Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 5/23/2005 4:17:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/23/2005 4:18:27 AM EDT by photoman]
Me personaly I think if you drive you car at a police officer and get dead doing it, hey it's yer own fault. One officer quoted in the story calls it a "2,000 pound guided missile", I tend to agree with him.


linky

Self-defense or too much force?
Police agencies differ on whether a car is a weapon
By GINA BARTON
gbarton@journalsentinel.com
Posted: May 22, 2005
Second of two parts

Samuel Rodriguez wasn't listening.

The police had told him, "Stay where you are." But Rodriguez turned to his girlfriend, Samantha Fiebrink, sitting beside him in the stolen Chevrolet Cavalier.

"I'm going to take off," he said.

She begged him, "Please, baby, don't."

According to Fiebrink's recollection, there wasn't much room to maneuver. A squad car was parked close behind the Chevy, and another vehicle was parked nearby. Rodriguez put the car in reverse, heading in the general direction of Milwaukee Police Officer Richard Sandoval. That's when the bullets flew past Fiebrink's face. The car stopped, and the police officers pulled Rodriguez out.

Blood poured from her boyfriend's head, and Fiebrink knew he was dead.

"I'm yelling, 'Why you gotta shoot? Why?' "

It's a question she and Rodriguez's family have repeated many times since his death in 2002.

It's a question echoed by relatives of at least four other unarmed motorists who have been shot and killed by Milwaukee police in the years since then. And it's a question the loved ones of Wilbert Prado hope will be answered at an inquest into his death that begins today in Milwaukee County Circuit Court. Off-duty officer Alfonzo Glover fired at least 19 shots at Prado on March 6, killing him. According to police, Glover thought Prado's van was following him, so Glover got out of his car to confront the driver. Glover said the van hit him as he stood in the street, so he shot at the vehicle. Prado then got out of the van and started to reach into his coat as if to grab a weapon, Glover told his superiors, so he chased Prado down an alley and fired more shots.

Prado's fiancée and his attorney dispute the account. According to the autopsy report, the eight shots that hit Prado were fired from behind. No weapon was found on Prado, the report says.

Milwaukee police officers have fired on about two dozen unarmed drivers over the past 20 years, a Journal Sentinel analysis shows. A department database of officers' uses of force does not track shots fired at cars, so the Journal Sentinel review included newspaper archives, records from the district attorney's office and court files.

The officers involved have defended their actions by saying the cars were weapons and they shot in self defense, an argument rejected more and more often by law enforcement agencies around the country. None of the officers was criminally charged. The Journal Sentinel review shows no departmental discipline against any of the officers. Milwaukee Police spokeswoman Anne E. Schwartz referred the question of discipline to the Fire and Police Commission, where officials said they could not say with certainty whether any of the officers was disciplined.

Judgment call
There are no hard-and-fast rules about when it's OK for Milwaukee police officers to shoot into cars. There's no checklist of do's and don'ts. Instead, a vague department policy leaves the decision to an officer's judgment.

Schwartz said that Sandoval, Glover and the other officers mentioned in this story would not comment.

In a letter Sandoval wrote to the Journal Sentinel near the time of the shooting, he said Rodriguez was "armed with a 2,000 pound guided missile, commonly referred to as a motor vehicle, which he chose to put into reverse and accelerate directly at me, ignoring my commands, and ultimately pinning me between my squad car and it. . . . There are photos showing the bruising on my body, but not the internal injuries I suffered for weeks. I'm fortunate to be alive and I thank God every day."

Sandoval's actions were deemed acceptable under Milwaukee Police Department policy, which states: "Discharging firearms at or from moving vehicles will be justified only when the use of force likely to cause great bodily harm or death would be authorized."

That kind of force may be used only "to prevent great bodily harm or death to the officer or a third party" or to prevent the escape of a suspect who poses a significant threat of such harm or death. Whether those thresholds are met is based solely on the officer's perceptions at the time.

Sgt. Michael Kuspa, firearms trainer for the Milwaukee Police, said officers are taught that vehicles can be used as deadly weapons.

