Yet I'm sure you won't hesitate calling them when you need their services.......amirite?????
Um we all know that!!! It appears that the only reason cops won't discharge their weapon is if they have decide to beat the victim to death instead.
That's just it. We don't know. The media is now painting her as a suicidal psycho. For all we know, she made a wrong turn and panicked. What we do know is that she was unarmed, had an infant in the car, and was gunned down by police. Until we know all the specifics, its a tragedy. I'm surprised so many people are eager to paint a new mother as deserving death-by-cop without more information.
My sticking point isn't with the initial video. I think the cops had a right to incapacitate the car when she tried to drive off (I don't think its very proper to dump into the streets though.) The unknown is why they shot her to bits after the car was disabled. Strangely, that portion of the story is not clear at all.
Um we all know that!!! It appears that the only reason cops won't discharge their weapon is if they have decide to beat the victim to death instead.
Yet I'm sure you won't hesitate calling them when you need their services.......amirite?????
Most police aren't going to wait to see if the person has a weapon before discharging their weapon.
Um I was just responding to your own admission that MOST cops shoot people without bothering to look for a weapon. In other words, they don't give a good god-damn about the law. And these are are the people who enforce it? And this is how you like them to act? Want some freedom fries with that?
Let me refresh your memory:
For deadly force to be constitutional when an arrest is taking place, it must be the reasonable choice under all the circumstances at the time. Therefore, deadly force should be looked at as an option that is used when it is believed that no other action will succeed. The Model Penal Code, although not adopted in all states, restricts police action regarding deadly force. According to the code, officers should not use deadly force unless the action will not endanger innocent bystanders, the suspect used deadly force in committing the crime, or the officers believe a delay in arrest may result in injury or death to other people.
Circumstances that are taken into consideration are the severity of the offense, how much of a threat the suspect poses, and the suspect's attempts to resist or flee the police officer. When arresting someone for a misdemeanor, the police have the right to shoot the alleged offender only in self-defense. If an officer shoots a suspect accused of a misdemeanor for a reason other than self-defense, the officer can be held liable for criminal charges and damages for injuries to the suspect. This standard was demonstrated in the Iowa case of Klinkel v. Saddler, 211 Iowa 368, 233 N.W. 538 (1930), where a sheriff faced a Wrongful Death lawsuit because he had killed a misdemeanor suspect during an arrest. The sheriff said he had used deadly force to defend himself, and the court ruled in his favor.
When police officers are arresting someone for a felony, the courts have given them a little more leeway. The police may use all the force that is necessary to overcome resistance, even if that means killing the person they are trying to arrest. However, if it is proved that an officer used more force than was necessary, the officer can be held criminally and civilly liable. In Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 105 S. Ct. 1694, 85 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1985), the Supreme Court ruled that it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment for police officers to use deadly force to stop fleeing felony suspects who are nonviolent and unarmed. The decision, with an opinion written by Justice byron r. white, said, in part, "We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."
Fucking cops....killing a defenseless women. I just don't get this kind of mentality or how any sane person can justify it. This is cold-blooded murder imo...their lives were not threatened in any way.
Police said the car sped down Pennsylvania Avenue toward the Capitol, where security vehicles stopped it at Garfield Circle.
The woman slammed the car into reverse, crashing into a police cruiser, and tried to get away. At that point officers began firing, a witness said.
The shooting during the shutdown
Dramatic video footage by a videographer for Alhurra TV, a Middle Eastern news outlet financed by the U.S. government, showed the black vehicle then speeding around a nearby traffic circle with a police car in close pursuit and then heading away. The car crashed into more security barriers a few blocks later, witnesses said.
More shots were fired after the vehicle stopped, and the woman was hit several times, said Metropolitan Police Department Chief Cathy Lanier. Carey was later pronounced dead, Lanier said. Two officers were injured.
You don't get to stand in front of a vehicle and then claim the right to kill the driver.
By the way, they reported they had to get finger prints to identify her? Did she not have a purse on her? I thought they only do that if a persons face isn't recognizable don't they?
That is not when she was shot. They shot her when she was defenseless with the car completely disabled. Some reported they shot her as she was on-foot. Deadly police force is not required unless officers are in a life-or-death situation. Again, she was not shot until her car was disabled.
you or me no. a cop in the performance of his duties you sure do. a car is a weapon and she used it as one.
Um we all know that!!! It appears that the only reason cops won't discharge their weapon is if they decide to beat the victim to death instead.
She should have been wearing a hoodie, then she would have all kinds of people defending her...
ban assault cars!
Definitely a dangerous situation, but ideally the cops would either not fire after the car is stopped, or fire only at the tires and/or engine to prevent it from restarting. Don't need to shoot the driver to stop the car if the car is stopped.defenseless? cops were not threatened in any way?
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/04/politics/u-s-capitol-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_c2.
A glock.
you or me no. a cop in the performance of his duties you sure do. a car is a weapon and she used it as one.
Definitely a dangerous situation, but ideally the cops would either not fire after the car is stopped, or fire only at the tires and/or engine to prevent it from restarting. Don't need to shoot the driver to stop the car if the car is stopped.
No offense taken, but why is that silly? She is not mobile; the police are mobile. Ergo the police can easily stay out of car bomb casualty radius. We authorize police to use deadly force to defeat a threat, but a driver in a stationary car surrounded by police cars is not much of a threat. If the car resumes moving, shoot it some more. If the driver comes out shooting, shoot the driver. But the purpose of shooting at the car is to disable it and prevent the driver from either reaching people to hurt or escaping. There's a vehicle barrier in front, a bazillion cop cars behind and all around, and the target car isn't moving - mission accomplished.No offense man, but that's as silly as that suggestion from anti-gun nutters that you should be aiming for the rapist's knees instead of killing him.
You completely missed the point of my post and no I don't want an assault weapons ban.Come on now, I am genuinely curious as to what your definition of an assault weapon is as I believe you have stated that you would like them banned? I am not being snarky or trying to put you in a gotcha moment.
So, for you, and any others in favor of a ban on assault weapons, what is your definition of an assault weapon? Defining what you wish to make illegal seems like a logical place to start, don't you think so?
Thanks Dank, look forward to your reply and definition.
No offense taken, but why is that silly? She is not mobile; the police are mobile. Ergo the police can easily stay out of car bomb casualty radius. We authorize police to use deadly force to defeat a threat, but a driver in a stationary car surrounded by police cars is not much of a threat. If the car resumes moving, shoot it some more. If the driver comes out shooting, shoot the driver. But the purpose of shooting at the car is to disable it and prevent the driver from either reaching people to hurt or escaping. There's a vehicle barrier in front, a bazillion cop cars behind and all around, and the target car isn't moving - mission accomplished.
EDIT: And I have no problem whatsoever with aiming for the rapist's center of mass, or head for that matter, if you're that good a shot and have a clear background in case you miss. But don't shoot him when he's on the ground motionless. And if you say "Freeze" and he freezes, don't shoot him anyway. That's a violation of the social contract implicit in the "Freeze".
I'm not sure what reliable damage you think a handgun round is going to do to anything in the engine compartment that will immobilize it.
And do you really want cops trying to shoot out tires? You're just as likely to see a ricochet off a steel wheel injuries a bystander as you are a flat tire.