1
   

courtroom killing

 
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Mar, 2005 07:12 pm
This has nothing to do with a policy. They made a dumb judgement when they decided who should be escorting the scumbag into court. There is no policy that says a small-framed woman has to escort the guy into court, as, if you read Bill's ridiculous posts, you might be led to believe. This is just Bill trying to start an argument over nothing. He's very good at it though, I have to admit.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Mar, 2005 07:13 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
You volunteered to defend the idiocy, so you have no room for complaint that I'm being insulting.

I'd already posted an earlier comment here but deleted it cause I didnt want to butt in - but now I will after all.

Lot of us folks here consider a lot of the arguments and positions of other folks here "idiotic", Bill. Once that gets to be a self-evident justification to start yelling "get a grip, man, use your head" at folks who didnt speak an impolite word at you, the discussion will get very unpleasant very quickly.

It does, in fact - thats whats kept me away from Politics mostly recently. I mean, why come express your views if you're only gonna be yelled at about them - and then have the yelling folks justify their yelling by the argument that you just shouldnt have expressed such "idiotic" views, then? I think your position is idiotic, so I'm gonna yell at you - it's only natural? Might as well pack this place up, then, no.

<exits stage left>
0 Replies
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Mar, 2005 07:16 pm
All right, Bill. Let's suppose for a moment that a small framed woman was the culprit, and a big guard was escorting her to court. The element of surprise is always the big hitch. Overpowering can mean many things, you know. My biggest concern was with your sharp retorts to the musketeer, understand?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Mar, 2005 07:36 pm
The job calls for alertness and planning. No matter the size, an armed person should be able to successfully do what that deputy tried. I would call the incident a result of complacency or carelessness, not lack of size.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Mar, 2005 08:31 pm
Your point is well taken Nimh (and others). My apologies for not making my point in a more user-friendly way, D'Art. I had this story on in the background all day long as it developed and the more the officials in Atlanta tried to cover their a$$es by denying the idiocy in what they'd allowed to happen, the more annoyed I got. There was nothing flukish about that woman being there to be victimized. It was her regular job and the officials are fine with that. I haven't invented or assumed anything not reported or heard directly in the interviews or press conferences.

The Judge (victim) looked like a friendly man, was rumored to be fair and respected by prosecuting and defense attorneys alike. He had done nothing out of the ordinary to incite this murderer. A quick assessment of what can be done to prevent or at least reduce the chances of such an event in the future, leads inevitably (IMHO) to having large capable employees do this duty. It is my opinion that absent PC-Consideration; a small framed female would be no more likely to be in such a position as she would to catch hay bails as they're pitched onto a wagon or be a longshoreman. This is a job for imposing, intimidating men.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Mar, 2005 08:43 pm
kickycan wrote:
This has nothing to do with a policy. They made a dumb judgement when they decided who should be escorting the scumbag into court.
That was regular duty, Kicky.

kickycan wrote:
There is no policy that says a small-framed woman has to escort the guy into court, as, if you read Bill's ridiculous posts, you might be led to believe.
Or a cursory review of the facts, Kicky.

kickycan wrote:
This is just Bill trying to start an argument over nothing. He's very good at it though, I have to admit.
3 people are dead Kicky. That isn't nothing. This policy (that you're denying without having spent a minute to find out the truth about) may well have been a contributing factor. Your contribution is as accurate as it is productive, even while you seek to insult me for being insulting.
0 Replies
 
Ceili
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Mar, 2005 09:23 pm
The policy was wrong, not because a women was his escort but because she was alone.

A similar situation occured here some years back. A violent offender was allowed a day pass to West Edmonton Mall. He was to be escorted by a guard. Unfortunately, they picked an elderly fellow in fairly bad shape. He was overpowered, his gun stolen and the fugitive escaped to kill 3 people, take hostages and so on...