If a suspect puts a car in gear and accelerates toward the officer, that's a threat, he said. Officers are taught to move out of the way if they can, but that's not always possible, Kuspa said.

"Situations that are vehicle-related are very unpredictable," he said. "These are rapidly moving, dynamic events, and the officer has no control over how and when the (suspect's) vehicle stops."

If the officer believes he or she is about to be hit by a vehicle - or already has been hit, then deadly force is justified, Kuspa said.

A policy similar to Milwaukee's recently was struck down by the Los Angeles Police Commission after an officer there shot and killed a 13-year-old boy driving a stolen car in February. The new rules in Los Angeles, adopted within weeks of the shooting, prohibit officers from firing at a car unless someone inside it is trying to kill them - with something other than the car itself. Officers must get out of the way instead.

Several other departments forbid officers to consider vehicles deadly weapons. Many have adopted policies similar to the one in force in Los Angeles. Among departments that prohibit police from firing if someone is trying to run them over include: the New York State Police; the Harris County, Texas Sheriff's Department, which includes Houston; and police departments in the cities of Albany, N.Y.; Louisville, Ky.; Miami and Boston.

George Kirkham, a criminal justice professor at Florida State University and a former police officer, said that's the way it should be. Shooting at a car is not an effective way to stop it, he said.

"Shooting at or from a moving car should be a prohibited practice. The backdrop is constantly changing, the bullet could ricochet, the car could go out of control," Kirkham said.

But Kuspa, the MPD firearms trainer, said such policies could put officers' lives in danger.

"My fear is that an officer is going to get hurt there, or die," he said. "Suddenly they'll be in a situation where deadly force (should) be authorized, yet they aren't allowed to shoot because of the policy."

Recent shootings
Officials from the U.S. Attorney's Office in Milwaukee, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Justice, have reviewed Rodriguez's death as well as several other shootings of motorists by police officers in the area, including:


Justin Fields, 21, of Brown Deer, shot and killed by Milwaukee Police Officer Craig Nawotka after a police chase on March 2, 2003. An inquest jury deemed the shooting justified. A civil suit is pending.


Joseph Bauschek, 34, fatally shot by University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Police Officer Brian Switala on Feb. 3, 2003. Switala pursued Bauschek's Jeep to Shorewood, cornered him and fired seven shots. The fatal shot went through the back of the driver's seat. During an inquest in June 2003, Switala testified he began firing as Bauschek drove his Jeep toward him. The jury rejected a self-defense claim, but said there was not enough evidence to support a second-degree intentional homicide charge.


Edward Pundsack, 28, of Milwaukee, killed Dec. 22, 2002, at the end of a car chase. An inquest jury found that Milwaukee police Sgt. Mark Wagner was justified in firing eight shots, six of which struck Pundsack. A civil suit is pending.


Larry Jenkins, 31, of Milwaukee, killed Sept. 19, 2002, near N. 37th St. and W. Glendale Ave. after fleeing police. Jenkins' family did not ask for an inquest. The family has filed a civil suit against the city and officer Jon Bartlett, who fired the fatal shots.

Criminal charges were not filed by local prosecutors in any of the cases. Federal authorities have said they will not pursue cases against Switala or Wagner. The federal investigations of Nawotka and Bartlett remain pending. Bartlett faces state felony charges in connection with the October 2004 beating of Frank Jude Jr.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Mel Johnson, who is leading the investigations, said he will wait for the results of the inquest before deciding whether to add Prado's case to the list.



From the May 23, 2005, editions of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Have an opinion on this story? Write a letter to the editor or start an online forum.


Link Posted: 5/23/2005 4:19:34 AM EDT
If you are trying to justify a shooting, I think anything can be called a weapon.
Link Posted: 5/23/2005 4:20:16 AM EDT
There are times when police officers have used their vehicles to hit fleeing suspects (on foot). Are they admitting that they were trying to kill them?
Link Posted: 5/23/2005 4:22:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By MikeTx:
If you are trying to justify a shooting, I think anything can be called a weapon.



