Excessive use of force by Police?

[DaveTN]

He may file a lawsuit as a ploy to try to cut a better deal on his criminal charges. But nothing will come of it as far as the Officer is concerned. Department policy isn’t law; the use of deadly force is. It would be an easy one for the jury but it won’t make it that far. He’s going to be busy trying to cut time off his prison sentence.

[enfield]

The officer could be fired as a result of his actions. If so, only he can judge whether it was worth it.

[EssOne]

The officer could be fired as a result of his actions. If so, only he can judge whether it was worth it.

Yes, these things have a way of turning into real furballs. I've seen a case where the officer was not held to answer in criminal and civil court, supported by the Chief, and nonetheless fired by the City Manager. The City Manager was in turn fired because of the friction that arose with the Police Officers Association over the case, but the officer still lost his job and the Chief retired rather suddenly afterwards. Classic public service furball. I have seen a number of cases in my own Department in which the officer was likewise cleared of any criminal or civil wrongdoing, and yet fired for poor judgment. The case we're discussing has the potential to go sideways in this manner and I'm kind of holding my breath to see what shoe drops next.  

Edited April 18, 2015 by EssOne

[TN-popo]

He had committed a robbery, home invasion, vehicle theft, firearm theft and was an active shooter holding a rifle. Since no one was going to walk up on him and he was refusing all orders to comply; the next logical escalation of force would be to shoot him before an innocent walks into the scenario and gets shot or he shoots a cop. You think hitting him with a car was more reckless than opening fire? I don’t.

 

+1

Deadly force is deadly force. 

Once justified...gun, vehicle, ink pen jammed through the eye...doesn't matter. 

 

This one looked "Justified" to me.  Actually, this is one incident that I didn't think would get much debate here.

Once in awhile, cops do some really dumb #### (South Carolina anyone?) and I'm not one to defend them.

 

However, this same suspect walks onto your property, doing what he was doing...what would YOU do in a matter of seconds?

Now, you're the person charged with the protection of that area...same question. 

BTW, did you notice the innocent pedestrian at the corner?  Not Monday morning quarterbacking, but just to make a point, it could be argued that action could have come sooner.

 

Anyway, the internet (and TGO) is full of "SHTF / End of Days / I would have done this" threads and dreams.

 

Sometimes it needs to be done in real life.  Some of us have.  It's never pretty.

Edited April 19, 2015 by TN-popo

[vontar]

Excessive force would be if they beat him after he was down.  Since he had already fired the gun, stakes were pretty high.

 

In short, they stopped the threat.

[TN-popo]

The officer could be fired as a result of his actions. If so, only he can judge whether it was worth it.

 

There is more wisdom in this post than you even intended.

Think on this the next time you hear / see / read / experience LEO INaction.

Edited April 19, 2015 by TN-popo

[Chucktshoes]

I'm kind of surprised there has been any debate at all on this. It no big secret that I am extremely suspicious and distrustful of police, yet even I don't see any problem with what this officer did. The job of a cop makes this individual to be less likely to be in the right, but in this case, he did what any other citizen would have been justified in doing.

[Links2k]

I'm kind of surprised there has been any debate at all on this. It no big secret that I am extremely suspicious and distrustful of police, yet even I don't see any problem with what this officer did. The job of a cop makes this individual to be less likely to be in the right, but in this case, he did what any other citizen would have been justified in doing.

I don't have any issues with the officer's actions. Hell, I think that it was a brave judgement call.

[Clod Stomper]

I have no problem with plowing over a bad guy, or shooting him. But just as one is responsible for a bullet that misses or goes through the target, one is also responsible for running over innocent bystanders. Was the cop sure that there was no little child playing behind that wall?

Yes, it was a bit reckless. He should have shot him.

[daddyo]

Devil's Advocate / daddyo, when you posted this, even without knowing the backstory, did you even watch the video?  Rhetorical question, obviously you did.

 

1.  Hearing impaired and unaware?  There was was verbal interaction / visual contact with the police.

2.  Criminal Record?  Who cares?  It doesn't matter.

3.  Are you really going to make this one an OC vs police issue?  Again, even without knowing the backstory, the man fired a round, on a public street, knowing he was being followed and confronted by police and the initial officer broadcasted that information before the "run over."

 

This has to be one of the most INANE posts that I've read in a long time.

 

PS.  Reading your TGO Sig Line...

 

"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst.

Nations and peoples who forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms.

Robert Heinlein 

 

...sigh.

 

Did you even bother to see that I responded by admitting that I was not aware of that? Do I need to issue a public apology? Would that make you feel better?

 

I guess some folks just aren't happy unless they're beating someone else over the head while ignoring their own mistakes.

Edited April 19, 2015 by daddyo

[Bigiron]

LEO's have a tough job.  "Damned if you do, damned if you don't".  Lot of arm chair quarterbacks in this world. 

Political correctness has cost a lot of LEO's their jobs.  If you haven't been an officer, you have no idea how much crap

they must tolerate.  I had enough after 12 years.  Be safe out there, guys.

[TN-popo]

Did you even bother to see that I responded by admitting that I was not aware of that? Do I need to issue a public apology? Would that make you feel better?

 

I guess some folks just aren't happy unless they're beating someone else over the head while ignoring their own mistakes.

 

Aware of what?  You watched the video.  That's all you needed.  That's why I phrased it, "without even knowing the backstory."  Yet, you still posted your silliness in Post # 8.

 

And, what mistakes of mine am I ignoring?

 

There is plenty of anti-police fodder out there for you, especially lately, to play with.  Agreed.  I referenced that in Post # 29.

Yet, you had to reach on this one with that hearing impaired / criminal record / open carry crap?

Edited April 20, 2015 by TN-popo

[vontar]

For those that haven't seen other videos, Watch this one.

 

Walmart employee advises the gun has a lock, and 10 seconds later there about he fired the gun.  This is the video allot of people are not seeing.  Not found this video on Youtube yet.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/17/us/arizona-suspect-walmart-rifle/

 

never mind, found it on you tube with 6 views.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWlCe7SytZ0

Edited April 19, 2015 by vontar

[zybysco]

It's threads like this where I miss the vote up or down buttons. I'm shocked that members of this forum are so quick to accuse the police officer, especially after he fires the weapon and ignores them. Edited April 19, 2015 by zybysco

[daddyo]

Aware of what? You watched the video. That's all you needed. That's why I phrased it, "without even knowing the backstory." Yet, you still posted your silliness in Post # 8.

And, what mistakes of mine am I ignoring?

There is plenty of anti-police fodder out there for you, especially lately, to play with. Agreed. I referenced that in Post # 29.
Yet, you had to reach on this one with that hearing impaired / criminal record / open carry crap?

If some asking a simple question and then admitting that he didn't have all the facts is enough to set you off, it's a little troublesome to me that you wear a badge.

[TN-popo]

If some asking a simple question and then admitting that he didn't have all the facts is enough to set you off, it's a little troublesome to me that you wear a badge.

 

1.  No, what's troublesome to you is that someone called you on your bull ####.

2.  Again, the "simple" questions you asked in Post # 8 were answered by watching the video.  The backstory facts really had nothing to do with the questions that you asked, having already watched the video.

     They did have to do with a weird, passive-aggressive agenda.  Bringing up Open Carry vs Police with this incident?  "Snuffed out by police?"  Really?

Edited May 17, 2015 by TN-popo

[daddyo]

1. No, what's troublesome to you is that someone called you on your bull ####.
2. Again, the "simple" questions you asked in Post # 8 were answered by watching the video. The backstory facts really had nothing to do with the questions that you asked, having watched the video.
They had to do with a weird, passive-aggressive agenda. Bringing up Open Carry vs Police with this incident? "Snuffed out by police?" Really?