Why this criminal was escorted by a lone deputy is beyond intelligence. But two women/men (regarless) would have had stood a chance.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Mar, 2005 10:21 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
kickycan wrote:
This has nothing to do with a policy. They made a dumb judgement when they decided who should be escorting the scumbag into court.
That was regular duty, Kicky.


I take that statement back. I don't think it was a lack of judgement about who should be escorting him. I think that the deputy probably made the error by letting her attention wander.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
kickycan wrote:
There is no policy that says a small-framed woman has to escort the guy into court, as, if you read Bill's ridiculous posts, you might be led to believe.
Or a cursory review of the facts, Kicky.


I still say what you said earlier was ridiculous, and the way you said it was probably designed to bait everyone into your argument, but you have basically conceded this point in your post to Nimh (and others), so I will just let this go.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
kickycan wrote:
This is just Bill trying to start an argument over nothing. He's very good at it though, I have to admit.
3 people are dead Kicky. That isn't nothing. This policy (that you're denying without having spent a minute to find out the truth about) may well have been a contributing factor. Your contribution is as accurate as it is productive, even while you seek to insult me for being insulting.


First of all, I never said you were being insulting. But since you brought it up, you reap what you sew, buddy. Maybe if you tried taking a break from the condescending smartass posts yourself, you'd see a change in the way others respond. Idea

And by the way, I resent your statement that "3 people are dead, Kicky. That's not nothing." What self-righteous crap. I obviously wasn't saying that, and we've interacted on this forum enough times that I would think you'd know I would never belittle the deaths of three people like that. In my book, that makes your statement nothing more than a low blow, and an apology and retraction of that statement is probably in order.

Ceili, I agree with you. The sensible solution is to have two people escorting the guy. And another thing. After the guy gets caught the day before with crudely-fashioned knives hidden in his shoes, I'd say some f*cking handcuffs might be a good idea.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2005 12:22 am
cold blooded
Manhunt For Courthouse Killer

Quote:
A former computer technician, whose cold stare had spooked authorities earlier this week, stole a deputy's gun Friday while being led into court for his rape trial, then killed the judge and two other people before carjacking a reporter's vehicle to escape. His getaway set off a massive manhunt and created widespread chaos across Atlanta, police said.

Late Friday, police reported that the car, a green Honda, had been found in a downtown Atlanta parking lot, not far from where it was stolen. . . .

Nichols had generated fears among authorities the day before he allegedly killed three people in a courthouse rampage.

Prosecutors and the judge requested extra security for deputies after investigators found shanks in each of Nichols' shoes Thursday, prosecutor Gayle Abramson said. Nichols had apparently sharpened part of a doorknob into a dangerous weapon.

Nichols — on trial for rape — also made jurors nervous. Juror James Bailey said he became unnerved by the defendant's cold, hard stares at the jury box.

"Every time he looked up, he was staring at you," said Bailey.

Nichols got the gun by overpowering the female deputy while he was being led down a corridor in the Fulton County Courthouse, Assistant Police Chief Alan Dreher said. After shooting the deputy in the face, the suspect then went to the courtroom, held about a dozen people at bay for a short time and shot and killed the judge and a court reporter, he said.

Another deputy was later killed outside the Atlanta courthouse when he confronted the suspect, Dreher said. The deputy shot while leading Nichols to court survived, but details about her condition were not immediately known.

Authorities said Nichols then pistol-whipped Atlanta Journal-Constitution reporter Don O'Briant, stole his green 1997 Honda Accord and sped away. . . .

The shootings occurred after the judge and prosecutors had requested extra security for deputies after investigators found a shank in each of Nichols' shoes Thursday, prosecutor Gayle Abramson said. She said Nichols apparently fashioned the shanks from a doorknob.

Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard said he did not know what exactly was done in the way of stepped-up security, but said the deputies were receptive to their request. Dreher said that there were no other officers other than the female deputy assisting with taking Nichols to court. The law requires that defendants on trial not be handcuffed as they enter the courtroom, to make sure the sight of cuffs doesn't unfairly influence the jury.

