Police Execution Squads, the Tyrannical Government that Supports them.

And maybe that is exactly what little Hannah was trying to do... but the cop decided to shoot her instead of help her escape... would you have felt the same as your post after the cop shot you too?

 

If you're brandishing a gun in public you are endangering the public. If you are endangering the public by any deadly means cops should kill you. Just the way it is.

Use deadly force first to protect the innocent public.

 

Guns are an American Right. Deal with it.

 

I just went back and watched the video again...the first shots hit the back window... I wonder how that happened if the cop wasn't behind the car. The driver tried to run the cop over and was shot for it...end of story.

 

Then maybe I am wrong. Will watch.

 

obviously the cop was off to the side of the car if he punched holes in the driver side rear window and hit the passenger.

 

and cops routinely jump in the path of the vehicle so they can charge attempted murder and or legally shoot the driver then collect full pension and disability for the rest of his life if he gets hurt by the vehicle.

 

If you threaten someone's life, a fair trail isn't needed.

 

In what country, North Korea or Iran?

 

so it's your word vs the dead person's? ...yeah that's going to work really well...

 

What does "threaten" mean? Some here would claim that is you merely possess a firearm then you are a threat to their life. In the USA, a car is one of the greatest threats to your life, the biggest threat by far is from your doctor or pharmacist (>200,000 accidental deaths per year). Just shoot them all?

 

Do you honestly believe that if you have a gun in your face, you shouldn't shoot back and instead wait for a fair trail?

 

It's a matter of preserving your life.

 

As in pointing a gun in your face.

 

the legal problems associated with that approach are lost on you...

 

It is amazing how many people believe that if someone commits a crime, any police officer can shoot that person as many times as the officer wants to - and may shoot everyone else around that person as many times as the officer wants to.

The claim the officer feared for his life is a transparent lie by the video.

 

So you are rubber man who can twist your leg over a small car center console, while slugging the driver in the face - plus opening the door with your other hand - as you use your third hand to undo his seat belt and your fourth hand rolling down the window - so easily a teenage girl could do it - and even easier for the person in the back seat.

Of course, if the teens had jumped out of the car and were shot, the reasoning would be they should have stayed in the car. And rolling down the window to stick out your hands would be declared a threat against the officer because the window may have been rolled down to allow shooting the officer.

At least it is a good thing this wasn't a stolen school bus full of kids. Then the officer would have had no choice but to reload for all the magazines he had to shoot every kid on the bus in self defense.

 

The vehicle in the video is clearly trying to gun the vehicle backwards straight into where the cop was approaching the vehicle. That's a life threatening scenario and is justified usage of deadly force.

Oh, and yes, if I were in a vehicle fleeing from the police I would do everything possible to disable the driver and the vehicle, since that person is putting my life in danger. Making your hands visible is the first thing you want to do in any situation with the police.

Perhaps these kids who thought it was funny to steal a car and go on 107 mph chases through public roads putting every single person at risk of death that is on or near that road should have thought about their actions before they did it.

The driver clearly exhibited no concern for anyone else's life, and if that car had managed to get out in reverse, then continue and ended up killing other drivers or everyone in the car.

The most likely scenario in a 107mph speeding car being driven by a teen is the death of everyone in the car when it crashes, and whoever they hit in the process.

In this case, the only person who died was the driver. Good riddance.

 

The officer was not behind the car, he was to the side of the car and his cruiser made it impossible for the other vehicle to hit him.

It first became a view that unless a person is killed, they did not suffer any lose was W. Bush during the second Iraq War, who downgraded "casualty" to mean only troops who died while still in the theater of combat. If the person could be kept alive long enough to evacuate out of the war zone, they were not counted. If a person's arms, legs, eyes and brain was destroyed, but their heart kept beating, that person was not a casualty. Until then, "casualty" meant anyone injured to the degree the person was no longer combat capable. Any soldier killed was "KIA," not a "casualty."

