United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Cop Directing Traffic Opens Fire on Innocent Family in Van, Shooting the Dad
Source:
Free Thought Project
URL Source: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/co ... g-the-dad/#uh8GdUT3EW3Ic0MH.99
Published: Mar 6, 2017
Author: Claire Bernish
Post Date: 2017-03-06 08:56:25 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 3197
Comments: 29
Atlanta, GA — A North Carolina family narrowly escaped with their lives when an off-duty Atlanta police supervisor opened fire at their vehicle while directing traffic — because they made a wrong turn. Forty-six-year-old Noel Hall, his wife, sons, grandson, and another passenger were leaving a motocross event at the Georgia Dome, where, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation told 11Alive Sergeant Mathieu Cadeau “was conducting traffic and ordered Hall to go one direction down Northside Drive, but reportedly, Hall wanted to go another direction. The GBI, which has taken over the investigation, said Hall then drove toward the officer, at which point Cadeau opened fire, injuring Hall.” Hall disputes GBI’s claims he drove at Cadeau, saying “at no point did we realize this man was a police officer.” “First thing we want to make very clear is, that at no point did we realize this man was a police officer, he never presented hisself [sic] in any such way,” Hall wrote in a statement on the inexplicable shooting. “Yes, he had a vest on, however, from our point of view there was nothing on it to indicate or state who he was, he never identified himself, we did not see a badge and most certainly did not see his weapon. We were already in the turn lane and in the process of turning when he approached us by walking in front of our van, we did not drive toward him as been stated.” Hall continued, “We came to a complete stop and at the point when we did start moving, we made a turn to the right, around and away from the officer. It is unclear to us as of why he chose to shoot, as we had already moved past him, when he fired at us, but it was absolutely unjustified.” Further, even the Atlanta Police Department remains skeptical, reiterating Wednesday their office has never claimed Hall targeted Cadeau with the van. Initial reports said Hall drove toward the supervisor, who “was wearing his uniform and reflective vest,” after being directed to a different route. Cadeau then opened fire without warning, hitting and injuring Hall — who then drove several blocks until a family member on board managed to reach emergency services. Hall’s injuries weren’t serious, but the shaken up family has grave concerns about Cadeau’s indiscriminate and gratuitous firing of a deadly weapon into their Ford F350 van — particularly with the number of children inside. He stated, “We are very fortunate and thankful that I (Noel) did not sustain any life threatening injuries from the gunshot wound, as we are also very fortunate and thankful that none of the other family members were hit. The officer shot at me through the drivers window, the bullet entering and exiting me twice, then through and out the passenger window, just missing my wife’s head, who was seated in the passenger seat by only inches. Also in the van were 2 of our sons, one sons girlfriend and our 2 year old grandson, so it could have very easily went through the passenger area of the van, hitting any of them.” Considering Cadeau fired on the van while directing overflow traffic from a popular event, bystanders on foot and in other vehicles were also fortunate to be spared. Notably, neither the Atlanta Police Department nor the Georgia Bureau of Investigation have accused Hall of accelerating toward the supervisor or targeting him maliciously with the vehicle — simply that he began driving toward Cadeau. Indeed, Atlanta police haven’t indicated the supervisor cop felt threatened during the incident, at all. Hall lamented the allegations he drove toward Cadeau, asserting never, at any point, “would I have done anything to put them in harms way, just as I would never had intentionally made a move to cause harm or possibly take another’s life.” GBI is now handling the investigation into why an officer in a supervisory position on the job fired his service weapon into a family vehicle when the driver didn’t opt for the officially-sanctioned route — but didn’t put anyone in danger.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
Is this gospel truth?
A non-denial denial. No one asked if he realized Cadeau was a police officer (who, by the way, was wearing his uniform and reflective vest). So, from the get-go, the driver is lying.
The cop-worship is strong with you two.
Well, there you have it. If you're a pedestrian and a car is driving at you, you have no right to feel threatened. Only if the car is accelerating, and if you can read the driver's mind that he intends harm, can you take action to defend yourself.
Whoa! The bullet entered and exited his body TWICE! Sounds serious. "Hall’s injuries weren’t serious ..." Never mind.
Why do you feel the need to lie about me? There are plenty of times where I side against the police. But I'm not just going to side against the police because of a reflex to automatically take their side. If you're honest you know that. I judge each case individually. I haven't taken a position on this particular incident. I just asked if something the person who is the subject of this article is quoted as saying. I noticed you didn't answer the question.
