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

[a6m5]

Well quite - as I said:

Sorry.

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.

Police pursuits around here are kind of tricky these days. If they are too aggressive, some rights group will be all over them. If they let it go on too long, there is more chance that something might go wrong. Some people will say, just let them get away, rather than risk injuries and damages.

 

[Famine]

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

Now now. There's no need for insults.

 

[Dave A]

Police pursuits around here are kind of tricky these days. If they are too aggressive, some rights group will be all over them. If they let it go on too long, there is more chance that something might go wrong. Some people will say, just let them get away, rather than risk injuries and damages.

The was I see it, if you have a hellicopter following the suspect your in no hurry to put that suspect under more pressure and to try and take them in a residential area. That's just bad police work.

 

[vladimir]

isn't that just what they did? they held back, cleared intersection(s) and tried to install that stripe.
that doesn't look like a bad strategy to me.

i guess especially in LA you can't wait till the suspect eventually leaves the town...


and if you talk about punishment, famine, that implies that the cop deliberately shot to kill, which i believe is rather improbable, given the time frame.

 

[Famine]

Well, no... Just that the ultimate outcome of his crimes was death-by-state.

 

[Dave A]

I think he did shoot to kill, how else would you shoot the driver of a moving vehicle, would a cop shoot him to prevent him from running away? Yes police can choose the route to some extent our manage it, they can force the driver as I said to some extent, on where to go by blocking roads ahead. Here they did nothing to try and stop him getting into a residential area which is where they tried to stop him, despite having a hellicopter above which meant they they didn't have to push the suspect hard and put him into a pressured position where he might become more dangerous.

 

[Solid Lifters]

Taking a look a the suspect's history, I say it's a case of "good riddance." He's no stranger to the police and has done this same very thing before.

What are we supposed to wait for? A little kid to be run over or a person crossing the street who didn't hear the warning sirens in time to get out of the way?

This individual showed no signs of respect for his fellow man. He put all lives at risk, not just his or the police. The police put up a road block and he didn't care if he aimed his car toward a police officer, who was on foot, so he could escape.

I've seen police chases that have ended in the death of an innocent person. I remember when a women in her late '70s was t-boned by a speeding prick in a Suburban who refused to stop for the police. He was going about 80 in a 40mph zone, and she never saw him coming. She survived being in a Nazi death camp, and then gets murdered by a 20 year-old gang-banger dick who wants to run from the police. This is intolerable.

I've seen low speed pursuits that have ended in shootings that shouldn't have. But, this is NOT one of them. This guy got what he deserved. We are all safer and better off for how this pursuit ended. The outcome of this pursuit makes me feel better. Life is just too delicate and short to live with the likes of him.

 

[Dave A]

Please explain to me how his right to live was rightfully taken away? How does what someone else did or that happened another time mean that this guy deserved to die? No you shouldn't have to wait until someone innocent gets killed to end it, but you shouldn't end it by killing the suspect either. That cop was either too quick to pull the trigger or he was evil, sure he doesn't have long to make a choice, he has to use his judgment, but he made wrong choice, a cop who's making the wrong choice especially when life is involved is not doing his job. He did not do the right thing.

 

[Famine]

Taking a look a the suspect's history, I say it's a case of "good riddance." He's no stranger to the police and has done this same very thing before.

What are we supposed to wait for? A little kid to be run over or a person crossing the street who didn't hear the warning sirens in time to get out of the way?

Yes.

That's what Criminal Justice is about. You can't kill people because they might do something in the future. You must wait for the crime and then punish accordingly. Of course, had he been punished accordingly before, he'd not have done it again - but that's a matter for a different thread.

 

[Solid Lifters]

Please explain to me how his right to live was rightfully taken away?

His death was a result of what can happen if an individual forces a police officer to shoot. The shooting is justified. Therefore, whatever happens to the suspect is also justified. His rights were observed at the beginning of the chase, but not when is actions became more deadly and aggressive. After that, he had no more rights, IMO.

