I don't think she deserved to die, regardless of her state. It takes a lot more than disobeying an order from an officer, or driving drunk, for me to think a teenager deserves to die.

 

I also don't think the officer wanted or intended for what happened to happen. He found himself in an awful situation, regardless of how he got there, and did what he thought best to stay alive.

 

As others have said, it's a sad unfortunate event, that based on his report, seems ripe for a civil suit IMO.

 

Oh, I completely agree (and would hope everyone else would too) that just the state of being drunk does NOT warrant being shot/killed. However, at least to me, it would lend itself some context to the situation. Like someone said earlier, she probably was not trying to deliberately run him down. But, if you're drunk, and your senses are dulled and reactions are not normal, a simple turn of the steering wheel and a press down on the brake pedal may easily become a sudden swerve and a press on the gas...all of which changes the situation.

FWIW no one has said she was shot just because she was drunk, driving drunk or attending a field party. Yet many keep proclaiming that is why she was shot. They either haven't kept up with the case, read this thread or are just wanting to agitate.

FWIW no one has said she was shot just because she was drunk, driving drunk or attending a field party. Yet many keep proclaiming that is why she was shot. They either haven't kept up with the case, read this thread or are just wanting to agitate.

 

Who? I haven't seen a single post in here saying that.

Referring to himself in third person, Brockman said he "knew the operator, Samantha Ramsey, was about to kill him" after she hit him, "causing him to jump on the hood." He said he ordered her to stop and he felt the car picking up speed.

 

"The shots were fired not only to save his life but also the pedestrians walking on the road and the officers currently just down the road initiating other arrests," Brockman said.

 

I, as I am sure many others, would like to know how she "hit him", as from the video he was on the side of her car, did he get in front of the car thinking she would stop? Did he slip and fall or somehow slipped into the side?

 

The fact is, there is no clear evidence on the video of what did or did not happen after she took off after she stopped to talk to the deputy. Is there audio of the whole event? I know I carry a lapel cam that is on anytime I have to "deal" with people/an issue.

 

I don't think any department will want to take this case now, as with the KSP they will say it's too late for them to get involved. Now you have what Guru mentioned, The department now having to take back a case they wanted to give to someone else. Why did they all of a sudden want to give the investigation to another department? To show fairness? Did they see it leading to something bad for their deputy? All theories, but we may never know the reason(s). I would have thought that if an officer of deputy is involved in a death that their department wouldn't pick up the investigation to show fairness in the first place?

 

And if no other department takes up the investigation, under what grounds would the FBI come in an take over, either by the FBI insisting or the department asking? Wouldn't their have to be something that points to the possibility that the deputy did this on purpose? At this point, I just don't see how the FBI would get involved.

I think the biggest mistake they made was telling everyone they wanted KSP to take over before they asked or knew what KSP was going to say.

One thing I don't understand is in the video Brockman let the first car pull out then tried to stop her car. My question is why didn't he stop the first car?

One thing I don't understand is in the video Brockman let the first car pull out then tried to stop her car. My question is why didn't he stop the first car?

 

Read his report, it's in there. I thought you knew that seeing how you claimed you read the report and because of what his report said you said he shouldn't have shot her.

Read his report, it's in there. I thought you knew that seeing how you claimed you read the report and because of what his report said you said he shouldn't have shot her.

 

Here we go again.

Read his report, it's in there. I thought you knew that seeing how you claimed you read the report and because of what his report said you said he shouldn't have shot her.

 

I did notice right before the car goes off the camera it looks like she is saying something to him.

Read his report, it's in there. I thought you knew that seeing how you claimed you read the report and because of what his report said you said he shouldn't have shot her.

 

It's most definitely in there. Also says why he wanted her to stop.

If we shot and killed every underage, alcohol drinking teenage kid that ran from a field party, this would be a town of old folks. These field parties happen quite often and usually end up broken up by the BCSD with no major incidents. This was just a night of bad decisions that did not have a positive outcome.

 

Correct-but the question was posed was she doing anything illegal, and she was doing two things illegally- drinking under age 21 and then driving after having alcohol to drink. A shame that she is dead, but she made huge mistakes which our society just wants to gloss over. If we want the drinking age to be 10 years old fine, but let's not just dismiss that part of the narrative, and say what a great kid she was and never did anything wrong. I can think of two things that night she did wrong. Shouldn't have cost her her life, but who knows maybe she would have crashed down the road and killed three people.

 

Actions have consequences on all sides of the ledger.

If we shot and killed every underage, alcohol drinking teenage kid that ran from a field party, this would be a town of old folks. These field parties happen quite often and usually end up broken up by the BCSD with no major incidents.

 

Who? I haven't seen a single post in here saying that.

Seems like that's what Fan is saying. Others have alluded to similar ideas as this.

The civil suit that needs to be filed is against the "host/planner" of the field party, anyone purchasing alcohol and bringing it to the party that then allowed underage teens to drink it, possibly the property owner (if they were trying to be the "Cool Parents" and allowed this to go on on their property), any stores that may have sold alcohol to underage people. There are a lot of civil suits that need to filed even if none are ever brought against the officer and his department.

The civil suit that needs to be filed is against the "host/planner" of the field party, anyone purchasing alcohol and bringing it to the party that then allowed underage teens to drink it, possibly the property owner (if they were trying to be the "Cool Parents" and allowed this to go on on their property), any stores that may have sold alcohol to underage people. There are a lot of civil suits that need to filed even if none are ever brought against the officer and his department.

Agreed.

Anyone who supplied the alcohol to the underage drinkers should be aching with guilt. Older siblings, friends, and parents---just because they asked for it, you don't give it to them. Just because you think it's no big deal for them to have a few drinks, you don't give it to them.

Does anyone know if Police officers are required to take a drug test if they are involved in a crash or shooting? Most companies require employees to take a drug test if an accident/injury happens at work. Also, has anyone who posted on here change their opinion since the video came out? It seems the officer's story doesn't quite match the video. IMO, There is a huge difference in a car speeding up and hitting him onto the hood and a car going 5 mph and him walking beside the car. The foot injury could be where the car ran over it while he was walking beside it . I guess we will see what happens when all evidence has been collected and verified, hopefully by an outside party. It is disappointing that KSP decided not to investigate the case.