User Panel
|
Quoted:
how long before every shitbag gets word that driving away is an easy way to evade arrest? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
this might be a silly question, but why not just move quickly away from the car as it started to move (which he apparently did because he fell backwards) without drawing and shooting? how long before every shitbag gets word that driving away is an easy way to evade arrest? There were other cops on the scene. He would not have evaded arrest. |
|
Quoted:
There were other cops on the scene. He would not have evaded arrest. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
this might be a silly question, but why not just move quickly away from the car as it started to move (which he apparently did because he fell backwards) without drawing and shooting? how long before every shitbag gets word that driving away is an easy way to evade arrest? There were other cops on the scene. He would not have evaded arrest. LOL |
|
Quoted:
Wait, you're saying a legal and legitimate RS for a stop, that leads to PC upon further investigation, is Unconstitutional? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Nice of you to come right out and admit this. Our Founders knew power corrupts. It's human nature. You're a step above Obama because you've come right out and admitted you're not the exception. So.... how big are your abuses of power these days ? Wait, you're saying a legal and legitimate RS for a stop, that leads to PC upon further investigation, is Unconstitutional? Maybe he means shooting someone in the head for not to following orders to stop. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
this might be a silly question, but why not just move quickly away from the car as it started to move (which he apparently did because he fell backwards) without drawing and shooting? how long before every shitbag gets word that driving away is an easy way to evade arrest? There were other cops on the scene. He would not have evaded arrest. LOL So, aside from the claim of being dragged, you believe that killing him was the correct response? |
|
Quoted:
There were other cops on the scene. He would not have evaded arrest. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
this might be a silly question, but why not just move quickly away from the car as it started to move (which he apparently did because he fell backwards) without drawing and shooting? how long before every shitbag gets word that driving away is an easy way to evade arrest? There were other cops on the scene. He would not have evaded arrest. How exactly would they have stopped him from driving away at that moment? Keep in mind that roadblocks are considered lethal force and can't be used. |
|
Quoted:
So, aside from the claim of being dragged, you believe that killing him was the correct response? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
this might be a silly question, but why not just move quickly away from the car as it started to move (which he apparently did because he fell backwards) without drawing and shooting? how long before every shitbag gets word that driving away is an easy way to evade arrest? There were other cops on the scene. He would not have evaded arrest. LOL So, aside from the claim of being dragged, you believe that killing him was the correct response? I'm chuckling at your declarative certainty in the premise that having more officers ensures he wouldn't have evaded arrest. |
|
Quoted:
I'm chuckling at your declarative certainty in the premise that having more officers ensures he wouldn't have evaded arrest. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
how long before every shitbag gets word that driving away is an easy way to evade arrest? There were other cops on the scene. He would not have evaded arrest. LOL So, aside from the claim of being dragged, you believe that killing him was the correct response? I'm chuckling at your declarative certainty in the premise that having more officers ensures he wouldn't have evaded arrest. Well, okay. But the other answer to the question would be; How long before every cop gets the word that shooting a fleeing suspect is an easy way to not get all sweaty chasing them? |
|
Quoted:
How exactly would they have stopped him from driving away at that moment? Keep in mind that roadblocks are considered lethal force and can't be used. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
this might be a silly question, but why not just move quickly away from the car as it started to move (which he apparently did because he fell backwards) without drawing and shooting? how long before every shitbag gets word that driving away is an easy way to evade arrest? There were other cops on the scene. He would not have evaded arrest. How exactly would they have stopped him from driving away at that moment? Keep in mind that roadblocks are considered lethal force and can't be used. So you are saying that the cop didn't need to be dragged. Shooting him in the head was the right call? At the very least, they had a license plate number. |
|
Quoted:
yeah, at the time they knew it was a phone. You're on a troll roll in this thread. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Smartphone, IIRC. Wow, with the proliferation of smart phones these guys must be terrified. yeah, at the time they knew it was a phone. You're on a troll roll in this thread. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Just don't believe it is a good idea to be pointing weapons at people unless they are a real threat. I also don't believe this officer fired on purpose, and if he would have said so he might be charged with something but certainly not with what he is charged with now. |
|
Quoted:
So you are saying that the cop didn't need to be dragged. Shooting him in the head was the right call? At the very least, they had a license plate number. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
this might be a silly question, but why not just move quickly away from the car as it started to move (which he apparently did because he fell backwards) without drawing and shooting? how long before every shitbag gets word that driving away is an easy way to evade arrest? There were other cops on the scene. He would not have evaded arrest. How exactly would they have stopped him from driving away at that moment? Keep in mind that roadblocks are considered lethal force and can't be used. So you are saying that the cop didn't need to be dragged. Shooting him in the head was the right call? At the very least, they had a license plate number. You didn't answer the question. |
|
|
As usual, the people who make the dumbest statements are the ones who don't actually have any appreciable knowledge or training in Constitutional law, police policies in procedures, deadly force situations, or basic human psychology.
