word) is an exaggeration (Hyperbole). I also pointed out that the word Innocent is there to clarify I mean Innocent in case someone like you exist that might miss the word random is hyperbole. And to further clarify in brackets is the phrase, "Not Confirming who they shoot at".

There is only one other person who didn't understand that and when I pointed out the rest of the title they understood. You are the only person who doesn't understand what the word next to random (Innocent) means and does not understand what the phrase Not Confirming who they shoot at] is doing. You are the only one lacking these comprehension skills.

We don't have one side of the story. We have the story of the Officers. And the story of the two groups that were shot at. The two ladies have said there were no warnings, no commands, and no orders-Just gun fire. The guy states that he was pulled over and asked where he was going. After the officer sends him off he is shot at (and rammed).

All three stories paint the same exact picture.

There is no "Half" of the situation.

Quoting AMBG825:

 Look at your title. It specifically says "should cops be able to shoot random innocent people." We already know it wasn't a random incident. You've already admitted the whole title was an attempt to garner attention and not really fact.

 

Put these random letters together to answer the question.

 

I. Don't. Know.

 

You don't know the answer to the question I asked because we only have half the information. We only have one side of the story. Without that other side, the only response that can be made is a knee jerk reaction that isn't based on all the facts. If all you want is a knee jerk reaction that may or may not be appropriate then say that. But if you want a reaction that will actually do something then there are other questions that need to be answered before a reaction can be made.

Quoting brookiecookie87:

 

There you go lying again. No one has "made up" anything.

Look at the tittle. Should cops be able to shoot random (Innocent) people? [Not Confirming who they shoot at]

What do you think the word Innocent is there for? Do you think the word is random, has no meaning, and put itself there by accident? Or can you understand it is there to point out that Random is hyperbole and that I am suggesting the people are innocent.

Why do you think, "Not Confirming who they shoot at" is there? Do you think I typed random letters and they just accidentally formed those words? Or can you understand that it is to further clarify the point that the Police didn't confirm WHO they shot at.

People. Who. People. Not vehicles. They thought the vehicles matched. But they didn't verify who was driving. So the vehicle was not random. The people. They don't know who is driving. So the people are random.

It's not a difficult concept. Well not for most people.

Quoting AMBG825:

 There is no "regardless of why and how"

 

those are 2 very important questions that need to be answered if you want people to take action. And since Frito has already admitted she made up parts of the story for attention grabbing effect then the real story is important if action is to be taken.

 

Anyone who says "regardless of how and why we need to take action" is not someone that people should be taking advice from.

Quoting __Heather__:

Quoting AMBG825:



I believe you ARE being deliberately obtuse. I'm glad we finally agreed on the journalistic basics of who, what, when, and where...
The How and Why now need to be answered. That's what you seem like an idiot on quite frankly.
The how and why involve cops that, regardless of why and how, acted OBVIOUSLY criminal. What their intent was, I and others may never know although it should and will be investigated. The why and how are less important than the insane, outrageous, over-reaching, criminal actions of these officers and this department. The FACT that these actions appear to be a trend also further answers the how and why for any open-eyed, free-thinking individual. But why we are even still debating over this is stupid. Every police officer I know that have seen these news reports are horrified. They say these cops don't have a leg to stand on legally and criminal charges SHOULD be filed and the officers relieved of duty immediately. If you still have questions, I can't help you. You need to take charge of educating and informing yourself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 






 

brookiecookie87
by Platinum Member on Feb. 11, 2013 at 12:37 PM

My hero is not involved in the case. Neither is Optimus Prime or George Jefferson. Have you gone off the deep end?


Had the Cops confirmed who was inside either vehicle they would have known it was not Optimus Prime, George Jefferson, or Christopher Dorner and wouldn't have unloaded 50+ bullets.

It was a case of mistaken identity is not a question. It is an answer to the question, "Why were these people shot".

Just because you cannot understand it doesn't make it not true. The police agree. The victims agree. Everyone agrees with this.

Everyone besides you. But considering you think cars are flying, driving themselves, that Optimus Prime and George Jefferson are involved. What you think might be a moot point. Clearly you are not thinking rationally.

Quoting AMBG825:

 No it is not. That is not an answer to the question asked.

 

How the fuck did the cops mistake this car, with 2 women in as being your hero? What happened to cause them to think that? It was a case of mistaken identity is the question?

