Police & Deadly Force

[MJS]

Yeah, first case was some old chap who ran into another car with his. I stood by waiting (you have to witness overhere) to tell them what I saw. 6 cars and 4 motors pull up at the old guy who was standing there. Like woody allen. After I testified, I asked why such show of force was needed. Police officer just muttered: "drugs and stuff". Old man took nitrates because he had a heart condition, which I told the officer. Because I was present when he administered them.

Hmm...I'll list a few reasons, many of which will not be known by the general population average citizen.

First, just so I'm understanding this correctly here...you're stating that for a simple motor vehicle accident, this is how many officers arrived? There was no chase or anything leading up to the initial crash? All of the officers arrived at the same time? Its possible the officers knew this person. Did he have some prior history with the police, which may lead them to think he might cause trouble? Were there any weapons in the car? Were there drugs other than prescribed meds? Did he have warrants?

Don't know about the women, but someone triple my size putting his knee on my temple and then starts leaning in...

There was a thread somewhere on here, maybe in the study, that Bob posted, regarding the use of the knee. The picture or clip that was posted was being discussed because some were saying the knee was on the head and others were saying it was on the shoulder. I'll also add, that just because its a woman does not mean that she is not capable of fighting.

 

[Hudson69]

wow. you guys are really something. you have effectivly proven that there can be no discussion with your kind, and any attempts for rational discussion are futile. :deadhorse whatever respect i have for you has been significantly diminished by the posts in this thread. i had other thoughts and points to make, but they would only fall on deaf ears, so i choose not to associate with you, or those like you any longer.

I just found this ariticle and have been reading through it; nice research KenpoTex for the clarification.

I would like to know if it is LEO's that upset you or guns? I say this because in another thread you were less subtle in your statements regarding law enforcement but here you seemed to be contributing to the discussion but then veered into areas that obviously would get a rapid response from others (notably our LEO/Security/Military members, myself included).

In your diatribes you also used information that was easily researched for clarification, no offense KenpoTex, that quickly put better light on the subject.

Your statements in regard to "Most Officers are good" or along the line of "I respect police" just feels sarcastic and hollow. It seems like someone wronged you (rightfully or not) at some point and if they were not LEO(s) then they were an authority figure of some kind.

Enough behavioral science (BS) though. From a professional perspective I do not know what the pursuit policy is for that city but the fact remains, the officers involved were exhonerated by a court of law. And since none of us were there and involved we cannot say who was right or wrong (out side of the court case) but it is a good thread starter for comment/learning issues. To be picking at them(the officers involved) now at this point is fruitless.

My .02 only.

 

[MJS]

I just found this ariticle and have been reading through it; nice research KenpoTex for the clarification.

I would like to know if it is LEO's that upset you or guns? I say this because in another thread you were less subtle in your statements regarding law enforcement but here you seemed to be contributing to the discussion but then veered into areas that obviously would get a rapid response from others (notably our LEO/Security/Military members, myself included).

In your diatribes you also used information that was easily researched for clarification, no offense KenpoTex, that quickly put better light on the subject.

Your statements in regard to "Most Officers are good" or along the line of "I respect police" just feels sarcastic and hollow. It seems like someone wronged you (rightfully or not) at some point and if they were not LEO(s) then they were an authority figure of some kind.

Enough behavioral science (BS) though. From a professional perspective I do not know what the pursuit policy is for that city but the fact remains, the officers involved were exhonerated by a court of law. And since none of us were there and involved we cannot say who was right or wrong (out side of the court case) but it is a good thread starter for comment/learning issues. To be picking at them(the officers involved) now at this point is fruitless.

My .02 only.

Just so you know, this user will not be able to reply to you, due to issues with his account. Aside from that...good post though.

 

[sgtmac_46]

-obviosly, he didn't want to get arrested.

-at 12:05 am in levelland, tx, the chances anyone was on the streets besides the victim and the pursuing officers is very small to nill.

