ahem,He didn’t indicate otherwise
[quote]
*Originally posted by Zwalld
if he’s still gunning the engine, they should start blasting.
[/qoute]
Having the option + using restraint/training perhaps? is a long way from just going in Dirty Harry style and “blasting”
Yes he is I understand and from his post is appears that he is quite level headed and not gun happy at all. 
Sure he did: “The weapon needs to be pointed at someone (as a rule) before we use lethal force.”
I think you (I’m assuming you’re a cop) should have the option to use lethal force in that situation.
not here
I see. So you meant I didn’t indicate that he indicated otherwise. I should have included both sentences in my quote. Thanks for the heads up.
Gotcha. I got the impression you were basically advocating summary execution as a detterent to such a thing.
I still don’t agree - in sentiment, I do, but giving more power to the State in this context is bad - lowering the requirements for killing citizens. It’s easy enough to abuse.
Dirty Harry always gave people an option: Obey the law or get hurt. If you’d already violated the law, it sucked to be you.
Those who chose to transgress paid the price for their actions, as it should be.
Why is this such a difficult concept?
This isn’t a fucking movie, it’s real life!
“Gee whiz, too bad you didn’t hear my command clearly, if you had, I wouldn’t have blasted that hole in your chest.” “Bad call on getting all nervous when a half dozen cops are pointing guns at you.” “You actually thought that by staying still, we wouldn’t shoot you? That’s pretty funny!”
Obey the law or get hurt, what a load of crap.
Thank goodness we have reasonable people training and commanding our police officers.
Sorry to have offended your sensibilities, but you’re just the type of person who whines about the rights and liberties of an offendor being abridged, until some crack smoker decides to pistol whip your ass, steal your car, and do whatever to your S/O and children. THEN you’ll scream about stronger minimum sentences and greater freedom for law enforcement professionals in the performance of their duties.
I’d like more Dirty Harries in life, because things would be safer.
I don’t break the law, so I need not fear the law. It’s there to protect me and my family. Imagine that.
Yes, and when your 16yo panics during a traffic stop, they’ll just wind up dead, lovely system, I’ll take two!
There’s a middle ground between letting criminals get away, and shooting people who are sitting in stopped cars after a chase is over.
What sort of weak minded fool panics during a traffic stop?
Brutus is on the money, and has grasped the point which has thusfar evaded Cheesesteak.
IF you are stopped, put down your window, shut off your music, KEEP your hands in plain sight, and DO WHAT YOU’RE TOLD!
None of this is rocket science, and if you follow these simple rules, it is extremely doubtful that you’ll get a toe tag.
Even a rookie officer fresh from the academy is HIGHLY unlikely to cap your ass if you do what he/she says.
:smack:
Here’s a scenario…
You're a police officer with a wife and children at home. You're working overtime to cover shifts, doing traffic patrol on a busy main roadway, looking for speeders, equipment violations, erratic drivers etc. You stop a vehicle for a headlight out, you call your stop into your dispatch center to get the registration information. Your intent is to advise the motorist that his head light is out, and maybe see if there's anything hinky about the guy, i.e. dui, drugs, weapons etc. As you approach the vehicle, the reverse lights come alive and the tires squeal, you see a dark colored car heading right for you. You dive over the hood of your car to safety, and try to reassess your situation, in the time it has taken you to do this, the offender has doubled back on you, and is now headed right for you at a considerably higher rate of speed with much greater control. He strikes your squad as you move out of the way again, no time to draw your weapon and line up a shot, only time to react and move. The offender is speeding off, your car is still operable, and by now, you've called on your portable radio for assistance, which if you're lucky, is coming, fast.
Questions…
Do you chase this person?
Why?
Are there acceptable losses if you choose to?
What are the ramifications if you don’t?
The answers, I’m sure will be as varied as the situations, but this particular scenario occurred, just last night with an officer I work with. After an extensive chase involving 5 seperate agencies and no less than a dozen officers, we failed to secure the offender, though we know where he lives, and eventually we will. There were no injuries, and there was no civilian damage. One squad car though was mortally wounded.
Thoughts?
People panic, it happens for a variety of reasons:
Suspended licence
No insurance
License with lots of points
Kid driving car without permission
Marijuana in car
Plain old stupidity
blah, blah, blah
Many of these things are crimes, and deserve punishment. What is being suggested here is killing people who panic. You know, killing, as in making people dead? It’s a pretty serious thing to kill a person, this has apparently evaded some people here.
The very idea that we want to shoot and kill people who do dumb things like start high speed chases is insane. Especially since the suggestion is that we shoot them after they stop, when everyone’s adreniline is pumping, and the driver is potentially scared witless, given that there are a bunch of pistols trained on him.
The police do just fine without your idiotic suggestions, they very well know when to shoot, and it’s not when you’re suggesting.
Umm…I thought that this thread was about when law enforcement professionals should or should not shoot following a carstop/chase, your previous posts urging restraint owing to the vehicle operator possibly being illegal/stoned/stupid/alien. Your quote seems to deny that. Or am I simply reading English?
Work with me, here
TAP TAP Hello??
HEY take it to tha pit…oh wait:smack:
Start a thead: “Should John Q Bacon be allowed to shoot a person for____ or not”
The police already exercise considerable restraint when it comes to shooting at people. They already have rules that balance their ability to do their jobs with the safety of the public. The suggestion that they should shoot at the driver of a stopped car because he might drive off again, is a departure from what they do today, and shows a complete lack of respect for human life.
The police can use deadly force when necessary. zwaldd’s definition of necessary is when a person might drive off, or when a person doesn’t immediately obey every instruction officers give them. Bullshit, deady force is necessary when someone’s life is in danger, not when someone fails to obey your commands. The police know this already, their job is to arrest, not punish. The idea that one should ‘obey the law or get hurt’ is nonsense, you obey the law or get arrested, police have no right to hurt anyone unless it is necessary to complete the arrest.
I don’t think people who run from the cops should be shot. I also don’t think they should gripe and holler if those cops beat the living snot out of them for running and risking lives for no good reason. IMO, the cops are showing CONSIDERABLE restraint with these nimrods.
(It’s not like these guys are getting away. Why the hell do they keep running???))
Out of curiosity, can you describe the magical force which makes all police officers infalliable, incapable of judgement errors, and completely uncorruptable?
When a person who has just been forcibly stopped after driving recklessly at 120mph is still behind the wheel of a driveable car and is refusing to surrender, innocent people’s lives are in danger. By your definition, deadly force is then necessary.