Mods...don't close this thread on my account. I'm done here.

And you're the only one here who's losing his mind over it. Get up and walk away from the computer and calm down.

"Not now, Mom! Someone on the Internet is WRONG!"

[zybysco]

And you're the only one here who's losing his mind over it. Get up and walk away from the computer and calm down.

"Not now, Mom! Someone on the Internet is WRONG!"

I don't think he lost his mind; he was just expressing his frustration over how immature and thoughtless your comments were. Your quote did amuse me though. I've never seen someone insult themselves before so openly on the internet.

[Ugly]

Well, I think this is excessive. Run a stop sign, get shot.

http://patdollard.com/2015/04/watch-texas-trooper-shoots-motorcyclist-after-high-speed-chase-ninja-kicks-him-off-bike/

[NRA]

oh boy here we go again  :cop: time to lock it down David

[DaveTN]

Well, I think this is excessive. Run a stop sign, get shot.

http://patdollard.com/2015/04/watch-texas-trooper-shoots-motorcyclist-after-high-speed-chase-ninja-kicks-him-off-bike/

When you flee you are putting pedestrians and other motorists around you in “Immediate danger of death or great bodily harm”. I think that justifies the use of deadly force in most all states. Some departments have policies about pursuits; but they are not state law. Shooting at him from a moving vehicle was over the top though; he should have just hit him as he was making the turn.

He should have taken lessons from the first video.

[DaveTN]

oh boy here we go again  :cop: time to lock it down David

Why?

[NRA]

Why?

because all cops are bad blah blah blah. It never ends

[EssOne]

That's the problem with high speed pursuits - effective countermeasures to stop one once it starts are mighty scarce. About all an officer can do is basically sit back there at 120 mph until he or the other guy crashes or runs out of gas, unless somebody can get in position out ahead with a spike strip, or unless the law in that state and departmental policies permit the use of roadblocks.  But then a spike strip or roadblock used against a 120 mph motorcycle can get the agency in a lot of hot water too because the motor rider is probably going to get killed.  Evading arrest in most states is a misdemeanor, as is reckless driving, and the use of deadly force is usually unlawful in the apprehension of a misdemeanor violator. Gunfire into the tires gives you a car out of control at 120 mph, endangering everybody else on the road and again invoking Catch 22 by being a form of deadly force since it throws the high speed vehicle out of control - not to mention being one of the most dangerous things a cop can ever do. High speed ramming is just as likely to get the officer killed as it is to stop the other guy, and again constitutes deadly force.

 

I was a highway patrol supervisor in another state and part of my job was managing these pursuits. They're a real problem for which there is no good solution and I hated the @#$%^things. Also, being the  cop involved in one is the most terrifying thing you can ever do - screaming down the road through intersections and past driveways at night, radically overdriving your headlights on an unfamiliar highway in an over mileage, beat-to-crap standard passenger automobile with a heavy duty alternator and a bunch of colored lights at 120 mph just ain't my idea of fun. Usually the biggest problem we had after one ended was getting the pucker marks out of the seat covers. :pleased:

 

Anyway, from the other side of the badge they're an eelray itchbay.

Edited April 23, 2015 by EssOne

[Ugly]

When you flee you are putting pedestrians and other motorists around you in “Immediate danger of death or great bodily harm”. I think that justifies the use of deadly force in most all states. Some departments have policies about pursuits; but they are not state law. Shooting at him from a moving vehicle was over the top though; he should have just hit him as he was making the turn.

He should have taken lessons from the first video.

I agree that running puts innocents at risk. I am a biker and would never run. Then again I'm law abiding. Some of these guys on crotch rockets run just because they're so fast and can get away(sometimes).
38 miles he ran and we don't know what kind of harm he caused during that.
I would've taken him out with the car too. It was a prime opportunity.