137 replies to this topic

[someonefromtheus]

Richteralan, on 10 December 2012 - 01:27, said:

Should've fired warning shots when they get in the car.

The cop opened the door and told them to not go anywhere. that warning enough for you? On top of the previous wanrings inside the walmart and outside of it.

[Richteralan]

someonefromtheus, on 10 December 2012 - 01:53, said:

The cop opened the door and told them to not go anywhere. that warning enough for you? On top of the previous wanrings inside the walmart and outside of it.

Then the cop put himself in physical contact with the car which poses danger to him.

Do you hold the car's door when somebody desperately trying to run away? No. You stay away from the car and fire warning shots unless you have the physical ability to pull the car door off.

And I believe all "previous" warnings are just verbal warnings. Did the off-duty deputy escalate the warnings? When you verbally tell somebody stop and they ignore you, why you think keeping yelling stop at them will make them stop? Keep doing the same thing and expect different outcome?

But of course, hindsight is 20/20. Just some ideas.

Skyfrog, on 10 December 2012 - 01:44, said:

Police don't fire warning shots, nor should anyone. Aside from being completely ineffective the stray shots could hit a bystander.

The only time a gun should be fired is to stop an immediate threat to yours or someone's life. In this case his life was in danger.

Well sounds like u r the bawss!

[Wyn6]

First off let me preface this by saying what someone else said. We don't know all the facts of this incident. We just allegedly know what happened. We won't know all the facts until the security camera footage is viewed and all witnesses have been interviewed. So, no one can make assumptions either way.

That being said... this police officer made several procedural mistakes. He recklessly approached a suspect vehicle alone in a high-risk situation in which he had neither cover nor control. He was outnumbered and had no indication of whether any of the suspects were armed or whether weapons may have been in the car (always assume they are and that there are). Since, he failed to establish any sort of control at that point, he should have allowed the vehicle to leave and called for backup/the local PD, and given them the vehicle description and plates along with the number and description of the suspects he encountered. Yes, you can make the "Take reasonable action to detain or arrest" argument. But, he actually exposed himself pretty badly by doing what he did.

Now, an assumption on my part is that he assumed since they were female and were only shoplifting, they weren't armed. I hope he didn't make this assumption, but his alleged actions say otherwise. Had they been armed and were the type, he would be dead. Too many instances of officers losing their lives in this very scenario or very similar scenarios. There've been several here in the Dallas area.

Moving on. If it turns out that from where he fired he was indeed in danger, it will be a justified shoot. But, if the security footage and or witnesses find him well clear of the vehicle before he fired, he's in trouble. Again, this will all depend on the actual facts not our conjecture here on a forum for geeks. Oh as an FYI, he didn't shoot the driver, he shot a passenger.

Richteralan, on 10 December 2012 - 02:27, said:

Then the cop put himself in physical contact with the car which poses danger to him.

Do you hold the car's door when somebody desperately trying to run away? No. You stay away from the car and fire warning shots unless you have the physical ability to pull the car door off.

And I believe all "previous" warnings are just verbal warnings. Did the off-duty deputy escalate the warnings? When you verbally tell somebody stop and they ignore you, why you think keeping yelling stop at them will make them stop? Keep doing the same thing and expect different outcome?

But of course, hindsight is 20/20. Just some ideas.


Well sounds like u r the bawss!

While you are somewhat correct about how the officer should've handled the situation (read the above), Skyfrog is correct about warning shots. In the U.S. a police officer is taught to never discharge his firearm in less it is in a situation In which they are justified in the use of deadly force. To put it bluntly, a police officer will only fire their weapon with the intent to kill someone.

[trag3dy]

Richteralan, on 10 December 2012 - 01:27, said:

Should've fired warning shots when they get in the car.

He told her to stop three times previously. How many warnings did he need to give?

[rippleman]

Rohdekill, on 09 December 2012 - 19:09, said:

He shot in fear of his life. Anyone who steps on the gas of a 2000 lb weapon ( a car ) when an officer is in the immediate area deserves to be shot as you placed the officer in a potentially deadly situation where he needs to defend his life.

the car was moving forward, not backward. The officer was in no danger of being ran over.

[TRC]

rippleman, on 10 December 2012 - 04:05, said:

the car was moving forward, not backward. The officer was in no danger of being ran over.

So getting run over by the rear tire is not dangerous? Lots of people have been killed after being dragged by a car.

