Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/25/09 09:45 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Remeber there was no way from the evidence available, could it be shown, who fired first.

The civilian ballistic examiner said that the first shot that hit the RCMP vehicle was fired while the vehicle was still moving. If he didn't fire first, why was the police vehicle shot before it stopped moving? I think that is evidence that he shot first, not the police. I think thats also what the expert testified, that he shot first, not the RCMP.

Did they say how they were able to determine who fired first, as well as how experts concluded the car was moving, or are experts opinions to be taken at face value without any processes of determination?

Seems to me that if video was available and destroyed before the legal process ran it's course, then the video in some way held potential value for the defense.

If it held value for the cops, it would've been preserved as the keystone peice of evidence certifying the cops story, and not a ballistics expert with sketchy modus operendi

At 3/25/09 08:56 PM, JoS wrote:

At 3/25/09 09:45 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Remeber there was no way from the evidence available, could it be shown, who fired first.

The civilian ballistic examiner said that the first shot that hit the RCMP vehicle was fired while the vehicle was still moving. If he didn't fire first, why was the police vehicle shot before it stopped moving? I think that is evidence that he shot first, not the police. I think thats also what the expert testified, that he shot first, not the RCMP.

;;;;
THat testimony was to show that in the opinion of the investigator, that shot would have come when the RCMP vehicle was coming at the suspects truck, not after the collision.
THere was no way to no for certain if the RCMP had fired at the truck before he fired at them.
As someone with an open mind about this & the fact I Know for a fact that the sun doesn't rise & set out of the assholes of the Law enforcement officers in this or any other country.
I believe in PROOF and the burden of proof is on them.
That the defendant said he fired at the first 2 officers in fear of his life.
He feared for his life because they were firing at him...possible, not proven they didn't fire first.
Tapes that were in the car, were destroyed...on the claims of an "RCMP officer" isn't good enough for me. Read todays story about Mountie #4 in the Vancouver taser death inquirey - they are masters of double speak & outright fabrication.
Having the police investigate...the police is a Fucking Farce anywhere it happens.
Further, if he was the murderous person claimed by prosecution...why didn't he finish off wounded officer #3 ?
He says he fired blindly at the first vehicle...that is possible.
THat he hit both in the heads firing blindly...highly unlikely...but possible.
IF he was set to kill, then officer #3 should also be dead. She was wounded & he realised he was no longer threatened & he left...stays consistant with his story of fear & firing to protect himself.

Good for the Prosecution someone who believes the burden of proof should be on him.
For the record
I would have also voted to convict Curt Dagenais of the deaths of 2 Mounties...he did kill them.
But I would have gone for Second degree, not First & depending on the evidence which none of us have heard all of, I may have decided on Manslaughter. For me missing tapes...missing anything casts doubt...having the fact 'missing' evidence was destroyed by an RCMP officer investigating the actions of other ...RCMP officers. Is disturbing.

I'm wearing my really dark sunglasses so that it easier for the cops to keep me in the dark :p

At 3/26/09 07:47 AM, morefngdbs wrote: THat testimony was to show that in the opinion of the investigator, that shot would have come when the RCMP vehicle was coming at the suspects truck, not after the collision.
THere was no way to no for certain if the RCMP had fired at the truck before he fired at them.

It tells us two things though, that he was not moving (I do not think its possible for him to drive and shoot a rifle behind him at the same time). This means he had to stop his vehicle, grab his gun and turn around/lay down to shoot at the police. If you are running scared for your life are you going to stop and shoot it out or are you gonna keep running.

We know the RCMP didn't shoot at him while he was driving because Curtis Dagenais testified that the first shot was fired at him and he saw the Cst standing near the tailgate of his truck. So unless he can run 100km/h the RCMP did not fire until both vehicles had come to a stop.

So these are the facts;
the RCMP vehicle was shot while still moving
Curtis said the first shot came after his truck stopped
Curtis said he say Const. Bourdages standing near the tailgate of his truck when the shot was fired
1 round was fired by Const. Bourdages, Curtis claimed two rounds were fired by him though
There were 7 spent casings in Curtis's truck and 8 bullet holes in the RCMP vehicles, Curtis claims to have fired only 5 rounds.
Curtis used a Winchester 30-30 rifle, so he had to cock it each time he fired.
Winchester 30-30 rifle has capacity of 8 rounds
Winchester 30-30 rifle needs to be cocked between each round
The officers were carring semi-automatic Smith & Wesson
Curtis has a previous convictions for assaulting a police officer, threatening to kill a highway traffic officer, threatening bodily harm to a highway traffic officer

As someone with an open mind about this & the fact I Know for a fact that the sun doesn't rise & set out of the assholes of the Law enforcement officers in this or any other country.

