Police shoot Denver teen who struck officer with stolen car

[Jim K Global Moderator]

Sad case.  Her intent (speculating) probably wasn't too injure or kill the police officers...yet...her actions could have leaving the police no choice but to defend themselves.

 

There isn't any "sweet justice" nor do I think the police want to be applauded.  She unfortunately made a poor/careless decision and for that...she lost her life.

 

Thoughts are with the family and the police through their terrible ordeal.

[Gone]

More...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/01/27/police-shoot-denver-teen-who-struck-officers-with-stolen-car/

 

So, she runs down a cop with a stolen care and cops are to quick to use a gun?  They have rubber bullets and stun guns?  Yea, I am sure those will go through a window or windshield and the girl was using the care as a deadly weapon. 

Oh Look!! Another incident which cops could have just gotten into their cop car and left!! All jokes aside, yes I would pay to see a rubber bullet stop an idiot teen running down a cop while in a car. I agree with you, police are able to judge when to use deadly force properly. 

 

In this world it is defend yourself or be dead. Also, it is be stupid and try to kill authorities and claim "racism" as the reason they shot you.

 

I would like to see all police officers leave Detroit, New York, Los Angeles, Washington D.C., and Miami for two weeks and see who bitches then .

 

I am responding to your post assuming you are being sarcastic above.

[trag3dy]

So was she a sweet little angel who "would never do anything like that"?

[Gerowen]

Most self refense laws do not specify this. The rule is if you perceive yourself in danger of serious harm or death you can fire, and firing in the defense of a third party being attacked or sexually assaulted is also permitted.

In cases where some bozo runs down one of your group then continues acting in a manner where more are in danger the right to fire is triggered. Odds are very, very high the District Attorney takes one look during the incident review and calls it a good shoot, cop or civilian. Unless, of course, Al Sharpton, Holder, Jackson, Obama etc. get flapping their gums. Then it becomes a political circus.

I wish Al Sharpton would just go mute all of a sudden.  At least then he'd have to type all of his nonsense out on Facebook or Twitter where we could just shun/unfollow him into irrelevance.

[techbeck]

I applaud the police for doing the right thing and would openly laugh at this girl's family.

 

Wow, really?   And what does her family have to do with it?  There are many bad/troubled people in a family when the rest are good people.

[LaP]

Wow. I'm so relieved by your replies. I though this thread would turn into a cop bashing one once again!! Finally ppl are starting to understand police work and how the use of force works.

 

 

 

 

 

You do understand the difference between a cop shooting an un-armed suspect not complying with orders but not posing a clear immediate threat to the cop and a cop shooting someone about to drive a stolen car over him right?

 

There was a story some months ago about a cop shooting someone shopping for a gun inside a store because some old grannies called 911 and said a strange man had a gun and was pointing it toward other people in a store selling gun ... Dunno if the story was all true but if yes then things like that are not acceptable at all imo.

[+LogicalApex MVC]

This seems like a clearly justified shooting by the officers involved. Driving a car into a police officer, or anyone, is more than enough to justify their use of lethal force to stop the threat. A car is a lethal weapon...

 

Most cases I've seen from police shootings (I'm talking about amateur videos), it's always the suspect not complying to orders like "stop, don't move".

 

I mean, if I was a police officer, and someone moved menacingly at me after I said "stop, don't move", I'd shoot him/her. 

 

Police officers are supposed to be professionals and not bafoons. That means they should be capable of ensuring they use the minimum force necessary to neutralize a threat and bring the suspected criminal before a court. Police using lethal force every time they flinch is a violation of the suspects constitutional rights (which demands a trial), at best, and reckless endangerment to society, at worst. Discharging a weapon always puts innocent bystanders at risk of injury or death and shouldn't be taken lightly as an option by police.

 

So if an officer demands someone to do X and they fail to do X the first response of the officer shouldn't be "shoot now!". The officer should be assessing the situation appropriately to see if such force if needed. Is the person armed? Does this officer have backup present? Is the person capable of being talked down and weaponless? etc.

 

In this case, the cops were clearly justified, but your suggestion that cops shoot in all cases of "non-compliance" is what makes people angry at cops. They want to be seen as professionals then they have to act as such. To act as such would be to not conduct themselves in the manner you suggest.