That might be a bit harsh, but it's true. Unfortunately, lacking any or all of the above items is no barrier to commenting at length about issues that concern them. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
how long before every shitbag gets word that driving away is an easy way to evade arrest? There were other cops on the scene. He would not have evaded arrest. How exactly would they have stopped him from driving away at that moment? Keep in mind that roadblocks are considered lethal force and can't be used. So you are saying that the cop didn't need to be dragged. Shooting him in the head was the right call? At the very least, they had a license plate number. You didn't answer the question. They would not have stopped him from driving away, but they would not have lost contact with him. There was at least one other officer right behind him, and plenty more in the immediate vicinity. Your turn. |
|
Fuck man, all those kids are not going to get child support from this guy. Their prospects will be irrevocably altered.
|
|
Quoted:
Just don't believe it is a good idea to be pointing weapons at people unless they are a real threat. I also don't believe this officer fired on purpose, and if he would have said so he might be charged with something but certainly not with what he is charged with now. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Smartphone, IIRC. Wow, with the proliferation of smart phones these guys must be terrified. yeah, at the time they knew it was a phone. You're on a troll roll in this thread. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Just don't believe it is a good idea to be pointing weapons at people unless they are a real threat. I also don't believe this officer fired on purpose, and if he would have said so he might be charged with something but certainly not with what he is charged with now. And sometimes you have to cover down on a potential threat until you determine whether it is "real" or not. You are al worked up about a picture which captured 1/10,000 of a second in time. Remember they were engaged in a manhunt for a suspect in a bombing, an ambush murder of a police officer, and then a shootout with LEO's. They needed to be threat scanning 360 degrees. |
|
Quoted:
I'm sorry, is that a serious question? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, okay. But the other answer to the question would be; How long before every cop gets the word that shooting a fleeing suspect is an easy way to not get all sweaty chasing them? I'm sorry, is that a serious question? Of course. This guy was a piece of shit, so we feel bad that an officer is going down as a result of his actions, but what if it was a 16 year old kid running because he had a joint in his pocket? How can it be said that it's okay to use deadly force to stop one, but not the other? Up until now, the argument about this cops guilt or innocence has been based on whether or not he had reason to believe his life was in danger. Now we're talking about this question: "how long before every shitbag gets word that driving away is an easy way to evade arrest?" The way I see it, if someone drives off, there are three options: 1. watch them drive away and try and track them down later, 2. pursue and try to catch them now, 3. shoot them in the head. Pick one, but understand that you don't get to pick on a case by case basis. |
|
Quoted:
As usual, the people who make the dumbest statements are the ones who don't actually have any appreciable knowledge or training in Constitutional law, police policies in procedures, deadly force situations, or basic human psychology. That might be a bit harsh, but it's true. Unfortunately, lacking any or all of the above items is no barrier to commenting at length about issues that concern them. View Quote I'm glad you showed up with the truth. Please continue. |
|
|
|
Quoted:
Of course. This guy was a piece of shit, so we feel bad that an officer is going down as a result of his actions, but what if it was a 16 year old kid running because he had a joint in his pocket? How can it be said that it's okay to use deadly force to stop one, but not the other? Up until now, the argument about this cops guilt or innocence has been based on whether or not he had reason to believe his life was in danger. Now we're talking about this question: "how long before every shitbag gets word that driving away is an easy way to evade arrest?" The way I see it, if someone drives off, there are three options: 1. watch them drive away and try and track them down later, 2. pursue and try to catch them now, 3. shoot them in the head. Pick one, but understand that you don't get to pick on a case by case basis. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, okay. But the other answer to the question would be; How long before every cop gets the word that shooting a fleeing suspect is an easy way to not get all sweaty chasing them? I'm sorry, is that a serious question? Of course. This guy was a piece of shit, so we feel bad that an officer is going down as a result of his actions, but what if it was a 16 year old kid running because he had a joint in his pocket? How can it be said that it's okay to use deadly force to stop one, but not the other? Up until now, the argument about this cops guilt or innocence has been based on whether or not he had reason to believe his life was in danger. Now we're talking about this question: "how long before every shitbag gets word that driving away is an easy way to evade arrest?" The way I see it, if someone drives off, there are three options: 1. watch them drive away and try and track them down later, 2. pursue and try to catch them now, 3. shoot them in the head. Pick one, but understand that you don't get to pick on a case by case basis. When someone flees in a vehicle, they present a life-safety threat to every other driver on the road. There a numerous documented cases of them killing innocent drivers, even when not chased by the Police. They are a lethal force threat that we all pretend isn't a threat because it is glorified on TV and almost all American men are absolutely sure that they can drive like Andretti, fuck like Ron Jeremy, and fight like Tyson. None of those are correct and they end up crashing into a minivan full of kids. Additionally, the Police have no idea why he is running. Is there a hostage in the trunk as happened in TN years ago? Is he on his way to murder his girlfriend (also has happened)...and in both cases, the Police let them go... Who is responsible now? The Police had a suspect and chose to let them go..the suspect went on to victimize other people. It could have been prevented with an agressive chase policy. But we all keep pretending it isn't a big deal. Fast and Furious Bro...pass the hair gel. |
