Troopers Use Cars To Ram Suspects

[Imua Kuntao]

Using the car is a very old practice to stop fleeing suspects, however they nolonger teach this.

 

[MA-Caver]

Using the car is a very old practice to stop fleeing suspects, however they no longer teach this.

Well how can they bring the guy to court if he's in traction or has died because the car was sitting on him while being read his miranda??

 

[redfang]

Using the car is a very old practice to stop fleeing suspects, however they nolonger teach this.

Since I've moved to the South, I've come to realize that it takes longer to get the word down here about some things. In fact, many people don't seem to have gotten the word that the War of Northern Aggression has ended, let alone have heard of civil rights. These people are a small minority, but they are out there. They exist in all areas, including law enforcement. I had never heard the word "yankee" actually being used by someone outside of a history class or baseball context until I moved out of Ohio to NC.

 

[The Master]

Lack of tact, master?

When a murderous racist tries to kill someone and says that he intends to do so because of the color of a person's skin he is scum. When a cop does it we refer to it as "murder under the color of law". Murder or attempted murder under the color of law is worse than a regular crime. It degrades the Law and reduces respect for it. It causes police officers to betray their Oath by covering up for criminals and turns the whole profession into accomplices. The particulars of these cases indicate a pattern of crime with the very real possibility that it includes "conspiracy to deprive a person of civil rights based on race, color, creed or place of national origin". That is the sort of felony which lets the Feds get out the really big hammer.

These guys deserve exactly the same degree of tact and consideration as the Ku Klux Klan, the National Socialist White People's Party, Asian Pride or La Raza Unida. They abused their trust and make a mockery of the very concept of the Law and its servants.

I note that a few people have said "He gave up all his rights when he did a crime." Apply the same standard to these particular thugs. Anyone who believes the police did him wrong would have a right to kill the officer then and there. Do you really want police held to a higher standard than that? At least I'm willing to give them a trial before sending them to prison. Their defenders here are saying anyone with a badge has the right to be judge, jury and executioner and that suspicion of committing any illegal act should carry an automatic death sentence with no trial or appeal. That is straight out of the Idi Amin school of law enforcement.

The law on apprehending fleeing felons is very, very clear. Tennessee vs. Garner hasn't been overturned. A person doesn't forfeit his right not to be murdered the moment a cop decides the guy doesn't deserve to live. You can only shoot him in the back or run him down in defense or if you personally have ironclad probable cause to believe that he has committed or is about to immediately commit a crime of unusual heinousness with callous disregard for human life. That's the standard. Every police officer is supposed to know it.

While I may agree with you on the idea that said officers should not have done these actions, and should be held fully accountable for them, I still am in disagreement with you on the use of a derogatory term which members of the law enforcement community may be offended by. Your points are easily made without it, and much of the other angst and venom that your recent forum contributions have indicated you are suffering from.

I have little patience nor respect for oath breakers, and those caught doing so while in a position of authority deserve censure. It matters not if they are law enforcement, military or governmental.

I also have little patience and respect for rabid bigots and closed minded cretins, either in my limited electronic realm life or my real world one. You sir, are coming across as such. Whether this is an intentional defect or simply a poor choice of words on your part is irrelevant. Your concerns, opinions and positions can easily be made without insulting countless good men and women who are equally as offended by these situations as you are, and who are more directly effected by their repercussions than you or I.

I might suggest that you use more logic and less emotion in the future. It will only aid your position.

Good Day.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

I think that any good, responsible officer finds these actions unacceptable and wrong. Clearly the State authorties do as well and that is why they are investigating. A vehicle is a lethal weapon if used to hurt someone. If a suspect is running away I can think of no justification for using a car to ram them unless they in turn are carring, brandishing a firearm and shooting at the officer in the vehicle or posing a lethal threat to the surrounding citizens.

I imagine that this particular officer's comrades found this wrong and disgusting as well. If they did not then that department needs an overhaul at the top.

The reality is simple in that notorious things always make the news in every field. Almost all the officer's that I know are good guy's and ladies and work hard to do their very, very difficult job in a professional and responsible manner. That truthfully is the reality!

 

[Archangel M]

These Troopers were wrong, period. They should be disciplined according to department policy and the law of their state .

However referring to them as "pigs" is as offensive as if someone used the "N" word to describe an African American who committed a heinous crime. It doesnt matter how offensive the crime was, resorting to those terms just points you out as being biased against the whole group IMO.

 

[Guardian]

First one was just plain wrong, endangered innocent civilians in that housing area, kids especially.

2nd one is not much better especially what he said, which made his intent all to clear.

We'll see what happens, it's not over with yet. Had plenty of foot pursuits also, we also called them foot pursuits or were out on foot.

 

[sgtmac_46]

To reiterate: It's only "the best option" if shooting him in the back of the head is also a "best option". If it isn't, you're a murderer acting under the color of law, not a police officer.

You're mistaken, tellner......striking someone with a car at low speeds is NOT 'likely to cause death'......and simply causing physical injury is NOT considered lethal court by several supreme court decisions. Is it a good tactic? Depends on the situation.....but we don't know why these guys were running or why the officers were chasing them....KEY to discussing the objective reasonableness of their actions.

 

[sgtmac_46]

As an aside to Tellner's initial point: At least here in MA, a vehicle IS considered a "dangerous weapon" for purposes of a charge of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and it *has* come up as such a charge in court when anyone has willfully hit another person with their vehicle,and rightly so.

Simply striking someone with a 'dangerous weapon' is not necessarily lethal force.....a BATON strike is not considered lethal force. Moreover, we cannot really have an intelligent discussion of the incident without knowing specifics.....if the guy was an ARMED ROBBERY suspect fleeing with a gun, the officer would be JUSTFIED in hitting him with the vehicle.....I note a striking LACK of detail about the incident which would lead me to believe that media intentionally left it out as it would likely reduce the incendiary nature of the allegation.

