Video Shows Anaheim Officers Fire 76 Shots at a Suspect During High-Speed Pursuit

[volshayes]

This is one wild ride.  My guess is that Anaheim PD will probably be changing their rules about engaging from a moving vehicle.

https://www.officer.com/on-the-street/body-cameras/news/21079810/video-shows-anaheim-police-officers-fire-76-shots-during-highspeed-pursuit?utm_source=Officer.com+Newsday+E-Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=CPS190509012&o_eid=5113J4674090I4J&rdx.ident[pull]=omeda|5113J4674090I4J&oly_enc_id=5113J4674090I4J

[Chucktshoes]

We need like an Executive Order telling cops -

“No shooting from a moving vehicle.   I don’t care how cool Starsky & Hutch looked.”

[Steelharp]

The guy had a BB gun??? How stupid is that....

[DaveTN]

Wow, that was a lot of shooting.

So a guy high on meth, that was threatening his family with a gun and knife, points a gun at responding Officers (We assume because of what they say, but we don’t see it), then he flees. Multiple shots are fired at the suspect. That would have been a good time for him to stop, but something must have been wrong with his vehicle because he continued to flee.

Even after apparently having been hit, the suspect points the gun at the Officers. (According to what they say; because we can’t see it) The vehicle finally stops, apparently after the driver is shot in the head. The suspect opens the truck door. Did he display a weapon? We can’t tell, but Officers start shooting again.

Ultimately the guy quits moving and the Officers quit shooting.

As best we know, no innocent citizens or animals were harmed in the making of this video.

The Deputy Dist. Atty. concluded that that all of the available evidence is insufficient to warrant the filing of criminal charges against the two officers. But would like to add he was alarmed by the Officers conduct.

The Anaheim Police Chief terminated the probationary employee, has the other Officer on administrative leave, and wants you all to know he finds the video “disturbing” and “difficult” to watch.

Five witnesses told investigators they believed Nava had a handgun, and two of them said he shot three rounds, the report stated.

Pedersen was determined to have fired his weapon 64 times; Staymates, meanwhile, fired 12 shots with his rifle.

The Orange County district attorney’s office concluded in its investigation that a jury would “justly” conclude it was reasonable for the officers to think their lives and those of others were in danger during the incident.

If an innocent had been hit or killed would these cops have problems; you bet. Good thing that didn’t happen.

Should shooting at a moving vehicle be banned by department policy? Think about all the possible scenarios and you tell me.

Full disclosure: This comes from someone that violated Department policy to keep from having to kill someone. Both of us lived; one of us would not had I followed policy. The policy was changed. However, Department Policy is not the law.

Armchair quarter backing sure is interesting though isn’t it?

Edited May 9, 2019 by DaveTN

[volshayes]

6 hours ago, DaveTN said:

Armchair quarter backing sure is interesting though isn’t it?

Ditto on that.  It could have gone all kinds of wrong, but it didn't.  Only the person fleeing got it.  On the other hand, if they had tried to pit him, or just kept the pursuit going without gun fire until he finally decided to stop, that could have gone all kinds of wrong, too.  Goes back to the old saying, "You just had to be there."  That might give an entirely different perspective on the whole situation.

[Defender]

Yeah, I think ya had to be there.  I wanst and Im not justifying the officers actions, but I am saying that I have no earthly idea why anyone would want to be a LEO these days.  They simply cant win, because of the Monday morning quarterbacking from the media,  the politicians and their own chain of command concerned about optics over right and wrong.  

[E4 No More]

I'll just say I agree with you gotta be there.

[DaveTN]

18 hours ago, Steelharp said:

The guy had a BB gun??? How stupid is that....

It happens too often. Part of the problem is that some Police Chiefs are hesitant to come right out and tell the public that if someone points anything at them in a threatening manner, especially someone fleeing, it will be assumed it is a deadly weapon and they will be shot and probably killed.

However, this guy was old enough that he knew that. He also probably knew it wasn’t going to back the cops off. So obviously he either wanted to die, or he was so high he was out of his mind. If it was the former; he got his wish.

Of course in Nashville the DA will take a cop to trial after a he kills a perp that is fleeing, and has pointed a real gun at him. So I guess it depends on where you are.

No, I’m just being facetious. It doesn’t matter where you are; they will still shoot you in Nashville if you point a gun at them. The entire Metro PD should have walked off the job.

[A.J. Holst]

On 5/9/2019 at 5:05 PM, DaveTN said:

Wow, that was a lot of shooting

Had a GTA feel to it, fortunately no innocent bystanders hit, by bullet or vehicle.

I can't disagree with stop the threat as quickly by any means so more folks don't get hurt.

I heard a quote in a class, "every round discharged has a lawyer attached."

[beebee233]

I'm low on ammo......no s**t....

We need a medic......For WHAT????

I can't f**king hear......yeah, neither can I....

Incredible...

Edited May 14, 2019 by beebee233