|
Quoted:
We do know that over 300 people a year die in police chases. View Quote food for thought... The FBI did a study some years back that found felony crime was committed by a very small portion of the population. This group of felons commit multiple felonies before being jailed long term. They generally had to be arrested 6+ times for felony crimes and be convicted more than once before serving any real jail time. Most felony arrests were plead to misd or simply solved with probation. The net result was a victim count in triple digits... That could have been prevented early on with aggressive enforcement of their gateway felony crimes which usually including fleeing from the police, violent assualts, and so on. Criminality is a pattern of life. It is a lifestyle choice and those who choose it will not change their ways until something major disrupts their lifestyle like a long jail sentence. By releasing these felons into the population via not aggressively chasing and arresting them, we are unleashing them to commit more felony crimes and victimize more people. That is preventable... |
|
Quoted:
Of course. This guy was a piece of shit, so we feel bad that an officer is going down as a result of his actions, but what if it was a 16 year old kid running because he had a joint in his pocket? How can it be said that it's okay to use deadly force to stop one, but not the other? Up until now, the argument about this cops guilt or innocence has been based on whether or not he had reason to believe his life was in danger. Now we're talking about this question: "how long before every shitbag gets word that driving away is an easy way to evade arrest?" The way I see it, if someone drives off, there are three options: 1. watch them drive away and try and track them down later, 2. pursue and try to catch them now, 3. shoot them in the head. Pick one, but understand that you don't get to pick on a case by case basis. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, okay. But the other answer to the question would be; How long before every cop gets the word that shooting a fleeing suspect is an easy way to not get all sweaty chasing them? I'm sorry, is that a serious question? Of course. This guy was a piece of shit, so we feel bad that an officer is going down as a result of his actions, but what if it was a 16 year old kid running because he had a joint in his pocket? How can it be said that it's okay to use deadly force to stop one, but not the other? Up until now, the argument about this cops guilt or innocence has been based on whether or not he had reason to believe his life was in danger. Now we're talking about this question: "how long before every shitbag gets word that driving away is an easy way to evade arrest?" The way I see it, if someone drives off, there are three options: 1. watch them drive away and try and track them down later, 2. pursue and try to catch them now, 3. shoot them in the head. Pick one, but understand that you don't get to pick on a case by case basis. That part about not having any training or education in the subject matter? It's not an insult, it's an observation borne out by the fact that you're not aware of the basics of Constitutional law regarding law enforcement and use of force. And at a higher level, that lack of basics is causing further distraction from the core issues at the heart of this case. What's the fundamental question asked about a seizure and/or use of force? Whether or not the action is objectively reasonable from the perspective of an officer on scene. The statement about "how long before every shitbag gets word that driving away is an easy way to evade arrest?" isn't exactly a red herring, it's rather closer to being a false dilemma by way of misunderstood contextual assumptions and ignorance of use of force standards. No one is arguing (that I'm aware of) that officers should be shooting people purely for trying to run, as a means of enforcing compliance with the law via a lethal deterrent effect. What's being articulated is that officers are beginning to perceive an expectation on the part of the public that officers should cease and desist any attempt at seizing a suspect of a crime when the suspect offers active or passive resistance. And there's an (arguably quite correct) assumption that by doing so the rate of resistance is going to escalate dramatically across the country when criminals realize resistance is a profitable decision to make. In regards to your three options, you're failing to understand the situation from the perspective of the officer, in terms of "What is the right course of action expected of me?" In reality there are a nearly infinite number of options, but first we have to look at the steps that get us there. The officer begins with the choice of whether he or she chooses to pro-actively engage a perceived violation. As many cops in this thread have pointed out, a sizable percentage of serious felony arrests come out of what the Supreme Court has called pretext stops - and has ruled as being valid in Whren v. United States. The decision-making tree thus begins with whether or not to actively seek those individuals in the first place (if they choose not to look for those infractions for fear of becoming embroiled in controversy, there's going to obviously be a change in the arrest rate and rate of offenses committed in the area). Once the officer decides to make that traffic stop or Terry stop, then either they are met with compliance or resistance at some point in the interaction. That resistance can be met with lawful force (where lawful is defined by that aforementioned objective reasonableness standard), or (absent an obvious threat to life and