How does what someone else did or that happened another time mean that this guy deserved to die?

What someone else did shows what could happen. In this case, death could happen.

No you shouldn't have to wait until someone innocent gets killed to end it, but you shouldn't end it by killing the suspect either.

He shot the guy to stop him. The death is the result of what could happen when one is shot, but it is not the intention. Though, I'm personally satisfied that happened in this case.

That cop was either too quick to pull the trigger or he was evil, sure he doesn't have long to make a choice, he has to use his judgment, but he made wrong choice, a cop who's making the wrong choice especially when life is involved is not doing his job. He did not do the right thing.

That's just matter of opinion, and not fact. One I don't agree with, so there 'ya go.

Yes.

That's what Criminal Justice is about. You can't kill people because they might do something in the future. You must wait for the crime and then punish accordingly. Of course, had he been punished accordingly before, he'd not have done it again - but that's a matter for a different thread.

So, you wouldn't shoot a man who's hitting an axe to a nuclear weapon, provided this ridiculous example ever occurred and you couldn't stop him any other way at the moment? The nuclear weapon could go off or leak radioactive material that will kill you, but then, it just might not? Are you willing to risk it?

What if a drunk man tries to open the door of a jetliner you're on while you're at 35,000 feet? What if you try desperately to stop him with other passengers, but you couldn't stop him? Would you put him in a choke hold, or stab him with something to stop him knowing he could be killed from your actions? What if you subdue the person the best you can without the intent to due harm, yet you killed him by accident? Should you be charged with murder or a crime?

Criminal Justice is not just about punishment after something bad happens. It's also about prevention. In this case, a cop acted to prevent something bad from happening. That's good enough for me.

 

[Famine]

So, you wouldn't shoot a man who's hitting an axe to a nuclear weapon, provided this ridiculous example ever occurred and you couldn't stop him any other way at the moment? The nuclear weapon could go off or leak radioactive material that will kill you, but then, it just might not? Are you willing to risk it?

No I wouldn't shoot him. Mainly because nuclear weapons are completely safe in this regard. Most nukes will survive a direct gunshot to the trigger.

What if a drunk man tries to open the door of a jetliner you're on while you're at 35,000 feet? What if you try desperately to stop him with other passengers, but you couldn't stop him? Would you put him in a choke hold, or stab him with something to stop him knowing he could be killed from your actions? What if you subdue the person the best you can without the intent to due harm, yet you killed him by accident? Should you be charged with murder or a crime?

Just to answer the last question - yes. Under your laws I have deprived the man of "life, liberty or property" without due process in a court of law.

Until he commits a criminal act (and is found guilty of it in a court of law by a jury of his peers), he is not a criminal. If I commit a criminal act to stop him committing one then I am a criminal (providing I'm yadda yadda yadda, peers) and he is not.

Of course it's not likely that I'd be found guilty given the balance of the lives I'd saved by not allowing the crime to occur.


Incidentally, if both of those events are allowed to pass then they would be federal capital offences, unlike not stopping for the police.

Criminal Justice is not just about punishment after something bad happens. It's also about prevention. In this case, a cop acted to prevent something bad from happening. That's good enough for me.

What did he prevent? An uneventful and slow car chase - attended by a multitude of police vehicles and a helicopter - from continuing? Even if the driver had aimed for the other officer, shooting him dead wouldn't have stopped the guy being mown down.

 

[Solid Lifters]

No I wouldn't shoot him. Mainly because nuclear weapons are completely safe in this regard. Most nukes will survive a direct gunshot to the trigger.



Just to answer the last question - yes. Under your laws I have deprived the man of "life, liberty or property" without due process in a court of law.

Until he commits a criminal act (and is found guilty of it in a court of law by a jury of his peers), he is not a criminal. If I commit a criminal act to stop him committing one then I am a criminal (providing I'm yadda yadda yadda, peers) and he is not.