 

I get why the car got their attention and it wasn't because Optimus Prime was parading around in a George Jetson costume. I get that part. I do get that they weren't standing in front of the vehicle shooting over the top of it while the bullets pulled some Kennedy magic bullet act and do a uturn in midflight. So I get that they were standing behind Optimus Prime in his George Jetson costume in the dark, trying to see through the tinted windows and not getting a good look at the driver. I get that part. I even get why they had their guns drawn as they got near the car.

 

What I'm not getting, and you're not answering despite pretending to be this all-knowing person when it comes to virtually everythign you know nothing about, is what caused them to panic? What event sent them into a panic mode. It wasn't Optimus Prime in his George Jetson costume sitting there looking pretty. Something happened that made them panic. What?

Quoting brookiecookie87:


So to you. Deflection is directly answering your question?

You ask, "Why did they shoot?". Everyone agrees. They fired because it was a case of mistaken identity (This means they thought the people were Christopher Dorner).

That is an answer. Not a defelection but what actually happened, according to the Police and two groups of victims.

Another lie from you. I NEVER claimed they were the same make and model or color. But the Police statements that have been released all claimed they thought the vehicles were a "match". Notice how I normally put the word match in quotes? It's because despite that they say there were a match the vehicles were not matches.

And as the Police statement said. Their tensions are high.

Clearly you are not reading anything about the situation. They haven't said it was a mistaken identity?


Quote:

In an interview with The Times on Friday, LAPD Chief Charlie Beck outlined the most detailed account yet of how the shooting unfolded. Margie Carranza, 47, and her mother, Emma Hernandez, 71, were the victims of "a tragic misinterpretation" by officers working under "incredible tension," he said. Just hours before, Dorner allegedly shot three police officers, one fatally. And, in an online posting authorities attributed to him, Dorner threatened to kill more police and seemed to take responsibility for the slaying over the weekend of the daughter of a retired LAPD captain and her fiance.


Quoting AMBG825:

 More deflection from you.

 

Why did they mistake this particular vehicle as one being driven by your homicidal hero? What caused them to think that this vehicle ...who on one hand you say is the same make and model and similar and then in the next post you say is completely different ..... was being driven by your hero the cop killing maniac? What are the police saying happened that led them to believe that these women were the man they were looking for?

 

They haven't said anything along those lines other than "it was mistaken identity." At least not that you or anyone else has posted.

Quoting brookiecookie87:


There goes more lies. I never said there wasn't an answer.

I have given you several answers. Just because they refute what you say and you ignore them after doesn't mean they don't exist.

The Police said it was a case of mistaken identity.

Do you know what that means?

That means, "We thought they were some one else so we shot at them. It wasn't the person we thought it was. It was a case of mistaken identity".

Just because you refuse to believe the Police and refuse to believe what everyone else is reporting-Doesn't make it false. You are the only person clinging to this false delusion.

The Police agree with what happened. The two groups of people agree with what happened. The only person who doesn't agree with what happened is you. You are all alone in this.


Quoting AMBG825:

 Just because you don't know the answer doesn't mean there isn't one.

 

The police have said nothing as to why it happened other than it was a case of mistaken identity. We knew that already. That's how I know you are just plain avoiding having to say the words "I don't know" is because you don't know. No one has come forward with that information.

 

So the absence of that information is not the same thing as it never happened. It happened. We know it did. But just because you don't know doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Quoting brookiecookie87:


Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean it doesn't exsit. I have told you several times.

The police agree with the reason, the reporters agree with the reason, everyone agrees with the reason-Except you.

They shot at these (There is TWO of them not one) vehicles because they thought it matches Dorner's truck description.

Again, repeat. They shot at these vehicles because they thought it matches Dorner's truck description.

Notice how I directly answered your question? I have done this every time you have asked the question. Noticed how you dodged my question and offered no examples? See how you dodged questions and how I answered it?

Notice how you are the only person suggesting cars drive themselves? No one has said that. Notice whenever someone ask you to prove that statement you dodge giving any proof? (Because none exist)

Quoting AMBG825:

 Then just answer the question that I'm asking. Why did they shoot at this vehicle?

 

There is a reason for it. If you won't answer the question then everyone is left up to determine what you THINK that reason is.

 

There is no question dodging except by you. IF you want people to make a judgement call about an event, then we need to know EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED with that event. Only putting out an exaggerated version of half of the story is not enough for intelligent people to make a judgement call. All this bullshit about cars driving themselves is just an attempt to avoid answering a very simple question.