limb of the officer or someone else) the officer can respond by disengaging and allowing the subject to exercise their own will (i.e., run like hell while the officer smiles and waves). Broadcast the description and subject of travel, and leave it at that. In the Tensing case, the subject refuses a lawful order to exit the vehicle. He then starts the engine and shifts out of park. At that point, Tensing can choose to step back and watch him drive off, or he can attempt to prevent Dubose from fleeing while he's still physically close enough to take action. It appears that he chooses to do the latter by reaching into the vehicle to stop Dubose via removing the keys or physically preventing Dubose from operating the vehicle. If Dubose then places the vehicle in motion causing Tensing to perceive a threat to his life, as would be perceived by another reasonable officer on scene, then the use of deadly force is a justified action - not as a means of keeping Dubose from escaping, but as a necessary action taken in self-defense. Lethal force has nothing to do with fleeing in the facts of this case, and that distinction apparently isn't very clear to some people. The thing that is nearly impossible to get the average layperson to understand is that situations like this happen almost instantly, and there simply isn't any time to consider the complexities of every possible legal angle of a given situation. The perception amongst the public is that officers who fail to resolve a situation perfectly are poorly trained, exhibited bad moral character, or are otherwise unworthy. Use of deadly force situations are not a multiple-choice SAT exam where you can sit and analyze the answers, they're the equivalent of walking around a corner and having someone pitch a fastball at your head from twenty feet. Your reaction will not depend on careful reasoned analysis of the situation and a reasoned weighing of all possible outcomes, but rather reflexive action based upon training, momentary perceptions, and a not-insignificant degree of luck. This cannot be overstated enough, because most people simply have no real direct experience in this arena whatsoever, or if they did they lacked the benefit of outside analysis and review to allow them to understand the event. Thus, cries like "They should have shot the knife out his hand!" or "Why didn't the officer just jump out of the way of the car?" fail to comprehend the fundamentally difficult nature of those situations by trying to apply hindsight to every decision. Shit happens, officers take action, and then once the dust settles everyone gets to evaluate. It doesn't happen the other way around..until we invent functional time travel. Thankfully, the Supreme Court long ago ruled that situations are not to be judged from the perspective of hindsight with every possible fact already in hand. Were the legal standard to be the same as the standards evident in the court of public opinion, you could reasonably expect a majority of law enforcement in the US to resign. The consequences of such can be drawn out by anyone paying attention. |
|
Quoted:
When someone flees in a vehicle, they present a life-safety threat to every other driver on the road. There a numerous documented cases of them killing innocent drivers, even when not chased by the Police. They are a lethal force threat that we all pretend isn't a threat because it is glorified on TV and almost all American men are absolutely sure that they can drive like Andretti, fuck like Ron Jeremy, and fight like Tyson. None of those are correct and they end up crashing into a minivan full of kids. Additionally, the Police have no idea why he is running. Is there a hostage in the trunk as happened in TN years ago? Is he on his way to murder his girlfriend (also has happened)...and in both cases, the Police let them go... Who is responsible now? The Police had a suspect and chose to let them go..the suspect went on to victimize other people. It could have been prevented with an agressive chase policy. But we all keep pretending it isn't a big deal. Fast and Furious Bro...pass the hair gel. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, okay. But the other answer to the question would be; How long before every cop gets the word that shooting a fleeing suspect is an easy way to not get all sweaty chasing them? I'm sorry, is that a serious question? Of course. This guy was a piece of shit, so we feel bad that an officer is going down as a result of his actions, but what if it was a 16 year old kid running because he had a joint in his pocket? How can it be said that it's okay to use deadly force to stop one, but not the other? Up until now, the argument about this cops guilt or innocence has been based on whether or not he had reason to believe his life was in danger. Now we're talking about this question: "how long before every shitbag gets word that driving away is an easy way to evade arrest?" The way I see it, if someone drives off, there are three options: 1. watch them drive away and try and track them down later, 2. pursue and try to catch them now, 3. shoot them in the head. Pick one, but understand that you don't get to pick on a case by case basis. When someone flees in a vehicle, they present a life-safety threat to every other driver on the road. There a numerous documented cases of them killing innocent drivers, even when not chased by the Police. They are a lethal force threat that we all pretend isn't a threat because it is glorified on TV and almost all American men are absolutely sure that they can drive like Andretti, fuck like Ron Jeremy, and fight like Tyson. None of those are correct and they end up crashing into a minivan full of kids. Additionally, the Police have no idea why he is running. Is there a hostage in the trunk as happened in TN years ago? Is he on his way to murder his girlfriend (also has happened)...and in both cases, the Police let them go... Who is responsible now? The Police had a suspect and chose to let them go..the suspect went on to victimize other people. It could have been prevented with an agressive chase policy. But we all keep pretending it isn't a big deal. Fast and Furious Bro...pass the hair gel. So you choose #3? I don't disagree with you agree with you about the risk of choosing one of the other options, and I've said before that I wasn't outraged over this guy being dead. But do our current laws allow for that? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Thing is... smaller shit leads to bigger shit. It always has for me. Every fourth person I pull over for small shit has heroin, meth, or warrants. Every once in a while I get a lexus or mercedes with powder cocaine. Clearly the war on drugs is almost won. I hope not. Job security. |
