Zidane Posted November 11, 2013 Share Posted November 11, 2013 The police aren't bystanders though, they're active participants. Even then I reject the use of deadly force as anything but an absolute last resort, which wasn't the case here. No offence but this is largely an opinion...one neither me or you are in a position to make. You can't say "wasn't the case here" as you weren't forced to make a life or death decision. I think the majority of the people against police action seem to forget that. its easy to sit on the internet and criticize... Tews 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SierraSonic Posted November 11, 2013 Share Posted November 11, 2013 It really upsets me when people think that they can use the police as their personal whipping boy to punish their children or family members. they are not there to be your parents they are there to protect the public not solve household disputes. They are here to protect the peace, not the public. ANYWAY, the father obviously lost control of the situation and asked for help. There needs to be a last resort used before guns are even drawn and aimed at a human. I'm sorry but when you are afraid of being run over by a truck with an obviously aggressive person in it, why would you think that you must obviously put yourself right next to that vehicle just so you can have a chance to feel more afraid and cause **** like this? Surround the vehicle with a safe distance using the police cars as a wall, then have many officers that point weapons directly at the VEHICLE, then instruct the person to get out and wait til he does, then move in to surround him after he gets out. This USED to be police policy, now its just shoot at the person behind the door after you carelessly put yourself in a more dangerous situation just to have cause for shooting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macrosslover Posted November 11, 2013 Share Posted November 11, 2013 They are here to protect the peace, not the public. ANYWAY, the father obviously lost control of the situation and asked for help. There needs to be a last resort used before guns are even drawn and aimed at a human. I'm sorry but when you are afraid of being run over by a truck with an obviously aggressive person in it, why would you think that you must obviously put yourself right next to that vehicle just so you can have a chance to feel more afraid and cause **** like this? Surround the vehicle with a safe distance using the police cars as a wall, then have many officers that point weapons directly at the VEHICLE, then instruct the person to get out and wait til he does, then move in to surround him after he gets out. This USED to be police policy, now its just shoot at the person behind the door after you carelessly put yourself in a more dangerous situation just to have cause for shooting. This assumes some fairy tale situation of a large police presence that is instantly available. However if we are doing what if's, assuming they had more units en route which would not get there immediately of course since average police response for an emergency situation is 3 to 5 minutes. During that time that the officers who are on scene are waiting for this magical wall of police cars and more manpower to arrive should they ignore him still trying to get away and possibly injury others in the process? Now what if they were able to successfully surround him in a wall of protective steel and surround him with several officers with guns (ignoring the obvious crossfire issues) what would you have them do if he continues to ignore them and attempts to drive through the barricade. As to why someone who is afraid of being run over by a vehicle driven by an aggressive driver (last I checked I believe everyone) would place themselves next to that very vehicle to be more afraid, I'm sorry but I thought people liked to scream that's what the police get paid for? Do your job as people like to say. So yes this police officer who probably was scared and anybody who tells you they aren't afraid in a life or death situation is lying to you, placed themselves right next to that vehicle because it is their job and they were doing what they swore to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nogib Posted November 11, 2013 Share Posted November 11, 2013 I wholeheartedly and fully back the officer's actions in this incident. Felony evasion after committing assault against the police (backing into them) should not surprise anyone that you do get pursued. This stupid boy did EVERYTHING wrong he possibly could have. He should have simply pulled over. No one to blame but himself...if he could lol. psmoked 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SierraSonic Posted November 11, 2013 Share Posted November 11, 2013 This assumes some fairy tale situation of a large police presence that is instantly available. However if we are doing what if's, assuming they had more units en route which would not get there immediately of course since average police response for an emergency situation is 3 to 5 minutes. During that time that the officers who are on scene are waiting for this magical wall of police cars and more manpower to arrive should they ignore him still trying to get away and possibly injury others in the process? Now what if they were able to successfully surround him in a wall of protective steel and surround him with several officers with guns (ignoring the obvious crossfire issues) what would you have them do if he continues to ignore them and attempts to drive through the barricade. As to why someone who is afraid of being run over by a vehicle driven by an aggressive driver (last I checked I believe everyone) would place themselves