GBI Continues Lavonia Pastor Death Probe

http://www.cato.org/raidmap/

They'll have to add it to Cato's botched paramilitary raid map

If they could stop the police shootings and the resulting lawsuits for awhile maybe they could afford a higher grade of law inforcement,better trained, and a whole lot smarter. untill then they should carry one bullit in their shirt poket like barney on mayberry

the police were so close why not shoot out the tires. My Dad was in law enforcement in Stenphens County for 25yrs, and I know times have changed. The bottom line should always be. TAKING A LIFE IS THE LAST RESORT NOT THE FIRST.

mitzi wrote:

the police were so close why not shoot out the tires. My Dad was in law enforcement in Stenphens County for 25yrs, and I know times have changed. The bottom line should always be. TAKING A LIFE IS THE LAST RESORT NOT THE FIRST.

I will be glad to answer that...the reason officers do not shoot out tires is three fold: 1) it is a violation to do so because there have been lawsuits by criminals who had their tires shot out and claimed that the officers put them in danger of wrecking the car by doing so. 2)The reasons officers shoot is to stop a threat, not wound a threat, not slow a threat down, or to scare a threat. The bad guys don't stop because a tire blows, they continue to drive until the car quits or the wreck. 3) Shooting the tires would cause the driver to have less control of the vehicle and could very well cause more injury and damage with a uncontrollable vehicle (again lawsuits for this). So as soon as we let criminals and the ACLU stop sueing for every thing that happens maybe policy and law will change.
The ACLU currently has two suits pending, one for officers using tasers claiming that they are cruel and unusual punishment, and a second for officers not using a taser and shooting a suspect saying any and all means should be used except deadly force. In both cases the criminal had a knife threatening officers. Which side is right, they don't care they just want the money.
Taking a life is not always the best action but sometimes it is the only action available.

Hopefully this will bring out the truth, what ever it shows.

police invetigating the actions of on duty police will never bring out the truth, but only a whitewash. the lack of what educated people call "transparency" is astounding. the police have already released false information (they said they made a mistake), but they claim that they cannot basic true information, like who shot Reverend Ayers to death. it is clear what side the so-called investigators are on. time for the Ayers family to lawyer up BIGTIME. hopefully someone out of state like Covington and Burling.

anybody else remember that Vicki Lawrence song about Georgia justice? at least they did the trial first in that one.

DUB wrote:

<quoted text> I will be glad to answer that...the reason officers do not shoot out tires is three fold: 1) it is a violation to do so because there have been lawsuits by criminals who had their tires shot out and claimed that the officers put them in danger of wrecking the car by doing so. 2)The reasons officers shoot is to stop a threat, not wound a threat, not slow a threat down, or to scare a threat. The bad guys don't stop because a tire blows, they continue to drive until the car quits or the wreck. 3) Shooting the tires would cause the driver to have less control of the vehicle and could very well cause more injury and damage with a uncontrollable vehicle (again lawsuits for this)....

1. shooting drivers leads to a lot more lawsuits than shooting tires.

2. shooting at drivers does not stop them as this case shows.

3. shooting drivers, even fatally, can cause them to drive recklessly, again as this case shows.

4. shooting bullets whn there are bystanders around, as here, is not a safe approach for the public

5. shooting up a gas station is not a safe approach for the public.

6. If there is grounds for making an arrest with guns drawn (and it doesn't look like there was here), then the safe thing is to make the arrest by uniformed officers. That is because someone bent on shooting the police will shoot whether the people with guns are police or fellow drug dealers, but innocent people (like Reverend Ayers) will not shoot uniforms. This means uniforms is the safer approach.

Think, next time, DUB.

John Doe wrote:

Hopefully this will bring out the truth, what ever it shows.