|
Quoted:
And sometimes you have to cover down on a potential threat until you determine whether it is "real" or not. You are al worked up about a picture which captured 1/10,000 of a second in time. Remember they were engaged in a manhunt for a suspect in a bombing, an ambush murder of a police officer, and then a shootout with LEO's. They needed to be threat scanning 360 degrees. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Smartphone, IIRC. Wow, with the proliferation of smart phones these guys must be terrified. yeah, at the time they knew it was a phone. You're on a troll roll in this thread. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Just don't believe it is a good idea to be pointing weapons at people unless they are a real threat. I also don't believe this officer fired on purpose, and if he would have said so he might be charged with something but certainly not with what he is charged with now. And sometimes you have to cover down on a potential threat until you determine whether it is "real" or not. You are al worked up about a picture which captured 1/10,000 of a second in time. Remember they were engaged in a manhunt for a suspect in a bombing, an ambush murder of a police officer, and then a shootout with LEO's. They needed to be threat scanning 360 degrees. Not disagreeing with what you said. Undoubtedly sometimes it is necessary. The cops in Boston (I think they thought they were in Ramadi circa 2005) the LA cops shooting up newspaper ladies, the idiot in Ferguson pointing his AR at the "journalist" (he was suspended) and the others with their long guns glassing people (and yeah I support Officer Wilson) The guys who picked up Elian Gonzalez.......How about Jose Flores drawing his gun on handcuffed prisoner Daniel Rodrigo Saenz and then shooting him? Yeah, there are a lot of examples of BS. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AG_-EXd9Es https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HcO-UXJ3M8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Op3TMliqBmA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gT0Ymrsptg |
|
Quoted:
What's the backpedal? Someone asked for an example of a prosecutor doing this and I posted one. In both cases I think the prosecutor is wrong. Good grief you guys are some paper skins. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
.......lol.......holy backpedal! What's the backpedal? Someone asked for an example of a prosecutor doing this and I posted one. In both cases I think the prosecutor is wrong. Good grief you guys are some paper skins. Well I looked back and still can't find my backpedal. Can you help me out and find it for me? |
|
Quoted:
food for thought... The FBI did a study some years back that found felony crime was committed by a very small portion of the population. This group of felons commit multiple felonies before being jailed long term. They generally had to be arrested 6+ times for felony crimes and be convicted more than once before serving any real jail time. Most felony arrests were plead to misd or simply solved with probation. The net result was a victim count in triple digits... That could have been prevented early on with aggressive enforcement of their gateway felony crimes which usually including fleeing from the police, violent assualts, and so on. Criminality is a pattern of life. It is a lifestyle choice and those who choose it will not change their ways until something major disrupts their lifestyle like a long jail sentence. By releasing these felons into the population via not aggressively chasing and arresting them, we are unleashing them to commit more felony crimes and victimize more people. That is preventable... View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
We do know that over 300 people a year die in police chases. food for thought... The FBI did a study some years back that found felony crime was committed by a very small portion of the population. This group of felons commit multiple felonies before being jailed long term. They generally had to be arrested 6+ times for felony crimes and be convicted more than once before serving any real jail time. Most felony arrests were plead to misd or simply solved with probation. The net result was a victim count in triple digits... That could have been prevented early on with aggressive enforcement of their gateway felony crimes which usually including fleeing from the police, violent assualts, and so on. Criminality is a pattern of life. It is a lifestyle choice and those who choose it will not change their ways until something major disrupts their lifestyle like a long jail sentence. By releasing these felons into the population via not aggressively chasing and arresting them, we are unleashing them to commit more felony crimes and victimize more people. That is preventable... So your answer is to arrest them more often, not keep them in jail in the first place? That makes no sense. It is the "releasing these felons into the population" part, not the "chasing and arresting" that is the problem. |
|
Quoted:
So you choose #3? I don't disagree with you agree with you about the risk of choosing one of the other options, and I've said before that I wasn't outraged over this guy being dead. But do our current laws allow for that? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, okay. But the other answer to the question would be; How long before every cop gets the word that shooting a fleeing suspect is an easy way to not get all sweaty chasing them? I'm sorry, is that a serious question? Of course. This guy was a piece of shit, so we feel bad that an officer is going down as a result of his actions, but what if it was a 16 year old kid running because he had a joint in his pocket? How can it be said that it's okay to use deadly force to stop one, but not the other? Up until now, the argument about this cops guilt or innocence has been based on whether or not he had reason to believe his life was in danger. Now we're talking about this question: "how long before every shitbag gets word that driving away is an easy way to evade arrest?" The way I see it, if someone drives off, there are three options: 1. watch them drive away and try and track them down later, 2. pursue and try to catch them now, 3. shoot them in the head. Pick one, but understand that you don't get to pick on a case by case basis. When someone flees in a vehicle, they present a life-safety threat to every other driver on the road. There a numerous documented cases of them killing innocent drivers, even when not chased by the Police. They are a lethal force threat that we all pretend isn't a threat because it is glorified on TV and almost all American men are absolutely sure that they can drive like Andretti, fuck like Ron Jeremy, and fight like Tyson. None of those are correct and they end up crashing into a minivan full of kids. Additionally, the Police have no idea why he is running. Is there a hostage in the trunk as happened in TN years ago? Is he on his way to murder his girlfriend (also has happened)...and in both cases, the Police let them go... Who is responsible now? The Police had a suspect and chose to let them go..the suspect went on to victimize other people. It could have been prevented with an agressive chase policy. But we all keep pretending it isn't a big deal. Fast and Furious Bro...pass the hair gel. So you choose #3? I don't disagree with you agree with you about the risk of choosing one of the other options, and I've said before that I wasn't outraged over this guy being dead. But do our current laws allow for that? Our current laws and policies put officers in a position where they feel obligated to try and grab the keys by reaching into the car...and you get things like this. Officers reaching in and getting dragged has resulted in officers killed every year I have been on the job. It is a shit situation where you can either let them run and get away or try to prevent their flight by reaching into the car. Officers want to stop criminals, so they reach...and sometimes the guy drives away with the cop reaching in the car. |
|
Was it ever determined how far off campus the officer was when he made the traffic stop?
|
|
Quoted:
That part about not having any training or education in the subject matter? It's not an insult, it's an observation borne out by the fact that you're not aware of the basics of Constitutional law regarding law enforcement and use of force. And at a higher level, that lack of basics is causing further distraction from the core issues at the heart of this case. What's the fundamental question asked about a seizure and/or use of force? Whether or not the action is objectively reasonable from the perspective of an officer on scene. The statement about "how long before every shitbag gets word that driving away is an easy way to evade arrest?" isn't exactly a red herring, it's rather closer to being a false dilemma by way of misunderstood contextual assumptions and ignorance of use of force standards. No one is arguing (that I'm aware of) that officers should be shooting people purely for trying to run, as a means of enforcing compliance with the law via a lethal deterrent effect. What's being articulated is that officers are beginning to perceive an expectation on the part of the public that officers should cease and desist any attempt at seizing a suspect of a crime when the suspect offers active or passive resistance. And there's an (arguably quite correct) assumption that by doing so the rate of resistance is going to escalate dramatically across the country when criminals realize resistance is a profitable decision to make. In regards to your three options, you're failing to understand the situation from the perspective of the officer, in terms of "What is the right course of action expected of me?" In reality there are a nearly infinite number of options, but first we have to look at the steps that get us there. The officer begins with the choice of whether he or she chooses to pro-actively engage a perceived violation. As many cops in this thread have pointed out, a sizable percentage of serious felony arrests come out of what the Supreme Court has called pretext stops - and has ruled as being valid in Whren v. United States. The decision-making tree thus begins with whether or not to actively seek those individuals in the first place (if they choose not to look for those infractions for fear of becoming embroiled in controversy, there's going to obviously be a change in the arrest rate and rate of offenses committed in the area). Once the officer decides to make that traffic stop or Terry stop, then either they are met with compliance or resistance at some point in the interaction. That resistance can be met with lawful force (where lawful is defined by that aforementioned objective reasonableness standard), or (absent an obvious threat to life and limb of the officer or someone else) the officer can respond by disengaging and allowing the subject to exercise their own will (i.e., run like hell while the officer smiles and waves). Broadcast the description and subject of travel, and leave it at that. In the Tensing case, the subject refuses a lawful order to exit the vehicle. He then starts the engine and shifts out of park. At that point, Tensing can choose to step back and watch him drive off, or he can attempt to prevent Dubose from fleeing while he's still physically close enough to take action. It appears that he chooses to do the latter by reaching into the vehicle to stop Dubose via removing the keys or physically preventing Dubose from operating the vehicle. If Dubose then places the vehicle in motion causing Tensing to perceive a threat to his life, as would be perceived by another reasonable officer on scene, then the use of deadly force is a justified action - not as a means of keeping Dubose from escaping, but as a necessary action taken in self-defense. Lethal force has nothing to do with fleeing in