I bet you didn't even read the artical......

So you wouldn't shoot somone who was trying to run you down with a car?
Link Posted: 5/23/2005 4:24:24 AM EDT
1. A vehicle can most certainly be a weapon.
2. Cops are shooting people even when the vehicle is not being used as a weapon. I think the recent Compton shooting is a good example of this. Basically, it's a revival of being able to shoot the fleeing suspect in the back.
Link Posted: 5/23/2005 4:25:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By photoman:

Originally Posted By MikeTx:
If you are trying to justify a shooting, I think anything can be called a weapon.



I bet you didn't even read the artical......

So you wouldn't shoot somone who was trying to run you down with a car?



I would, yes, I just wouldn't chase someone down after they exited their vehicle and shoot them 8 times in the back. Not being a police officer, I would probably go to jail for that.
Link Posted: 5/23/2005 4:26:52 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/23/2005 4:37:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Drakich:

Originally Posted By photoman:

Originally Posted By MikeTx:
If you are trying to justify a shooting, I think anything can be called a weapon.



I bet you didn't even read the artical......

So you wouldn't shoot somone who was trying to run you down with a car?



I would, yes, I just wouldn't chase someone down after they exited their vehicle and shoot them 8 times in the back. Not being a police officer, I would probably go to jail for that.



Yah thats a questionable one allright. Still out on that one...
Link Posted: 5/23/2005 4:44:48 AM EDT

Blood poured from her boyfriend's head, and Fiebrink knew he was dead.

"I'm yelling, 'Why you gotta shoot? Why?' "



Because, you dumb cunt, your boyfriend drove a 2,000 pound vehicle at a 200 pound man standing in the open. That man was a police officer that had stopped you and had not released you yet.

Let's put YOU behind that vehicle and I'LL start backing towards you. Betcha you'll wish you had something to make me stop now, won't you bitch?



I'm sorry, but I *REALLY* don't have much sympathy for you in those circumstances. Your BF was a dumbfuck and Darwin caught up with him.
Link Posted: 5/23/2005 5:04:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By photoman:


linky

Self-defense or too much force?
Off-duty officer Alfonzo Glover fired at least 19 shots at Prado on March 6, killing him. According to police, Glover thought Prado's van was following him, so Glover got out of his car to confront the driver. Glover said the van hit him as he stood in the street, so he shot at the vehicle. Prado then got out of the van and started to reach into his coat as if to grab a weapon, Glover told his superiors, so he chased Prado down an alley and fired more shots.

Prado's fiancée and his attorney dispute the account. According to the autopsy report, the eight shots that hit Prado were fired from behind. No weapon was found on Prado, the report says.




Road rage, at best. Somehow, though, I doubt Citizen Glover has spent a night in jail.
Link Posted: 5/23/2005 5:15:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/23/2005 5:16:55 AM EDT by SFR]

Originally Posted By Sin_Bin:
There are times when police officers have used their vehicles to hit fleeing suspects (on foot). Are they admitting that they were trying to kill them?



they may not be admitting it but, yes they are trying to kill them.
Link Posted: 5/23/2005 5:28:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Sin_Bin:
There are times when police officers have used their vehicles to hit fleeing suspects (on foot). Are they admitting that they were trying to kill them?



Heck, I'll freely admit it, I fully intended to make the bastard 1" thick and 4 feet wide, but a high curb saved him.

Use of a vehicle as a weapon is deadly force. Everyone with an ounce of brain matter can figure that one out.
Link Posted: 5/23/2005 5:37:32 AM EDT
If a pencil,paperclip,forke.t.c. can be used as a weapon, then sure, a car can be used as one. You could use just about anything as a weapon.
Link Posted: 5/23/2005 5:55:32 AM EDT
Is anyone claiming that a car, aimed at a person, isn't a deadly weapon?
Link Posted: 5/23/2005 6:01:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/23/2005 6:05:53 AM EDT by Grunteled]

Originally Posted By Lord_Grey_Boots:
Is anyone claiming that a car, aimed at a person, isn't a deadly weapon?