Quoting brookiecookie87:

You have said people are saying that Police are shooting random vehicles. No one has said that. You have been asked several times to prove it. You haven't shown one example.

You have said people are saying the Police are shooting people for fun. No one has said that. You have been asked several times to prove someone has said something like that. You haven't shown one example.

You are dodging questions.

The only questions I have dodged from you are the silly ones. Like you asking if there are flying cars, or cars that drive themselves (Though if you look at google they do have cars that do that but that is a moot point).

And again. You are the ONLY person who disagrees with the chain of events.

The police agree. It was a tragic case of Mistaken Identity. They have offered to replace the truck that belonged to the two women. And I imagine they will be offering them a size-able settlement (Since that is what their lawyer asked for).

They have offered to pay the white guy to get a rental car and his medical expenses and he has lawyered up as well (And I imagine he will get a sizeable settlement as well).

Both people state that there was no warning, no commands, and no orders.Jut gun fire.

If they did something to provoke gun fire do you think it would be called a, "Tragic case of mistaken identity"? Do you think the Police would be doing their hardest to accommodate them? If they shot at them because they did something don't you think they would add that in their press release?

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-torrance-shooting-20130209,0,4414028.story

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/09/local/la-me-torrance-shooting-20130210



 



 



Join us on the 99% Moms group!
The Ninety-Nine Percent Moms   

If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

brookiecookie87
by Platinum Member on Feb. 11, 2013 at 12:41 PM


No one was trying to convince you that cars were on autopilot. You conjured up that lie on your own. Notice how every time someone tries to ask you to prove someone suggested that you don't?

My initial use of the word? You do realize my title hasn't changed once. Just because you don't understand what hyperbole is, and what the word Innocent in parentheses next to random means. Or what the phrase "Not Confirming who they shoot at" means when in brackets after a statement.

That doesnt' reflect on me. That reflects on you. In a forum full of moms you are the ONLY person who cannot understand it.

Quoting AMBG825:

 And if you go back through the 5 pages of you trying to convince me that the car was on autopilot, then through the 10 pages of you trying to define the word random, you'll find I was the one who pointed out your exaggeration of this being a random encounter.

 

It's pretty safe to say it wasn't a random act despite you trying to defend your initial use of the word.

Quoting brookiecookie87:


The word random is exaggerated. Hyperbole is an obvious and intentional exaggeration.  But to not confuse/mislead people I added the word Innocent next to it.

So people would understand the word random is hyperbole and I am talking about Innocent. And incase people were still confused I added, "Not Confirming who they shoot at" afterwards.

You are the only person who cannot grapsed that concept.

Quoting AMBG825:

So then why did you admit you exaggerated it?

Quoting brookiecookie87:

There go more lies from you.

I have never admitted the whole title was an attempt to garner attention. Can you prove this?

I pointed out the word (Do you know what a word is?) Random (<---That is a word) is an exaggeration (Hyperbole). I also pointed out that the word Innocent is there to clarify I mean Innocent in case someone like you exist that might miss the word random is hyperbole. And to further clarify in brackets is the phrase, "Not Confirming who they shoot at".

There is only one other person who didn't understand that and when I pointed out the rest of the title they understood. You are the only person who doesn't understand what the word next to random (Innocent) means and does not understand what the phrase Not Confirming who they shoot at] is doing. You are the only one lacking these comprehension skills.

We don't have one side of the story. We have the story of the Officers. And the story of the two groups that were shot at. The two ladies have said there were no warnings, no commands, and no orders-Just gun fire. The guy states that he was pulled over and asked where he was going. After the officer sends him off he is shot at (and rammed).

All three stories paint the same exact picture.

There is no "Half" of the situation.

Quoting AMBG825:

 Look at your title. It specifically says "should cops be able to shoot random innocent people." We already know it wasn't a random incident. You've already admitted the whole title was an attempt to garner attention and not really fact.

 

Put these random letters together to answer the question.

 

I. Don't. Know.

 

You don't know the answer to the question I asked because we only have half the information. We only have one side of the story. Without that other side, the only response that can be made is a knee jerk reaction that isn't based on all the facts. If all you want is a knee jerk reaction that may or may not be appropriate then say that. But if you want a reaction that will actually do something then there are other questions that need to be answered before a reaction can be made.

Quoting brookiecookie87:


There you go lying again. No one has "made up" anything.

Look at the tittle. Should cops be able to shoot random (Innocent) people? [Not Confirming who they shoot at]

What do you think the word Innocent is there for? Do you think the word is random, has no meaning, and put itself there by accident? Or can you understand it is there to point out that Random is hyperbole and that I am suggesting the people are innocent.

Why do you think, "Not Confirming who they shoot at" is there? Do you think I typed random letters and they just accidentally formed those words? Or can you understand that it is to further clarify the point that the Police didn't confirm WHO they shot at.

People. Who. People. Not vehicles. They thought the vehicles matched. But they didn't verify who was driving. So the vehicle was not random. The people. They don't know who is driving. So the people are random.

It's not a difficult concept. Well not for most people.

Quoting AMBG825:

 There is no "regardless of why and how"

 

those are 2 very important questions that need to be answered if you want people to take action. And since Frito has already admitted she made up parts of the story for attention grabbing effect then the real story is important if action is to be taken.

 

Anyone who says "regardless of how and why we need to take action" is not someone that people should be taking advice from.

Quoting __Heather__:

Quoting AMBG825:



I believe you ARE being deliberately obtuse. I'm glad we finally agreed on the journalistic basics of who, what, when, and where...
The How and Why now need to be answered. That's what you seem like an idiot on quite frankly.
The how and why involve cops that, regardless of why and how, acted OBVIOUSLY criminal. What their intent was, I and others may never know although it should and will be investigated. The why and how are less important than the insane, outrageous, over-reaching, criminal actions of these officers and this department. The FACT that these actions appear to be a trend also further answers the how and why for any open-eyed, free-thinking individual. But why we are even still debating over this is stupid. Every police officer I know that have seen these news reports are horrified. They say these cops don't have a leg to stand on legally and criminal charges SHOULD be filed and the officers relieved of duty immediately. If you still have questions, I can't help you. You need to take charge of educating and informing yourself.

 



 



 



 



Join us on the 99% Moms group!
The Ninety-Nine Percent Moms   

If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

__Heather__
by on Feb. 11, 2013 at 12:46 PM
Quoting AMBG825:



Duh, duh, duh, and duh. Don't question me when you are clearly a dunce. Let others read my posts and make their own determinations on the merits of what I have written.
The how and why need to be investigated and by people outside of the LAPD. Based on the unlawful, criminal activities of these cops and the recruitment process being a joke, the how and why will come.

What we are saying, that you REFUSE to hear is that, we have enough facts on the who, what, when, and where already that no facts of how or why would change the fact that they are criminally liable. There IS NO feasible reason to shoot citizens who pose no threat because you aren't doing your job properly by assessing the threat, identifying the target, etc. Do you see that they missed that here?????????????
What exact criminal liability will have more to do with what an investigation produces (more how and why details). Do you understand anything about the criminal justice system or the law?????
The fact that this is a repeat pattern for that department, demands action from the public in ensuring private people's safety and an accurate and thorough investigation be performed without influences from inside the broken system. Until then, these officers should be arrested and charged just as we would if we'd shot 40 bullets in the back of a truck with innocent people in it. There will be plenty of time for them to defend their actions and they will be judged by a jury of their peers, just like we are. Anything besides that, should be unacceptable to the public.
AMBG825
by on Feb. 11, 2013 at 12:57 PM

Well if it wasn't George Jetson or Optimus Prime why did you spend 5 pages trying to convince everyone that it was? "The car was driving itself" No it wasn't. You're the one that sat there saying "They didn't shoot at a car they shot at people." Unless the car was driving itself they shot at a car. That photo in your post is a car. Not a person. Maybe you don't know what a car is. But that big blue thing in your post with all the bullet holes in it ...that's a car  ....not a person. There was no need to spend 5 pages trying to convince us that photo is of a person and not a car. That's a car.

 

So how did the police mistake this car for one they were looking for?  Obviously it's an important question since it happened more than once. And until an answer is given or people like me with an actual brain in their head (who knows the difference between a car and a person) demands an answer for it ....it will happen again and again and again.

 

"We don't care why it happened. Why it happened is irrelevant" obviously isn't true. It is very obviously a relevant question since it has happened more than once. You can't fix a problem ...meaning you can't make a judgement call on what should happen next, if you don't know why it's happening in the first place.

Quoting brookiecookie87:

My hero is not involved in the case. Neither is Optimus Prime or George Jefferson. Have you gone off the deep end?


Had the Cops confirmed who was inside either vehicle they would have known it was not Optimus Prime, George Jefferson, or Christopher Dorner and wouldn't have unloaded 50+ bullets.

It was a case of mistaken identity is not a question. It is an answer to the question, "Why were these people shot".

Just because you cannot understand it doesn't make it not true. The police agree. The victims agree. Everyone agrees with this.

Everyone besides you. But considering you think cars are flying, driving themselves, that Optimus Prime and George Jefferson are involved. What you think might be a moot point. Clearly you are not thinking rationally.

Quoting AMBG825:

 No it is not. That is not an answer to the question asked.

 

How the fuck did the cops mistake this car, with 2 women in as being your hero? What happened to cause them to think that? It was a case of mistaken identity is the question?

 

I get why the car got their attention and it wasn't because Optimus Prime was parading around in a George Jetson costume. I get that part. I do get that they weren't standing in front of the vehicle shooting over the top of it while the bullets pulled some Kennedy magic bullet act and do a uturn in midflight. So I get that they were standing behind Optimus Prime in his George Jetson costume in the dark, trying to see through the tinted windows and not getting a good look at the driver. I get that part. I even get why they had their guns drawn as they got near the car.

 

What I'm not getting, and you're not answering despite pretending to be this all-knowing person when it comes to virtually everythign you know nothing about, is what caused them to panic? What event sent them into a panic mode. It wasn't Optimus Prime in his George Jetson costume sitting there looking pretty. Something happened that made them panic. What?

Quoting brookiecookie87:

 

So to you. Deflection is directly answering your question?

You ask, "Why did they shoot?". Everyone agrees. They fired because it was a case of mistaken identity (This means they thought the people were Christopher Dorner).

That is an answer. Not a defelection but what actually happened, according to the Police and two groups of victims.

Another lie from you. I NEVER claimed they were the same make and model or color. But the Police statements that have been released all claimed they thought the vehicles were a "match". Notice how I normally put the word match in quotes? It's because despite that they say there were a match the vehicles were not matches.

And as the Police statement said. Their tensions are high.

Clearly you are not reading anything about the situation. They haven't said it was a mistaken identity?


Quote:

In an interview with The Times on Friday, LAPD Chief Charlie Beck outlined the most detailed account yet of how the shooting unfolded. Margie Carranza, 47, and her mother, Emma Hernandez, 71, were the victims of "a tragic misinterpretation" by officers working under "incredible tension," he said. Just hours before, Dorner allegedly shot three police officers, one fatally. And, in an online posting authorities attributed to him, Dorner threatened to kill more police and seemed to take responsibility for the slaying over the weekend of the daughter of a retired LAPD captain and her fiance.


Quoting AMBG825:

 More deflection from you.

 

Why did they mistake this particular vehicle as one being driven by your homicidal hero? What caused them to think that this vehicle ...who on one hand you say is the same make and model and similar and then in the next post you say is completely different ..... was being driven by your hero the cop killing maniac? What are the police saying happened that led them to believe that these women were the man they were looking for?

 

They haven't said anything along those lines other than "it was mistaken identity." At least not that you or anyone else has posted.

Quoting brookiecookie87:

 

There goes more lies. I never said there wasn't an answer.

I have given you several answers. Just because they refute what you say and you ignore them after doesn't mean they don't exist.

The Police said it was a case of mistaken identity.

Do you know what that means?

That means, "We thought they were some one else so we shot at them. It wasn't the person we thought it was. It was a case of mistaken identity".

Just because you refuse to believe the Police and refuse to believe what everyone else is reporting-Doesn't make it false. You are the only person clinging to this false delusion.

The Police agree with what happened. The two groups of people agree with what happened. The only person who doesn't agree with what happened is you. You are all alone in this.


Quoting AMBG825:

 Just because you don't know the answer doesn't mean there isn't one.

 

The police have said nothing as to why it happened other than it was a case of mistaken identity. We knew that already. That's how I know you are just plain avoiding having to say the words "I don't know" is because you don't know. No one has come forward with that information.

 

So the absence of that information is not the same thing as it never happened. It happened. We know it did. But just because you don't know doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Quoting brookiecookie87:

 

Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean it doesn't exsit. I have told you several times.

The police agree with the reason, the reporters agree with the reason, everyone agrees with the reason-Except you.

They shot at these (There is TWO of them not one) vehicles because they thought it matches Dorner's truck description.