You better DARN WELL believe if they were chasing the guy for a MISDEMEANOR non-violent crime, THAT FACT would be proudly displayed in the ARTICLE!

I've learned over the years that media can 'lie' without actually ever telling one single lie......what they do is OMIT certain details....but what they do say is ENTIRELY true.....it's what they DON'T say that completes the TRUE story however.



I will only respond to the racial epithet by saying this.....it was incredibly poor choice of words, but in and of itself does NOT equal any sort of crime....ESPECIALLY when muttered to oneself! NOR does it, in and of itself, change something OBJECTIVELY reasonable in to 'murder' by simple virtue of a 'word'......it sounds bad, but if the officer was OBJECTIVELY reasonable in hitting the guy with his car in the first place, it doesn't become unreasonable simply because he said something offensive to himself.

If someone finds out WHY these guys were fleeing, let me know.....WITHOUT knowing that, we are really just peeing in the dark.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Simply striking someone with a 'dangerous weapon' is not necessarily lethal force.....a BATON strike is not considered lethal force. Moreover, we cannot really have an intelligent discussion of the incident without knowing specifics.....if the guy was an ARMED ROBBERY suspect fleeing with a gun, the officer would be JUSTFIED in hitting him with the vehicle.....I note a striking LACK of detail about the incident which would lead me to believe that media intentionally left it out as it would likely reduce the incendiary nature of the allegation.

You better DARN WELL believe if they were chasing the guy for a MISDEMEANOR non-violent crime, THAT FACT would be proudly displayed in the ARTICLE!

I've learned over the years that media can 'lie' without actually ever telling one single lie......what they do is OMIT certain details....but what they do say is ENTIRELY true.....it's what they DON'T say that completes the TRUE story however.



I will only respond to the racial epithet by saying this.....it was incredibly poor choice of words, but in and of itself does NOT equal any sort of crime....ESPECIALLY when muttered to oneself! NOR does it, in and of itself, change something OBJECTIVELY reasonable in to 'murder' by simple virtue of a 'word'......it sounds bad, but if the officer was OBJECTIVELY reasonable in hitting the guy with his car in the first place, it doesn't become unreasonable simply because he said something offensive to himself.

If someone finds out WHY these guys were fleeing, let me know.....WITHOUT knowing that, we are really just peeing in the dark.

I'm gonna assume you mean the racial epithet originally posted in the article in question, as I did not and do not use them.

As far as what is or isn't "lethal force", well it varies on how wacky one's state is. Right here in my very own wonderful state You get a felony charge of assault with a deadly just for kicking someone while wearing a shoe. Now you know, and I know, that merely kicking someone isn't automatically deadly force by any means, but nonetheless that is what you will be charged with, even if cleared later.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Incidentally.....does anyone ever notice that when the media wants a 'law enforcement expert' they go to some local university and dig up some 'Criminal Justice' major to give them their 'professional' opinion on police practices.....the opinion of a CJ Masters or Doctorate holder who's lived their entire lives in academia and the closest he's ever gotten to police work is a couple ride alongs and visiting the inmates at the state prison.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

I know. Some egghead college-boy/girl doesn't even understand the concept of what goes on at street level.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I'm gonna assume you mean the racial epithet originally posted in the article in question, as I did not and do not use them.

As far as what is or isn't "lethal force", well it varies on how wacky one's state is. Right here in my very own wonderful state You get a felony charge of assault with a deadly just for kicking someone while wearing a shoe. Now you know, and I know, that merely kicking someone isn't automatically deadly force by any means, but nonetheless that is what you will be charged with, even if cleared later.

These guys aren't going to be charged with anything in State court if charges are to be filled......cops don't really have to worry about that unless someone dies. The charges folks push in these incidents and the lawsuits that follow are all FEDERAL charges.....and several federal courts have concluded that 'Lethal Force' is different for the suspect and the officer......Lethal force for a SUSPECT is described as 'Any force likely to cause DEATH....or Serious Physical injury'...... For the officer, Lethal Force is described as 'Any force likely to cause DEATH...period!'.

What does that mean? It means that simply using force likely to cause serious physical injury to arrest a suspect isn't considered 'Lethal Force' on the part of a police officer....why? The concept of 'Disparity of Force'. If a suspect attempts to use force against an officer or another person 'Likely to cause serious physical injury'.....THAT justifies lethal force from the officer, which as we discussed was 'Any force likely to cause DEATH'.

Moreover, an Officer, unlike a private citizen, has NO DUTY to retreat when attempting to arrest a suspect. Now, we learned in Tennessee v. Garner that simply being 'a fleeing felon' does not justify 'Lethal Force'....but what did other federal courts define as 'Lethal Force'? Force likely to cause 'DEATH'. Now, is bumping someone with a car at low speed, say 15 miles per hour likely to cause 'Death'? No.....likely to cause 'Serious Physical Injury'.....that's probably closer.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I know. Some egghead college-boy/girl doesn't even understand the concept of what goes on at street level.

I noticed one of those 'eggheads' quoted as saying

"They're just lazy," said Alpert, a University of South Carolina criminal justice professor who consults with police on pursuit policies. "Rather than get out of their car or get in a foot race, or tackle someone ... they'll just hit them with the car door, with the bumper, and hope they don't run them over." http://citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080319/NEWS/80319102/1188

'Lazy' he says.....as if he views Law Enforcement as some sort of sport......what is Mr. Alpert's credentials again? Oh, that's right, his job consists of arriving to class on time, avoiding getting caught by his wife flirting with young co-eds and writting the occassional paper to justify his existence....LAZY?!

Oh well, Alpert likes to call himself an expert....so bet it.