You wont get he truth from this investigation you have the police investigating the police. hey will do everything the can to whitewash this. What we do know is: Venengence is mine says the Lord.

jane smarter wrote:

<quoted text>
THE REAL TRUTH IS NEVER KNOWN WHEN YOU HAVE POLICE, SHERIFF OR OTHERS INVOLVED. THEY ONLY PROTECT EACH OTHER. WHEN THEY SLOW DOWN AND ACUTUALLY KNOW WHO THEY ARE AFTER THERE WILL BE NO MISTAKES. THEY ARE TOO FAST TO CLOSE IN AND NOT HAVE ALL THE DUCKS IN A ROW. JUST LIKE KILLING THE LADY IN ATLANTA WHO WAS ELDERLY AND ONLY TRYING TO PROTECT HERSELF.****THEY WERE WRONG**** PUT YOURSELF IN THE PASTORS SHOES!!!
THEY ARE HERE TO SPREAD THE WORD OF GOD NO MATTER WHO THE PERSON IS, GOD NEVER SAID CLEAN GODLY PEOPLE ONLY THOSE WHO ARE PERFECT WITHOUT FLOWS, QUITE THE OPPOSITE.

That is why outside organizations like the FBI investigate alot of these incidents. I have been involved in the investigation of police involved shootings, it is not a white wash or a coverup. Just as I investigate any case, you find the truth, where ever it leads you and you send your findings to the District Attorney's Office for prosecution, if warranted. Regardless, a police involved shooting will be presented to a grand jury and they will decide if the officer is indicted.

With people like you investigating, we pretty much know they are trying a whitewash. About the only variables are:(i) how hard can they lean on the woman they arrested; and (ii) how hard can they lean on the other witnesses at the gas station. And, make no mistake, that is what "investigation" means here: witness intimidation.

Atticus Finch wrote:

With people like you investigating, we pretty much know they are trying a whitewash. About the only variables are:(i) how hard can they lean on the woman they arrested; and (ii) how hard can they lean on the other witnesses at the gas station. And, make no mistake, that is what "investigation" means here: witness intimidation.

PARANOID>>>sad, just sad.

Atticus Finch wrote:

<quoted text>
1. shooting drivers leads to a lot more lawsuits than shooting tires.
2. shooting at drivers does not stop them as this case shows.
3. shooting drivers, even fatally, can cause them to drive recklessly, again as this case shows.
4. shooting bullets whn there are bystanders around, as here, is not a safe approach for the public
5. shooting up a gas station is not a safe approach for the public.
6. If there is grounds for making an arrest with guns drawn (and it doesn't look like there was here), then the safe thing is to make the arrest by uniformed officers. That is because someone bent on shooting the police will shoot whether the people with guns are police or fellow drug dealers, but innocent people (like Reverend Ayers) will not shoot uniforms. This means uniforms is the safer approach.
Think, next time, DUB.

1: show me where you got that information.

2:It will and he did 250 yards away.

3:If they are dead they can not drive a car. Dead people cannot drive, or move, or decide to turn.

4: Really, how many of the public were hit in this dangerous place? Where is a safe place to shoot, outside of a shooting range? And how do you suggest we convince the criminals to come there to have shoot outs?

cont...

5: How many times was the gas station hit, other cars, other people? none. The officers' shots were fired in as safe as possible a direction. At the bad guy. And once he hit an officer and fled he was a bad guy.

6: Guns are not used to make an arrest, they are used to provide the officer protection from danger. Guns can be drawn when no arrest is made. Uniforms are also the dangerous approach in undercover operations. They give the bad guys a few extra seconds of notice before an arrest and that may be all they need to escape and reek havoc and start shooting before they can be subdued. And again, you are giving Mr. Ayers a presumption of innocence you are not giving the officers. How do you know, for a fact that he was not trying to escape people he knew were police officers. You do not. How do you know he was not trying to hit the officers, or didn't care if he hit them or not? You do not. You even call him innocent without the entire set of facts, but condemn the officers with the lack of the same facts. How can you do that with good conscious? Because you don't care about facts, or the truth, or any part of the story that would make this Mr. Ayers fault.
But since you seem to know so much about what police should do to catch criminals, and how to do it without putting anyone in danger, and how criminals think, and what they will do, why aren't you working for the police. You could put an end to crime, the need for guns or weapons in police work, and could save the government millions by cutting the cost of law enforcement. But that could be why you don't, you have no idea how this works, how criminals think, or how to arrest people. You have no clue why things are done why they are. There are reasons that you cannot or will not accept. And they are not done for power trips, execution, or fun. They are done to provide the greatest amount of safety to the officers and public while staying within the bounds of the law while still protecting the public.