The shootings occurred shortly after 9 a.m. Friday — the fourth day of Nichols' trial. Nichols, 33, was on trial for a second time in as many weeks on charges of rape, sodomy, burglary, false imprisonment, and gun and drug possession.

"I think he probably realized ... he might be convicted this time, he might not have a chance to walk out," Howard said. "We believe he came here with the intent to make sure that didn't happen."

He was accused of bursting into an ex-girlfriend's home, binding her with duct tape and sexually assaulting her over three days. Howard said Nichols brought a loaded machine gun into the home and a cooler with food in case he was hungry.

"He said he would assault her for three days until her birthday," Howard said. Nichols, who had been jailed for the last six months, had faced a possible life prison sentence if convicted for rape.



This man is cold blooded. He is brutal . . . he made his ex-girlfriend pay for whatever "sins" he perceived that she had committed against him.

Similarly, there was no reason for shooting the judge and the court-reporter . . . but then again . . . in his mind, he was probably making them pay for perceived sins that he believed the judicial system was committing against him. He probably thinks his ex-girlfriend deserved what he did to her and he wasn't going to let anyone tell him different . . .

AND . . . the green Honda was found a short distance from the courthouse in a parking garage . . . which probably means he hijacked another car and probably has the driver as a hostage . . . or dead in the trunk. After all, the driver of the first car refused to get in the trunk and ran . . . so HE KNEW the police knew what he was driving. He had to get a different car fast . . . and prevent the driver from reporting it so that law enforcement wouldn't know what he is currently driving.

This man is cold blooded . . . .

Given their knowledge of how dangerous he was after they caught him carrying shanks in his shoes the day before and given the judge's and the prosecution's request for additional security . . . it is unacceptable that they allowed a lone female deputy escort him down the corridor. He was dressed in street clothes and his hands were free. They just gave him a victim from whom he could steal a gun.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2005 02:23 am
kickycan wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
kickycan wrote:
This has nothing to do with a policy. They made a dumb judgement when they decided who should be escorting the scumbag into court.
That was regular duty, Kicky.


I take that statement back. I don't think it was a lack of judgement about who should be escorting him. I think that the deputy probably made the error by letting her attention wander.
Dude, that seems to be a popular idea among those who don't want to simply admit the obvious... but can't you throw a punch as fast as any person alive can "draw"? That doesn't add up.

kickycan wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
kickycan wrote:
There is no policy that says a small-framed woman has to escort the guy into court, as, if you read Bill's ridiculous posts, you might be led to believe.
Or a cursory review of the facts, Kicky.


I still say what you said earlier was ridiculous, and the way you said it was probably designed to bait everyone into your argument, but you have basically conceded this point in your post to Nimh (and others), so I will just let this go.
Shocked Kicky, I apologized for my abrasive demeanor, only; my content was spot on. The policy is exactly as I described and you're description of it as ridiculous only elucidates your own ignorance of the facts.

kickycan wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
kickycan wrote:
This is just Bill trying to start an argument over nothing. He's very good at it though, I have to admit.
3 people are dead Kicky. That isn't nothing. This policy (that you're denying without having spent a minute to find out the truth about) may well have been a contributing factor. Your contribution is as accurate as it is productive, even while you seek to insult me for being insulting.


First of all, I never said you were being insulting. But since you brought it up, you reap what you sew, buddy. Maybe if you tried taking a break from the condescending smartass posts yourself, you'd see a change in the way others respond. Idea