Only when used against cops. If the bitchers had an auto comming at them, it would be a "draw down" story before the smoke cleared.

I've seen some questionable cases where the officer was to the side of the vehicle yet claimed it was a deadly threat as it pulled away. Point a car at them and drive and I say they are free to blast your ass just like any of us would be.


ETA:

A policy similar to Milwaukee's recently was struck down by the Los Angeles Police Commission after an officer there shot and killed a 13-year-old boy driving a stolen car in February. The new rules in Los Angeles, adopted within weeks of the shooting, prohibit officers from firing at a car unless someone inside it is trying to kill them - with something other than the car itself. Officers must get out of the way instead.


That is the dumbest fucking thing I ever read. Absolutly god damn criminal stupidity.
Link Posted: 5/23/2005 6:02:01 AM EDT
Anything and everything is a weapon if it is used to injure someone.
Link Posted: 5/23/2005 6:10:10 AM EDT
hell ya a vehical is a weapon

although damn near anything can be a weapon, a 2000+ lb car or 4000+ lb truck heading at you at 10-100 mph aint no snowball

someone comes at me with a vehical on purpose, i'd cap the driver's a** too
Link Posted: 5/23/2005 6:15:29 AM EDT

The new rules in Los Angeles, adopted within weeks of the shooting, prohibit officers from firing at a car unless someone inside it is trying to kill them - with something other than the car itself. Officers must get out of the way instead.

Wow - that is beyond stupid. I wonder how many cops will have to be run over before they change that.

No wonder those LAPD officers are so uptight all the time.
Link Posted: 5/23/2005 6:17:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dolomite:

The new rules in Los Angeles, adopted within weeks of the shooting, prohibit officers from firing at a car unless someone inside it is trying to kill them - with something other than the car itself. Officers must get out of the way instead.

Wow - that is beyond stupid. I wonder how many cops will have to be run over before they change that.

No wonder those LAPD officers are so uptight all the time.



+1

I think if someone is trying to kill or injure a cop with a vehicle, they should be taken out. I do, however, think that the standard of "trying to kill or injure" should be more than the "vehicle was moving".
Link Posted: 5/23/2005 6:31:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/23/2005 6:32:35 AM EDT by motoguzzi]
I am not a cop basher but I will admit that this is something that does disturb me.
If you are a cop and want to execute someone, just step in front of the vehicle and shoot them!
I mean, think about it, how many times have you seen a cop pull someone over from the front? Unless the vehicle can crab sideways the LEO is pretty sure the sides of the vehicle are not in the path of travel.
There have been cases of undercover cops killing unarmed drivers, you are driving down a lonely road at night and a car cuts you off and what looks like an armed gang-banger gets out. I am sure everyone here would sense it was a cop and comply with his commands and not try to get the hell out of there!
Here in Chandler we had a cop kill woman in her car with an 18 month old baby in the vehicle, he claimed she tried to hit him but the shot came from behind and to the side. The scariest part is the fact that IIRC this was his second victim, a couple of years earlier he had disobeyd orders and continued a high speed pursuit, he just shut off his lights and siren. As he blew thru a stop light he T-boned a teenager and killed him.
A jury found him innocent and now he is suing to get his job back, anyone care to bet that if he does there will be another needless death?
Link Posted: 5/23/2005 6:52:49 AM EDT
"There have been cases of undercover cops killing unarmed drivers, you are driving down a lonely road at night and a car cuts you off and what looks like an armed gang-banger gets out. I am sure everyone here would sense it was a cop and comply with his commands and not try to get the hell out of there!"

I must say that if I was in the above mentioned situation , if a car with no sirens or lights cuts me off ,a guy with no uniform jumps out holding a gun, I would definately use my vehicle to try and end the threat or flee. Anyone can jump out of a car and yell " Police !". Not that this scenario would happen in Vienna,Austria. I dont know how the undercover cars are equipped though. Maybe they have all the lights and stuff.

