Couple pleads not guilty to running down Santa Cruz police detective

But who is the car registered to? And did they find the stolen GPS with the couple or not?

Becky Johnson wrote:

But who is the car registered to? And did they find the stolen GPS with the couple or not?

The car was reported stolen in Oregon.

The article said they had stolen property in their possession. The car and the GPS.

Love... aint it grand.

No way do they look like tweakers! No way!

MAXIE WRITES: "The car was reported stolen in Oregon. The article said they had stolen property in their possession. The car and the GPS."

BECKY: No, it doesn't. It doesn't say anything about whether the GPS was found in the car or not. The fact that it WASN'T mentioned is suspicious. Possession of stolen property could just be the car. Yes, I know that the car was "reported stolen in Oregon." But that doesn't mean it was actually stolen. LOTS of people lend their car to someone and then change their minds and file a stolen car report. My question is "who was the car registered to?" Was it a family member? Or was it a complete stranger?

Becky Johnson wrote:

Possession of stolen property could just be the car. Yes, I know that the car was "reported stolen in Oregon." But that doesn't mean it was actually stolen.

Are you honestly saying the police don't have the right to stop and ask questions of people driving a car that has been reported as stolen?

Becky Johnson said, "LOTS of people lend their car to someone and then change their minds and file a stolen car report."

Becky I'm glad you brought that up. In fact the funny thing is every time I borrow a car from a friend, which is just all the time, they give me the keys then go call the police and report it stolden. They just change their minds and call the police. In fact this has happened to almost everyone I know. NOT

It happened almost happened to me once. I left my car at my shade tree mechanic's house. He kept delaying the repair and delaying the repair. Then I couldn't get a hold of him. I panicked. I called a sheriff friend of mine quite unofficially and he told me that there is no way to really take it back if I reported the car stolen. I delayed. I called two other friends of mine, one of whom went over to personally talk to the guy. He fixed my car and delivered it to my door. Ta da!! No felony!

Then there are jealous girlfriends, well-meaning but idiot parents, and friends who are not all that friendly. WHY haven't we heard WHO the car is actually registered to? This is why a person should be presumed to be innocent until PROVEN guilty.

And YES, the officer was right to act as though the car was stolen when he called in its plates and found it reported stolen. But was he right to SHOOT at them?

Becky Johnson wrote:

Then there are jealous girlfriends, well-meaning but idiot parents, and friends who are not all that friendly. WHY haven't we heard WHO the car is actually registered to? This is why a person should be presumed to be innocent until PROVEN guilty.
And YES, the officer was right to act as though the car was stolen when he called in its plates and found it reported stolen. But was he right to SHOOT at them?

Whoa are you to question Law Enforcement? Don't you know it will backfire?

Lesson #1: Law Enforcement is never wrong.
Lesson #2: Law Enforcement is more credible than you.
Lesson #3: They are immune.
Lesson #4: Expect promotions when you suspect Law Enforcement foul play.

Wasted skin. And here Roberts is, "demanding" which attorney he wants, courtesy of the SC County taxpayers. Pigs. So glad Atack didn't oblige.

Becky Johnson wrote:

And YES, the officer was right to act as though the car was stolen when he called in its plates and found it reported stolen. But was he right to SHOOT at them?

He shot at the car as it was running him down. Yes, he had the right to shoot at them. When a car is running you over, that is an exchange of reasonable force. Man. You're a real piece of work, aren't you??

Ms. Johnson is making a lawyers argument. That's ok. We need police to follow procedure. She should directly say what we all know; the Sentinel doesn't alway get the facts right. Their reporters are quick to say the "couple" are "romantically invovled", but they don't report essential facts like was the car reported stolen by people known by the accused. The article read like the Sentinel was trying to create a "Natural Born Killers" mystique around the accused. We're all emotionally charged about what happened, the Sentinel should stick to the facts (as best the can).
In the past 30 days we've seen 7 police officers killed in line of duty, 4 in Oakland, 3 in Pittsburgh. There isn't an officer anywhere who isn't more edgy, more jumpy and more eager to control the situation. They deserve to go home at night, alive. They deserve the benefit of the doubt.
Finally, if they have no verifiable job and no money and no where to live; get 'em out of here. We have enough young drifters trying to stay high and live off of locals (many of them are well meaning and too tolerant).
Folks, its not even summer yet. Wait 'til the crowds set in. We're looking a several tense months.

I say take 'em out back and put them down like Old Yeller. They's got the rabies.

Becky Johnson wrote:

This is why a person should be presumed to be innocent until PROVEN guilty.
And YES, the officer was right to act as though the car was stolen when he called in its plates and found it reported stolen. But was he right to SHOOT at them?

You are such an amazing hypocrite!! In one sentence you are saying all people should be innocent until proven guilty, but in the next you condemn a police officer for doing something of which you have NO FIRST HAND INFORMATION!!!! You always ALWAYS presume the police guilty until proven innocent.
You are a proven LIAR again and again.
You are a proven HYPOCRITE.
You are EVIL.
You are DELUSIONAL.
You are CRAZY!!!!!

The officer had EVERY RIGHT to fire upon this car. His life was threatened. The only down side to this story is he missed.

If the couple had nothing to hide, they would not have tried to run over the officer. Becky, how do you sleep at night ? I sure hope you dont ever need some law enforcements help and they recognize you....their lible to turn and drive away...I know I would.

Becky Johnson wrote:

It happened almost happened to me once. I left my car at my shade tree mechanic's house. He kept delaying the repair and delaying the repair. Then I couldn't get a hold of him. I panicked. I called a sheriff friend of mine quite unofficially and he told me that there is no way to really take it back if I reported the car stolen. I delayed. I called two other friends of mine, one of whom went over to personally talk to the guy. He fixed my car and delivered it to my door. Ta da!! No felony!

Good God, you're an idiot!

Becky Johnson wrote:

Then there are jealous girlfriends, well-meaning but idiot parents, and friends who are not all that friendly. WHY haven't we heard WHO the car is actually registered to? This is why a person should be presumed to be innocent until PROVEN guilty.
And YES, the officer was right to act as though the car was stolen when he called in its plates and found it reported stolen. But was he right to SHOOT at them?

Good God....you're an even bigger idiot than I originally thought.
Stop typing and go back in search of the elusive food, Chubsy....

Sound like a modern day Bonney and Clyde to me.

tar and feathers for Bonnie and Clyde