next to that very vehicle to be more afraid, I'm sorry but I thought people liked to scream that's what the police get paid for? Do your job as people like to say. So yes this police officer who probably was scared and anybody who tells you they aren't afraid in a life or death situation is lying to you, placed themselves right next to that vehicle because it is their job and they were doing what they swore to do. No, I'm just not against waiting for backup. Not everything needs to be "solved" instantly. They should have backed-off like the dispatchers urged them too, twice... until back up arrived. Most accidents happen during a very aggressive chase, the further and safer the person fleeing is they less likely they are to drive as aggressively. What crossfire issues? These tactics have been done countless times on highways, pit, surround, team up, and shoot out the tires at a safe distance, etc. These new tactics are the problem, not the old ones. Police aren't paid to risk their life more than they feel is required. They stupidly risked more than they should have given the situation. They only swore to serve the public and to protect the peace, nothing more. There is nothing requiring them to put themselves directly in front or next to a pickup truck on foot. Had they simply backed off and waited for backup as instructed, the situation would have ended a lot differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpha2beta Posted November 11, 2013 Share Posted November 11, 2013 If there is one thing to be learned here is to never call the cops, they can't be trusted anymore. They only know how to do three things, speed, write traffic tickets, and shoot people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macrosslover Posted November 11, 2013 Share Posted November 11, 2013 Had they simply backed off and waited for backup as instructed, the situation would have ended a lot differently. This is the only thing I can agree with. It would have ended differently...he more than likely would have been shot by more than one officer. Like I said in another topic before law enforcement is a thankless job...at what point in your opinion does an adult human being (the driver) accept any responsibility for their actions. Praetor 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SierraSonic Posted November 11, 2013 Share Posted November 11, 2013 This is the only thing I can agree with. It would have ended differently...he more than likely would have been shot by more than one officer. Like I said in another topic before law enforcement is a thankless job...at what point in your opinion does an adult human being (the driver) accept any responsibility for their actions. I'm not saying that the driver wasn't at fault, but he certainly didn't shoot himself. His responsibility will, should have, been forced on him in sentencing, and not with a bullet. This and many of these situation can be solved without the use of weapons on a person. They can and are in fact trained to immobilize a vehicle and force these situations to end as peacefully as possible. A few officers forcing a situation to derail because of their impatience does not help anything. The police are supposed to be better than those they are chasing, so far all I am seeing in this situation is the policing bringing themselves down to the suspects level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macrosslover Posted November 11, 2013 Share Posted November 11, 2013 I'm not saying that the driver wasn't at fault, but he certainly didn't shoot himself. His responsibility will, should have, been forced on him in sentencing, and not with a bullet. This and many of these situation can be solved without the use of weapons on a person. They can and are in fact trained to immobilize a vehicle and force these situations to end as peacefully as possible. A few officers forcing a situation to derail because of their impatience does not help anything. The police are supposed to be better than those they are chasing, so far all I am seeing in this situation is the policing bringing themselves down to the suspects level. actually most police aren't trained to immobilize a vehicle due to the firepower actually needed to do so. Also if you shoot the driver that doesn't stop the vehicle which is not out of control. Most agencies do not allow their officers to shoot at a moving vehicle unless there are extreme circumstances that warrant it. If these officers could articulate that they could not move out of the way or they felt their life was in danger by his continued actions they would be allowed in most policies to shoot the driver dead, understanding obviously that they have to know where the vehicle is going to end up when it finally comes to a rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACTIONpack Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 Don't understand why would the son take the father truck just for not paying cigarettes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradsday Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 NOT so bloody f'ing hilarious, and FYI police firearms training (or more properly a lack of it) is a huge problem that even the FBI and DoJ are worried about. Training is inconsistent at best, or virtually absent at worst- especially where funding has been cut. This is why police officers are several times as likely to hit an innocent bystander as a licensed civilian. Ignore at your own peril Calm yourself down. Take a deep breath. What I was referring to being "hilarious" was the Fat Man's claim that the British OC19 is a better armed police response force than American S.W.A.T. based solely on your posts. I know you have shared a lot of information on these forums in the past, but I would discredit these posts as the basis for any valid comparison of the two law enforcement agencies. Frankly, I find the whole thing to be hilarious - and this is why I typically refrain from discussions on this forum. Regardless of the topic, the conversation usually veers off to a debate on how America or England (and sometimes Europe as a whole) is somehow "better." The notion is simply ridiculous. A lot of banter on here sounds like something one would hear at an elementary school yard. +Raze and Tarvis123 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nashy Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 I hope the cop gets done for murder. There was no reason to fatally shoot him. 6 shots for not pulling over. I hope he gets hanged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dermot Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 America!, solving the population problem one day at a time. I guess speeding, resisting arrest and reckless endangerment carry the death penalty now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 I hope the cop gets done for murder. There was no reason to fatally shoot him. 6 shots for not pulling over. I hope he gets hanged. Get a grip. Cops most everywhere are taught to fire 2-3 shot volleys, and if one fired you cam bet another one or two backed him up. 2x3=6 psmoked 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nashy Posted November 13, 2013 Share Posted November 13, 2013 Get a grip. Cops most everywhere are taught to fire 2-3 shot volleys, and if one fired you cam bet another one or two backed him up. 2x3=6 No, you get a grip. Just because you're pro guns, doesn't make this right. The guy is dead for no reason. It's over the top, and it should be a homicide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted November 13, 2013 Share Posted November 13, 2013 Of course it's a homicide, but in these parts homicides are categorized. File this one under justifiable homicide in a police action. That's what happens when you don't follow directions and attack officers with 3 tons of moving steel. psmoked 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Praetor Posted November 13, 2013 Share Posted November 13, 2013 No, you get a grip. Just because you're pro guns, doesn't make this right. The guy is dead for no reason. It's over the top, and it should be a homicide. sorry but did you even read the news? the kid rammed the police cars and was a menace to other as well; if it dead for no reason the first responsible should be him. Once can argue that shooting to try to immobilize a car from a dangerous driver (one that even was reported as it had stolen the car, remember?) can be overkill (no pun) but sometimes it's the only way and it's not over the top. psmoked 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nashy Posted November 14, 2013 Share Posted November 14, 2013 Ram a car, take 6 bullets? Give me a break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted November 14, 2013 Share Posted November 14, 2013 Kick a dog, get bit. Try to run down a cop with a big honkin' vehicle, get shot. Google and you''ll. find this happens to cops all he time, so they're very justifiably anxious when it happens. What's so hard to understand? It's not like it was unpredictable. Even a civilian legally carrying could counter-attack this way in most states. Reality is a harsh mistress. psmoked 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rippleman Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 No, you get a grip. Just because you're pro guns, doesn't make this right. The guy is dead for no reason. It's over the top, and it should be a homicide. i don't like guns. I would have shot the kid too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nashy Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 Well lets hope no one you love is ever involved in something where he is shot for no reason aye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soniqstylz Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 The dad should've read him this story as a young'un http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q05DGnEio3w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TCA Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 A lot if not most police cars carry shotguns. Killing an engine by gun fire isn't a myth, they could of stopped the chase by not chasing him as well. they do it with bikers all the time. They could of decided to call it off. Police chases end uneventfully all the time, California seems to be a hot bed for police chases and most of the ones i've seen on the news ends without the person being shot. Or the driver wrecking the car pretty bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zidane Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 Well lets hope no one you love is ever involved in something where he is shot for no reason aye. Of course you would be all up in arms had the guy killed an innocent while recklessly trying to mow down the cops. Better yet, if he had killed someone you love while doing so...but because it was the "mean ole coppers" they should offer up their lives so the cri...err victim as you guys feel he still is after crossing the line. ...what was it the cops have done to you to make you despise them so? If you don't want to talk about it I understand... Tews and Lord Method Man 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Growled Member Posted November 15, 2013 Member Share Posted November 15, 2013 Sad to say, but it looks like the dad was the one who learned the lesson here. Don't involve the cops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts