I fought the Law, but the Law won...

[Famine]

With regards to a discussion on another site I frequent...

There was a "pursuit" through Compton on 2nd August, which ultimately concluded with the suspect being shot dead after one officer believed he was trying to run down a colleague.

Video here (click on 8/2 Compton Pursuit).

Now... to me it looks like the suspect was trying to avoid the spike strip and the policeman backed into his path, rather than aiming to mow the officer down. But this notwithstanding, at no point during the video does the guy commit any offences which are, in California, punishable by death. No other attempt to stop or slow the vehicle is shown. The Bill of Rights should guarantee his right to a trial by jury.

So... Darwinian though it is, I don't think the guy deserved to die. The person with whom I'm having this discussion (who lives in the USA) says he did deserve to die, and everyone in his office agrees with him.


Discuss.

 

[Kylehnat]

Unfortunately, in Compton (along with other Los Angeles suburbs), you have to assume everyone is dangerous, and not looking forward to having a tea party with the police. NWA's elegant anthem "**** Tha Police" is the general sentiment in the ghetto.

 

[Danoff]

It's not clear whether he was actually trying to ram the cop. But if the police officer is found reasonable in the assumption that the car was attempting to ram his partner, the action will be ruled defensive and justifiable. Refusing to cooperate with police while driving a deadly weapon is not a good position to put yourself in.

 

[Sakiale]

Ahem! I live in LA, and I have a friend from Compton! He is not dangerous at all, although he wouldnt be in a highspeed pursuit

My point is, not EVERYONE in the slums is some steriotypical gangster with guns and murderous intent.

And that doesnt look like 'leaping', more like 'walking out of the way' of a slow moving car.
Nevertheless, that wasnt too good of an idea.

Famine, I dont think he deserved to die.

 

[Kylehnat]

Ahem! I live in LA, and I have a friend from Compton! He is not dangerous at all, although he wouldnt be in a highspeed pursuit

My point is, not EVERYONE in the slums is some steriotypical gangster with guns and murderous intent.

When you're on the turf of some of the most dangerous gangs in the country, you can't waste time making decisions like this. It's unfortunate, but he was leading the police on a persuit. If he had just stopped in the first place, everything would have been fine (in theory).

My uncle is a probation officer in Santa Barbara County, and even up there, he has to be careful when dealing with his parolees. His visits don't always go smoothly.

 

[Famine]

Refusing to cooperate with police while driving a deadly weapon is not a good position to put yourself in.

Quite - though it isn't a capital offence...

It's not clear whether he was actually trying to ram the cop. But if the police officer is found reasonable in the assumption that the car was attempting to ram his partner, the action will be ruled defensive and justifiable.

From the video, the second cop shoots after the car has already passed his colleague. It looks rather like "You're not going to get away with that"...

 

[Danoff]

Quite - though it isn't a capital offence...

Well it certainly is a capital offense if he's attacking a police officer with it. The only question left is whether he was - it's hard to say.

From the video, the second cop shoots after the car has already passed his colleague. It looks rather like "You're not going to get away with that"...

I couldn't tell when he shot from the video.

 

[Scaff]

While I do agree with Famine that this does look like excesive force, given that the car clearly slowed as it went around the spikes (if you want to run someone over you would accelerate) and the officer shot very shortly after this.

We do however have a very different perspective on it from the helicopter that the officer in question would have, and its very difficult to say how he would have 'seen' the events unfold.

i would also say that location is not that relivent, the law and the protection it delivers is afforded to everyone, not just those in 'pleasant areas'. I am quite sure that not everyone in Compton is a criminal and to label the actions resonable simply because of the location is not valid in my opinion.

Regards

Scaff

 

[Famine]

Well it certainly is a capital offense if he's attacking a police officer with it. The only question left is whether he was - it's hard to say.

It's a custodial offence if he's attacking anyone with it - it's only capital if he kills them.

I couldn't tell when he shot from the video.

I took it as being when the officer assumed "the stance", though you're right that you can't exactly tell the instant...

 

[Sakiale]

Scaff brings up a good point.
Think about this-- I used to live in New York. It isnt known for being excessively crime-infested, besides maybe the BX. I lived in Queens, and went to school in Manhattan. In both areas, I have witnessed car chases and the results, as well as other crimes. The NYPD did not use deadly force in ANY of the situations I witnessed, and the fact that the suspect car was full of bullet holes and totaled was because he crashed into a wall or something while trying to get away. There were robberies that involved physical violence, about 160 total near my school, which was 10 blocks from Harlem. But the police did not use deadly force to arrest the suspects, because it was not necessary. If they thought the suspect was trying to attack them? Would they have used deadly force? Possibly. But in the few cases that happened, they didnt.

I also have a few friends from Harlem, and Ive talked to them about crime rates and their experiences. Frankly, I dont see any difference between Bayside (2 house break-ins, 4 tire slashings, 9 robberies that I know of) and Harlem (3 break ins, 5 cases of vandalism, and 7 robberies that he knew of).

The majority of these people are NOT violent gangsters, and location should have NO effect at all on the polices' decisions. A criminal in Beverly Hills is just as dangerous as one in Compton, and vice versa.

 

[Danoff]

It's a custodial offence if he's attacking anyone with it - it's only capital if he kills them.

Police are justified in using deadly force when they're attacked with a deadly weapon.

While I do agree with Famine that this does look like excesive force, given that the car clearly slowed as it went around the spikes

The video looked slowed down to me. I don't trust the timing in that video to be constant.

 

[Kylehnat]

The majority of these people are NOT violent gangsters, and location should have NO effect at all on the polices' decisions.

It shouldn't, but it does. That's just how it is.

 

[Omnis]

I don't understand why people run from the cops... especially in southern california. The officer shot the guy before he turned away. I'd say the shooting was justified.

What the other idiots who got interviewed didn't realize and/or say is that the guy shouldn't have run in the first place.

 

[Famine]

I don't understand why people run from the cops... especially in southern california. The officer shot the guy before he turned away. I'd say the shooting was justified.

What the other idiots who got interviewed didn't realize and/or say is that the guy shouldn't have run in the first place.

Running away from the police, while not very bright, is not a crime punishable by death...

 

[Dave A]

In my honest opinion I think it is blatantly clear that he was not trying to hit the deputy, he was slowing down and turned away from him. The way I saw it, he actually ended up driving over some of the spike strip and dragging it along to avoid hitting him. Lets face it, if he was going to try and run him over he would have been traveling a: faster and b: not half over the strip. It's not that hard to see what was happening from the helicopter camera and for him to get shot dead for that is a crime itself. Sure he shouldn't have been in a police chase, he shouldn't have been breaking the law, but as Famine said, he did nothing that warranted death.

 

[Sakiale]

I think the video was a little slowed down, but he did not look like he was trying deliberately to run down the officer. The other side of the strip had a car blocking it, and turning around wouldnt be to easy, so the logical option is to go around. That did not look too much like a close call at all from the helicopter view, and he did nothing that deserved death.

 

[Famine]

Though from the other officer's POV, it may have looked like it was a lot closer.

danoff - doesn't your Bill of Rights guarantee your citizens "due process", or the right not to lose property, their freedom or, indeed, ther life without a trial by a jury of their peers?

 

[Master_Yoda]

Well that's SoCal for you... God, sometimes I just absolutly love that I don't live there. No wait that's all the time.

 

[Diego440]

kill the pigs!... that's what they should do with all cops!

Of course, this is just my opinion.

I personally think the shooting is not justified, but then again, pigs tend to overeact at everything, especially in neighbourhoods where they aren't very popular, like Compton.

 

[Danoff]

danoff - doesn't your Bill of Rights guarantee your citizens "due process", or the right not to lose property, their freedom or, indeed, ther life without a trial by a jury of their peers?

Yup. But it also allows for self defense (and by self, I don't really mean self). The lawyers on both sides are going to try to convince a jury one way or the other.

 

[a6m5]

We do however have a very different perspective on it from the helicopter that the officer in question would have, and its very difficult to say how he would have 'seen' the events unfold.

Agreed. 👍 From the chopper, it doesn't look like he was trying to hit the cop, just trying to avoid the spikes.

I wasn't sure of the shooting officers intension at first, but on the second view of the footage, I noticed that he fired the first shot, right before the car looked like it was going to hit his partner. Also considering that they were on the opposite sides of the car, I can totally see how it might have looked like the man was trying to run over the officer.

We all know that we shouldn't run from the cops, but you have to also remember that this guy could have easily ran over someone on a sidewalk somewhere. When the driver leads the police on a car chase like that, I think Police should have the option to take him out, if he/she thinks the driver is endangering the public.

 

[Omnis]

Running away from the police, while not very bright, is not a crime punishable by death...

Right, but, you agree that it's a crime that can be easily assosciated with death?

I'm just saying that this guy could've prevented his situation. Off-topic and irrelevent, but still valid.

 

[Solid Lifters]

With regards to a discussion on another site I frequent...

There was a "pursuit" through Compton on 2nd August, which ultimately concluded with the suspect being shot dead after one officer believed he was trying to run down a colleague.

Video here (click on 8/2 Compton Pursuit).

Now... to me it looks like the suspect was trying to avoid the spike strip and the policeman backed into his path, rather than aiming to mow the officer down. But this notwithstanding, at no point during the video does the guy commit any offences which are, in California, punishable by death. No other attempt to stop or slow the vehicle is shown. The Bill of Rights should guarantee his right to a trial by jury.

So... Darwinian though it is, I don't think the guy deserved to die. The person with whom I'm having this discussion (who lives in the USA) says he did deserve to die, and everyone in his office agrees with him.


Discuss.

Any person running from the law, in a dangerous manner, putting innocent lives at peril deserves and needs to instantly die, preferably in the most painful manner possible.

Fin.

 

[ledhed]

Running away from the police, while not very bright, is not a crime punishable by death...

Only if you are suspected of a major felony and considered dangerouse..force can be used to prevent your escape....he was accused of trying to run down a police officer while the officer was performing his duty...was he not ?


The video is not the entire context of the action (s) so I wont even attempt to judge.

I am inclined to give the police the BOD though .


Hey... prove they were wrong , it wont be the first or last time..darwin always wins .

 

[Famine]

I'm just saying that this guy could've prevented his situation.

Drunk people rarely make rational decisions...

 

[Kylehnat]

Drunk people rarely make rational decisions...

At the same time, being drunk does not lessen the legal consequences of one's actions. A murder committed in a drunken stupor is still a murder.

 

[Famine]

Though it's probably second degree, rather than probably first.

So instead of killing an evil old man, I've killed an innocent old man? That's a whole load worse.

Yeah, 50,000 volts worse!

I am merely of the opinion that, whether or not you agree that he tried to drive over the policeman (which is inconsistent with his behaviour to that point - he had until then merely wanted to get away from the police), being shot dead is not a suitable punishment for, nor satisfactory end to a not particularly fast and not comparatively dangerous car chase where the only felony was failing to stop for the police and a number of minor moving traffic violations. Yes, the guy was a criminal. Yes, he put the public in danger. No, his punishment should not have been a unilateral decision to shoot him dead - unless you want to change your Constitution and start shooting streetracers too.


Though it isn't explicitly clear from the video it doesn't appear that any attempt was made to slow or stop the vehicle prior to the stinger. Our pursuit police would have at least corralled him onto a freeway/motorway, where he'd be less of a danger, rather than have him trucking through residential areas and crossings, then used a three/four car rolling road block or PIT.

 

[a6m5]

INo, his punishment should not have been a unilateral decision to shoot him dead - unless you want to change your Constitution and start shooting streetracers too.

I noticed that you see this as some sort of punishment, which does have happen time to time. That's true.

As I've said in my post earlier, I think the officer was forced to make a judgement call. He's on the passenger side of the car, and his partner on the driver's side. The car is about to drive over the curb, but he turns it even further to avoid the strips, but from the passenger side of the car, it probably looked like the suspect was trying to swing the car at the officer. Also, the officer responsible for shooting started to fire, just as the car looked like it was going to hit the other officer.

 

[Famine]

Well quite - as I said:

Though from the other officer's POV, it may have looked like it was a lot closer.

I guess it's just two different styles of policing. We'd have ended the pursuit with his capture and on an open road. They ended the pursuit with his death and in a residential area.

 

[vladimir]

Though it's probably second degree, rather than probably first.

wow, i'm not here for a day and famine has been converted to a liberal.


seriously though, if you watch carefully you can see that a: the video is in slomo, b: the driver is turning towards the officer (be it in order to avoid the spike strip) while the officer is still pulling the stripe and thus at least hazards the consequence of running over the officer in order to avoid it and c: the other officer shoots shortly after the other one leaped away.

you can't expect the officer to be as considerate as we can because we can watch this over and over again. he was under pressure, risking his own life in order to stop a criminal as well as to save his colleagues life and had not even seconds to react.
although i don't think that the driver deserved to die, it was him who ran from the cops and i would call this an accident.