Dad calls cops on son, cops kill son

[a6m5]

Yet another great example to show your children of why you should listen to the police..oh and not steal your Daddy's car and drive through red lights and try to run police cars off the road...stuff like that.

I'm starting to get this impression: People like us, we think it is our responsibility to teach our kids to respect the law, obey the police, etc. You know, pretty basic stuff. Yes, kids will do kid stuff, but when the cops with guns drawn tell you to do something, you do it.

In some countries, I guess it is the responsibility of the police to babysit the children, even if that meant risking the lives of the innocent officers, bystanders.

Yes, police should not be automatically discharging firearms when in serious confrontation, but as far as I'm concerned, lot of the people here are just passing the buck. Ultimately, accountability should lie with the person(s) who started it, escalated it, then failed to obey the final warning/command from the police.

 

[Nicksfix]

Kid plays with fire ... kid gets burned. Pretty simple, he had it coming.

To those who think "why didn't the cops just shoot the tires" idea. This is not Hollywood, get over it please.

You do realize the repercussions that are associated with shooting out someones tires, don't you ? Do you know what happens when a tire gets shot out while driving, especially with an inexperienced driver ? They crash, that's what. Now, let the cops shoot out his tires, the kid loses control and crashes. He crashes head on into your wife and kids as she is taking them to school or wherever and kills them. Now what ? Yeah, your screaming about this asshole cop that shot out this guys tires and made him lose control of his vehicle which caused the death of your wife and kids. Now your saying it should have been handled in a different manner. How are you dealing with that scenario ? Still want to shoot out his tires ? Still want to risk your wife and kids, or someone else's life or multiple lives of innocent bystanders ?

Are you aware of what happens to a bullet when it hits a tire ? Does it just suddenly stop and fall ? Not likely. It keeps traveling. So let's shoot out those tires and have stray bullets flying around all over hell after they ricochet off of the wheel or some other part of the car, once again, risking innocent lives. Better yet, let one ricochet off of the wheel and stray into the fuel tank. Guy really loses control now and crashes a burning car into a building. Hell of a scenario 'eh ?

 

[Villain]

Dad refused to buy his son cigarettes, so the son took his dads truck to get some. Dad then calls the police, who chase the son and end up killing him.

You left out the part where the son used the truck as a weapon to attack the police officers.

So... rightful use of force or police brutality?

Insane question to ask. If you try to kill the police with your vehicle then you shouldn't be surprised when the police start shooting to kill in the interest of their own safety.

 

[a6m5]

Lot of people also assume that cops are trigger happy. There is no doubt that there are cops who are, but police shootings are very closely investigated. There will be nerve wrecking interviews & paperwork waiting for the officer. Any mistake found could cause long suspension, stalled career, or maybe even end it. I'm always surprised by how so many people instantly assume the trigger happy cop like they knew the people involved personally & witnessed the whole thing themselves. Maybe the cop feared for the safety of people nearby, maybe his own life, but many of the posts in this type thread show more concern for the safety of the criminal with a deadly weapon.

 

[Intronium]

Kid plays with fire ... kid gets burned. Pretty simple, he had it coming.

To those who think "why didn't the cops just shoot the tires" idea. This is not Hollywood, get over it please.

You do realize the repercussions that are associated with shooting out someones tires, don't you ? Do you know what happens when a tire gets shot out while driving, especially with an inexperienced driver ? They crash, that's what. Now, let the cops shoot out his tires, the kid loses control and crashes. He crashes head on into your wife and kids as she is taking them to school or wherever and kills them. Now what ? Yeah, your screaming about this asshole cop that shot out this guys tires and made him lose control of his vehicle which caused the death of your wife and kids. Now your saying it should have been handled in a different manner. How are you dealing with that scenario ? Still want to shoot out his tires ? Still want to risk your wife and kids, or someone else's life or multiple lives of innocent bystanders ?

Are you aware of what happens to a bullet when it hits a tire ? Does it just suddenly stop and fall ? Not likely. It keeps traveling. So let's shoot out those tires and have stray bullets flying around all over hell after they ricochet off of the wheel or some other part of the car, once again, risking innocent lives. Better yet, let one ricochet off of the wheel and stray into the fuel tank. Guy really loses control now and crashes a burning car into a building. Hell of a scenario 'eh ?

Yeah, you're right. I was just suggesting it, but I never really thought of it that way

 

[Villain]

Seems like I'm not in touch with reality on this subject.

I'll drink to that. Skol, brother!

Oh and while you're comparing statistics of the United States to those of Sweden, maybe you'll want to take into account that the population for the United States is literally 33 magnitudes larger than the population of Sweden. As of matter of fact, the population of New York City alone (not taking the metropolitan area into account, is almost equal to the entire population of Sweden.

I'm not saying that if the two nations were the same size, then the stats would be closer. Rather that it's probably not best to compare these two nations and the tribulations of their respective law enforcement agencies as if it were apples to apples.

 

[NLxAROSA]

Insane question to ask. If you try to kill the police with your vehicle then you shouldn't be surprised when the police start shooting to kill in the interest of their own safety.

Ah, so if you have a very strong opinion about a subject, it's insane to ask or propose a different opinion? Nice way to approach a discussion. Just FYI, I don't blame the police in this incident in any way, IMO the only people to blame here are the kid and his dad.

 

[Famine]

He didn't make a rational decision or choice, he acted and then reacted on instinct. Granted, the way his instincts had been shaped do seem flawed. But he was still learning. At 17, in terms of learning/growing into life and an understanding of those life concepts, he is just a babe.

A babe who is legally allowed to get into his own car and drive it wherever he pleases, without any supervision - a babe trusted with this level of responsibility, like one in eight drivers on the road.

What he chose to do with this level of responsibility was ram police cars - ignoring the fact that he chose to get into someone else's car and take it without permission.

With regard to the law enforcement here in Qld...at least there isn't what seems to be an instinctive or conditioned mindset of pulling the trigger as the first resort. Which is how it does seem to be in the States.

That's funny, because I encountered this article last month. QLD boys sure seem to like their excessive force - and remember, they're all armed.

 

[MatskiMonk]

the population for the United States is literally 33 magnitudes larger than the population of Sweden. As of matter of fact, the population of New York City alone (not taking the metropolitan area into account, is almost equal to the entire population of Sweden.

Off topic I know, but someone recently said something similar in conversation, 33 magnitudes larger is a lot, 9 and a half million, multiplied by 10, 33 times? That's alot, or is my interpretation incorrect?

edit:

Kid plays with fire ... kid gets burned. Pretty simple, he had it coming.

To those who think "why didn't the cops just shoot the tires" idea. This is not Hollywood, get over it please.

So the only way to stop a moving vehicle is to shoot the driver dead? If the vehicle is moving that means it's potentially 2 tonnes of steel travelling at speed, with nobody in control.. also a pretty dangerous situation.. if they shoot when the vehicle is stopped, to avoid this, then why would it be so difficult to shoot the tyres?

Also, quick question on gun law: If a CCW permit holder sees somebody endangering lives with a motor vehicle, are they allowed to shoot? Or does their own life have to be in danger?

 

[frenzal]

A babe who is legally allowed to get into his own car and drive it wherever he pleases, without any supervision - a babe trusted with this level of responsibility, like one in eight drivers on the road.

What he chose to do with this level of responsibility was ram police cars - ignoring the fact that he chose to get into someone else's car and take it without permission.That's funny, because I encountered this article last month. QLD boys sure seem to like their excessive force - and remember, they're all armed.

Whatever, you seem to be looking to make an aggravated argument out of this with the point being to prove me or my viewpoint wrong, which shouldn't surprise me really. Have another look at both the points I posted which you have quoted, and the context within which I posted them. And then the intention of your response which definitely appears to be of an argumentative approach purely for the sake of argument. That you would trawl through the 'net to try and find an article which however accurately or not supports your argument is a clear indication of this.

Once again, I am not going to get drawn into your intention which is purely argument for the sake of argument.

 

[Famine]

Wading into a thread to state how it wouldn't happen in Australia is argument for the sake of argument - it's not even slightly related to the story and is just an idle "my country is better than the USA" boast that data doesn't really back up.

The fact is that it would occur in Australia - your local police shoot at cars so often that the government is worried about it, meanwhile Iowa City police haven't even fired a shot since 2007 (and that one was trawled - the QLD police one was one I encountered last month, as I said, while reading around when another Australian member made a wild claim about how many police shootings there are in the USA).


Your kid only didn't get a police response because no neighbours called it in - either they didn't notice, noticed but didn't care or know you and let your family deal with it. Had they called it in it would have played out exactly opposite to how you said - with your armed police being on scene and ordering him to drop the weapon. Chances are neither QLD or IA police would shoot him for not responding aged 10, but then 2,200 complaints of excessive force against QLD in a year is a lot when you've only got 10,000 policemen.

The criminally-responsible and almost adult, independent teenager who smoked and was old enough for a driver's licence allowing him unfettered, unsupervised access to the highways network in a tonne-plus of explosions wasn't so lucky. He made a choice - your kid can't. He chose to steal a car and smash it into policemen who responded with deadly force for their own safety and the safety of those around them.

 

[photonrider]

Competent Policing = Shoot to Kill.

 

[Villain]

So the only way to stop a moving vehicle is to shoot the driver dead? If the vehicle is moving that means it's potentially 2 tonnes of steel travelling at speed, with nobody in control.. also a pretty dangerous situation.. if they shoot when the vehicle is stopped, to avoid this, then why would it be so difficult to shoot the tyres?

Good point, the police should bring concrete barriers with them when trying to apprehend suspects who are in vehicles. Or better yet, since a vehicle cannot move with flat tires, they should be deflated at all traffic stops.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Good point, the police should bring concrete barriers with them when trying to apprehend suspects who are in vehicles. Or better yet, since a vehicle cannot move with flat tires, they should be deflated at all traffic stops.

I'm just going to assume that your answer to the question if 'shooting the driver dead is the only way to stop a moving vehicle from moving' is yes?

 

[frenzal]

Wading into a thread to state how it wouldn't happen in Australia is argument for the sake of argument - it's not even slightly related to the story and is just an idle "my country is better than the USA" boast that data doesn't really back up.

Have another look. I didn't say it wouldn't happen in Australia, I asked what would have happened had it been in America. And the term 'wading in' which you have so freely thrown in denotes an aggressive entry for the sake of argument. Have another look at my original post, there was no theme of 'my country is better than yours' whatsoever. It was purely about the likelihood of what would have happened in America. And I stand by what I said about the kid who was shot...he didn't choose to do the things he did, he acted out of very poor impulse control. At that age, rational choice making is not a strong suit.

You have sought to turn it around and back on me. For someone who really likes to pick the eyes out of other people's points of view, you do miss quite a lot of the salient points you are making argument against. But we already knew that, didn't we. So go and find someone else you already had issue with to try and wind up.

And for the record he is my son, not my kid.

 

[Villain]

Ah, so if you have a very strong opinion about a subject, it's insane to ask or propose a different opinion? Nice way to approach a discussion. Just FYI, I don't blame the police in this incident in any way, IMO the only people to blame here are the kid and his dad.

No, it's not. It's merely insane to ask a question such as your's whilst providing misleading information. Maybe insane was not the best word to use, however it was a dodgy (at best) opening introduction to the thread.

And yes, it's misleading to leave out crucial details such as the part when the kid tried to ram the police with the car. They call that "Assault with a Deadly Weapon."

I'm just going to assume that your answer to the question if 'shooting the driver dead is the only way to stop a moving vehicle from moving' is yes?

No, it's not the only way and I don't think that is a point that anyone is trying to make. However, it might be the only option, depending on the scenario. For example, there was a case in my town where a police officer had to use deadly force on a driver. The driver had pinned the officer between his patrol car and his own vehicle and was trying to kill him by flooring the accelerator. Should this officer have shot the tires?

But no, it's not the only way to stop a vehicle and it's not the only method used. Spike strips and the PIT maneuver come to mind as tactics police have been known to use. The use of deadly force must always be used as a last resort. From what I understand in this case, it was the best option available to the police officers whose lives were in immediate danger from this 13-year-old child.

Statement from the County Attorney, who definitely has more facts from this case than any one of us in this thread:

“In conclusion, McPherson and (another officer) were compelled by Comstock’s actions, which occur under a very fast moving time line,” Holmes wrote. "In watching the videos I can't help but express my concern that it was only by sheer luck that no one else was seriously injured or killed by Mr. Comstock.”

 

[MatskiMonk]

No, it's not. It's merely insane to ask a question such as your's whilst providing misleading information. Maybe insane was not the best word to use, however it was a dodgy (at best) opening introduction to the thread.

And yes, it's misleading to leave out crucial details such as the part when the kid tried to ram the police with the car. They call that "Assault with a Deadly Weapon."



No, it's not the only way and I don't think that is a point that anyone is trying to make. However, it might be the only option, depending on the scenario. For example, there was a case in my town where a police officer had to use deadly force on a driver. The driver had pinned the officer between his patrol car and his own vehicle and was trying to kill him by flooring the accelerator. Should this officer have shot the tires?

But no, it's not the only way to stop a vehicle and it's not the only method used. Spike strips and the PIT maneuver come to mind as tactics police have been known to use. The use of deadly force must always be used as a last resort. From what I understand in this case, it was the best option available to the police officers whose lives were in immediate danger from this 13-year-old child.

Statement from the County Attorney, who definitely has more facts from this case than any one of us in this thread:

That's fair enough, I'm not really trying to disagree with anyone, just trying to get a feeling for when it is acceptable to take another life. The only thing I do question, is whether the US attorney could have said anything different, since it (the verdict) might impact every firearm carrying law enforcement officer in the US.

 

[Encyclopedia]

I'll drink to that. Skol, brother!

Oh and while you're comparing statistics of the United States to those of Sweden, maybe you'll want to take into account that the population for the United States is literally 33 magnitudes larger than the population of Sweden. As of matter of fact, the population of New York City alone (not taking the metropolitan area into account, is almost equal to the entire population of Sweden.

I'm not saying that if the two nations were the same size, then the stats would be closer. Rather that it's probably not best to compare these two nations and the tribulations of their respective law enforcement agencies as if it were apples to apples.

Oh I realize that. But I still thought it was and interesting and eye-opening difference. I certainly didn't expect it to be that big a difference.

 

[Villain]

Oh I realize that. But I still thought it was and interesting and eye-opening difference. I certainly didn't expect it to be that big a difference.

I think I read that Stockholms' homicide-per-capita is increasing to the point where it rivals the per-capita rate of the US as a whole. Still, it is dwarfed by the outrageous rates of places like New Orleans or Oakland.

That's fair enough, I'm not really trying to disagree with anyone, just trying to get a feeling for when it is acceptable to take another life.

When this person is attempting to take yours or someone elses.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I think I read that Stockholms' homicide-per-capita is increasing to the point where it rivals the per-capita rate of the US as a whole. Still, it is dwarfed by the outrageous rates of places like New Orleans or Oakland.


When this person is attempting to take yours or someone elses.

Well, this is why I asked the question about legal gun carriers. If I carry a weapon, legally, and I saw this chase happening, would I have been within my rights to blow him away myself?

 

[Villain]

Well, this is why I asked the question about legal gun carriers. If I carry a weapon, legally, and I saw this chase happening, would I have been within my rights to blow him away myself?

I don't know the answer to that as far as what your legal rights are.

A scenario I imagine is this: You break into my house and you are in the act of attempting to kill one of my family members. I believe that I am not morally wrong to attempt to stop you from killing my family member by killing you first.

Would it be better if I could stop you from killing my family member by trying to somehow restrain you or otherwise incapacitate you? Yes, if that is a reasonable option. That would also be my preferred option, but if the situation leads me to believe that the only way I can protect my family member is by use of deadly force, then that would be the unfortunate action that I would feel obligated to take.

 

[Carbonox]

Were he someone close to you I wonder would you display the same degree of callousness.

Nope, I really don't care how closely I'm related to someone who flips out like that and actively tries to harm the cops. They would still deserve death.

I'm such a cold-ass, I know. Dumb kids have never earned my sympathy.

 

[Slash]

Kid is 19 and has no drivers license, asks dad to buy him cigarettes. Has had minor run ins with police before.
Dad says no. The kid is old enough to get a job and pay for his own cigarettes and the father knows this.
Kid gets pissed off, so he steals his dads truck with the intention of buying cigarettes. Mistake 1.
Dad calls the cops to retrieve his now stolen truck from his kid.
Cops locate kid.
Kid drives recklessly into a college area, at speeds over 70mph. Mistake 2.
Kid tries to escape police buy ramming police cars. Mistake 3.
Cops consider backing off.
Kid ignores police request to turn off vehicle and remove keys from ignition while ramming and attempting to leave scene. Mistake 4.
Police fire several rounds into the vehicle.
Kid dies.
Police release this statement: "Comstock's actions did not allow any amount of time for the officers to devise or employ other 'means' to mitigate or defuse the situation ahead of the shooting..." Authorities said video from police car cameras clearly shows Comstock's disregard for citizens as the chase continued.