-and yes, had he pulled over he wouldn't have been shot.
but why were they shooting in the first place? i'm pretty sure that's not SOP for traffic violations.

post script: i don't mean to be argumentative here. just trying to anwer these questions.

You'll have to ask the officers why they were firing on the vehicle.

As for 'fleeing' in a motor vehicle, it is more than just 'running a stop sign'......it is a violent crime that can and does kill other people far too often. When one propels their 2,000 pound projectile of a vehicle down the road at excessive speeds in an effort to avoid being arrested, one is committing a dangerous and potential lethal act, not 'Just running a stop sign'........lets get that straight.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I'm sorry. I still don't see the justification in shooting at the kid. How about a roadblock? or spike strips? or... i don't know... something that doesn't involve people getting shot in the head...

Are you certain they intended to shoot him in the head? If not, then you're asking for justification for an act that was not intentional if facetious.

Since the investigation indicates that the act was not intentional, no criminal charges were filled.

That is why a civil lawsuit is pending, to determine if the act was the result of negligence.....which it may have been or it may not have been, but it clearly wasn't an intentional act.

Here's the thing, though.......fleeing in a motor vehicle involves the INHERENT risk of not only the driver, and the officers, but of the public in general, it is a dangerous and violent act......not just 'running a stop sign'.

 

[sgtmac_46]

so by that logic, if i don't do what you say, when you say it, you are justified in killing me?

That would be a vast distortion of what he said. If you resist arrest by utilizing a means that makes you a threat to the public and the officers involved, you are engaging in activity that justifies a high level of force to stop you......are we clear, or are you still confused?

 

[sgtmac_46]

:asian:

in this case, i do blame the cops, because they killed a kid who didn't deserve to be killed.

i do not hate cops, but i do have a problem with the corupt, trigger happy ones, who can justify anything to themselves.

*you guys don't seem to want to see anyone else's point of view either. only your own.*

this thread has somehow turned into LEOs vs me, and it's clear to me now that this entire conversation has been pointless, as i am only an "armchair qb", who "should keep quiet". alright. you got it. i'm done with this post. no one here can hear what i'm saying anyway.

I honestly respect what everyone has said, even though i may not agree with it, and i wish all the police officers here safety and happiness in their jobs, and their lives. again, if i have offended, i appologize, and i hope that you will not think badly of me based on my opinions and experiences.:asian:

Actually, it might be better if lethal force were authorized to stop a fleeing motorist from using his vehicle as a weapon against the public........fleeing in a motor vehicle is VASTLY more dangerous than fleeing on foot, so Tennessee v. Garner can be argued not to apply, given the greater degree of danger, and the amount of times fleeing criminals kill people as a result of fleeing in a motor vehicle.

Ergo, it would not be unreasonable to argue that shooting a fleeing criminal to stop their flight from potentially injuring or killing some innocent party further down the road is reasonable......most ESPECIALLY if he has now decided to use his vehicle as a 2,000 pound offensive weapon by striking other officers vehicle with it.........a vehicle IS the most dangerous weapon in America, killing and injuring far more people than firearms.

Now, before you get started, it's not the 'Running the stop sign' that makes him a dangerous criminal........it's the FELONIOUS FLIGHT subsequent to an attempt to detain him that is the SERIOUS POTENTIALLY VIOLENT ACT!

 

[sgtmac_46]

Hockley County Law Enforcement Crumbling from the Outside In

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/levelland-tx/T4VIC6SJGUI31G56F

stories i could not find but happened when i lived there include a questionable suicide by cop, people of legal drinking age being arrested in their home for public intoxication, an officer being fired for not reponding to a call- because he was fornicating with a conveniance store clerk in the alley, drug plants, etc... i tried to find documentation, but maybe you guys will have better luck than me. seriously, check it out. let me know what you find.

We call that the shotgun method of discussion........when a particular topic of debate doesn't go your way, you throw 20 other incidents up and say 'Oh yeah, well, these incidents are legitimate, so Nyah, Nyah'.