Dayton17

The main thing is, he wasn't surrendering. The most basic situation to explain is... he used deadly force on a civilian car, he was in the right mind to injure a civilian with the possibility to kill them, and he still tried to escape. Notice how he crashed, then STILL tried to move forwards and backwards, he obviously was not surrendering. In the law it allows cops to use deadly force to prevent the escape of someone who could still endanger others when they escape. So he was trying to escape, Which, if he could have, he could have went and shot hit family, or did whatever. The most basic point is, he was a danger to society when he was evading the police. Even afterwards, he is still deemed a threat, because who knows what he could do if he escapes, he certainly didnt care when he struck that vehicle. He could still pose a threat, and that's the main reason he was shot. It's not mainly "whether he is was a threat to the officers" he was a threat to society, regardless of whether he dropped his weapon, stopped his car, or what have you. He used deadly force once, and who's to say he wouldnt do it again.

I agree to a point. Here we cannot fire warning shots, and we cannot shoot to wound. Basically, there is old case law where people that get shot by cops (for justifiable reasons) come back and sue the cops. Its a mess and to an outsider its confusing. I understand what you're saying, but here in the USA it is illegal for us to fire warning shots. If you pull the trigger you pull it to kill, and we're trained to shoot to kill. But yea. I don't "claim" to be a police officer. How dare you question my career. They will do an internal investigation yes, Your stupid if you think its strictly the LAPD. They hire an outside source to do the investigation. While they may have one of their own, another agency is always hired out to conduct an investigation to prevent what your saying. You haven't been in a situation like that, you probably havent even been in a training situation like that, so I'd say those of us who have been, carry a little bit more weight. In the end it doesnt matter, they will be let off, BY THEIR OWN AGENCY AND THE AGENCY THAT IS SELECTED TO CARRY OUT A SECONDARY INVESTIGATION. Someday that very rationality might get you killed, which is your fault in itself, i just hope to God your partner doesn't die. It could be anothers life your risking, and that scares me.

No you wouldn't shoot them, but he made an attempt to endanger others, he may have KILLED someone. Seconds after, you can reasonably assume he is still dangerous. You are bringing in irrelevant scenarios. They will get off, and your going to look stupid for fighting me on this. Just take a step back, I think i understand the common laws about how its done. Just like how you said "Rodney King officers didnt get convicted" when in reality they did, and then you come back and agree with me. You don't understand what your talking about. You have an opinion, and i have mine, Mine is based on my training and facts. That's all. I'm done arguing with you, you can think whatever you want. Go ahead and continue to judge the people that serve and protect you everyday.

I never said that, don't twist my words. I said I'm done arguing with someone who clearly has no knowledge of policing. You're right, we shouldnt have all the say, but at the end of the day, when an officer is involved in a shooting, we don't judge them. We can form opinions about what is right or wrong. At the end of the day, we weren't there and we didn't understand the circumstances. The only people that will know if it was justified or not is the officers involved. I'm arguing their point, because of all my knowledge and what i know, it seems justified. I'm not going to sit here and waste my time beating a dead horse with someone who doesn't understand the common policing practices on use of force in America. He challenges me on answering his questions, which I have, I'm done arguing about it. Nothing will happen to them, just like the law says.

You must be new, no offense intended. It is illegal to use warning shots, and you dont aim for nonlethal. The second you pull your gun out, its considered lethal force in the law book. You can't justify to a court why you shot the leg, because in reality most cops in firefights shoot center mass (like we are trained).

It doesnt matter, you can flee by crawling if you fucking want too. He just led police on a god knows how long high speed chase, probably critically injured someone if not killed the vehicle he hit. He did NOT surrender. WHatever else he does, unless he is unconscious could be considered as resisting. Which he was. If he would have thrown his hands up, then no. He didnt, he left his vehicle, (after still trying to escape in it briefly) and then left and went Behind his car for whatever reason. They made a decision in a split second, and i guarantee none of those officers wanted to shoot him. We don't leave the academy going "man i hope i get to shoot someone" Its horrible both mentally, physically, and on paper. They made a decision in a split second that you sit behind your computer and criticize. I'm done talking to you, god through the academy, deal with people like that, then I'll respect your opinion. Until then, grow up and stop judging the people that protect and serve you everyday.

Read up on the case, they were convicted you idiot. Don't come here talking about things you know nothing about. They would because it was the truth, the Rodney king this was too much, the chief made a public statement. That has nothing to do with this.

Actually, those officers were charged in federal court. So they didn't get off. Also, was that recent? No.

I have read Tennessee v. Garner, I am familiar with case law, As i stated in a previous post, we don't know what else he did. He was running from the police in a high speed chase, he PROBABLY wasn't a shoplifter. He probably had outstanding warrants, but regardless of the fact, what if that person in the other car just died. He would be justifiably shot. Wait and see what happens, you guys are going to feel stupid when they all get off. They did their jobs.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

It would constitute impersonating a police officer. The badge is a symbol of public trust and honor. If you haven't earned it, don't wear it. Plus, you could always be targeted by gangs and other that hate us. Just collect em and keep em at home.

Education is an earned priviledge. We have soldiers who make sure of that. Sure, it's free but... in all reality nothing is free. Many have paid the price making sure we all have an opportunity to education. Some of which maybe shouldn't get a chance at it. Anyways, I think its a priviledge thats earned, not necessarily by individual people, but ultimately the men and women serving our country, today, and in the past have paid a price.

Republicans hating governemnt? Uh, Negative. Republicans hate when the government steps in to our individual lives and tells us how to control our finances. We hate when governments tell us we need your money, so we can give it to someone who can't make their own. That's in a nutshell what Obamacare is, and for the record. Republicans are getting paid, In all true reality, just as bluntly as it can be put. A good number of republicans are weathly, it's a statistic, in the event of a gov't shutdown, or even a default..... Democrats are going to almost without a doubt going to be affected more. That certainly isnt a reason to actually let it shut down, but their scare tactic.... in a sense, it does make sense. In another sense, it makes no sense if you can get what im saying. We shouldnt bully the entire country because of one bill, but the majority of average citizen Republicans are middle, high middle, or top class individuals.

That's what i thought with the signature thing. LOL. In that case, well it was never intended to be ill-stricken in the first place but yea, just a better understanding of my opinion on the issue haha.

Yea, Rome was destroyed, as was Greece, Persia, and Spain. You're correct. Were ANY of them Superpowers in the form of political, economical, and militaristic? The answer..... is no. Rome was a great nation, it's downfall was militaristic. It had conquered to much. Read my message again, I said, Obviously everything will come to an end, I have a firm belief that when humanity ends, so will the U.S. Not before, and obviously not after. As i said, Give me a nation that has achieved our status in the world, We have surpassed even Rome, and as i've said before Rome fell because it expanded to quickly. My point is we are in uncharted waters, there hasnt ever really been a country of this size, with this much influence in the world, just die. That's what I'm talking about, whether you were referring to my previous post or not.

A country $17 million in debt, yes. Also a Triple A credit rating. Talks are it will go down to Double A+. I think many citizens are confused about a country debt. This isnt paying your mortage off people. Yes $17 trillion is a lot, there is no doubt. Like someone posted before, a lot of it is owed to ourself. Foreign debt is quite low considereing our escapades in other countries. Obviously nothing with last forever, not even humans. Expecting the government to fail, or states to break up, or whatever nonsense even close to < 75 years in the future is delusioned. We are in debt, but we are a superpower, in military, political, and economic terms. As i stated earlier, a nation's debt is much, much, much more complex than even a Single state's debt, it will take a lot more to bring us down. Second, i dont follow you on a global police force, Yes, we definately get into other's business, No it isnt good. However, no real superpower before us has ever "fallen" due to such occasions, Rome, Germany, etc. do not count, as they were strictly militaristic in most aspects. (atleast Rome). What I'm saying is... you basically stating that all superpowers fail, when they become a global police force, (which i agree we are, and not a good thing) but, name a country, that has been dubbed a "superpower" that has "failed." There really isn't one, so essentially we're still treading on forbidden ground. Likewise with everything said, Politicans need to get their shit together, and America is definately not in its best state, but hey, peopel in the 30s were saying the same thing. We'll get through it.