Here's my take. Mr. Macho is leaving a motorcross event and comes to what he thinks is some "mall cop" in a reflective vest signaling all traffic (and him) to turn left. He wants to go right. I imagine his thinking was, "Fuck this wannabe cop telling me what to do. What's he gonna do about it? Yell at me?" So he turns right. Oops. Big mistake. Play stupid games. Win stupid prizes. This asshole had his wife, sons, grandson, and another passenger in the van. He has an obligation to them to obey the traffic instructions from a uniformed officer no matter how he feels about it.
I've been to plenty of these types of events. Everyone is still pumped up and anxious to leave. Tempers are short. It's a zoo. It was for his safety that the cop signaled all traffic, and him, to turn left. By turning right he DID put them in harms way. So he lied again.
Any family man travelling out of an event -- or anywhere else for that matter -- with numerous members of his family in a car is NOT going to try to run down an armed police officer. We're not talking about a bank robber leaving the scene of a crime, so on it's face there is zero motive for this guy to try to run down a police officer, or anyone else. Police officers, on the other hand, are trained to be constantly paranoid that everyone is trying to kill them at every opportunity. That is likely the reason he needlessly opened fired.
So, from the get-go, the driver is lying. How the hell do you know? Do you know how many reporters have talked to him or what questions they asked him? No? The incident happened at night time, and the cop was off-duty. The driver has no motive to lie about this as his actions, right or wrong, wouldn't depend on the occupation of the cop. But for you, it's impossible for anyone wearing a police uniform to commit a crime. It's magical clothing. I guess if they made everyone wear police uniforms in public then crime would disappear.
Which is why the bullet entered the car through the windshield. Oh wait a minute. It didn't do that. It went through the driver window and exited the passenger window. I guess t he cop had a reeeeeealy long arm and was still in danger of being run over at the time he fired his gun. Maybe he was the rubber guy from Fantastic Four. Or maybe at the time the cop fired his gun he was in absolutely no danger whatsover, but he fired because of his emotional state at the time, and the paranoid training he was given. Gee, I wonder which one it was.
Nope! Your agenda driven ignorance as a cop-hater and anti-government anarchist is overpowering your objectivity and rational judgment.
The family released a statement, according to the news. You can find it on one of the links in the article. What's lacking here is any motive for the man to try to run down the cop, or any one else for that matter. He wasn't leaving the scene of a crime, so there is no motive for a fast getaway as there is when someone robs a bank, for example. He had numerous members of his family in the car which further erases any motive to try to injure or kill anyone why leaving a motorcross event. The guy lives in NC and attended an event in Atlanta, so he may have been unfamiliar with the preferred traffic patterns while leaving those events. Desiring to leave by an alternate street is a common thing, and it could be that traffic was clear to do so at that particular moment. But even if he was plainly wrong about wanting to leave by an improper street, shooting at such a person is not a legit means of traffic control, and as the bullet went through both the driver and passenger door windows, it's clear the cop could not have been in any danger whatsoever at the time he fired his gun. The only question to really investigate is if the driver did try to run over the cop or was driving aggressively toward him instead of just driving normally. It's possible he could have done so, even with no motive, but as mentioned, as the cop was in no danger when he fired, this is probably not much of a consideration. It's also possible the cop responded emotionally and not rationally to a driver leaving by an unapproved exit and that was the reason he fired. BAC levels for the driver were under the legal limit according to the news. No word on whether the *cop* might have been drinking. He was off-duty, afterall.
And that says it all about your "take". Pure bias.
I first went after Pinguinite and he placed me on bozo. Then sneakypete went after him and Pinguinite placed him on bozo. Looks like you’re next … I have the “Auf Wiedersehen” video cued.
So what's your "take"? The guy was doing everything right and the cop decided to shoot him for no reason in front of a hundred witnesses? And that's not biased thinking?
The motive? Because the cop was in the way. "it's clear the cop could not have been in any danger whatsoever at the time he fired his gun." Does the cop need to be run over before he can shoot?
My take is in Comment #13. What I think is most likely is that the cop was a bit P/O'd for unrelated reasons just before the shooting. Could have been some other car that went by 2 mins before also exited by an unapproved street, and maybe flipped the cop the bird before doing so. The cop was mulling on that stewing a bit at the rudeness and getting worked up about it, and then when this van went buy he snapped and shot at him, factored in part by the cops training into thinking that their lives are constantly in danger because people want to kill them all the time. I think that's a far more likely scenario than yours that says the driver would want to run down someone he knows was an armed cop (as you claim the driver knew) especially while his family is in the car. Directing traffic is not fun work. You yourself stated how tempers can flare during those mass exit times, and to whatever extent that is true, it would certainly be the case for both the cops directing traffic as well as drivers. So I think it's most likely the cop snapped and opened fire without sufficient legal cause.
Wow. That's the best motive you can come up with? And you wonder why people don't take you seriously? You do realize you are implying he could have legally fired at the car as it was driving away after passing him, right?
