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

[Danoff]

You have a right to your life, that includes defending your life with deadly force if necessary. Self-defense is a well established extension of the right to life and is in complete agreement with the US legal system.

You have the right to defend yourself and so do police.

The only question left is whether they were actually defending themselves and I don't think we can judge that from the video.

 

[Famine]

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.

I've found another video. In this slightly-quicker version, the driver moves towards the second cop and then clearly jinks away from him before hitting the spike strip. The car stops, with guncop alongside, moves backwards a little, then forwards again a little and he's surrounded by four policemen.

The nearest the cop he was allegedly trying to run down comes to the car is 8 feet.

(short advert for a WTC film with Nicolas Cage before the story - that's a missable one)

 

[FoolKiller]

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.

Honestly, it appears that he was trying to avoid the strip, but using total disregard for the officer's life. When the other officer fired would be telling but it is hard to tell that.

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...

I rarely trust the witnesses of a case like this because we had a local case where the cops were accused of wrongly shooting a man that was firing a MAC-11 at the officers. Because the gunman was black the officers were accused of using improper force because of race. There were eyewitnesses saying that the man did nothing wrong and the cops shot at him without provocation and everything. Before it was all said and done there were protests and marches and his family was out saying how he wasn't a bad kid, he just made some mistakes (like dealikng meth and firing a machine gun at police).

So when a case becomes racially charged I rarely give the eyewitness accounts much credit. I have heard too many times how a shooting wasn't necessary, even after officers have been shot. When you have so many people repeatedly accusing cops of using extreme force in cases that look completely different than what they say it makes it hard to ever find them credible.

Now what I want to see is video from a police cruiser. They make it on to those amazing Police Chases shows all the time. That would give a different perspective and may show us details we can't see here.

 

[Dave A]

If he was trying to avoid the strip with no regard for the officers life, why did he go over it instead of going off the road where there was nothing but the cop blocking the way?

I've found another video. In this slightly-quicker version, the driver moves towards the second cop and then clearly jinks away from him before hitting the spike strip. The car stops, with guncop alongside, moves backwards a little, then forwards again a little and he's surrounded by four policemen.

The nearest the cop he was allegedly trying to run down comes to the car is 8 feet.

(short advert for a WTC film with Nicolas Cage before the story - that's a missable one)

Well that settles it for me, he also clearly brakes before hitting the strip in the not slowed down version.

 

[Danoff]

If he wasn't trying to ram the police officer, but the other police officer is found to be reasonable in his conclusion that his partner was being attacked, the use of deadly force is still justified.

The only way the shooting police officer can be held accountable is if it is found that he was not reasonable in his conclusion that his partner was being attacked.

I don't think any of us can determine that factually. It'll be a matter of the jury's opinion on the matter.

 

[FoolKiller]

Watching this video it appears that the man swerves to the left as if he were trying to avoid the spike strip and then appears to swerve back a little in an attempt to avoid the cop.

I still can't tell when the gun was fired.

The officer probably misconstrued the man's intentions and from his POV it may have appeared he was trying to run down the his partner. He had a split second to react and I would say that he made what appeared to be the safer decision, even if his assumptions were wrong.

I can't say whether he was in the wrong or the right because a helicopter view is not the same as the the ground view. It will take a ground level video to make me come to a conclusion.

 

[Famine]

The original question though wasn't whether the cop was right or wrong to shoot him, but whether a man deserved to die for offences totalling a 6 month driving ban and a 4-figure fine...

 

[Dave A]

And the answer is imo, most definitely not.

 

[FoolKiller]

The original question though wasn't whether the cop was right or wrong to shoot him, but whether a man deserved to die for offences totalling a 6 month driving ban and a 4-figure fine...

You forgot wreckless endangerment and possibly attempted murder.

Anyway, were he actually trying to avoid the cop in question then I would say no.
But if the little jerk to the right was just from being drunk or some other reason then yes.

 

[Danoff]

The original question though wasn't whether the cop was right or wrong to shoot him, but whether a man deserved to die for offences totalling a 6 month driving ban and a 4-figure fine...

If he attacked the cop with the car he deserved to die for attacking a police officer with a deadly weapon. Clearly he did not deserve to die for refusing to cooperate with police.

