That’s crap. The cop jumped in front of a moving car. Well that put him in danger, so he was therefore justified in using deadly force, meaning shooting into the moving car.
If he hadn’t jumped in front of the car, there would be no call for using deadly force. The only reason a deadly situation existed is because the cop created it. The cops are not entitled to use deadly force to stop a crime in progress, only to protect themselves and others. They aren’t entitled to put themselves in deliberate danger in order to create a situation they are obliged to use deadly force to resolve.
And besides, shooting at a moving car is a piss-poor method of avoiding getting run over by the car. Even if you hit and incapacitate/kill the driver the car is still moving forward, Newton’s laws being what they are.
To return to this again: the chief doesn’t know or care what we’re doing here. The views of his community, primarily the dead kid’s parents, actually make a difference. I know you’re not that callous, but I do stand by the point.
I don’t think the cop overreacted at all. I commend the cop for doing his job well. I already said that it was regrettable that the passenger got shot and not the driver who was the one who deserved it. None the less, the victim CHOSE to steal food from the IHOP, he CHOSE to attempt to elude the authorities after stealing the food and he CHOSE to get into a car driven by a person who was going to try and kill the cop. None of those things are worthy of getting shot for-but together they put him in the position of being a not-quite-innocent victim of a justified police shooting. It’s a tragedy and a damn shame, absolutely, but I only see wrongdoing on the part of the teens here, not on the part of the cop.
But that’s not what happened. The cop ran into the parking lot after the thieves, who then gunned their car towards the cop. They were assaulting the cop. Read the previous thread and follow all the links.
Damned all over the place, it doesn’t matter if you do or don’t. Let’s see, since this has now been addressed one way, I’m assuming some see it as pandering to the masses (being to PC/wimpy/sacrificing others, perhaps?). The other way, would be similar to how our approach to Iraq comes across… stonewalling a bad decision because no one (who wishes to remain in agreement or on the proverbial ‘good side’ of those in power) dare’s say it’s wrong or should be changed.
Guess it really is true that you can’t please all the people all the time. And on further note, I think the decision was the best possibly rendered that still didn’t come down even remotely harsh on the officer’s ass. I suppose that’s a plus for him, but I still feel for the loved one’s of Aaron Brown. In that regard, it just isn’t right to me.
The Police Chief hasn’t determined that this is the case. As Garfield noted, his statements are contradictory. What I said was the finding of the prosecutor who investigated the case in the first place. It seems blindingly obvious that this is a case of the Police Chief trying to do something, anything to placate the whiners and naysayers (like Nyctea) when he should back his officer and tell them to suck it.
No, they’re not. The cop put himself in front of the car of a fleeing suspect. He did not just lumber out into the parking lot while the car was leaving. This is a violation of the written procedures. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that you don’t step in front of a speeding car. Even if it did, the policeman knew better.
I never posted in the last thread, but I can see it’s going to be a trainwreck just like it, and that the opinions aren’t going to change.
If anyone cares about my 2c, while I think getting killed during the commission of crimes like assault, grand theft auto, bank robbery or being a gang member of any sort is par for the course, skipping out on a restaurant tab doesn’t meet my clearly exacting standards.
Oh, and any cop who jumps in front of a truck just so he can say “It’s heading right for us!” and open fire is a giant douche who needs firing as a bare minimum.
What can I say? I wasn’t there and as far as I know there is no video of the event in question. I am basing my statements upon the findings of the prosecutor who investigated the shooting back when it happened. I suppose we’ll just have to agree that we’re not going to see eye to eye on this one.
Look, like it or not, here in the U.S. public agencies are accountable to the public. The government is responsible to the citizenry because this is a Democracy.
This incident caused an outrage amongst local residents because it scared a lot of people and was viewed as an unnecessary use of force. The citizens of the locality grant the police department the ability to exist. We fund it with our taxes. The government must listen to the concerns of its constituency. This is Civics 101, Dave.
After an exhaustive 11-month investigation that they came to the conclusions they thought were correct. These happened to be the same as the public.
Weirddave, one thing to think about is that there can be a fair amount of slop between “criminal” and “good job”. While this cop may not have done something criminal in nature, it doesn’t mean he should get a gold star either.
The Chief thinks his actions deserve a suspension, that should carry as much weight with us as the prosecutor thinking his actions don’t deserve criminal charges, especially since they’re not mutually exclusive opinions.
I find it interesting that you make this claim, that the prosecutor (often an elected official) saw all the data and made the right choice in your mind (ie, agreed w/your POV), yet the chief of police (not often an elected official) had access to the same information, came to a conclusion that you disagreed w/and you believe that he’s ‘pandering to the public’.
You know, I would agree with you, except for the timing of this. This incident happened almost a full year ago. The investigation of the incident was concluded months ago. THAT was the time to suspend the officer if the chief thought his actions were improper but not criminal. Nyctea is right, the police are public agencies that do have to answer to the public. However, just because a portion of the public is screaming for something does not mean that that it’s justified. You know what? Tragedies happen. People who don’t deserve it die or are killed every day. That doesn’t mean that someone else has to “pay” for it. It seems to me, because of the delay in issuing this suspension and because of the contradictory nature of the chief’s statements themselves, that this is nothing more than an attempt to appease those who simply can not accept that something so tragic could occur with such an insignificant precipitating event. The fact that this officer’s career is being damaged simply because some people have to have someone to blame, or who always knee jerk react to police negatively just because they are police, is what’s a crying shame here.
The kids were committing a crime, but there are some means that the cop is not justified in taking to deal with that, even if he might legally be allowed to. Shooting at this car is an example.
Without knowing the driver would try to kill the cop, of course, which qualifies to me as a huge asterisk. I don’t know for sure if he even ate without paying, but if nothing else he demonstrated bad judgment.
Wouldn’t you think that since maybe the 1920’s, there should have been a rather sharply-defined, “carved in stone” law enforcement training/procedure about such a situation (suspects fleeing in an automoble at high speed)? It’s a rather common occurrence don’t you think?
I’d say the officer was lucky not to have been charged with some kind of criminal wrongdoing. Some people here (but not me) think that the officer was being treated harshly. Well if you think the officer is getting a rough break, one thing is for certain - the passenger of that car is never going to be able to play the violin again.