I'm saying he jumped out of the way and fired. "That's the best motive you can come up with?" You asked for a motive. I gave you one.
He said he didn't know he was a cop. I say he lied. He knew he was a cop, but didn't know he was armed. And even if he was armed, he never thought he would shoot. I think the cop saw him starting to turn right and moved in front of the car to redirect him. The guy kept going, the cop jumped out of the way and fired.
There's nothing suggesting any jumping occurred. That the bullet went through both driver and passenger windows makes it plain that at the time of firing, the cop was in no danger whatsoever. In fact, the cop pretty much must have been on his feet when he fired for the bullet to hit the drivers shoulder and just miss his wife's head, so whatever evasive action the cop claims to have needed to make certainly didn't include any "diving out of the way". Fair enough. And if that's the best one you can come up with, the case looks very bad for the cop.
Common for cops to place themselves in harms way and then use deadly force to keep themselves from suffering the consequences of the decision.
Happens all the time. That might actually be in their job description. Fortunately, most of the time they don't have to use deadly force.
I never said that. I said "jumped" out of the way.
I never said that. I said "jumped" out of the way. My point is that whatever evasive action the cop might have seen fit to take did not require him to lose his footing. "Diving out of the way" is more consistent with avoiding a car that is being driven by someone intent upon inflicting harm or death, so if the cop didn't need to do that, then ....
Yeah. That's what bullfighters do all the time.
That's what bullfighters do all the time. Well, according to the news reports, the guy wasn't driving a bull. But could just be a case of sloppy reporting.
Or Fake News.
“would I have done anything to put them in harms way, just as I would never had intentionally made a move to cause harm or possibly take another’s life.”
#2. To: Deckard (#0)
"Hall disputes GBI’s claims he drove at Cadeau, saying “at no point did we realize this man was a police officer.”
#3. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone (#2)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#4. To: Deckard (#0)
"Notably, neither the Atlanta Police Department nor the Georgia Bureau of Investigation have accused Hall of accelerating toward the supervisor or targeting him maliciously with the vehicle — simply that he began driving toward Cadeau."
#5. To: Deckard (#0)
"The officer shot at me through the drivers window, the bullet entering and exiting me twice"
#6. To: Deckard (#3)
The cop-worship is strong with you two.
#7. To: Deckard (#0)
(Edited)
#8. To: A K A Stone (#1)
"would I have done anything to put them in harms way"
#9. To: Deckard (#0)
#10. To: misterwhite (#2)
A non-denial denial. No one asked if he realized Cadeau was a police officer (who, by the way, was wearing his uniform and reflective vest).
#11. To: misterwhite (#4)
Well, there you have it. If you're a pedestrian and a car is driving at you, you have no right to feel threatened. Only if the car is accelerating, and if you can read the driver's mind that he intends harm, can you take action to defend yourself.
#12. To: Deckard, misterwhite, A K A Stone (#3)
The cop-worship is strong with you two.
#13. To: A K A Stone (#6)
I haven't taken a position on this particular incident. I just asked if something the person who is the subject of this article is quoted as saying. I noticed you didn't answer the question.
#14. To: misterwhite (#7)
Here's my take.
Mr. Macho .... This asshole had ....
#15. To: misterwhite (#14)
Yea, that’s right….little ole likeable me.
#16. To: Pinguinite (#14)
"And that says it all about your "take". Pure bias."
#17. To: Pinguinite (#13)
"What's lacking here is any motive for the man to try to run down the cop"
#18. To: misterwhite (#16)
#19. To: misterwhite (#17)
The motive? Because the cop was in the way.
Does the cop need to be run over before he can shoot?
#20. To: Pinguinite (#19)
"You do realize you are implying he could have legally fired at the car as it was driving away after passing him, right?"
#21. To: Pinguinite (#18)
"would want to run down someone he knows was an armed cop"
#22. To: misterwhite (#20)
I'm saying he jumped out of the way and fired.
You asked for a motive. I gave you one.
#23. To: misterwhite (#21)
and moved in front of the car to redirect him.
#24. To: Pinguinite (#23)
"Common for cops to place themselves in harms way and then use deadly force to keep themselves from suffering the consequences of the decision."
#25. To: Pinguinite (#22)
"didn't include any "diving out of the way".
#26. To: misterwhite (#25)
#27. To: Pinguinite (#26)
"Diving out of the way" is more consistent with avoiding a car that is being driven by someone intent upon inflicting harm or death"
#28. To: misterwhite (#27)
#29. To: Pinguinite (#28)
"Well, according to the news reports, the guy wasn't driving a bull. But could just be a case of sloppy reporting."
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]