the facts of this case, and that distinction apparently isn't very clear to some people. The thing that is nearly impossible to get the average layperson to understand is that situations like this happen almost instantly, and there simply isn't any time to consider the complexities of every possible legal angle of a given situation. The perception amongst the public is that officers who fail to resolve a situation perfectly are poorly trained, exhibited bad moral character, or are otherwise unworthy. Use of deadly force situations are not a multiple-choice SAT exam where you can sit and analyze the answers, they're the equivalent of walking around a corner and having someone pitch a fastball at your head from twenty feet. Your reaction will not depend on careful reasoned analysis of the situation and a reasoned weighing of all possible outcomes, but rather reflexive action based upon training, momentary perceptions, and a not-insignificant degree of luck. This cannot be overstated enough, because most people simply have no real direct experience in this arena whatsoever, or if they did they lacked the benefit of outside analysis and review to allow them to understand the event. Thus, cries like "They should have shot the knife out his hand!" or "Why didn't the officer just jump out of the way of the car?" fail to comprehend the fundamentally difficult nature of those situations by trying to apply hindsight to every decision. Shit happens, officers take action, and then once the dust settles everyone gets to evaluate. It doesn't happen the other way around..until we invent functional time travel. Thankfully, the Supreme Court long ago ruled that situations are not to be judged from the perspective of hindsight with every possible fact already in hand. Were the legal standard to be the same as the standards evident in the court of public opinion, you could reasonably expect a majority of law enforcement in the US to resign. The consequences of such can be drawn out by anyone paying attention. View Quote Great explanation, and I understand all of that completely. That's why I specifically pointed out that the argument here had shifted from the true question of this case, (whether the officer was dragged, and therefor in reasonable fear for his safety), to the hypothetical question of whether or not shooting a suspect fleeing in a vehicle was justified on it's own. My three choices were directed at that question, not the situation in this case. |
|
Quoted:
Our current laws and policies put officers in a position where they feel obligated to try and grab the keys by reaching into the car...and you get things like this. Officers reaching in and getting dragged has resulted in officers killed every year I have been on the job. It is a shit situation where you can either let them run and get away or try to prevent their flight by reaching into the car. Officers want to stop criminals, so they reach...and sometimes the guy drives away with the cop reaching in the car. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
So you choose #3? I don't disagree with you agree with you about the risk of choosing one of the other options, and I've said before that I wasn't outraged over this guy being dead. But do our current laws allow for that? Our current laws and policies put officers in a position where they feel obligated to try and grab the keys by reaching into the car...and you get things like this. Officers reaching in and getting dragged has resulted in officers killed every year I have been on the job. It is a shit situation where you can either let them run and get away or try to prevent their flight by reaching into the car. Officers want to stop criminals, so they reach...and sometimes the guy drives away with the cop reaching in the car. At that point, the officer's life is at risk, so use of deadly force is warranted. So basically, the officer followed policy. He just f'ed up by not waiting until the vehicle was clearly in motion to take the shot. |
|
Quoted:
As usual, the people who make the dumbest statements are the ones who don't actually have any appreciable knowledge or training in Constitutional law, police policies in procedures, deadly force situations, or basic human psychology. That might be a bit harsh, but it's true. Unfortunately, lacking any or all of the above items is no barrier to commenting at length about issues that concern them. View Quote It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. |
|
|
Quoted:
In a straight line? Probably around 1500 feet. Several blocks. Red line being the south edge of the campus. The small red circle is the intersection near shooting. The further south, the more diverse and vibrant the area becomes. <a href="http://s192.photobucket.com/user/chadwimc/media/UC1a_zpslskdw9lh.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z64/chadwimc/UC1a_zpslskdw9lh.jpg</a> View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Was it ever determined how far off campus the officer was when he made the traffic stop? In a straight line? Probably around 1500 feet. Several blocks. Red line being the south edge of the campus. The small red circle is the intersection near shooting. The further south, the more diverse and vibrant the area becomes. <a href="http://s192.photobucket.com/user/chadwimc/media/UC1a_zpslskdw9lh.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z64/chadwimc/UC1a_zpslskdw9lh.jpg</a> I'm going to assume the area around the traffic stop has lots of campus housing and school related offices? |
|
Quoted:
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
As usual, the people who make the dumbest statements are the ones who don't actually have any appreciable knowledge or training in Constitutional law, police policies in procedures, deadly force situations, or basic human psychology. That might be a bit harsh, but it's true. Unfortunately, lacking any or all of the above items is no barrier to commenting at length about issues that concern them. It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. Oh no. Not the man in the arena. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
I'll take not arguing with, fighting with, or running from the cops, for (What's a funeral cost these days) Alex.