He's not a criminal, yet he's committing a criminal act that can kill you. So, you don't have the right to stop him from ending your "life, liberty..." is what you're saying? Bullcrap. I say you'd have the right to cut the guy's head off in that instance.

Here, we can kill people justifiably if you stop them from taking a life. But, you obviously don't agree with that if you feel you should be arrested.

Of course it's not likely that I'd be found guilty given the balance of the lives I'd saved by not allowing the crime to occur.

Well, you'd sure hell hope so, huh? But why would a person put you through a trial and all the grief that goes with it when you had no choice to act? It was either act or die. That's no choice.

What did he prevent? An uneventful and slow car chase - attended by a multitude of police vehicles and a helicopter - from continuing? Even if the driver had aimed for the other officer, shooting him dead wouldn't have stopped the guy being mown down.

It was not a slow chase. It had gone on for quite a while (20+minutes). At the time the suspect was shot, he was making a turn and not driving at a high rate of speed. The suspect was using a deadly weapon and using it in a deadly manner. Therefore, he was shot and shot justifiably. His death is a result of his selfish, deadly actions and his alone.

 

[Famine]

He's not a criminal, yet he's committing a criminal act that can kill you.

Until he performs that act, he is not a criminal.

So, you don't have the right to stop him from ending your "life, liberty..." is what you're saying? Bullcrap. I say you'd have the right to cut the guy's head off in that instance.

Here, we can kill people justifiably if you stop them from taking a life.

Can you point me to the part of your law where it says that?

I understand it may be necessary for the police and police should not have this power taken away. But no, I don't have the right to kill him to stop him killing me.

But, you obviously don't agree with that if you feel you should be arrested.

If it was him or me, I'd choose me. But I would expect to be arrested and tried on a charge of second degree murder or manslaughter.

Well, you'd sure hell hope so, huh? But why would a person put you through a trial and all the grief that goes with it when you had no choice to act? It was either act or die. That's no choice.

Yes it is. You just told me that it was. Act or die. That's a choice right there.

Incidentally, cop 1 had a choice of act or don't. If he hadn't it would not have directly caused death to anyone.

It was not a slow chase. It had gone on for quite a while (20+minutes).

So did OJ's. His was very slow indeed.

At the time the suspect was shot, he was making a turn and not driving at a high rate of speed. The suspect was using a deadly weapon and using it in a deadly manner. Therefore, he was shot and shot justifiably.

Streetracers use the same deadly weapon in the same deadly manner. Should they all be shot on sight too?

 

[ledhed]

Well quite - as I said:



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.

It seems they feel they must use the weapons they carry because the society they live in has too many willing to kill a police officer with no more concern than killing a chicken. Too many dead police officers hesitated or tried to be nice . Its a lesson learned at the cost of thousands over the years.
Its not up to the officer to read minds , its his job to live through his shift and go home to his family..and if it means shooting a drunk goofball he thinks is trying to run him down ..then so be it .
The guy commited suicide by cop . Its his fault he is dead .

 

[Solid Lifters]

Until he performs that act, he is not a criminal.

Criminal or not, he's committing a crime that can cause the death of innocent people.

Can you point me to the part of your law where it says that?

I hope this is good enough for you. If not, let me know.

I understand it may be necessary for the police and police should not have this power taken away. But no, I don't have the right to kill him to stop him killing me.

I cannot believe a man with your intellect actually believes this. Shocking...

If it was him or me, I'd choose me. But I would expect to be arrested and tried on a charge of second degree murder or manslaughter.

Not in my state.

Yes it is. You just told me that it was. Act or die. That's a choice right there.

If you want to be technical and not practical, OK...

Streetracers use the same deadly weapon in the same deadly manner. Should they all be shot on sight too?

Absolutely, if they don't pull over for the police if they're caught and use their vehicles as a deadly weapon.