[rippleman]

TRC, on 10 December 2012 - 05:11, said:

So getting run over by the rear tire is not dangerous? Lots of people have been killed after being dragged by a car.

when i was young (18 or so) had a fiery relationship with a girl. A couple times she would race off with me trying to talk to her with me having the door open.... at no time was I in danger of been run over with the vehicle moving forward. this was probably because i wasn't being dragged. According to the report, neither was the officer.

[TRC]

rippleman, on 10 December 2012 - 05:34, said:

when i was young (18 or so) had a fiery relationship with a girl. A couple times she would race off with me trying to talk to her with me having the door open.... at no time was I in danger of been run over with the vehicle moving forward. this was probably because i wasn't being dragged. According to the report, neither was the officer.

Which report? Did you ignore the other articles linked that said he was being dragged or that one talking about how his shoes were pulled off? Also the linked article here is incorrect, she was actually going in reverse not forward which makes sense considering that's how you get out of a parking spot. Go read the police report and other articles, or just keep saying what the thieves did was perfectly safe since your girlfriend never ran over you I guess.

[TheLegendOfMart]

Wyn6, on 10 December 2012 - 03:20, said:

That being said... this police officer made several procedural mistakes. He recklessly approached a suspect vehicle alone in a high-risk situation in which he had neither cover nor control. He was outnumbered and had no indication of whether any of the suspects were armed or whether weapons may have been in the car (always assume they are and that there are). Since, he failed to establish any sort of control at that point, he should have allowed the vehicle to leave and called for backup/the local PD, and given them the vehicle description and plates along with the number and description of the suspects he encountered. Yes, you can make the "Take reasonable action to detain or arrest" argument. But, he actually exposed himself pretty badly by doing what he did.

Like cops in most civilised societies do. Ours try and smash the car windows to scare the criminal with force, if they don't stop they don't jump onto the car like in an action movie. They don't try and murder the criminal because they have put themselves into that situation.

The sad thing is American cops have to use deadly force because general public has easy access to guns.

[trag3dy]

TheLegendOfMart, on 10 December 2012 - 07:12, said:

Like cops in most civilised societies do. Ours try and smash the car windows to scare the criminal with force, if they don't stop they don't jump onto the car like in an action movie. They don't try and murder the criminal because they have put themselves into that situation.

The sad thing is American cops have to use deadly force because general public has easy access to guns.

Why on earth you would bring that up when this has nothing to do with guns. He had to use deadly force because this stupid woman turned her car into a weapon.

More people trying to place blame on the cop for doing his job instead of the one who actually deserves it. The person who committed the crime in the first place and escalated the entire situation which resulted in her death. And had nothing to do with guns in the hands of "the general public".

I always get the impression that people from the UK think the US is literally like the wild west where we have duels at high noon and shoot outs over bar fights daily. You can keep your silly theories to yourself because they have nothing to do with what's being talked about.

[Hardcore Til I Die]

People justifying a ridiculous and preventable outcome again, I see.

I've said it before and I'll say it again; if this happened in England, nobody would have died.

[rfirth]

Hardcore Til I Die, on 10 December 2012 - 08:05, said:

I've said it before and I'll say it again; if this happened in England, nobody would have died.

But it didn't. And you're wrong... had this happened in England, the officer probably would have been the one that died.

And had the criminal died, the upstanding citizens of London would have gone on another building burning spree and rioted. I was there during your riots in 2011.

[dnast]

rfirth, on 10 December 2012 - 08:22, said:

But it didn't. And you're wrong... had this happened in England, the officer probably would have been the one that died.

With the fact that the shoplifters still escaped in the car I don't understand how you can really say shooting one of them saved his life.

I'm not saying the cop was necessarily wrong, though. I'd have to see footage to really form an opinion.

[TheLegendOfMart]

rfirth, on 10 December 2012 - 08:22, said:

But it didn't. And you're wrong... had this happened in England, the officer probably would have been the one that died.

And had the criminal died, the upstanding citizens of London would have gone on another building burning spree and rioted. I was there during your riots in 2011.

No because the officer would have had sense not to hold onto a moving vehicle.

[rippleman]

TRC, on 10 December 2012 - 06:00, said:

Which report? Did you ignore the other articles linked that said he was being dragged or that one talking about how his shoes were pulled off? Also the linked article here is incorrect, she was actually going in reverse not forward which makes sense considering that's how you get out of a parking spot. Go read the police report and other articles, or just keep saying what the thieves did was perfectly safe since your girlfriend never ran over you I guess.

some thieves are better off dead... very true but not saying anything about that. Just speaking about the "danger" factor only. I did only read this article which yes could be wrong.