This is too cool, I am so glad that all you folks will jump up and demand that I be allowed to walk out of IHOP without interference, without paying, because to do anything but take a license number is wrong and to much a reaction to my crime. Of course since I won’t have a correct tag, I guess I can travel this whole great nation and eat free on IHOP’s nickel because what I’m doing warrants nothing but the average police follow up to a unpaid IHOP bill. snerk
Too Cool.
What are your addresses again? I love this attitude from my vict… er friends…
Truly, what type of enormous assholishness does it take to haunt around a message board for years and not even bother to learn the names of everyone’s cats? Damn, what a prick.
Apparently, as far as the police officer was concerned, the issue that required lethal force wasn’t the unpaid bill, but rather the attemted assault with a deadly weapon.
Viewing the video linked to earlier in this thread didn’t really shed that much light for me on the situation. Around here, there are plenty of buildings with parking lots in the rear of the building. To access the parking lot or to exit it, one must drive through a very narrow opening to the street. Sometimes the entrance to the building is actually in that opening and sometimes the door opens into the opening instead of into the building.
I echo what a number of other posters have said: there aren’t enough facts to make a decision on this case yet. However, the cop bashers still are having a field day.
I felt this post needed to have attention drawn to it. What will those of you who characterized the teens as “criminals” have to say if it it was indeed a huge misunderstanding, and they had left their payment on the table as one of the dead teen’s friends posited? :dubious: I just don’t see how such extreme actions in the attempt at apprehension were practical in this case. Hell, cops aren’t allowed in some states to go on high speed pursuits of speeders anymore. I think he should have gotten their tags, not moved into the path of the vehicle. For all we know, the kid who died thought his buddy, the driver had paid for everyone and he left thinking nothing was wrong.
Ok, now that I’ve got the video to work that covered the blog entry I see that at least one passenger knew it was a “dine n dash”, so maybe the kid who died knew as well. I will wait for more information before I solidfy my opinion wholly. However, I still think that it would have been MUCH more prudent for the officer to get the tags instead of stepping into the path of the vehicle.
Perhaps you missed the last seven pages. The issue isn’t whether he shot in response to flapjack jacking, but rather in response to being attacked with an automobile. We don’t know if the facts support the shooting or not, but it’s a pretty reasonable assumption the guy didn’t shoot the kids over pancakes. Thanks for playing.
Slacker, please see either post number 34, or scroll up and read post 129, where I quote that post. I’d say it’s up in the air whether or not he was “attacked with an automobile” given the size of the parking lot, and possible lack of judgement in going in it’s path in the first place.
I agree. Hence my comment about not knowing if the facts support the officer’s actions. I just think this hardline “There are no acceptable circumstances for shooting at check skippers” logic is moronic. If these kids did indeed threaten the officer’s safety with the car, they were no longer mere check skippers.
Hey, you might just want to get run over, but I’d try to do something in that set of circumstance. A slight chance of success is better than none.
Not always. When I worked at a stationary store I got sent after some shop lifters and managed to chase them long enough for the off duty police officer I happened to be ringing up to catch one of them in his car. It depends on the company or store’s policy.
So if the check skippers are shooting at police and innocent civilians, they shouldn’t be shot at?
I haven’t heard anything at all about it since then. I guess it was swept under the rug. Maybe all the facts weren’t in, so they dropped the investigation (knowing that only bad people get beat up or shot). :rolleyes:
You made this slippery slope in post 96. I was applying your own logic to all crimes, using your yardstick - criminals bad - smash puny criminals. You said (see the above quote) that it doesn’t matter to you one bit whether the policeman was in danger or not. The “cop haters” are accused of jumping before all the facts are in. Aren’t the “criminal haters” jumping too? Maybe the pancake bandit was trying to run him down. Maybe not. Maybe if shooting at the van WAS justified, if the SUV or van was aimed at the cop, the driver who was actually driving should have been hit, and not some guy in the back seat. Gun control still means hitting what you aim at. Gun control does not mean firing all your rounds in the hope that you hit something. Pancakes are not worth a life.