 

[Dave A]

Exactley "and use their vehicles as a deadly weapon", this guy hadn't.

its his job to live through his shift and go home to his family..and if it means shooting a drunk goofball he thinks is trying to run him down ..then so be it .
The guy commited suicide by cop . Its his fault he is dead .

No it isn't. It's his job to protect and serve, if a policeman has to give his life in order to do that then so be it, he chose to join the police force. They should not chose to kill people who haven't done any crime deserving of death. The guy did not commit suicide by cop, he did not pull an Andre Stander and grab one of the cops guns, he was trying to get away. The police had more than enough support to continue tracking him had he got past the spike strip, there was no reason at all to use force a that point.

 

[ledhed]

Criminal or not, he's committing a crime that can cause the death of innocent people.

I hope this is good enough for you. If not, let me know.




I cannot believe a man with your intellect actually believes this. Shocking...




Not in my state.




If you want to be technical and not practical, OK...


Absolutely, if they don't pull over for the police if they're caught and use their vehicles as a deadly weapon.

The assault laws are different for police and security in the performance of their duty... just so you know.

Deadly force is reccomended whenever the suspect is considered a danger to others or the officer . * Note discharging your weapon is considered " use of deadly force " ..it doesnt mean you put two bullets in the back of their head...just the act of shooting at a suspect is " using deadly force..because he MAY die .

 

[Famine]

Criminal or not, he's committing a crime that can cause the death of innocent people.

No - he's about to.

This is a key difference in the powers of arrest that police have and that citizens have. Civilians can only perform a "citizen's arrest" once a crime has been committed - police are permitted to arrest on suspicious of criminal activity.

I hope this is good enough for you. If not, let me know.

Yep - that's fine. Has it been appended to the Bill of Rights?

I cannot believe a man with your intellect actually believes this. Shocking...

I do not have the right to take away someone else's life even to save my own. I'd do it, but I do not have the right to do it.

Belief doesn't enter into it.

Absolutely, if they don't pull over for the police if they're caught and use their vehicles as a deadly weapon.

So, just to get this straight, you'd support a summary death penalty for driving at speed through a red light?

 

[Solid Lifters]

No - he's about to.

This is a key difference in the powers of arrest that police have and that citizens have. Civilians can only perform a "citizen's arrest" once a crime has been committed - police are permitted to arrest on suspicious of criminal activity.

Unless the person is committing an act that can been seen as deadly or if serious injury can result. Then, in that case, I could blow his/her ass away or stop him/her with other deadly means.

Yep - that's fine. Has it been appended to the Bill of Rights?

I don't know.

I do not have the right to take away someone else's life even to save my own. I'd do it, but I do not have the right to do it.

In my state, you do (would).

So, just to get this straight, you'd support a summary death penalty for driving at speed through a red light?

If that's all that happened and it wasn't intentional, no, of course not. But, if a cop was attempting to pull me over, and I acted in a deadly manner and used my vehicle as a deadly weapon, then yes, deadly force should be used.

 

[Dave A]

If it was intentional, should you get shot for running the red light? Should you get shot for going 5mph over the speed limit? 10mph? 20mph? Should you get shot for being pulled over and being found to be over the legal alcahol limit when driving? Should you get shot for not indicating when you turn a corner or change lane? Should you get shot for not pulling over at a policemans request?

The answers to all of thoes are no, all can lead to injuring yourself/other people or death. But then so can driving under speed limit, so can crossing the road, so can helping somone move house.

 

[Solid Lifters]

If it was intentional, should you get shot for running the red light? Should you get shot for going 5mph over the speed limit? 10mph? 20mph? Should you get shot for being pulled over and being found to be over the legal alcahol limit when driving? Should you get shot for not indicating when you turn a corner or change lane? Should you get shot for not pulling over at a policemans request?

Again, if you are using your car as a deadly weapon and there is a risk of somebody getting killed by your actions, then yes.

