YASECT: cop shoots at minivan full of kids

[OBLAMA2009]

The woman conducted herself like a nimrod.

The cop was not justified in shooting at the vehicle in any manner. These people don't appear to be the type of criminals where that would be justified, in my opinion.

The police already have her information. Too bad if her acting like a tool puts a kink in the cops day. Opening fire on a vehicle full of kids over a speeding ticket is just poor judgement. Issue the warrant and let her suffer the consequences.

Sure, he shot at the tires, but are we going to pretend that ricochets don't happen, or accidents don't happen? The children are innocent bystanders (except that one kid), would the cop be charged if one of the kids was injured or killed? Seriously, they don't have control of the situation...They're at the mercy of dumb(cop) and dumber(mom).

On a side note, the article mentions drug paraphernalia. I'm curious as to what that was, and if that had a part to play in her behavior.

did you see that cop violently banging in the windows with that club. jesus christ he could have easily knocked the crap out of the kids in that back seat

 

[ch33zw1z]

did you see that cop violently banging in the windows with that club. jesus christ he could have easily knocked the crap out of the kids in that back seat

no actual reply, so go with sarcasm and hypotheticals.

If he hurt a child in the car with a club, I would expect charges as well.

Or are you serious, and think that a gun and a club are equal weapons...

 

[waggy]

ugh. All of you saying he shot at the tires. got a link saying that? becuase it sure didn't look like he was.

Also unless he is a crack shot he put more people in danger then she did. he risked the peoples lives in the van and everyone behind it. with how badly most cops shoot, a moving target, a small target? yeah no i don't want them shooting at a fleeing vehicle.

over what? a fucking traffic ticket?

the cops handled teh situation wrong, the mother was deserves EVERY charge she has, the 14 yr old is fucked. But the cop firing his weapon should be fired.

 

[rudeguy]

Which is still a total overreaction to unarmed suspects.

If using your firearm to shoot out the tires in situations like this is SOP, then I'll eat my hat. Otherwise, it's unjustified by definition.

Then eat your hat.

The officer was assaulted by multiple people. The people then entered the vehicle and attempted to flee. At that point the people are a danger to society and the vehicle is a deadly weapon. The cop has an obligation to protect himself, the other officers and civilians from these people. If shooting out a tire removes the danger, then he did his job.

Also
WWYBYWB?

 

[rudeguy]

ugh. All of you saying he shot at the tires. got a link saying that? becuase it sure didn't look like he was.

Also unless he is a crack shot he put more people in danger then she did. he risked the peoples lives in the van and everyone behind it. with how badly most cops shoot, a moving target, a small target? yeah no i don't want them shooting at a fleeing vehicle.

over what? a fucking traffic ticket?

the cops handled teh situation wrong, the mother was deserves EVERY charge she has, the 14 yr old is fucked. But the cop firing his weapon should be fired.

But the people in the van were not innocent and the van itself is a deadly weapon. I hope he wasn't shooting for the tires. I hope he was going for a head shot.

 

[Genx87]

Ask yourself this. If a citizen were to shoot somebody fleeing what would the state do in that situation? Why should a cop get a pass to shoot fleeing suspects?

 

[rudeguy]

did you see that cop violently banging in the windows with that club. jesus christ he could have easily knocked the crap out of the kids in that back seat

Maybe mommy should have thought of that before she put her child's life in danger?

The cop has a duty to protect the innocent drivers, himself and other officers. He did his job and the only thing he needs is more range training.

 

[rudeguy]

Ask yourself this. If a citizen were to shoot somebody fleeing what would the state do in that situation? Why should a cop get a pass to shoot fleeing suspects?

Because the cop has a duty to protect the public.

 

[dank69]

The most important thing is that we have SE back to start this thread.

 

[rudeguy]

The most important thing is that we have SE back to start this thread.

:wub: me some Sandy

 

[waggy]

Because the cop has a duty to protect the public.

lol

The best way to do that would have been to pit stop her. OR just fallow her until she stops.

Fireing onto a van full of people (wich most miss) over a fucking ticket is not protecting the public.

this was mishandled

 

[rudeguy]

lol

The best way to do that would have been to pit stop her. OR just fallow her until she stops.

Fireing onto a van full of people (wich most miss) over a fucking ticket is not protecting the public.

this was mishandled

it wasn't a ticket after they assaulted him. If this happened before the assault, 100% on your side. After they assaulted the cop, no holds barred.

If I could have it my way, they would call in tanks and choppers with snipers for scum like this. Deal the punishment out right there. Instead they can only eliminate the threat which at that time was the van.

 

[Genx87]

Because the cop has a duty to protect the public.

Shooting people fleeing protects the public how? What you advocate is carte blanche for the police to fire their weapons whenever they want. If that is the route you want to go down, then allow common citizens the same right. At least it wouldnt put the state above its citizens.

That said what you say about the police having a duty to protect the public is wrong. The court has already affirmed the police has no duty to protect the public.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

 

[Newbian]

lol

The best way to do that would have been to pit stop her. OR just fallow her until she stops.

Fireing onto a van full of people (wich most miss) over a fucking ticket is not protecting the public.

this was mishandled

Except he didn't fire into the van but at the tire.

