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.

I'm -deleted- delusional am I? That's a new one! He left his vehicle and was staggering about after a high speed RTC! I am Scottish and over here we do things very differently. If he got out that vehicle after committing the same offence then it would only be Traffic Officers and possible beat constables to control the area, no way would there be Armed Response to shoot this man in the back! I am a police officer at a clan you moron and I hope to become a police officer in Scotland, a sensible police force may I add who don't shoot unarmed people in the back. America's gun laws are -deleted- up seriously. 

Edited December 15, 201312 yr by UrbaneDegree18

You guys dont understand, EVEN IF THERE WAS NO HAND MOVEMENT. He committed to using deadly force in a vehicle. They were justified in shooting him. He was still a threat, he tried to escape in his vehicle, then he got out and went around the back of his vehicle. You can use deadly force to prevent the escape of a violent felon. He rammed into another car, thats good enough, not to mention what he may have done in the past that the officers knew.

As I see, many people believe LAPD cops are just keen of shooting... I'll try to see this from the different point of view, using an example.

 

On this Friday in Moscow, Russia, plainclothes police set up an ambush on a group of blackmailers, and local McDonalds was chosen for a place. When suspects were sitting with a victim, officers approached them. Turned out guys were armed. As a result, two police officers are dead. Police spokesman said that "officers carried no weapons, because in a crowded place like McDonalds they could harm someobody." I don't know why they had no weapons or why they didn't use it. But there were two dead people on the scene as a result. 

 

Here there's a driver (and I don't know how is he injured or was he alone) and the suspect. Only one innocent person was hurt by this criminal and if anyone asks me, I'd say that's enough. That guy, he didn't try to give up even after ramming other people, he was going to run instead. Of course, I hope he's alive, but I see this as a justified case of shooting.

I'm fucking delusional am I? That's a new one! He left his vehicle and was staggering about after a high speed RTC! I am Scottish and over here we do things very differently. If he got out that vehicle after committing the same offence then it would only be Traffic Officers and possible beat constables to control the area, no way would there be Armed Response to shoot this man in the back! I am a police officer at a clan you moron and I hope to become a police officer in Scotland, a sensible police force may I add who don't shoot unarmed people in the back. America's gun laws are fucked up seriously. 

 

Exactly, we have a "internet cop" advising real cops on their job. In America, that was fully legal. Not only legal, but safe. Just because someone turns their back on you doesn't mean they aren't a threat. God help you.

You guys dont understand, EVEN IF THERE WAS NO HAND MOVEMENT. He committed to using deadly force in a vehicle. They were justified in shooting him. He was still a threat, he tried to escape in his vehicle, then he got out and went around the back of his vehicle. You can use deadly force to prevent the escape of a violent felon. He rammed into another car, thats good enough, not to mention what he may have done in the past that the officers knew.

But he gave his car up and was walking about after an RTC! In my eyes, he no longer posed a threat and a taser would have been sufficient.

But he gave his car up and was walking about after an RTC! In my eyes, he no longer posed a threat and a taser would have been sufficient.

 

A TASER? At that range, have you ever seen or used one? They don't go that far, and even if they did, they are not very accurate. Liek someone else stated, if he had been on any drugs that could severly dampen the taser effect. He used deadly force, the officers had their gun out. and you said he gave his car up? HE CRASHED HIS CAR. He didnt willingly stop and pull to the side of the road. Even after the crash he tried to back out, he was trying to escape on foot. It's not like he got out and put his hands up.

Exactly, we have a "internet cop" advising real cops on their job. In America, that was fully legal. Not only legal, but safe. Just because someone turns their back on you doesn't mean they aren't a threat. God help you.

I have a close relation to Police Scotland with many family members in the police of whom I have consulted with and in Britain, the officer who shot him, if he died, would be facing a prison sentence for murder. I am not arguing that the shooting wasn't safe, I am arguing the fact that the shot was unjustifiable. It just really shows the difference between a sensible country and a trigger heavy country.

I have a close relation to Police Scotland with many family members in the police of whom I have consulted with and in Britain, the officer who shot him, if he died, would be facing a prison sentence for murder. I am not arguing that the shooting wasn't safe, I am arguing the fact that the shot was unjustifiable. It just really shows the difference between a sensible country and a trigger heavy country.

What country has a higher crime rate, oh.... yes, ours. What country has more guns in it...... oh, ours. So what country allows a little more force against violent felons. Ours. This was justified and right in our country. Our laws fit our country, not yours kid. You should really get a little more educated on your topics here.

A TASER? At that range, have you ever seen or used one? They don't go that far, and even if they did, they are not very accurate. Liek someone else stated, if he had been on any drugs that could severly dampen the taser effect. He used deadly force, the officers had their gun out. and you said he gave his car up? HE CRASHED HIS CAR. He didnt willingly stop and pull to the side of the road. Even after the crash he tried to back out, he was trying to escape on foot. It's not like he got out and put his hands up.

Yeah he crashed his car and left it, hence giving it up. Officers clearly could have gotten closer and attempted all non-life-threatening strategies then if they failed take the shot. I just cannot fathom the fact that people are arguing that it was justified. America really need to tighten their gun laws. 

Yeah he crashed his car and left it, hence giving it up. Officers clearly could have gotten closer and attempted all non-life-threatening strategies then if they failed take the shot. I just cannot fathom the fact that people are arguing that it was justified. America really need to tighten their gun laws. 

 

You don't EVER approach a car that has sped away, EVER. I'm done arguing with some teenager who thinks he has a grasp on everything. Our country has more lenient laws on firearms and force, because we have more crimes involving firearms. Again, I'm done wasting my time with you, continue telling us all how it should be done.

What country has a higher crime rate, oh.... yes, ours. What country has more guns in it...... oh, ours. So what country allows a little more force against violent felons. Ours. This was justified and right in our country. Our laws fit our country, not yours kid. You should really get a little more educated on your topics here.

There is no -deleted- need to go an belittle me because I have a different view on the matter. It is -deleted- out of order. That is another point, you moan and complain about school shootings and other events of the same principle but you do not do anything about it, that is delusional.

You don't EVER approach a car that has sped away, EVER. I'm done arguing with some teenager who thinks he has a grasp on everything. Our country has more lenient laws on firearms and force, because we have more crimes involving firearms. Again, I'm done wasting my time with you, continue telling us all how it should be done.

Fine I don't even give a -deleted- now. Just get to -deleted- and go and continue to defend killers. 

A good guy with a gun is just as bad as a bad guy with a gun.

Edited December 15, 201312 yr by UrbaneDegree18

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.

So, if you saw someone stab someone, then barely move for 30 seconds, then drop the knife and walk slowly towards you, would you still be justified in shooting him? Because a similar thing occurred in the video.

So, if you saw someone stab someone, then barely move for 30 seconds, then drop the knife and walk slowly towards you, would you still be justified in shooting him? Because a similar thing occurred in the video.

In my opinion, this isn't justified, he no longer poses a threat as the knife has been dropped, shooting him will solve nothing.

 

c13, do you think it would be justified in this case?

Edited December 15, 201312 yr by UrbaneDegree18

MODERATOR NOTICE

Please refrain from using such a huge number of expletives and ad hominem attacks.

Let's behave like adults, OK?

So, if you saw someone stab someone, then barely move for 30 seconds, then drop the knife and walk slowly towards you, would you still be justified in shooting him? Because a similar thing occurred in the video.

 

Actually nothing even similar happened. He used deadly force in a vehicle. Was in his vehicle still trying to escape. Opened the door suddenly and got out, the officers shot him because 1. While moving out of the car he could have brandished a weapon, (after all he hit a civilian car and still tried to escape) 2. He was a violent felon runnning for the police (You can shoot a violent felon from escaping). If he would have crashed, and threw both hands out the window up in the air, he would not have got shot. Instead he left his vehicle, (still without his hands up mind you) and proceeded to go around his car for god knows what reason. Your scenario has no relation to what happened in that video.

In my opinion, this isn't justified, he no longer poses a threat as the knife has been dropped, shooting him will solve nothing.

 

c13, do you think it would be justified in this case?

Like I was saying earlier, as soon as someone willingly removes his or her control of a weapon, shooting that person is no longer justified, regardless of what they just did. And until there is confirmation that there is a weapon or heavy reason to suspect that there is a weapon (ie: Plastic knife, BB gun made to look real or airsoft without orange flash hider) still in control of the suspect, lethal force isn't justfied.

Like I was saying earlier, as soon as someone willingly removes his or her control of a weapon, shooting that person is no longer justified, regardless of what they just did. And until there is confirmation that there is a weapon or heavy reason to suspect that there is a weapon (ie: Plastic knife, BB gun made to look real or airsoft without orange flash hider) still in control of the suspect, lethal force isn't justfied.

 

Actually you're wrong. Policing law in America (Not sure where you're from) but in the United states that was justified. It's not even an opinion, by law what happened right there was legal. No ands, ifs, or buts, about it. I don't think your understanding, I've said like a million times, U.S. law allows for you to shoot a felon to prevent their escape. That is what happened here. There is no question about it. You can think morally it's wrong. But legally, it was justified.

Actually nothing even similar happened. He used deadly force in a vehicle. Was in his vehicle still trying to escape. Opened the door suddenly and got out, the officers shot him because 1. While moving out of the car he could have brandished a weapon, (after all he hit a civilian car and still tried to escape) 2. He was a violent felon runnning for the police (You can shoot a violent felon from escaping). If he would have crashed, and threw both hands out the window up in the air, he would not have got shot. Instead he left his vehicle, (still without his hands up mind you) and proceeded to go around his car for god knows what reason. Your scenario has no relation to what happened in that video.

Yes, my analogy had everything to do with the video. Except it wasn't as severe. The suspect wielding the knife, having just committed a felonious assault, was still fully coherent. Someone who had just got in a crash like that probably isn't thinking straight directly afterwards (not that he was thinking straight running from the cops to begin with). The knife wielding suspect just dropped the weapon, much like the suspect in the video left the car. The suspect that wielding the knife, now unarmed, is slowly walking towards you. You have at least a dozen officers behind you providing backup. Do you shoot?

 

Your acting like the suspect sprinted towards the back of the car. Look again. He walked towards it. That is in no way a threatening manner (except maybe in the "great battlefield of america" so many adrenaline junkie cops look for). Had he tried to pop open the trunk, a shooting would've been justified because of the heavy suspicion I just talked about in my previous post. But until there is confirmation that a suspect is still armed or about to be armed, a shooting isn't justified.

Actually you're wrong. Policing law in America (Not sure where you're from) but in the United states that was justified. It's not even an opinion, by law what happened right there was legal. No ands, ifs, or buts, about it. I don't think your understanding, I've said like a million times, U.S. law allows for you to shoot a felon to prevent their escape. That is what happened here. There is no question about it. You can think morally it's wrong. But legally, it was justified.

Read Tennessee v. Garner. In law, there's no such thing as "no ifs, ands, or buts". In that case, the Supreme Court specifically overturned the "fleeing felon" rule. Now, it might be justified in the case of someone suspected of violent crimes (their example was, IIRC, if a serial killer is escaping you can shoot to stop them), but the mere fact that a felony was committed is not in and of itself reason to use lethal force. Furthermore, there is always the rule that a reasonable officer could think that the force was necessary to serve the government interest. If the police could easily catch up on foot, shooting isn't necessary. You could argue whether that was the case or not, but it isn't clear-cut.

Actually you're wrong. Policing law in America (Not sure where you're from) but in the United states that was justified. It's not even an opinion, by law what happened right there was legal. No ands, ifs, or buts, about it. I don't think your understanding, I've said like a million times, U.S. law allows for you to shoot a felon to prevent their escape. That is what happened here. There is no question about it. You can think morally it's wrong. But legally, it was justified.

Instead of running out by the front of his vehicle, he slowly walked towards officers. That must have been the worst police escape attempt in history if what you are claiming is true. As I just said, he probably wasn't fully coherent after just crashing his car. That should have been taken into account, because in his non-coherent mind, he probably thought he was giving up.