Shooting of woman by Chelmsford officer under investigation

Okay, how about a new resolution: today we will not assume we know all the facts that have not been reported (in this article or others).

Today’s article seems to contain a little more information than yesterday’s, but there is still plenty of information that hasn’t been released, not to mention things that haven’t even been determined.

So, does this mean that the blanks should be filled in with everybody’s assumptions and biases (including those who assume the police acted badly and those who assume they acted perfectly)? It does not. There’s not yet enough information on this that anybody should think they know the whole story. Instead of slamming the police or criticizing the woman, how about we urge the newspaper to try to get and report the whole story?

Sounds good to me. No more comments from me until I hear all the facts. :)

Just wait ....the Losers that exist to read their own Flame should be here shortly...Wait ...here comes one now ...Read below ..

Dangerous work by those Chelmsford police.

In nearly 30 years time, there have been only 3 incidents where an officer had to fire his gun???

What is the point of mentioning the Taser.. There is a set threat level already established, and if the Officer felt that he was in a situation where he needed to draw his firearm, then the incident is clearly above that of which a Taser would be justifiable.

MassFan42, the fact that CPD only had to fire their weapons 3 times in the past 30 years is a credit to the departments officers and training. It has nothing to do with the risks involved in the job.

I agree with you Bob. Just a thought if someone has a gun (not to say she did)I myself would go for my gun and not the taser....

Bob wrote:

What is the point of mentioning the Taser.. There is a set threat level already established, and if the Officer felt that he was in a situation where he needed to draw his firearm, then the incident is clearly above that of which a Taser would be justifiable.

Did the CPD find a throw down, I mean a weapon?

From Chelmsford wrote:

Okay, how about a new resolution: today we will not assume we know all the facts that have not been reported (in this article or others).
Today’s article seems to contain a little more information than yesterday’s, but there is still plenty of information that hasn’t been released, not to mention things that haven’t even been determined.
So, does this mean that the blanks should be filled in with everybody’s assumptions and biases (including those who assume the police acted badly and those who assume they acted perfectly)? It does not. There’s not yet enough information on this that anybody should think they know the whole story. Instead of slamming the police or criticizing the woman, how about we urge the newspaper to try to get and report the whole story?

Unjustified shooting! There was no weapon which officers would have known when they responded to the minor domestic disturbance.

Bob wrote:

MassFan42, the fact that CPD only had to fire their weapons 3 times in the past 30 years is a credit to the departments officers and training. It has nothing to do with the risks involved in the job.

Hey , they put thier lives on the line every day...just not as much as roofers, trash collectors etc.

If she had a gun we would have heard about it already. I'll refrain from judging this officer until after I hear all of the facts. We keep hearing about threatening "behavior" ok, what was the behavior?

annonymous wrote:

Unjustified shooting! There was no weapon which officers would have known when they responded to the minor domestic disturbance.

Do you have inside info? How do you know it was "minor"? Anything can be used as a weapon. It doesnt have to be a gun, knife etc.

Holy Sh*t. The next time I'm at dunkin donuts standing next to a chelmsford cop in line, I'm going to move real slow while taking my wallet out to pay. A quick motion and an unidentified black object in my hand and I'm as good as dead

annonymous wrote:

Unjustified shooting! There was no weapon which officers would have known when they responded to the minor domestic disturbance.

Unjustified, huh? You could see that from CA? How is it that you know that there was no weapon involved? What if she jumped at him with a knife? A stick? A rock, fercrissake? How would they have known about anything pertaining to a weapon with this domestic disturbance call?

Watta maroon...

Chelmsford wrote:

If she had a gun we would have heard about it already. I'll refrain from judging this officer until after I hear all of the facts. We keep hearing about threatening "behavior" ok, what was the behavior?

Who would you have heard it from? The police, who refuse to comment until the investigation is over? There are a number of things that could be considered threatening enough to warrant shooting the suspect. I can't wait for the full story to come out and show what idiots this forum creates.

Well said Funk!!

funkifized wrote:

<quoted text>
Unjustified, huh? You could see that from CA? How is it that you know that there was no weapon involved? What if she jumped at him with a knife? A stick? A rock, fercrissake? How would they have known about anything pertaining to a weapon with this domestic disturbance call?
Watta maroon...

for 1 it shouldn't be paid leave !!! both should be FIRED !!! 2 cops 1 women.....freakin sad...

Joe, I will wait to see your reply when the WHOLE story comes out you are way off!

joe wrote:

for 1 it shouldn't be paid leave !!! both should be FIRED !!! 2 cops 1 women.....freakin sad...

how can you fear for ur life if that woman didn't have anything. Its all bull because that officer must of known who that person is or something. What happen to the pepper spray, pellet gun, or the tasser. instead of a real gun and cause a wound on that person. I thought you have to be on trial before proven innocent. So I guess she was guilty by being a aggressive woman.

"before proven guilty."