What his stance / where he fires and it appears to be where he aimed.

 

[Scarpozzi]

I get shot at by cops all the time for NO REASON in GTA5.

I'm going to write a letter to Rockstar Games and tell them this needs to stop.

 

[highland145]

Shooting people fleeing protects the public how? What you advocate is carte blanche for the police to fire their weapons whenever they want. If that is the route you want to go down, then allow common citizens the same right. At least it wouldnt put the state above its citizens.

That said what you say about the police having a duty to protect the public is wrong. The court has already affirmed the police has no duty to protect the public.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

This.

And he should have, at least, tasered the kid when he got out of the van.

 

[rudeguy]

Shooting people fleeing protects the public how? What you advocate is carte blanche for the police to fire their weapons whenever they want. If that is the route you want to go down, then allow common citizens the same right. At least it wouldnt put the state above its citizens.

That said what you say about the police having a duty to protect the public is wrong. The court has already affirmed the police has no duty to protect the public.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

Actually in Michigan if I had a fear for my life, the life of others, the threat of great bodily harm that could cause death or rape I do have the right. In this case the people already assaulted the cop and now have a deadly weapon (the van. Legally it would more than likely fly. As a citizen I have the right to defend myself with whatever force is necessary to stop that threat.

Thanks for those links. The police really don't have a duty to protect us? Then WTF are they there for?

 

[rudeguy]

This.

And he should have, at least, tasered the kid when he got out of the van.

I agree. The initial cop was too restrained. I think he feared tasing a kid and a woman. If he had, this would be a non-story.

But that goes right with our debate. Any time a cop uses force, he is put under a microscope. No matter than 2 people assaulted him, fled twice, went on a high speed chase. He has to worry about whether or not he is going to get sued or fired.

 

[clamum]

I don't think breaking the windows out of the minivan with the baton was necessary. I can't view the video at the moment, but if the other cop was shooting for the tires I agree that it's an acceptable risk when considering the consequences of a high-speed chase. The woman sounds like she was fucking nuts; not surprising they found drug paraphernalia in the vehicle either.

Short answer, yeah, I'll say justified.

Oh, and fuck the OP.

 

[Ackmed]

the backup cop came and started shooting. he had no idea what happened or how many people were in the vehicle.

You're an idiot if you think the other Officer had no idea what was going on. There are these things called radios, and laptops in police cars.

Oh wait, you're an idiot already. Keep trolling with your pathetic agenda.

 

[highland145]

I agree. The initial cop was too restrained. I think he feared tasing a kid and a woman. If he had, this would be a non-story.

But that goes right with our debate. Any time a cop uses force, he is put under a microscope. No matter than 2 people assaulted him, fled twice, went on a high speed chase. He has to worry about whether or not he is going to get sued or fired.

One more reason to not be a cop. Damned if you do. Possibly dead if you do not.

 

[Genx87]

Actually in Michigan if I had a fear for my life, the life of others, the threat of great bodily harm that could cause death or rape I do have the right. In this case the people already assaulted the cop and now have a deadly weapon (the van. Legally it would more than likely fly. As a citizen I have the right to defend myself with whatever force is necessary to stop that threat.

Thanks for those links. The police really don't have a duty to protect us? Then WTF are they there for?

A fleeing suspect or rapist or burgalar doesnt fall under "threat". If you shot any of those people in the back as they tried to run away from you in Michigan. I think you would be in for a surprise when charges are brought against you.

Why are the police there? To keep the peace or protect the state. Havent you noticed police presence is at its highest and most violent when functions of the state are threatened? Yes, they will come to your house to pick up the corpse if somebody kills you. But that isnt protecting. That is trying to solve a crime.

 

[eng2d2]

The lady is issued a ticket and she decided to leave. Thats not enough to shoot her. Just mail the ticket. She doesn't need to stand her and sign the citation. If that is not sufficient for the officer then how about a pursuit? Shooting is overkill

 

[clamum]

But that goes right with our debate. Any time a cop uses force, he is put under a microscope. No matter than 2 people assaulted him, fled twice, went on a high speed chase. He has to worry about whether or not he is going to get sued or fired.

I think they should get put under a microscope. Anyone entrusted with that level of power should be scrutinized in cases where force was used; I sure don't want police being able to use force with little repercussions or consequences. I understand that it could make some hesitate to employ force but you have to draw the line of balance somewhere (between allowing officers some leeway and understanding under stressful situations and ensuring they do not abuse their power and position).

 

[SandEagle]

I don't think breaking the windows out of the minivan with the baton was necessary. I can't view the video at the moment, but if the other cop was shooting for the tires I agree that it's an acceptable risk when considering the consequences of a high-speed chase. The woman sounds like she was fucking nuts; not surprising they found drug paraphernalia in the vehicle either.

Short answer, yeah, I'll say justified.

Oh, and fuck the OP.

why clamum, why the hostility? i provided no biased opinion since my return, have never called you a name.....ever. yet you continue to show no self control in your emotions towards me. this is not the first time. why? if it makes u feel better, then just go ahead and continue. i am not mad at u.