But if a uniformed cop pulls you over sirens a blazing, and you decide to flee, and at that in the direction of the officer, then you get whats coming to you. You took the decision to break the law, and you must bear all consequences of your decision.
Do not pass go, do not collect 200$.
Link Posted: 5/23/2005 6:54:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/23/2005 6:54:40 AM EDT by California_Kid]
Any object that is used to assault, defend against, or threaten a person or animal is a weapon.
Link Posted: 5/23/2005 7:13:32 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/23/2005 7:15:00 AM EDT
Cars kill more people then guns in the USA, so yes, it is a weapon.

SGat1r5
Link Posted: 5/23/2005 7:28:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By motoguzzi:
I am not a cop basher but I will admit that this is something that does disturb me.
If you are a cop and want to execute someone, just step in front of the vehicle and shoot them!



How about if you are a criminal and you don't want to die, pull over for the po-po? After you run, get chased for an hour, and get cornered, you STILL have a chance to stop and get out of the car. If you don't and you die, it doesn't bother me any.
Link Posted: 5/23/2005 7:49:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dolomite:

The new rules in Los Angeles, adopted within weeks of the shooting, prohibit officers from firing at a car unless someone inside it is trying to kill them - with something other than the car itself. Officers must get out of the way instead.

Wow - that is beyond stupid. I wonder how many cops will have to be run over before they change that.

No wonder those LAPD officers are so uptight all the time.



Does anyone else here in Arfcom land remember the guy about 10 years ago who used his car to drive up onto a crowded sidewalk in a downtown area of a major city and killed something like 12 people and injured 18 others ? I don't remember all the details, but it was a big deal then. Doesn't get anyomore dangerous than that ?
Link Posted: 5/23/2005 7:56:36 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/23/2005 7:58:53 AM EDT by SgtWhiting]
Define "Weapon"

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The bayonet, still used in war as both knife and spearpoint.

A weapon is a tool which can be used during combat to kill or incapacitate, to destroy property, or to otherwise render resources non-functional or unavailable. It may be used to attack and defend, and consequently also to threaten. The use of weapons has been recorded since the advent of cave painting, and the process has been formulated resulting in both martial arts and strategic doctrines.

Metaphorically, anything used to damage (even psychologically) can be referred to as a weapon. A weapon can be as simple as a club or as complex as an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM).
_______________________________
ETA: Car ? Truck ? Mini Van ?
_______________________________

From Webster's Distionary

Main Entry: 1weap·on
Pronunciation: 'we-p&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English wepen, from Old English w[AE]pen; akin to Old High German wAffan weapon, Old Norse vApn
1 : something (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy
2 : a means of contending against another

___________________________________________

From Dictonary.Com

weap·on ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wpn)
n.
An instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword.
Zoology. A part or organ, such as a claw or stinger, used by an animal in attack or defense.
A means used to defend against or defeat another: Logic was her weapon.

tr.v. weap·oned, weap·on·ing, weap·ons
To supply with weapons or a weapon; arm.

____________________________________________

Yes, a car is a weapon. Your mind is a weapon. Do they have ligitimate uses, you bet. Used improperly, they are deadly. There are a lot of things like this.

FWIW

ETA: The car is certainly bigger and heavier. Never bring a car to a gun fight, they are slow to reload and harder to aim.
Link Posted: 5/23/2005 7:58:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/23/2005 7:58:17 AM EDT by thelastgunslinger]

Originally Posted By sgtar15:
Cars kill more people then guns in the USA, so yes, it is a weapon.

SGat1r5



Cigarettes kill more people than cars. Are they weapons?

I think a car can be a weapon, but the above logic doesnt prove it
Link Posted: 5/23/2005 8:00:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By thelastgunslinger:

Originally Posted By sgtar15:
Cars kill more people then guns in the USA, so yes, it is a weapon.

SGat1r5



Cigarettes kill more people than cars. Are they weapons?