You don't have to believe everything the police say, and I am not asking you to. I am asking you to look at the everything as presented by the evidence, civilian experts, police testimony and Curtis himself.

That the defendant said he fired at the first 2 officers in fear of his life.

So we should take defendants at their word, but not the police? Who has more to lose in this case, Curtis or Knopp? She arrived after the bullets were flying, so she has nothing to gain by lying. Curtis is the only one who has anything to gain by lying.

He feared for his life because they were firing at him...possible, not proven they didn't fire first.

Look at all the facts I presented. Make your conclusions based on all the facts, not quick soundbites from the defense.

Tapes that were in the car, were destroyed...on the claims of an "RCMP officer" isn't good enough for me. Read todays story about Mountie #4 in the Vancouver taser death inquirey - they are masters of double speak & outright fabrication.

Once again, this officer has nothing to gain. He is the property officer, his job is storing evidence and destroying evidence no longer needed. He did not investigate the case, he was not there. And if you think police officers are masters of double speak do you think that defendants are upstanding and honest people?

Further, if he was the murderous person claimed by prosecution...why didn't he finish off wounded officer #3 ?

Ran out of bullets. He fired 8 rounds into the RCMP cars. His rifle holds 8 bullets. Its not a semi-automatic that you plug another magazine into. The officers have semi-automatics and can reload faster than he can and hold more bullets.

He says he fired blindly at the first vehicle...that is possible.
THat he hit both in the heads firing blindly...highly unlikely...but possible.
IF he was set to kill, then officer #3 should also be dead. She was wounded & he realised he was no longer threatened & he left...stays consistant with his story of fear & firing to protect himself.

Except for the fact that his rifle ran out of bullets. What was he gonna do beat her with the butt of his rifle?

Good for the Prosecution someone who believes the burden of proof should be on him.
For the record
I would have also voted to convict Curt Dagenais of the deaths of 2 Mounties...he did kill them.
But I would have gone for Second degree, not First & depending on the evidence which none of us have heard all of, I may have decided on Manslaughter. For me missing tapes...missing anything casts doubt...having the fact 'missing' evidence was destroyed by an RCMP officer investigating the actions of other ...RCMP officers. Is disturbing.

After reading all the facts I presented, do you still feel that way?

At 3/29/09 01:31 PM, JoS wrote: After reading all the facts I presented, do you still feel that way?

;;;;
Absolutely.
No police force should be allowed to police itself.- destroyed evidence AKA coverup.

The evidence says the truck was T-boned by the cruiser. Hole in door of truck hole in cruiser not in line with any other shots...says he fired as they were coming at him.

I owned a 32 Special Winchester for a couple of years. loading is fast & simple simply push bullet into mag...you can do this with a bullet in the chamber & as long as there's rom in the mag you can load.

Like I said earlier...Second degree...possibly manslaughter.
Seeing the absolute lies/fabrications coming out of the Senior officers mouth at the Taser Inquirey in Vancouver...I take what any RCMP officer says with a grain of salt...Actually I would believe what you had to say over anything any of them had to sy.
Because I have never caught you in a lie & no one else has put out any kind if proof your not truthful.
BUT THE RCMP
They could hold courses on how to be a criminal , look at what's happened to Upper Management, all that missing money !
That's been well covered up.
THe Vancouver Airport...that'll be pushed under the table as well.
Might sacrifice a guy, but its doubtful.
as for trusting them around evidence
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/30082008/51/m ountie-admits-guilt.html

At 3/29/09 01:53 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 3/29/09 01:31 PM, JoS wrote: After reading all the facts I presented, do you still feel that way?

;;;;
Absolutely.
No police force should be allowed to police itself.- destroyed evidence AKA coverup.

The evidence says the truck was T-boned by the cruiser. Hole in door of truck hole in cruiser not in line with any other shots...says he fired as they were coming at him.

However the evidence also says the truck stopped first. The RCMP truck unfortunately ended up hitting his stopped truck. They didn't ram him off the road. Also the ballistic evidence and Curtis's own testimony would support this. His first shot hit the RCMP truck while it was still moving, and he himself said he was stopped when he first fired.

I owned a 32 Special Winchester for a couple of years. loading is fast & simple simply push bullet into mag...you can do this with a bullet in the chamber & as long as there's rom in the mag you can load.

The point is not how quickly he could load it, I assume it was already loaded. the question is how did he fire off two shots before the Cst fired two if the Cst had a semi-automatic handgun and Curtis had a pump action rifle. and lets not forget the Cst only fired 1 shot, not two like Curtis claimed.

So this guy fired first, only fired once then let Curtis shoot him twice without returning fire?

I am astounded that you still argue the fact he only shot Kopp three times and did not check to make sure she was dead somehow proves he was defending himself.