And by the way, I resent your statement that "3 people are dead, Kicky. That's not nothing." What self-righteous crap. I obviously wasn't saying that, and we've interacted on this forum enough times that I would think you'd know I would never belittle the deaths of three people like that. In my book, that makes your statement nothing more than a low blow, and an apology and retraction of that statement is probably in order.
Laughing Don't hold your breath, Kicky. My complaint with Atlanta's policy was valid in my first post and it's valid now. Your suggestion that it was about nothing constituted the very affront you've imagined I've crossed you with. You've brought nothing but insult and a denial of easily verified facts to the discussion and you want me to feel bad about it? Laughing

kickycan wrote:
Ceili, I agree with you. The sensible solution is to have two people escorting the guy.
Me too... which is why in my first post I wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
should be accompanied by at least 2 very strong men


kickycan wrote:
And another thing. After the guy gets caught the day before with crudely-fashioned knives hidden in his shoes, I'd say some f*cking handcuffs might be a good idea.
Tell me Kicky; if you were in charge of Prisoner movements to and from Court for violent crimes; would you have small framed women doing the deed? When interviewed, the officials in Atlanta didn't think a single small female doing the job was inappropriate. Rolling Eyes If you haven't the time to learn what's being discussed; at least take the time to read Debra's last post to get a feel for the facts.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2005 08:30 am
Dealing with you is always an excruciating pleasure, Bill. Laughing

I wish I had the time right now, but I don't. I will have to get back to this argument later.
0 Replies
 
flyboy804
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2005 11:13 am
There seems to be a lot of dodging and weaving in this discussion. Had the prisoner been shackled, the size of his escort would have been less important, but he was not. Had there been three escorts instead of one, the size would be less important, but there were not. That leaves us with the actual condition in which there was only one escort and obviously had the escort been large and menacing the situation would have been less likely to develop.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2005 11:16 am
My argument was based on regular cases. It is clear this was not a regular case. I would have had the man in cuffs and leg irons.
0 Replies
 
bobsmythhawk
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2005 11:17 am
Top Stories - AP
AP
Police Capture Atlanta Slayings Suspect

4 minutes ago



By BILL POOVEY, Associated Press Writer

ATLANTA - A man accused of killing three people at a courthouse was captured Saturday at an apartment complex hours after a U.S. Customs agent was discovered shot to death miles away, officials said.




Police Hunt for Man Who Killed Judge, Two Others


Brian Nichols, 33, was captured after a daylong manhunt following the killing of a judge and two other people at a downtown courthouse, Glenn Richardson, speaker of the Georgia House, announced on the House floor.

Police searching for Nichols said a Customs agent was discovered shot to death in north Atlanta on Saturday, and his blue pickup truck, pistol and badge were missing.

A black sports utility vehicle, escorted by multiple police cars with lights flashing and sirens on, left the complex at about 11:45 a.m. A crowd of people across the street began cheering as the motorcade passed.
0 Replies
 
AngstRiddenGuy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2005 11:59 am
well now he's caught.

He deserves DEATH.
0 Replies
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2005 12:07 pm
One odd aspect of this whole thing, is the man whose car the perp attempted to highjack. I think his observation was:

"It wasn't my day to die."

Anyone else wonder why Nichols didn't kill him?
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2005 12:16 pm
Why didn't he shoot the owner of the green Honda? He first ordered the guy into the trunk of the car . . . the man did not comply, but instead turned to run . . . He pistol whipped the guy . . . maybe he was trying to save ammunition . . . maybe he didn't want the sound of a gunshot to disclose his current location.
0 Replies
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2005 12:20 pm
Lots of "maybe's", Debra. And that's why everyone needs his day in court. I'll bet the fellow who escaped with his life, will always wonder.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2005 12:26 pm
So true! But the guy who escaped with his life did the right thing. He refused to get into the trunk. If he had, I think he would have been a dead man for sure.

In self defense classes, I believe instructors tell people to do everything possible to avoid getting in a vehicle with a perpetrator because the perpetrator will most likely take the victim to a secluded crime scene where death is likely to occur.
0 Replies
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2005 12:33 pm
Absolutely, Debra. Well, Nichols will get his day in court whether he wants it or not. I wonder if his defense lawyer will ask for a change of venue?

This has been an interesting thread. It makes us pause and think of exactly what we would do under the same circumstances. Hindsight IS an exact science, I guess.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
  1. Forums
  2. » courtroom killing
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 12/28/2024 at 06:16:47