Again, repeat. They shot at these vehicles because they thought it matches Dorner's truck description.

Notice how I directly answered your question? I have done this every time you have asked the question. Noticed how you dodged my question and offered no examples? See how you dodged questions and how I answered it?

Notice how you are the only person suggesting cars drive themselves? No one has said that. Notice whenever someone ask you to prove that statement you dodge giving any proof? (Because none exist)

Quoting AMBG825:

 Then just answer the question that I'm asking. Why did they shoot at this vehicle?

 

There is a reason for it. If you won't answer the question then everyone is left up to determine what you THINK that reason is.

 

There is no question dodging except by you. IF you want people to make a judgement call about an event, then we need to know EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED with that event. Only putting out an exaggerated version of half of the story is not enough for intelligent people to make a judgement call. All this bullshit about cars driving themselves is just an attempt to avoid answering a very simple question.

Quoting brookiecookie87:

You have said people are saying that Police are shooting random vehicles. No one has said that. You have been asked several times to prove it. You haven't shown one example.

You have said people are saying the Police are shooting people for fun. No one has said that. You have been asked several times to prove someone has said something like that. You haven't shown one example.

You are dodging questions.

The only questions I have dodged from you are the silly ones. Like you asking if there are flying cars, or cars that drive themselves (Though if you look at google they do have cars that do that but that is a moot point).

And again. You are the ONLY person who disagrees with the chain of events.

The police agree. It was a tragic case of Mistaken Identity. They have offered to replace the truck that belonged to the two women. And I imagine they will be offering them a size-able settlement (Since that is what their lawyer asked for).

They have offered to pay the white guy to get a rental car and his medical expenses and he has lawyered up as well (And I imagine he will get a sizeable settlement as well).

Both people state that there was no warning, no commands, and no orders.Jut gun fire.

If they did something to provoke gun fire do you think it would be called a, "Tragic case of mistaken identity"? Do you think the Police would be doing their hardest to accommodate them? If they shot at them because they did something don't you think they would add that in their press release?

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-torrance-shooting-20130209,0,4414028.story

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/09/local/la-me-torrance-shooting-20130210

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 






 

AMBG825
by on Feb. 11, 2013 at 1:01 PM

 REALLY?????

 

It needs to be investigated? SMDH ...why the hell didn't I think to ask the question of "why is this happening?" Holy shit. How stupid of me not to ask the question of why? I mean all those questions of why I've been posting since page 2 ...WTF was I thinking? Holy shit. You mean to tell me that we need to figure out an answer ...you thought that up all on your own.  Wow ...you are so S.M.R.T Why the hell didn't I think of that when I posted that same damn question 50 pages ago.

 

Your a goddamn jenus

Quoting __Heather__:

Quoting AMBG825:



Duh, duh, duh, and duh. Don't question me when you are clearly a dunce. Let others read my posts and make their own determinations on the merits of what I have written.
The how and why need to be investigated and by people outside of the LAPD. Based on the unlawful, criminal activities of these cops and the recruitment process being a joke, the how and why will come.

What we are saying, that you REFUSE to hear is that, we have enough facts on the who, what, when, and where already that no facts of how or why would change the fact that they are criminally liable. There IS NO feasible reason to shoot citizens who pose no threat because you aren't doing your job properly by assessing the threat, identifying the target, etc. Do you see that they missed that here?????????????
What exact criminal liability will have more to do with what an investigation produces (more how and why details). Do you understand anything about the criminal justice system or the law?????
The fact that this is a repeat pattern for that department, demands action from the public in ensuring private people's safety and an accurate and thorough investigation be performed without influences from inside the broken system. Until then, these officers should be arrested and charged just as we would if we'd shot 40 bullets in the back of a truck with innocent people in it. There will be plenty of time for them to defend their actions and they will be judged by a jury of their peers, just like we are. Anything besides that, should be unacceptable to the public.

 






 

__Heather__
by on Feb. 11, 2013 at 1:03 PM
Further, have you read what the victims and witnesses have said. No warning, no orders, just firing. This is not legal. Cops are NOT judge, jury, and executioners in this country. You remember the Constitution right? Did you want cops and Feds to be able to execute us if they think they have enough reason without you receiving due process? If you say something the government doesn't like (by the way protected by the 1st amendment) maybe you are labeled an anarchist, anti federalist, or terrorist. Do you see how setting a precedent like this is a dangerous thing for our people????
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN