I think we should wait for a official police report and a more in depth story of what happened before we judge what the officers did. 

I wonder if the LAPD have been training their cops based on the LSPD in GTA V?

I wonder if the LAPD have been training their cops based on the LSPD in GTA V?

or the LCPD. Walk around with a RPG, no problem, scratch their cars, get head blown off.

.

Edited June 22, 20241 yr by tobeymaguire

Last night in Los Angeles, a suspect was running from the police in a corvette. After crashing into another vehicle at an intersection, the suspect tried to continue driving, but was stuck by a traffic light and a parked car. Upon exiting the vehicle, while he didn't have his hands up, he made no move to or indication that he had a weapon. The police opened fire with lethal rounds. Justified? You be the judge.

 

In my opinion, he posed a significantly less threat upon leaving the vehicle (in essence, dropping his weapon) and this was the prime time for a beanbag shotgun or a taser.

 

MODERATOR NOTICE

WARNING! Graphic content. Do not click on it if offended

 

 

Skip to 4:30 for end of it.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDiWrOc4T4s 

 

Late to the party, but this is stupid. This is going to seem harsh, have you been in a situation like this? I doubt it, because if you have, you would understand. He used a vehicle as DEADLY FORCE, upon crashing, he STILL tried to escape in that vehicle, Upon exiting the vehicle he backed up and ran outside the vehicle, this is a prime example of police using deadly force to stop a suspect that posed a significant threat to others, he proved he was willing to end a life the second he hit that vehicle. He was coherant enough to run from police, he got shot. This is a justified shooting. I only qouted you on this, but reading the rest of your posts here, you obviously have not taken classes on deadly force, and if you have you didn't pay attention. Its not likely that each squad car has a beanbag shotgun, and at that range a taser would have been unlikely. They shoot about 20 feet, atleast the ones here do. You'd would be stupid to approach a suspect like that. It's easy to sit and rip police actions apart from your computer, you would shit your pants in a situation like that, (like we all would) and you'd soon realize deadly force was justified.

 

After fully reading the rest of these comments, I've come to the conclusion that most of who commented probably aren't real LEOs. Again, not trying to sound harsh but there isnt really another way. For all you who critisize officers, without being in their shoes, shame on you. What if the suspect they were chasing was known to carry guns, police can use their heads and think its more than likely this guy has a gun, and open fire, especially since he used deadly force on the vehicle he T-boned. Vehicles in high speed chases like that are considered deadly force. You are all so engrained that the copcs can only shoot if he shoots first, or if you see a gun first. That's not the case. I'd shoot someone if they ran at me with a needle, in most cases knives are more dangerous to LEO's and cars especially. These guys were justified in their shooting. I'm so suprised how many people here are so clueless to what police actually deal with. Its one thing to say you don't think its justified, thats fair enough. Its your opinion and we all have one. It's another thing to assume your right beyond all doubt. I've had training in this, many hours in fact. There is no doubt it my mind they used deadly force against a suspect who had clearly shown deadly force before. For a police community, there sure seems to be a lot of people who like to critisize their every action. We need checks and balances, but we don't need regular civilians telling us when it is and when it isn't OK to do our job. That's my take, from someone who has gone through the academy and been trained to deal with situations like this.

Edited December 15, 201312 yr by Dayton17

I can see what the one officer shot him. Right before the shot was fired he has his hand on the other side of his body and they can't see it. Then his hand comes out and points towards the officer and thats when the officer shot him.

 

Should of he shot? No, but was he justified? yes

And that, my friends is why I despise the LAPD.

I think we should wait for a official police report and a more in depth story of what happened before we judge what the officers did. 

We're just speculating. Nothing personal to them. The Chief and IA of the LAPD is doing plenty of it atm I'd say. lol

Okay, from my understanding, several people have said it was okay to shoot him because he crashed into someone else. This means, that anyone who uses their car and hits someone in another vehicle, should be shot.

 

We'd lose quite a few people if that was the case.

 

I do not think it was the officers' right to shoot him, even if it was for the accident. The Corvette guy hit someone, and the officers proceeded to jump out of their vehicles and fire upon him, taking no notice or care towards the one who was hit until the suspect was shot. This means that they had even less than no right to shoot him for the accident, because the officers didn't even take any care upon that other person's well-being until the suspect was injured/shot. Atleast that is what I saw.

 

Right, but this guy had fled without any concern for the public. He was a danger to society, with his car being as lethal as a loaded weapon. Even though he crashed, and got out of the car, he appeared to run towards the passenger side/trunk in a manner that indicated he was going to get something (why did he run around the trunk instead of straight out of the car).

First and foremost, I must say, in that video I saw excellent police work. As stated above the POS used his vehicle as a Deadly Weapon, against an innocent civilian. The POS after crashing his vehicle decided to foot bail, and he turned his back to the officers which is not a crime, but in this case when they can not see your hands, and you point your hand or something at them, in fear of their life, they may use lethal force. As for the legality of it, Law Enforcement MAY use lethal force to apprehend a fleeing Felon, even if it means shooting in their back. As for the person who said taser is effective at 25 yards, have you ever even used a taser, or know anything about it besides LCPDFR? The X26 (what LAPD uses) has a range of 35ft MAX(depending on cartridge) Most Law Enforcement uses about 15-20FT. not 25 Yards... Also, this POS was intoxicated which depending on how intoxicated or if under the influence of narcotics severely weakens the effect or even nullifies the effect of a taser. You would think as a Law Enforcement community, we would actually respect Law Enforcement Officers, instead of calling them "PIGGIES". As for the person who said about not caring for the people who were hit, first things first, in EMS and Law Enforcement. SCENE SAFTEY/ OFFICER SAFTEY. EMS will not even arrive if the scene is not clear.This shooting was Justified, end of story. I hate people who can sit back and Monday morning quarterback it. You were not there in that situation, you don't know, and most of you will never be in that situation.

While it is justified, the situation seemed to be possible to be resolved without lethal force.

First and foremost, I must say, in that video I saw excellent police work. As stated above the POS used his vehicle as a Deadly Weapon, against an innocent civilian. The POS after crashing his vehicle decided to foot bail, and he turned his back to the officers which is not a crime, but in this case when they can not see your hands, and you point your hand or something at them, in fear of their life, they may use lethal force. As for the legality of it, Law Enforcement MAY use lethal force to apprehend a fleeing Felon, even if it means shooting in their back. As for the person who said taser is effective at 25 yards, have you ever even used a taser, or know anything about it besides LCPDFR? The X26 (what LAPD uses) has a range of 35ft MAX(depending on cartridge) Most Law Enforcement uses about 15-20FT. not 25 Yards... Also, this POS was intoxicated which depending on how intoxicated or if under the influence of narcotics severely weakens the effect or even nullifies the effect of a taser. You would think as a Law Enforcement community, we would actually respect Law Enforcement Officers, instead of calling them "PIGGIES". As for the person who said about not caring for the people who were hit, first things first, in EMS and Law Enforcement. SCENE SAFTEY/ OFFICER SAFTEY. EMS will not even arrive if the scene is not clear.This shooting was Justified, end of story. I hate people who can sit back and Monday morning quarterback it. You were not there in that situation, you don't know, and most of you will never be in that situation.

 

THIS^^^ Someone who has probably been in LE or at a minimum has knowledge of common police practices!

 Justified

It is definitely Justified, he broke like 50 traffic laws and he was a threat to society

While it is justified, the situation seemed to be possible to be resolved without lethal force.

 

 

 Justified

 

 

It is definitely Justified, he broke like 50 traffic laws and he was a threat to society

Not trying to be rude or anything but how the hell is it justified? He had his back turned to them and was unarmed! Yeah he broke traffic laws but that is no reason to kill or seriously harm him! In my opinion, the only justifiable force would have been to use a taser or tackle him to the ground! It is beyond me how people think this is justified. Seriously!

Not trying to be rude or anything but how the hell is it justified? He had his back turned to them and was unarmed! Yeah he broke traffic laws but that is no reason to kill or seriously harm him! In my opinion, the only justifiable force would have been to use a taser or tackle him to the ground! It is beyond me how people think this is justified. Seriously!

it's Justified  given the fact's and event's which occured

There are things that are considered "Forcible Felonies" a forcible felony allows a law enforcement officer to shoot an unarmed suspect in the back. Forcible felonies are any felony committed which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against a person. The way he was driving was a risk to the public and also he was blowing through intersections, which made the pursuit come to end. Also, it night and he was running you don't know what he has on him or why he was running.  It in my opinion was justified.

Edited December 15, 201312 yr by Jerbell92

it's Justified  given the fact's and event's which occured

What? So if you speed through junctions and drive away from the police you get shot? That is bullsh*t. Think about it, he has just had a high speed RTC and stumbles out of his car, he isn't going to be coherent for a while as a result of the trauma, he was vulnerable and posed little threat as he was not in his car. His hand were out to the side when he was shot meaning the police could see his hands were empty. That shot was unjustified and outlines the major differences in law enforcement between Britain and America. It was totally shocking police work. 

There are things that are considered "Forcible Felonies" a forcible felony allows a law enforcement officer to shoot an unarmed suspect in the back. Forcible felonies are any felony committed which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against a person. The way he was driving was a risk to the public and also he was blowing through intersections, which made the pursuit come to end. Also, it night and he was running you don't know what he has on him or why he was running.  It in my opinion was justified.

So what you are saying is that a police officer in America can shoot someone in the back even if they are unarmed and no longer pose a threat to the public? Because that is the situation here, he could hardly even walk after that crash!

What? So if you speed through junctions and drive away from the police you get shot? That is bullsh*t. Think about it, he has just had a high speed RTC and stumbles out of his car, he isn't going to be coherent for a while as a result of the trauma, he was vulnerable and posed little threat as he was not in his car. His hand were out to the side when he was shot meaning the police could see his hands were empty. That shot was unjustified and outlines the major differences in law enforcement between Britain and America. It was totally shocking police work. 

 

You're delusional. It was at night, HE HAD USED DEADLY FORCE BY RAMMING ANOTHER VEHICLE. HE DID NOT SURRENDER HE LEFT HIS VEHICLE, you are obviously not a police officer if you think the right thing was to move in close and tackle him. Thats Hollywood kid. THe officers on the ground knew the threat they were dealing with, he used deadly force by ramming into that car, then STILL TRYING TO escape after crashing, then finally he leaves, and runs behind his car, (he could be getting a weapon, or pulling one out) It's shocking your profile says your a police officer and you don't understand this concept. Please do us a favor and read up on policing and use of force laws. I hope to god you're not a police officer. I would hate to have you protecting my family.

If he made a sudden movement while in the car, or going out: Yes. Otherwise: No.