 

[Kylehnat]

I've found another video. In this slightly-quicker version, the driver moves towards the second cop and then clearly jinks away from him before hitting the spike strip. The car stops, with guncop alongside, moves backwards a little, then forwards again a little and he's surrounded by four policemen.

The nearest the cop he was allegedly trying to run down comes to the car is 8 feet.

(short advert for a WTC film with Nicolas Cage before the story - that's a missable one)

That video doesn't look any different to me. And the deputy laying the strip was closer than 8 feet away.

The only mystery here is when the shots were fired. (I don't believe that girl, either, because eyewitness accounts are almost always inaccurate to some degree.) Depending on that, the case could go either way.

 

[wfooshee]

The driver tried to avoid the spike strip by moving left (knowing the consequence of running it over), and we see a cloud of debris from the windshield, before the spike strip is hit (contrary to the witness statement.) I can't tell how many more shots were fired, nor can I tell if that shot penetrated into the vehicle. As far as timing goes, the first shot was immediately following the left turn, which makes it probable that the officer's intention was protection of his partner. He saw the car swerve left, and he fired. The subsequent manuevers of the vehicle may not have actually been under the driver's control.

When I first saw it, I thought the officer had fired as the car passed, which would be too late for the "I was protecting my partner" argument, as his partner would have been under the car by then. Watching it again I saw the splatter from the windshield which I had missed before, clearly before the car arrives at the spike strip and the other officer's location. A fatal shot at that point would not have stopped the car, and thus would not have protected the partner if he had not skedaddled out of the way.

Part of the problem was that the spike strip was deployed too late. It should have been deployed further up the street, away from the intersection (to avoid run-off room) and also deployed sooner before the vehicle arrived (to give the officer time to move away.)

It's a hard call to me as to whether it was a justifiable shooting. I don't like the idea of telling the police they can shoot at a moving car during a pursuit. I'm pretty sure they're actually NOT allowed to. The perp brought the situation onto himself, but did he deserve to die for it? No.

 

[Dave A]

Your right, the first shot I saw was just before it hit the strip right after he kinked right, it may be that the cop was already pulling the trigger as the guy turned right in which case his reaction time won't have been fast enough to notice the cars change in direction and not fire. I'd give the cop the benefit of a doubt without more information.

Thats well spotted, and I definitely agree that the strip was deployed too late. I still stand by my opinion that he did not deserve to die, but at the same time after spotting that I'd be more leniant with regards to the officer that fired on him with the current information and video.

 

[Sakiale]

Don't these people know how to shoot out tires? It would have been much more effective than killing the man, whose foot might have gotten stuck on the gas. And its not like some old family sedan will have run-flats.

 

[Dave A]

He was slowing down, so no his foot wasn't stuck. But they could have done a lot to prevent a death in this instance. But I don't think it would be fair to lay the blame on a single person for this now. I think the whole ordeal was full flaws right upto the late deployment of the spike strip while the suspect was driving round and round the block. Let's hope they deal with the next one better.

 

[Kylehnat]

Don't these people know how to shoot out tires? It would have been much more effective than killing the man, whose foot might have gotten stuck on the gas. And its not like some old family sedan will have run-flats.

Shooting out tires does nothing to stop a persuit, especially if the driver is drunk. If anything, it makes the situation more dangerous, as the driver is still desperate, and he has less control of the car.

 

[Solid Lifters]

Don't these people know how to shoot out tires? It would have been much more effective than killing the man, whose foot might have gotten stuck on the gas. And its not like some old family sedan will have run-flats.

In LA, and most of the US I believe, cops are only allowed to aim for center mass (chest) if they fire their firearms at all. A head shot is also approved if center mass wont be either effective or available. Cops can't use their firearms to wound or to shoot out tires, and other stuff like that.

 

[Dave A]

Shooting out tires does nothing to stop a persuit, especially if the driver is drunk. If anything, it makes the situation more dangerous, as the driver is still desperate, and he has less control of the car.

A spike strip punctures the tyres, which is the same result as shooting them out.

 

[Danoff]

A spike strip punctures the tyres, which is the same result as shooting them out.