I think a car can be a weapon, but the above logic doesnt prove it



It would be if you could prove the nexus that cigarette companies wanted wanted to kill you.
Link Posted: 5/23/2005 8:02:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By thelastgunslinger:

Originally Posted By sgtar15:
Cars kill more people then guns in the USA, so yes, it is a weapon.

SGat1r5



Cigarettes kill more people than cars. Are they weapons?

I think a car can be a weapon, but the above logic doesnt prove it




"logic"

Try this on for size. It would be a weapon if you used it against someone ELSE. When you use it against yourself it's an instrument of suicide.
Link Posted: 5/23/2005 8:02:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Airwolf:

Blood poured from her boyfriend's head, and Fiebrink knew he was dead.

"I'm yelling, 'Why you gotta shoot? Why?' "



Because, you dumb cunt, your boyfriend drove a 2,000 pound vehicle at a 200 pound man standing in the open. That man was a police officer that had stopped you and had not released you yet.

Let's put YOU behind that vehicle and I'LL start backing towards you. Betcha you'll wish you had something to make me stop now, won't you bitch?



I'm sorry, but I *REALLY* don't have much sympathy for you in those circumstances. Your BF was a dumbfuck and Darwin caught up with him.



My thoughts exactly
Link Posted: 5/23/2005 11:05:43 AM EDT
Yes, a car can be a weapon. In my state you cant use deadly force to prevent death or great bodily injury. You can also use deadly force to prevent the escape of a dangerous felon if his escape will further endanger the public.

Tennesse Vs Garner is the landmark case. Many people wrongly believe Tennn vs g. eliminated the shooting of fleeing felons. Instead it upheld the shooting of violent fleeing felons, but eliminated the shooting of people who simply ran from the police at night.
Link Posted: 5/23/2005 11:18:16 AM EDT
I imagine you could level a fast food place like McDonalds and everyone in it with a dumptruck full of sand at 55mph.
Link Posted: 5/23/2005 11:22:45 AM EDT
The story about the cop shooting the guy in the van sounds real fishy to me. He's off duty and jumps in front of the guy, starts shooting. Something is not right and if the officer is found to be wrong he should go to jail. This situation is not the same a regular traffice stop or chase.

Yes, a vehicle can be a deadly weapon.
Link Posted: 5/23/2005 11:23:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/23/2005 11:25:38 AM EDT by LARRYG]

Originally Posted By photoman:
Me personaly I think if you drive you car at a police officer and get dead doing it, hey it's yer own fault. One officer quoted in the story calls it a "2,000 pound guided missile", I tend to agree with him.



How about if you try to run over ANYONE with your car, not just a cop.

I do consider that to be assault with a deadly weapon, period.

The shooting in question here does, however, seem a little shaky if the did, indeed, shoot the guy in the back.
Link Posted: 5/23/2005 12:38:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By photoman:
Me personaly I think if you drive you car at a police officer and get dead doing it, hey it's yer own fault. One officer quoted in the story calls it a "2,000 pound guided missile", I tend to agree with him.



How about if you try to run over ANYONE with your car, not just a cop.

I do consider that to be assault with a deadly weapon, period.

The shooting in question here does, however, seem a little shaky if the did, indeed, shoot the guy in the back.



Well the back is where you get shot when you are reversing into an officer.
Link Posted: 5/23/2005 12:44:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Blue84S10:

Originally Posted By Airwolf:

Blood poured from her boyfriend's head, and Fiebrink knew he was dead.

"I'm yelling, 'Why you gotta shoot? Why?' "



Because, you dumb cunt, your boyfriend drove a 2,000 pound vehicle at a 200 pound man standing in the open. That man was a police officer that had stopped you and had not released you yet.

Let's put YOU behind that vehicle and I'LL start backing towards you. Betcha you'll wish you had something to make me stop now, won't you bitch?



I'm sorry, but I *REALLY* don't have much sympathy for you in those circumstances. Your BF was a dumbfuck and Darwin caught up with him.