If anything, I believe the kid did it to himself, regardless if he had anger issues or not. There is help out there just for that. I have no sympathy for someone who can't get themself help. I think the police attempted well enough to defuse the situation before it got that far and in the end they decided that firing upon him actions was the only way to end the situation.

 

[Famine]

Have another look. I didn't say it wouldn't happen in Australia, I asked what would have happened had it been in America. And the term 'wading in' which you have so freely thrown in denotes an aggressive entry for the sake of argument. Have another look at my original post, there was no theme of 'my country is better than yours' whatsoever. It was purely about the likelihood of what would have happened in America.

So, just to check, favourably comparing the Australian police response where your kid wasn't shot to the American police response where someone's kid was shot wasn't in any way a comparison of the police responses of the USA and Australia. Only it looks quite like one - and one in which Australia comes out on top. Erroneously, given that your scenario involved no-one phoning the police in the Australian version and the armed Queensland police manage an annual rate of greater than 1 complaint of excessive force for every 5 officers.

And I stand by what I said about the kid who was shot...he didn't choose to do the things he did, he acted out of very poor impulse control. At that age, rational choice making is not a strong suit.

Now we're back onto the topic, the kid who was shot was of an age where kids are so trusted to make rational choices we let them have unsupervised access to cars on the public road.

Also, I'm not sure if you noticed, but in your county and mine, he'd have been an adult for a year already. He was 19.

You have sought to turn it around and back on me.

Oddly, you made it about yourself with a lengthy hypothetical anecdote about how dead your kid would be in the USA.

And for the record he is my son, not my kid.

Cute. For the record, the guy shot dead was someone's son, not their kid:

And I stand by what I said about the kid who was shot...

Yes, the kid in the OP was out of control. But he was still just a kid.

 

[frenzal]

Nope, I really don't care how closely I'm related to someone who flips out like that and actively tries to harm the cops. They would still deserve death.

I'm such a cold-ass, I know. Dumb kids have never earned my sympathy.

I can't fault you for that To me, the most thoughtless action in all this was the father not stopping to consider the potential ramifications of involving the police. Wait for the kid to get home, then sought it out. Still, we don't know any details about their relationship, or any of the other relevant intangibles. It's just a bad situation all round.

As another poster stated, the cop who shot him will have an investigation to go through, you would think.

 

[Joel]

Well to be fair it's hard to fault the father on this...it's not as if it was reasonable to expect his kid to try and run the police over in his truck.

 

[Slash]

Well to be fair it's hard to fault the father on this...it's not as if it was reasonable to expect his kid to try and run the police over in his truck.

Exactly. How was he supposed to know what his son was going to do? The kid is his own person, who make his own decisions and in the end, it's only the sons fault to let what happen, happen. The dad was doing nothing more than trying to get his son and vehicle back.

 

[Villain]

As another poster stated, the cop who shot him will have an investigation to go through, you would think.

Well, you would know, rather than "think" if you had read the umpteen articles on the subject. The police officer involved has been cleared initially, but is on leave and an investigation is currently running its course in the interest of due diligence.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_...thorities-to-report-the-teen-stole-his-truck/

McPherson remains on paid administrative leave. Authorities said there is no timeline yet on when he will return to duty.

*snip*

The case remains under investigation by Ames police, ISU police and the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation.

And more LOL @ "wait for him to come home" - he wasn't living at home. He was 19 and he was living at a homeless shelter.

 

[Nicksfix]

Also, quick question on gun law: If a CCW permit holder sees somebody endangering lives with a motor vehicle, are they allowed to shoot? Or does their own life have to be in danger?

Just because you are granted a CCW, does not mean that you have been Deputized. To answer your question, you are not allowed to shoot if you see something as you mentioned. You may pull and shoot only if "your" life is in immediate danger, or your wife, family, friend that may be with you at the time of confrontation. Otherwise, do not pull / shoot or your ass is grass.

 

[Encyclopedia]

Just because you are granted a CCW, does not mean that you have been Deputized. To answer your question, you are not allowed to shoot if you see something as you mentioned. You may pull and shoot only if "your" life is in immediate danger, or your wife, family, friend that may be with you at the time of confrontation. Otherwise, do not pull / shoot or your ass is grass.

So one is not allowed to shoot to save a stranger?