...only without bullets flying around.

 

[Dave A]

True, but that said, a bullet can deflect off a cars bodywork at the right angle. A bullet can deflect off a persons rib and hit another person, it can happen in a lot of cases, it just depends on what angle it hits a solid object most of the time.

 

[Danoff]

True, but that said, a bullet can deflect off a cars bodywork at the right angle. A bullet can deflect off a persons rib and hit another person, it can happen in a lot of cases, it just depends on what angle it hits a solid object most of the time.

Right, but spikes strips don't shoot bullets... so laying out a spike strip is a much better way to stop a car than shooting at it's tires.

 

[Famine]

Right, but spikes strips don't shoot bullets... so laying out a spike strip is a much better way to stop a car than shooting at it's tires.

And shooting the tyres is a more satisfactory way than shooting the driver seven times.

 

[Danoff]

And shooting the tyres is a more satisfactory way than shooting the driver seven times.

To stop the car eventually? Sure. To prevent the driver from running down your partner? Not so much.

 

[Famine]

To stop the car eventually? Sure. To prevent the driver from running down your partner? Not so much.

Shooting the driver will not retard the motion of a car enough to prevent it continuing into whatever it was aiming at from that range - and the circumstancial (stance/posture) evidence in the video and *spits* eyewitnesses suggest that shots were fired after the car hit the stinger, which is after it passed the policeman.

But whether or not the policeman was right to open fire at all isn't the issue. The issue is whether a man who has committed only a handful of vehicle felonies and misdemeanours, all from a pretty poor judgement to get behind a wheel while not sober, deserves to die.

 

[Kylehnat]

The issue is whether a man who has committed only a handful of vehicle felonies and misdemeanours, all from a pretty poor judgement to get behind a wheel while not sober, deserves to die.

Earlier this year, Ken Hamlin, a starting safety for the Seattle Seahawks, was attacked by a drunk man outside a nightclub. He was hit in the head with a street sign (as the story goes), and suffered life-threatening skull injuries. Eyewitnesses (again, unreliable at best) say the argument was very much alcohol-fueled and ultimately, pointless. Whether or not the assailant would have taken the same action while sober is debateable, but nonetheless, he is now wanted for attempted murder, which at the very least would land him in prison for 20 years. Bad judgement does not absolve one from making bad decisions.

If the officer doing the shooting in Compton can defend his decision by claiming that the man looked like he was trying to do harm to the other deputy, attempted murder of a police officer can be claimed, and any self-defense measure will be deemed legal and justified. It doesn't matter if the man only committed a few misdimeanors until that point. He got shot because he was percieved to have crossed the border into capital-crime land.

 

[Danoff]

The issue is whether a man who has committed only a handful of vehicle felonies and misdemeanours, all from a pretty poor judgement to get behind a wheel while not sober, deserves to die.

It doesn't matter if the man only committed a few misdimeanors until that point. He got shot because he was percieved to have crossed the border into capital-crime land.

Yup. Nothing up until he allegedly attacked a police officer matters. He got shot for allegedly attacking a police officer with a deadly weapon. If he did, he deserved to die.

 

[ledhed]

The original question though wasn't whether the cop was right or wrong to shoot him, but whether a man deserved to die for offences totalling a 6 month driving ban and a 4-figure fine...

There isn't a question IF he deserved to die .. its a question whether he was shot for the right reason BIG damm[/b] DIFFERENCE .


How many people who die really DESERVE it ? common famine ..as one of the horsey dudes........ SuRELY you know better .

So what if he deserved it ? The fact is he PUT himself into a situation where his death was a POSSIBILITY . Just like sky diving or Bungee jumoing or driving drunk at 2 am at 80 mph with the cops chasing you ...

 

[a6m5]

eyewitnesses suggest that shots were fired after the car hit the stinger, which is after it passed the policeman.

Just to point out, in the video from the first post, you can see the smoke or debris from one of the gun shots(probably the first) when the car is still minimum of three feet away from the strips. Keep eye around the sunroof area, right before the car runs over the strips.

 

[exigeracer]

All I hope for is that the media does not overplay this and turn it into an April 29th 1992 fourteen years later.