My thoughts exactly



+2
Link Posted: 5/23/2005 12:49:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dolomite:

The new rules in Los Angeles, adopted within weeks of the shooting, prohibit officers from firing at a car unless someone inside it is trying to kill them - with something other than the car itself. Officers must get out of the way instead.

Wow - that is beyond stupid. I wonder how many cops will have to be run over before they change that.

No wonder those LAPD officers are so uptight all the time.




Officers will die because of this bullshit, but it will not change. In fact, it will probably become the standard for most agencies before very long.
Link Posted: 5/23/2005 1:04:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/23/2005 1:06:17 PM EDT by LARRYG]

Originally Posted By Grunteled:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By photoman:
Me personaly I think if you drive you car at a police officer and get dead doing it, hey it's yer own fault. One officer quoted in the story calls it a "2,000 pound guided missile", I tend to agree with him.



How about if you try to run over ANYONE with your car, not just a cop.

I do consider that to be assault with a deadly weapon, period.

The shooting in question here does, however, seem a little shaky if the did, indeed, shoot the guy in the back.



Well the back is where you get shot when you are reversing into an officer.



If that is what was happening, bad guy got what he deserved. However, reading the story leaves room for doubt.
Link Posted: 5/23/2005 1:44:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By photoman:
Me personaly I think if you drive you car at a police officer and get dead doing it, hey it's yer own fault. One officer quoted in the story calls it a "2,000 pound guided missile", I tend to agree with him.



How about if you try to run over ANYONE with your car, not just a cop.

I do consider that to be assault with a deadly weapon, period.

The shooting in question here does, however, seem a little shaky if the did, indeed, shoot the guy in the back.




I'm actually not really concered about the shooting. Thats been being talked about since it happened at least around here. What cought me is that there is LE agencies that would consider as not a great enough threat to the officer to use deadly force. Thats what cought me here. I'm just looking at it from the LE prospective.

But I think anyone in that situation should be able to open fire on the driver as that is, when done intentionaly a vary serious threat to someones life, hell it goes beyond a threat to actually attempting to take somones life.
Link Posted: 5/23/2005 4:51:44 PM EDT
If a jetliner can be used as a weapon, so can a vehicle.
Link Posted: 5/23/2005 6:58:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/23/2005 7:05:27 PM EDT by Gravity_Tester]

Originally Posted By motoguzzi:
I am not a cop basher but I will admit that this is something that does disturb me.
If you are a cop and want to execute someone, just step in front of the vehicle and shoot them!
I mean, think about it, how many times have you seen a cop pull someone over from the front? Unless the vehicle can crab sideways the LEO is pretty sure the sides of the vehicle are not in the path of travel.
There have been cases of undercover cops killing unarmed drivers, you are driving down a lonely road at night and a car cuts you off and what looks like an armed gang-banger gets out. I am sure everyone here would sense it was a cop and comply with his commands and not try to get the hell out of there!
Here in Chandler we had a cop kill woman in her car with an 18 month old baby in the vehicle, he claimed she tried to hit him but the shot came from behind and to the side. The scariest part is the fact that IIRC this was his second victim, a couple of years earlier he had disobeyd orders and continued a high speed pursuit, he just shut off his lights and siren. As he blew thru a stop light he T-boned a teenager and killed him.
A jury found him innocent and now he is suing to get his job back, anyone care to bet that if he does there will be another needless death?



I think the Lovelace thing was questionable. The lady he capped was committing a felony (trying to pass a fake scrip). Just wanted to make sure that got out there as well. The other fatality (the chase one) I read it as the car he was pursuing ran the red and caused a fatality.

Personally, if you try to run me over, I will do everything that I can do to kill you. But then again, I tend to be very intolerant of people who try to cause me harm......

GT
Misanthrope? Why yes, yes I am.....

ETA:The former police chief also faulted Lovelace for using bad judgment in a March 2000 chase in which he began to pursue a stolen pickup truck driven by 32-year-old Rosemarie Forker. During the chase, Forker collided with an automobile, killing 19-year-old Bradley Downing.
www.ahwatukee.com/afn/crime/articles/05216a.html

ETA:
Top Top