No, one shouldn't be shot for not pulling over for the police. Perhaps the person didn't know they were being pulled over. Common sense applies to this kind of situation, obviously.

No, one should not be shot if running a red light was intentional if that is all that happened. Common sense applies to this kind of situation, obviously.

Common sense is being ignored here in your examples.

The answers to all of those are no, all can lead to injuring yourself/other people or death. But then so can driving under speed limit, so can crossing the road, so can helping someone move house.

How the hell are your examples even similar to a frequent delinquent committing a deadly act against the public and police? Your examples are ridiculous and are not at the same level as the incident in discussion.

 

[FoolKiller]

I can't make a good judgement on the video because it appears to have been slowed in order for us to see it more clearly and it is easy to make a judgement from a helicopter camera, but when you are on the ground from the officer's point of view it isn't so clear, especially when you have less than a second to determine if your partner's (and probably friend) life is at risk and to act on that. My reaction may have been the same in that situation.


That said, Famine, no he had net yet committed a capital offense. However if a person is attempting to take the life of someone else and deadly force is the only means to prevent it then I support that action.

I mean, if a man is firing a gun at people, but has yet to hit them, do you find it to be wrong to shoot that man? If he does shoot and kill someone can you shoot him then? You keep bringing up due process and trials. You don't have time for that or more people may die.

What is wrong with using deadly force to stop deadly force before it kills someone?

 

[Dave A]

As I said before, if a police officer isn't able to make the right judment on the ground he shouldn't be a police officer. It's thier job to protect and serve, not to shoot first and ask later. You can only take somones life as a policeman what it is blatantly obvious that they are attempting going to cause serious harm or death to other people, which was not the case here.

Yes they are, he didn't go way wide of the spike strip to hit the police officer nor was he actually at any point in time accelerating towards the officer or even driving at the officer. Infact he even hit the strip. If he was intentioanlly trying to him the officer would that make sense, no. He'd have more likely gone a lot wider of the strip. He was at no point when close to the officers actually driving straight towards the officer, the slow motion bits latrer on in the news report clearly shows that. One of the witnesses said that he wen't over the strip and then they shot him. And he was never actually driving directly towards anyway. Imo that officer is guilty of murder, and nothing less. Is driving past someone now going to be viewed as attempting to hit them, an as such an attempt to take that persons life and result in the driver veing punished by death?

If you can show me another section of footage where he actually aims for the officer I'll galdly submit, but he doesn't, the officer it at least 2 feet to the side of where the driving is heading, and also explain why he wen't over the spike strip if he was aiming for the officer while your at it. If he had been driving at the officer and hit him, he wouldn't have hit te spike strip that's for sure.

 

[wfooshee]

The officer made a snap decision, and one I think was wrong, but understandable under the pressure of the moment. He certainly did not have the same point of view we have from the helicopter. It also appears to me that he wasn't quite certain of his partner's location, not able to see over the car, and may have thought there actually was an impact. His first gun stance has his partner in the line of fire on the other side of the car. However, if the object was to disable the car (what else is a spike strip for?) he certainly could have done that with his weapon, as slowly as the vehicle was moving. Yes, it's slo-mo'd slightly, but the car was still VERY slow. Police are probably told not to shoot for tires, as ricochets can be deadly, but it was an easy target at that point.

As for the discussion of when such a shooting is justified, I've seen quite a few skewed examples. The guy axing a nuke is a little off. But let's change it to a man in a mask driving a truck bomb towards a school. Shoot him? Absolutely.

Wait, how do you know it's a truck bomb? What if it's a guy in costume setting up one of those inflatable moonwalk things out of the back of his truck?

Going back to the guy axing a nuke, if he's actually in the act of trying to explode a device which will kill people, shoot him. If he's walking towards the device ax in hand, you must let him walk. No crime is occuring. (Of course, if you're the military guard responsible for the device and he approaches after being warned off, you will put him down.)