|
|
Quoted:
For what it is worth I believe all leo shootings should be reviewed and put in front of a grand jury by a prosecutor who is not from that jurisdiction. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Everyone loves the system when it is screwing a shitburd. For what it is worth I believe all leo shootings should be reviewed and put in front of a grand jury by a prosecutor who is not from that jurisdiction. That might be a good idea, if prosecutors simply did their jobs and followed the law. Review the last few years of circus acts. |
|
Quoted:
I left it out because I didn't know the guy in the window was pointing something at them. Was it an RPG? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And under what law are you exempted from... you know... having to follow the law? When a LEO is covering a suspect there is no criminal intent. The law allows for police officers to use force to protect themselves and make arrests. Just like a non-Leo (civilian) covering a threat. There is no criminal intent and therefore not a violation of the law. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile How about when cruising through Boston in the turret pointing your rifle at various people? Is everyone a suspect? You left out the part about the person in the window pointing something at the police. How convenient. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I left it out because I didn't know the guy in the window was pointing something at them. Was it an RPG? If we're at a point where LE rolls heavy, then thinks it's ok to flag everyone who pulls out a smartphone, then this country is screwed. |
|
Quoted:
I'm going to assume the area around the traffic stop has lots of campus housing and school related offices? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Was it ever determined how far off campus the officer was when he made the traffic stop? In a straight line? Probably around 1500 feet. Several blocks. Red line being the south edge of the campus. The small red circle is the intersection near shooting. The further south, the more diverse and vibrant the area becomes. <a href="http://s192.photobucket.com/user/chadwimc/media/UC1a_zpslskdw9lh.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z64/chadwimc/UC1a_zpslskdw9lh.jpg</a> I'm going to assume the area around the traffic stop has lots of campus housing and school related offices? No. Some students in privately owned housing. But it *IS* where a lot of the criminals seem to come from. But one is not supposed to notice such things... |
|
Quoted:
.......... Our current laws and policies put officers in a position where they feel obligated to try and grab the keys by reaching into the car...and you get things like this. Officers reaching in and getting dragged has resulted in officers killed every year I have been on the job. It is a shit situation where you can either let them run and get away or try to prevent their flight by reaching into the car. Officers want to stop criminals, so they reach...and sometimes the guy drives away with the cop reaching in the car. View Quote Why did the prosecutor look at this video and say the car was NOT driving off when the LEO had his hand on the seat belt and was trying to get at the keys initially I assume? Why did the prosecutor deny what was seen by his very own eyes in this video? At best negligent homicide but I ain't even REMOTELY sure of that. Is this another prosecutor looking for votes or too cowardly to say what he saw honestly? |
|
|
|
Quoted:
Why did the prosecutor look at this video and say the car was NOT driving off when the LEO had his hand on the seat belt and was trying to get at the keys initially I assume? Why did the prosecutor deny what was seen by his very own eyes in this video? At best negligent homicide but I ain't even REMOTELY sure of that. Is this another prosecutor looking for votes or too cowardly to say what he saw honestly? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
.......... Our current laws and policies put officers in a position where they feel obligated to try and grab the keys by reaching into the car...and you get things like this. Officers reaching in and getting dragged has resulted in officers killed every year I have been on the job. It is a shit situation where you can either let them run and get away or try to prevent their flight by reaching into the car. Officers want to stop criminals, so they reach...and sometimes the guy drives away with the cop reaching in the car. Why did the prosecutor look at this video and say the car was NOT driving off when the LEO had his hand on the seat belt and was trying to get at the keys initially I assume? Why did the prosecutor deny what was seen by his very own eyes in this video? At best negligent homicide but I ain't even REMOTELY sure of that. Is this another prosecutor looking for votes or too cowardly to say what he saw honestly? Maybe there is more evidence that was taped after the incident. IE officer didn't keep his mouth shut and or some issues with his background that makes the water less clear. Who knows. |
|
Quoted:
Why did the prosecutor look at this video and say the car was NOT driving off when the LEO had his hand on the seat belt and was trying to get at the keys initially I assume? Why did the prosecutor deny what was seen by his very own eyes in this video? At best negligent homicide but I ain't even REMOTELY sure of that. Is this another prosecutor looking for votes or too cowardly to say what he saw honestly? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
.......... Our current laws and policies put officers in a position where they feel obligated to try and grab the keys by reaching into the car...and you get things like this. Officers reaching in and getting dragged has resulted in officers killed every year I have been on the job. It is a shit situation where you can either let them run and get away or try to prevent their flight by reaching into the car. Officers want to stop criminals, so they reach...and sometimes the guy drives away with the cop reaching in the car. Why did the prosecutor look at this video and say the car was NOT driving off when the LEO had his hand on the seat belt and was trying to get at the keys initially I assume? Why did the prosecutor deny what was seen by his very own eyes in this video? At best negligent homicide but I ain't even REMOTELY sure of that. Is this another prosecutor looking for votes or too cowardly to say what he saw honestly? You mean the same prosecutor that said the reason the officer fell was due to the recoil from firing a pistol one handed? Smarts and rationality aren't on his side. |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.