Put yourself in his shoes. You have run out of bullets and have to reload, meanwhile your opponent has a semi-automatic handgun, more bullets than you do, you have no idea when other officers may show up and you have already shot her three times. You no longer have the element of surprise either. Are you going to stick around and risk yourself more than you already have or are you going to hightail it before she gets a chance to shoot you back?

Besides, how does he know she isn't dead already or going to die soon. She has been shot three time including the head (ear, but how would he know). Its not like the movies and he walks over to each person and puts one in their head just to be sure.

Like I said earlier...Second degree...possibly manslaughter.

Personally I think your anti-police attitude is clouding your judgment.

when you use self-defense as your defense, it is the onus of the defendant to prove he feared for his life, not on the prosecution to prove he didn't, even then one is only allowed to use reasonable force, and it is the jury that decides what reasonable force is, not the defendant. He took the officers on a lengthy car chase then shot three of them because he feared they were going to beat him up. This is not reasonable force at all.

Lets look at what led up to the incident.

He went to the RCMP station to ask for an officer to be a mediator. For whatever reason they refused.
He went to his sisters house and assaulted her. Police were called.
Police arrive to find him in his truck attempting to leave, so they break the window in an effort to remove him from the vehicle and prevent him from fleeing.
He leads police on a lengthy, dangerous and high speed pursuit.

So before any shots are fired lets go over the crimes he has committed. sec 129 of the Criminal Code - obstructing a police officer, sec 264.1 uttering threats, sec 265 - assault, not to mention numerous traffic violations. He chose to drive away, he chose to continue the chase, and he in my eyes, as well as the eyes of 12 jurors chose to shoot at the police officers.

12 ordinary people believe Curtis shot first, I believe he shot first, the civilian expert believes he shot first, the prosecution believes he shot first. I bet the defense lawyer probably doesn't believe what his client says.

So with NO EVIDENCE or testimony other than that of the accused, who has previous convictions for assaulting police officers, who was fleeing police attempting to make an arrest, you still believe the RCMP shot first. I bet even if there was video evidence you wouldn't believe it because it was on Kopp's vehicle, which was the second vehicle on scene, not the lead vehicle.

BUT THE RCMP

The RCMP is an organization of 25 000 people. Thats the size of a small town, or medium sized university. Of course there will be a few bad apples.

I bet you believe every catholic priest is a pedophile, every teacher has the hots for one of their students, and every hockey parent is crazy.

At 3/29/09 04:56 PM, JoS wrote: I bet you believe every catholic priest is a pedophile, every teacher has the hots for one of their students, and every hockey parent is crazy.

;;;;
I'll agree with the above comment from you.
Doesn't mean every Priest 'acts' on his fantasy's.
Teachers probably more than one in High School
I know every hockey parent is crazy...that's a given.

A new study shows that 33 women (mean age 19.36 years, SD = 3.80) and 11 men (mean age = 20.72 years, SD = 2.28) recruited from freshman psychology classes at California State University, Fresno, after looking at a still photograph for 5 seconds, decided that they should not shoot the subject of the picture.

What a terrible study.

At 3/30/09 04:20 AM, Psycho-Medic wrote: What a terrible study.

It has real world consequences, like how jurors think.

I meant how they are making a statement about an entire generation based on the thoughts of ~40 students enrolled in Fresno state. Psychological experiments are usually fine with narrower groups if you're determining the capabilities of the human mind, such as picking out objects or memorization tests. It's not alright though when you start getting into people's beliefs. If you're going to make statements about an entire generation, you need a larger and more diverse group.

The sample ratio of males to females is 1:3.
The sample size is only ~40 students, not enough to make such a grand statement IMO.
All the students are taken from classes at Fresno state, where 97% of the student body is from California.
The vast majority of students going there receive a degree in either Liberal Arts, Agriculture Science, or Management.

Is this sample a good representation of juries (of this generation) across the United States? No.

First year Psyc students represent the biggest cross-section of university students, as people of all majors will take it as an elective. I took ti and I was doing my degree in International Political Economy.

At 3/30/09 10:33 PM, JoS wrote: First year Psyc students represent the biggest cross-section of university students, as people of all majors will take it as an elective. I took ti and I was doing my degree in International Political Economy.

Okay good. So the study shows that university students in California have worse crisis training than police officers.

Not a baffling result?

Still, recruiting from a single class isn't great. You'll get a disproportionately high level of arts students, particularly psychology students.

At 4/2/09 07:38 PM, Elfer wrote: Not a baffling result?

What is baffling is the comparison of the two study. The first study in which nearly everyone shot the suspect, whether he had a gun or drill, but when a suspect has a gun to someones head and they are show it to pass judgment, not to make a reaction they almost always say do not shoot.

That study has a small group because it was a side project to the main study, which was how would people react.