In the U.S. use of deadly force is justified by a private citizen in any situation where loss of life by a criminal act is imminent. If you walk into a store with a guy pointing a gun at the cashier, you may shoot the robber. First you better be sure you know where his friends are. The smart thing is to turn and run.

If you're threatened and have the ability to flee, you must flee. The first line of self defense is flight, not fight. If you're in your car and someone is running at you with a knife, lock the doors and drive away; you can't shoot him. The exception is in your home. You do not have to flee your home.

If your home is invaded by party unknown, his life is forfeit at your pleasure. There is no need to warn him, call the police and wait, or any of that liberal save-the-whales-can't-we-all-just-get-along nonsense. If there's an unknown man in the house and you have the means, put him down.

 

[Solid Lifters]

Yes they are, he didn't go way wide of the spike strip to hit the police officer nor was he actually at any point in time accelerating towards the officer or even driving at the officer. Infact he even hit the strip. If he was intentioanlly trying to him the officer would that make sense, no. He'd have more likely gone a lot wider of the strip. He was at no point when close to the officers actually driving straight towards the officer, the slow motion bits latrer on in the news report clearly shows that. One of the witnesses said that he wen't over the strip and then they shot him. He was shot in the back of the head, so yes he was shot afgter he'd gone over the strip and after he'd NOT hit the other officer who he was never actually driving directly towards anyway. Imo that officer is guilty of murder, and nothing less.

From your description, it sounds like you didn't watch the same video footage of the incident I did.

I guess you need to see the video I did, because it clearly shows a cop diving out of the way of an approaching car. A car driven by a man committing a deadly action and crime. A man who deserved to be shot and was. A cop who sustained injuries and by luck was treated and released from a hospital.

 

[Dave A]

Yes I did, and there was at least 2 or 3 feet between the left side of the car and the officer when he went past. The cop ran to the side a little late because he continued to lay the strip as the car was slowly approaching, but he never looked in danger of being hit from what I saw, the car was going slowly enough to stop or change direction had he not started to move out of the way.

Care to answer this if you think his intentions were to hit the officer.

Explain why he wen't over the spike strip if he was aiming for the officer... If he had been driving at the officer and hit him, he wouldn't have hit te spike strip that's for sure.

 

[FoolKiller]

Yes I did, and there was at least 2 or 3 feet between the left side of the car and the officer when he went past. The cop ran to the side a little late because he continued to lay the strip as the car was slowly approaching, but he never looked in danger of being hit from what I saw, the car was going slowly enough to stop or change direction had he not started to move out of the way.

Care to answer this if you think his intentions were to hit the officer.

I have to agree with Solid Lifters on this. The cop was laying the spike strip down, so he was practically on top of the strip and the car swerved in his direction (whether to avoid the strip or hit the cop, I don't know) and the cop jumped out of the way at roughly the same time his partner drew his gun.

 

[Dave A]

The car did not swerve towards the cop, it was heading towards the side of the strip and was at enough of a distance from the strip for the cop to get out of the way. But he ended up going over the strip instead because the officer didn't get out of the way probably as soon as he was probably hoping for, incidentally, at that point he still could have turned into the officer and not hit the strip. So if was tryng to just get away at any cost including taking a police officers life he had tonnes of room to the side to go, but that was where the officer moved to. So why didn't he mount the pavement if he had no regard for the cops life? He wouldn't have hit the strip, so in terms of him getting away at any cost it was the better choice.

If you want to argue that he was blatantly attempting to take the officers life you must have an answer questions like that.

 

[Famine]

Scrolling on further - and loathe though I am to accept their evidence - the eyewitnesses chosen by the interviewers say that shots were fired after the "perp" ran over the stinger...

 

[Dave A]

Does anywhere say where the guy was shot, ie in the back of the head or the front ect, that will pretty much tell you when the officer fired his shot.