Lawman's nightmare

Status
Not open for further replies.
Archie

Archie

Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2002
Messages
4,259
Location
Hastings, Nebraska - the Heartland!
http://start.earthlink.net/newsarticle?cat=6&aid=D7VQOSVO0_story

Short version:
ALBANY, N.Y. - Police ...chasing an erratic driver through crowded streets on New Year's Eve fatally shot one pedestrian and grazed another, authorities said. Officers ... fired ... eight times because they ... were in immediate danger when the driver bore down on them.

Authorities said driver Daniel Reed, 32, ... traced by license number to his parents' home in suburban Delmar ... arrested the same night... charged with two counts of reckless endangerment and jailed without bail. Investigators were testing his blood for alcohol Thursday.

Officers ...initially stopped Reed's car ...driving erratically ... they approached, Reed took off, ... Officers ... boxed Reed in at an intersection before he jumped the curb and drove the wrong way on a one-way street. Police said Reed crashed into a stoop and drove toward an officer, who fired most of the shots.

State and federal investigations were under way and the Albany County District Attorney planned a separate probe.
*******************************************
Sounds like the cause to shoot was valid. The delivery will be questioned for a long time.
Every lawman's nightmare.
 
The correct thing to do when a car is aimed at you is get out of the way, not shoot. Shooting does not guarantee that the car will stop.

Not saying that shooting wasn't justified, meerly a foolish option.

Police really need some sort of ram equiped truck for this kind of fiasco.
 
Police really need some sort of ram equiped truck for this kind of fiasco.
Click to expand...

I half agree.... The only way that would work is if this truck totally replaced the regular patrol car.

Otherwise, what are the chances that the truck will actually be able to get to the chase scene?

And on another note... A lot of departments have "ram" equipped patrol cars... But once again, not all are equipped as such.
 
The correct thing to do when a car is aimed at you is get out of the way, not shoot. Shooting does not guarantee that the car will stop.
Click to expand...
....and "getting out of the way" does not guarantee that the car will not hit you. Think about it, really think about it. We all drive cars everyday. We know how they steer and react. In the movies people jump out of the way of a car because it's going straight ahead and not turning. In real life if you jump, the driver can just steer the car into you (unless you're Spiderman and can leap 50 feet...). Shooting at the car (that's trying to run you over) attacks the most critical component of a missile that's trying to get you (notice I said "missile", not bullet. A missile is guided, a bullet is not. You attack the guidance sysetm and hopefully either damage it or distract it enough to either miss you outright, or give you a realistic chance to leap out of the way as it draws near.).
 
The question here is whether the car is aimed at you b/c the driver is really trying to hit you, or if you just happen to be in his path.

The problem is that you don't know the answer to that question.

How far away is the car when you notice it? If it's far enough away, then the best option would be to move. If the driver turns to keep you in his path, then you're in trouble. Then you would want to move laterally at the last possible moment, so he would not have time to correct his course before going beyond you. Not something I would enjoy having to do.
 
Sounds like the LEO's were in a lose-lose situation. If the driver gets away from them and kills a civilian, the police will be blamed. If they shoot at the driver and miss but hit a civilian, they'll be blamed. LEO's walk a very fine line between public and personal safety. Don't think I could do it. My hat is off to these brave men and women.
 
"If the car is accelerating and not braking, it is aimed at you!"

What I meant was whether YOU specifically were being targeted.

ie. If you side-step is the driver going to swerve just to hit you, or continue on the same course?
 
Cars have a very limited degree of maneuverability at speed. Humans have a very high degree of maneuverability in comparison.

The LEO would have been better served by getting himself out of the way. You will notice that even though the control mechanism of the missle was not disabled, the missle failed to hit the LEO, so it may not have been actively seeking the LEO.

As a fan of off-road rally racing, I have been pretty close to a good number of cars traveling at fairly hih speeds. Once, one lost control and flew off the road, impacting a 8 inch diameter tree several meters from the one I was taking cover behind. An 8in. diameter tree will stop a 45mph car dead.
He could have made for some grass, which further reduces the cars maneuverability. Could have made for the patrol cars. But, instead he chose to fire at the car. I wonder how many of those shots missed the car completely. I wonder how many glanced off onto a new, unpredictable course.

He chose poorly. Two bystanders payed the price for his actions.
 
I agree that the LEO chose poorly. A car is not the most agile piece of machinery and that the officer could and should have tried avoidance first. Regardless, I hope all the injured get well soon.
 
Well, seeing as how one of the injured is dead, I don't think s/he will be making a speedy recovery.
 
Cars have a very limited degree of maneuverability at speed. Humans have a very high degree of maneuverability in comparison.
Click to expand...
"At Speed", sure at 100 mph the turn radius is limited, but how about at 25-40 mph? Very good maneuverability.
A car is approximately 5 " feet wide. All a driver has to do is keep the target centered and steer in the direction of the leap. The target almost never gets away.
An 8in. diameter tree will stop a 45mph car dead.
He could have made for some grass, which further reduces the cars maneuverability.
Click to expand...
Since you weren't there, this is wild speculation at best.
from the article:

Officers ...initially stopped Reed's car ...driving erratically ... they approached, Reed took off, ... Officers ... boxed Reed in at an intersection before he jumped the curb and drove the wrong way on a one-way street. Police said Reed crashed into a stoop and drove toward an officer, who fired most of the shots.
Click to expand...
As you can see by the aticle, the driver was a danger. I imagine after crashing into a house, the officer appoached on foot to remove the driver/check to see if he needed medical assistance/effect the arrest. Car suddenly springs to life and heads right toward you, no where to go.

It's fine to offer your opinion, but it's another to state things as "sure 'nuff" facts. Where in the article is there enough information to draw a certain conclusion about anything?
Also, as someone who has been hit by a car, I can tell you this. You have a better chance of winning the powerball then dodging a car intent on running you over. The driver in this case may have missed (as previosly stated in my post) because of the Officer defending himself by firing at the car, thus distracting him enough to make what ever moves the Officer was making work well enough to avoid being run over.

There's another case that was posted where a dash camera from a cruiser captured an Officer being run over. (luckly, he's alive). It shows how fast this happens and that the Officer didn't have a prayer.

2 cents.
 
At 40 mph, a cars maneuverability isn't terribly good. A fairly sharp turn at this speed will cause the car to spin or flip. Most drivers do not have the nerve to attempt a hard turn at this speed.

The shooter wasn't hit, possibly because the driver was distracted, but more probably because he wasn't actually interested in running down the LEO. He was probably just trying to escape. Most people have no interest in running down a LEO, so getting out of an avenue of escape is a good solution in this case. Standing and shooting most likely increases the probability of being run down, as it will be percieved as openly hostile, and may invoke a hostile reaction.

You can disagree with me regarding the ability of the officer to get out of the way of the car. That's fine. However, the facts are as follows:

1.) The officer chose hostile engagement, making himself a stationary target.

2.) The car wasn't stopped, so the LEOs failed in their attempt to prevent the driver from escaping the situation and endangering others.

3.) Innocent bystanders were accidentally injured and killed by stray LEO gunfire.

The net effect is this: allowing the driver to escape may put more innocents in slight danger; firing at a car in motion, with bystanders in the immediate background puts innocents in extreme danger. If the outcome of shooting the car isn't a definite stop, then it is more iiresponsible to fire on the car.

Shooting at the car and killing the bystander was a judgement failure resulting from the LEOs failure to properly box in the suspect driver.
 
You can disagree with me regarding the ability of the officer to get out of the way of the car. That's fine. However, the facts are as follows:

The officer chose hostile engagement, making himself a stationary target.
Click to expand...

Where did you get the information that the Officer stood rooted like a tree? Isn't it likely that he fired as he moved? Source?
The net effect is this: allowing the driver to escape may put more innocents in slight danger; firing at a car in motion, with bystanders in the immediate background puts innocents in extreme danger. If the outcome of shooting the car isn't a definite stop, then it is more iiresponsible to fire on the car.

Shooting at the car and killing the bystander was a judgement failure resulting from the LEOs failure to properly box in the suspect driver.
Click to expand...
Now this is just great. What you are saying, is that if the shots worked and the car stopped, no foul no harm, good and valid call/use of force, but if someone gets hurt, then they shouldn't have done it no matter what. :rolleyes:
That's now how it works. Hindsight is 20/20.
What matters is this. Either is was a justifiable use of force incident or it wasn't. Nothing less, nothing more.
 
Okay...

If the officer wasn't stationary, then he was firing on the run, i.e. out of control, or at the very least, not concentrating on his target. He could have been firing while advancing, which would enable him to concentrate on firing while on the move, but this doesn't make sense, as he would be advancing towards the car that he thought was trying to run him down.

Now this is just great. What you are saying, is that if the shots worked and the car stopped, no foul no harm, good and valid call/use of force, but if someone gets hurt, then they shouldn't have done it no matter what.
Click to expand...

No. No. No. That is not what I am saying at all. What I am saying is this: before embarking on a course of action, one should quick analyze the possible outcomes. Use of force would have been perfectly justified in a less crowded situation. However, in this case, with passerby in the surrounding area, use of force would, and did, put innocents at considerable risk. It's not that someone was injured or killed, its that there was a significant probability of such an event occuring. If I were the LEOs chief, I would have his ??? and badge regardless of whether someone were hurt.

Think of it like this: You are chasing a suspected rapist through a mall. You think you've got him cornered, but he notices an exit behind you. He charges you with a knife. There is a large crowd of expectant mothers and senior citizens directly behind him. And, he's wearing a vest.

Do stand your ground, draw your gun and shoot? Or, do you move aside, atempt to draw your gun, and wait for a clear shot? Or, do you reach for your expandable batton/nightstick, thus giving yourself an option of defense, without endangering the bystanders. Or do you move aside, let him get out the door, and call more backup... etc., etc.?

I understand that the above situation is purely hypothetical, and a little silly, but judgement call is similar. Yes, you are in danger. But, by shooting you may put the bystanders at extreme risk. Getting out of the way, giving the suspect the greatest possible access to a clear line of escape, is a far better, far more responsible option in this situation. If your job is to serve and protect, it's better to do so without putting the public at even greater risk.

So, I guess I would say that use of deadly fore in this situation was not justified, as use of deadly force put the public at even greater danger.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
  • Locked
Another illegal shot by Border Agent
Replies
14
Views
679
Justin
Justin
K
  • Locked
Officers shoot each other in Gwinnett (Georgia)
Replies
13
Views
1K
k-frame
K
M
  • Locked
Security guard shoots at his partner after argument at work
Replies
4
Views
396
Justin
Justin
T
  • Locked
Albany police officer shot while pursuing a suspect
Replies
0
Views
1K
TheeBadOne
T
D
  • Locked
Policeman accidentally shoots/kills robbery victim
Replies
2
Views
616
rbernie
rbernie
Back
Top