Comments about ‘Ex-federal judge says West Valley detective should never have been charged’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, July 28 2014 7:20 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
salt lake city, utah

First of all, those in the "know" also know that Sim Gill is a DA and not an AG. It's a head start on the facts we probably aren't giving up soon.

Second, for those who cry out "Politics!", please explain to me how going after a cop is good politics?

Third, defending a cop simply because he is a cop is stupid because there are stupid cops. Most aren't, some are. This particular cop is verified stupid because he carried evidence from crimes in his trunk after investigations were over. Why? I can only guess. Perhaps he thought it was his? He got fired for it. He's not a "good" cop even if the shooting is justified.

Last, everyone should stop pretending they "know" any of the facts. We don't. We know what the prosecutors believe they can prove happened. We can also be sure the defense attorneys will decry the "injustice" and "complete lack of evidence" and "motives" of prosecutors until the final breath of closing argument. It's their job. As a citizen, you can have your opinion, but don't pretend it is an informed opinion yet.

Thomas Smith
Sandy, UT

Cassell has stated that "this [case]would cause a huge problem for law enforcement." Utah LE has for some time averaged nearly one killing per month. Frankly, this case causes a huge problem for the public if it is not tried. Cowley is attempting to claim rights and considerations that an arrested person is routinely denied at the hands of LE and the justice system.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

A Federal Judge may know more about the legalities than us. We are allowed to protect ourselves when we feel our life is in danger. Police officers included. If they thought the way she was operating her vehicle was putting them in danger... that's their decision (not ours).

If you think she was a completely innocent victim... you would have to explain why BOTH officers made the same decision (that they needed to use their weapon). Both officers fired. So obviously BOTH made the same spit-second decision that they were in danger and needed to stop the driver of the car.

I don't think she was completely innocent. She did not comply with the officer's orders and ran from them (that's breaking a law). She was admittedly a drug user (that's breaking the law). She was in the process of committing a crime (that's why she decided to run and take her chances instead of talking to the officers). The way she took off made them think she could run them over (her vehicle became a deadly weapon).

Unless you've been in their situation... who knows what you would do.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Did they shoot her in the head? Many are saying that, but I can't confirm it in anything I've been able to find online. Wondering if that's an assumption, or a fact.

I would not be totally surprised if it is a fact. When you are trying to stop a driver you don't shoot the car. Shooting the car does not stop the car (that only works in movies). So what part of the body is exposed through the windows of the car?'

They could try to stop her by shooting less vital areas through the doors, trunk, or the engine compartment, but that would take super-human marksmanship. I don't think it could be done reliably in the split second needed to stop the car.

But I think it's important to know the facts before just making assumptions.


BTW.. Our DA is SIM Gill (not SAM Gill). Most of the people defending SAM Gill, don't even know enough about the case to know his name.

cincinnati, OH

Since all cops are not legal to exist under the constitution, the cop committed the same crime as if you or I did it.

Title 18, part 1, section 241, United States Code, and Article 6 et al.

Salt Lake City, UT

I can't remember what they said about this case, but I think that she wasn't armed and really wasn't a threat to the cop. Police officers are trained! They shouldn't be able to shoot anyone just because they are there! If he was charged, it means that he probably didn't have a good enough reason to shoot her. If it were someone else who shot her, would they be able to say it was self defense. I bet that they wouldn't! She is dead! So, they portray her as a bad person and make up some lame excuse as to why he felt a need to kill her! The sad thing is, that people will judge her life and because of that, he will probably go free. He is a killer. Don't tell me that isn't worse than anything she might have done!

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments