A Bay Area police sergeant was shot and killed during an early morning traffic stop Wednesday - http://yhoo.it/1KnmoKe
Officer was shot twice during a routine traffic stop in Long Island by an armed suspect who fled from a traffic stop inspection just before midnight on Wednesday -
A police officer is recovering after being struck by a motorist who led police on a chase - http://yhoo.it/1VDc1rY
Just a sampling of today's headlines. Is this what Pam Zubeck wants to drum up in El Paso county? Sure sounds like it.
If you've ever had an interaction with the Colorado Springs police you would know they are too highly strung and escalate situations needlessly. It's a tough job, but they make it tougher on themselves than it needs to be.
dp72- Thank God no innocents were killed or injured by Guy's life-threatening action. We got lucky, don't you think?
I know you don't have omniscient powers. But you seem arrogant enough to know what the officer should have done based on what you read in a newspaper story.
When you're drunk, stoned AND running loose in the neighborhood firing a pistol at homes, you forfeit any expectation that deadly force is off the table by those responding.
The police officers lied on an official report. And then concealed those facts. Leads me to ask the obvious question, how many other reports have been falsified to "justify" deadly force?
PacksA9, I have no omniscient powers and never claimed to. You throwing that term at me is pretty arrogant. The fact of the matter is that a citizen was shot in the back by a police officer and the department covered up that fact. James Guy might very well been killed no matter what, but he deserved an opportunity to comply with police instructions. He was never given that opportunity.
dp72- Chief Myers said "he used his training well" and did "what he needed to do."
Guy paid Martinelli to say what he said. Myers is the same on the other side.
So this brings us back to... What omniscient powers do you have to say what the officer should have done in his situation?
PacksA9. Ron Martinelli notes Jorstad gave up "an elevated position of tactical advantage" in the kitchen for a position of concealment behind a fence "where he could not accurately see what James Guy was doing."
Maybe he should have maintained that position until more units arrived.
"He should have stayed where he could see clearly and kept himself safe."
dp72- What omniscient powers do you have to say what the officer should have done in that situation? Especially based on ANY newspaper account.
A) James Guy was engendering the safety of his neighbors and put himself it a position that was likely to end badly for him.
B) Officer Jorstad handled the situation badly and put himself in a situation where fear took over his judgement. He should have stayed where he could see clearly and kept himself safe.
And this is why the article is important,
C) CSPD and the DA made sure no one would know about Officer Jorstad's mistakes and that the suspect was shot in the back without being given the opportunity to comply.
The suspect was likely to get himself killed by police when he started blowing off cliploads of rounds in a neighborhood, so no I wouldnt call his death a murder. But we cant have CSPD and the DA covering up facts and lying to the public. That is unacceptable.
You people attacking Pam Zubeck are just not used to seeing real journalism in our town. I saw no agenda in this excellent piece of reporting. Just facts.
sure sounds like the gun nuts want the police to shoot anyone showing a gun in public and ask questions later... another police incident that was wrong, against procedure and a horrible public relations nightmare.
and the scared old fart teabaggers will applaud...
Next weeks article, pam will be defending hussein, bin laden, and hitler. josh tolini will be filing a class action lawsuit on their behalf.
I also find it curious that, in her "research" Ms. Zubeck either failed to speak to - or chooses not to disclose it- the distraught neighbor who had called the police in the first place. She feared for herself and her children as poor Guy was discharging his firearm in the direction of her home! And, it wasn't the first time poor Guy had done this!!! Pam, you have an obvious agenda and Kathryn, your son was a dangerous, disturbed man who should have received treatment for his demons- and you, as his obviously aware Mother, should have seen to it that he got the help he needed. Officer Jorstad acted within the protocols of his profession and the Grand Jury agreed.
"... greeted by a "hysterical" female who claimed Guy was shooting in the air and at houses." Except for when Zubeck wants to trash the police, this would normally be a bad thing. A very bad thing.
"Guy was loading a magazine into a handgun, which was on the table in a "locked back" position — meaning it was not loaded." Zubeck and other gun babies here would be wetting themselves if they saw this through their own window. But for some reason, Pam implies this should raise no alarm for police during a report of a drunk, stoned active shooter.
When you place a loaded mag into a semi-auto with the slide is back, its loaded. It only takes the flick of a finger and a fraction of a second to snap the slide in place, feed a round into the chamber and cock the firing mechanism.
Pam bless your ignorant, agenda-driven heart dear. If you're going to write stories about guns, carve out a few minutes to educate yourself.
I'm glad the officer did what he did.
Someone who has shot 18 shots in a residential area while intoxicated is a huge threat and deserves to be treated like one.
Praise to you Officer Jorstad and I hope you see this.
Lesson learned. While high and drunk, don't discharge a firearm multiple times into the air placing yourself into such a position.
Fix potholes with it.
"The bill would have fixed many of the problems with civil unions. For instance, if a couple with a civil union married, it would have merged the civil union into the marriage. The bill also would have made it bigamy to be married to one person while having a civil union with another. Additionally, it would have declared that a civil union is not a marriage, or even a common-law marriage."
"'I'm assuming the subject matter is the reason it was defeated with no explanation ... I mean, literally, they said nothing before voting no.' Steadman says."
You mean the Republicans passed up an opportunity to pass a sensible & logical bill to simplify & streamline law, making it easier for the government, courts, and citizens to deal with the differences between civil unions, common law marriages and marriages simply because they didn't like the subject matter?! Say it isn't so! Why I can't believe Republicans would ever do such a thing! They're the party of limited government!
How about we give some excess tax money to the school district that is in great need!
Had it up to here with TABOR, bag it.
How much time is spent on these evaluation? It has to be less then a few minutes.
All content © Copyright 2015, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation