Related to IHOP thread. Cars=deadly force?

[Kentak]

Okay, no question, cars can be used as deadly weapons. Everyone knows that thousands of pedestrians are killed by cars every year. There is about a 80% chance that a pedestrian will be killed if the car is traveling 40 mph or more.

Hence, it appears to be accepted that a cop is justified in firing upon an oncoming car as a means of eliminating the threat.

Questions:

1) Do PDs advocate that cops move into the line of fire of a man holding a gun in order to tell him to put the gun down? In a standoff with a man holding a knife, would it be okay for a cop to approach the guy and then shoot him because he was close enough to be a threat?

If the answers above are no, then why is it acceptable practice for a cop to put himself in mortal danger by moving in front of a car in order to command the driver to stop? Or, to step in front of a moving car and then use the moving car as justification for shooting?

2) Is is acceptable for a cop to shoot a fleeing purse snatcher? Is the answer no because deadly force is not warranted to stop a petty thief who is not a threat?

View this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_EJHfFCt3M

Is the cop in this video guilty of improper use of deadly force? If not, why not?

K

 

[JohnBT]

I'll bite. Because when the officer says stop and holds up the hand the driver is supposed to stop.

Don't forget that cars have been known to swerve at police officers in an attempt to run them down. Or even slow down and then accelerate in an attempt to hit them.

Anyone who would attempt to run over a cop is a definite danger to the public at large and needs to be off the street.

John

 

[glummer]

Kentak

1) Do PDs advocate that cops move into the line of fire of a man holding a gun in order to tell him to put the gun down? In a standoff with a man holding a knife, would it be okay for a cop to approach the guy and then shoot him because he was close enough to be a threat?

I think you have bad analogies here.
In the case of a vehicle, it is generally NOT a threat; only in very rare circumstances does the driver try to continue towards the cop. Your examples do not contain that rarity element.
Remember, in the IHOP case, the cop OFTEN stopped cars this way, successfully; he had no reason to suspect danger, until the Jeep accelerated towards him.

To compare, you would have to have something like, the man with the gun is walking down the line at the local range, there is no evidence of intention to hurt anyone, and he does not pay any attention to the cop, unless the cop moves into his line of sight, or otherwise gets his attention. If the subject THEN threatens, shooting is an appropriate reaction.
Or, the man with the knife is a chef, in his kitchen, and the event begins with no evidence of danger at all, until the chef is close enough to actively threaten (at which point shooting is justified.)

 

[thexrayboy]

The issue of an LEO firing at a moving vehicle is one issue. What the video in the link showed is a separate issue.

There are many times when it is justified for someone to fire at or into a moving vehicle. Should the officer make attempts to not place themselves in the path of a potentially dangerous moving vehicle? of course. However in order to perform their duties they must sometimes place their bodies in postions of potential risk. Part of the job. Moral of story is if you see a uniformed police officer in front of you STOP. Period. I can't think of any valid reason offhand to do anything else.

As to the action portrayed in the video link. First question is the locale and what the law in said locale states about force to apprehend a fugitive. Second question is what crime(s) have the person being pursued committed or is suspected of.

According to the video the man run over by the officer in the pickup was a purse snatcher running away to avoid arrest. If that is in fact the truth I doubt if the law would allow the officer to shoot him in the back to prevent his escape. His hands were visible and he was apparently unarmed. Without
further information and based solely upon what the video showed the officer used excessive force and should have been charged. Actual facts of the situation may make a difference but as a general rule if someone is running away and is unarmed lethal force is not allowed except in certain circumstances. My opinion is the officer in the video should be charged with criminal assault etc. unless facts to show otherwise are brought forward.

 

[Kentak]

glummer--

I agree my examples don't seem equivalent. It's what I came up with to try to make a certain point.

I just trying to get a handle on this business about cops shooting to stop a car coming at them. Obviously, the seriousness of the alleged crime is a factor. But, how wise of a tactic is it? Cops don't shoot into a crowd to stop a felon, why would they shoot into a car with passengers if the most serious crime--endangering an officer--is being committed by the driver only.

Now, what about the video and my question on that?

K

 

[hagar]

That policeman did not run him over, he bumped him. It is pretty obvious that he tried to stop him, not run him over. I would say GOOD JOB.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

were we

to apply the logic(sic)used in the ihop thread how dare he run out an into that police car. if he damaged r=the truck i hope they charge him for that too.

and the detterent effect is great too. you can tell here how scared the crowd is and thats a good thing helps keep crime down

like in the legion pour encourager les autres

 

[JohnBT]

I don't think that's an appropriate acronym for THR. While I'm typing, I curious, is your Shift Key broken?

John

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

true

i changed it.
gee whiz first they want punctuation now capitalization too?!

 

[thexrayboy]

i changed it.
gee whiz first they want punctuation now capitalization too?!

Yes it helps, it is a sign of literacy.

Sorry but I couldn't resist that one. Nothing personal really, just that you have a keen mind and I like to yank the lions tail occasionally.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

its cool

i dish it, would be a wuss if i couldn't take it

 

[St. Gregori]

A significant point?

Perhaps the rest of the story would help....


http://www.break.com/index/once_a_crook_always_a_crook.html

 

[busy_squirrel]

Couldn't see the 1st video. At the beginning of the second video was a definate intentional hit but looks like the rear tire run-over was an accident. 15-20 mph. Looks like the driver let off the brake just as he hit the suspect based on his tail lights going dim momentarily.

I've hit friends with my car in jest when I was younger and dumber (and been hit too).

Unless they plan on being hit 10mph is more than enough to make most folks stumble.