John Doe wrote:

<quoted text> That is why outside organizations like the FBI investigate alot of these incidents. I have been involved in the investigation of police involved shootings, it is not a white wash or a coverup. Just as I investigate any case, you find the truth, where ever it leads you and you send your findings to the District Attorney's Office for prosecution, if warranted. Regardless, a police involved shooting will be presented to a grand jury and they will decide if the officer is indicted.

They wont be indicted. The process for determining deadly fire isssues is flawed. The justifing of deadly force goes right to the top AG included. The question will be asked of the cops Did you believe you life was in danger, of course they will answer YES. thus it will be justified. Events leading up to the deadly fire are not taken into consideration. How many incidents in GA of deadly fire have the officers been found to be wrong! Like maybe one.

DUB wrote:

<quoted text>
1: show me where you got that information.
2:It will and he did 250 yards away.
3:If they are dead they can not drive a car. Dead people cannot drive, or move, or decide to turn.
4: Really, how many of the public were hit in this dangerous place? Where is a safe place to shoot, outside of a shooting range? And how do you suggest we convince the criminals to come there to have shoot outs?

people are surpose to be innocent until proven guilty. These cops made themselves judge and jury. They came at this guy like he had just robbed that store or was in the act of a crime. Do you think they would have calmly talked to him if he did stop? They were out of control like mad dogs, I would bet if he did get out of the car they would have slammed him to the ground and beat the crap out of him.

Atticus Finch wrote:

With people like you investigating, we pretty much know they are trying a whitewash. About the only variables are:(i) how hard can they lean on the woman they arrested; and (ii) how hard can they lean on the other witnesses at the gas station. And, make no mistake, that is what "investigation" means here: witness intimidation.

We have gone round and round. You don't know me or the kind of investigation I do. I have done my fair share of sending police to jail and having them dismissed from our ranks. Just because you have a distrustful attitude does not mean everyone tries to cover things up. For those of us that are real investigators, it does not matter where the truth takes you. All you need to do is find the truth and then present the truth.

sue wrote:

<quoted text>They wont be indicted. The process for determining deadly fire isssues is flawed. The justifing of deadly force goes right to the top AG included. The question will be asked of the cops Did you believe you life was in danger, of course they will answer YES. thus it will be justified. Events leading up to the deadly fire are not taken into consideration. How many incidents in GA of deadly fire have the officers been found to be wrong! Like maybe one.

So if they should not go before a grand jury of the citizens to decide if they are charged with a crime, who should they go before?

sue wrote:

<quoted text>people are surpose to be innocent until proven guilty. These cops made themselves judge and jury. They came at this guy like he had just robbed that store or was in the act of a crime. Do you think they would have calmly talked to him if he did stop? They were out of control like mad dogs, I would bet if he did get out of the car they would have slammed him to the ground and beat the crap out of him.

All I can say is hypocrite. Your first line is "people are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty". The rest of the post is a direct contradiction of your first line. The officers are "people". You say that people are innocent until proven guilty. So are the officers guilty or innocent until proven guilty? Hypocrite.

sue wrote:

<quoted text>They wont be indicted. The process for determining deadly fire isssues is flawed. The justifing of deadly force goes right to the top AG included. The question will be asked of the cops Did you believe you life was in danger, of course they will answer YES. thus it will be justified. Events leading up to the deadly fire are not taken into consideration. How many incidents in GA of deadly fire have the officers been found to be wrong! Like maybe one.

I can not speak for every statehowever in Georgia every shooting is brought before the Grand Jury of the county it occurred in. A group of citizens, not officers, will decide to charge or not charge the officers. The witnesses, the involved officers, the woman in the car, and the investigators will all testify. Then and only then will the citizens decide to charge or not charge the officers. So how are we blaming the cops when it appears if the officers are not charged, you should be blaming yourselves.