The media ever since only counts the death. 101 shot in Orlando was only 49, because only 49 were killed. If any of the other 52 are paralyzed from the neck down - that person is considered uninjured and not counted.

Kids who misbehave should be gunned down by the police is something I do not agree with. Other than the driver, there was no basis to shoot everyone in the vehicle. The officer did not know if they were there voluntarily, if they had been kidnapped, if they knew the car was stolen, or even if one of them was holding a baby.

I've noticed the massive hypocrisy of many - maybe most - old people. They rant about the bad conduct of kids and take hard lines like you d did. But, on another day, be drinking with them in a bar they will will be bragging of their wild and crazy youth, which includes degrees of illegal activities. Just on this forum, how many have posted they have driven well over 100 mph if that is the topic - but then back in their old-man self are explaining anyone driving that fast rightly may be killed by the police for all the danger they poised.

I'd have to think long and hard if on a jury for the first magazine at the driver. But with kids in the car begging for their lives including a girl he knew was not the driver and the vehicle stopped, it would have taken me 1 minute to find him guilty of 2 counts of attempted murder with a deadly weapon for the 2 innocent shot kids - and they were innocent with the officer having no reason to believe otherwise.

Fortunately, between the 2 of us I'm the one who is a cop. If I emptied a magazine into anyone I could make any claim of feeling in danger to the degree he did - no gun, no violence, car stopped, I off to the side shielded by a cruiser? I could have emptied a magazine - no make that two magazines - into at least a thousand people by now and probably more. If I added shooting everyone else with that person, make it 3 or 4 thousand at least. On rare occasion, I could have gunned down 1 or 2 dozen people at a time. If a police officer wants to kill people under these standards, for most there will be many opportunities a week to do so.

Nor is it irrelevant that the officer previously had been reprimanded for a prior police chase, for which what he took from that was his calling into the microphone demanding the two police cruisers ahead of him to let him take the lead. Why? What was the motive for that? Why did he want the other officers in the lead to back off?

The fact is that for patrol and ticket officers (I'm not), it is a notably boring job for which most LOVE the opportunity to chase someone. It is exciting and fun. What police officer doesn't like to play chase in a car when they have a chance to do so? Most will privately admit it and it is among their favorite stories to tell.

Curiously, before becoming a police officer, I unknowingly ran from the police in a Lincoln LSC with the 302. It was night. I was being pursued by some armed thugs and had lost them easily. But a minute later I saw their headlights come flying around a corner a block behind. Losing them wasn't so easy this time. Not willing to fly thru intersections at over 100 mph, I turned one way or the other each block. Each time maybe I gained a few feet. FINALLY - maybe 10 minutes later - I came to an long open road and lost them - hitting well over 100mph in an urban area - but empty road. Swung into an apartment parking lot and dashed out of the Lincoln towards one of the units - ready to get lost in there if they found my car. A minute later a police cruiser came charging in. So I walked over. Only then did I learn that is who had been chasing me the second time.

He was quite calm. No cuffs or frisk. Asked for my license and insurance. I asked him why he didn't turn on his lights or hit his siren. He said he thought a new silver Lincoln in that part of town driving very fast at that time possibly was a stolen car or a drunk. He was blunt. He didn't turn on his lights because "I enjoy a good chase." His exact words. Nor had he called for backup. It was a long, boring night, and he had a chance to chase a 302 Lincoln in his 302 Ford. It was a game to him. A great game of chase lasting a good 10 minutes too. He wrote me 2 tickets for running stop signs, but nothing else.

There was no - zero, nada, none - reason for that officer to unload a second magazine into that car, particularly hearing a girl he knew was not the driver saying she was shot and begging for her life. Only a true sadist or sociopath would reload and fire 10 rounds at her.

Backing up police like him does NOT help law enforcement. It hurts law enforcement. When the DA gets such as him found not guilty - as that is what they do to try to avoid civil liability - it makes all police and the whole criminal justice system seem corrupt, evil, dangerous and the enemy.

 

Law allows a person to protect themselves from violent assault and murder - even from police. Given all the huge number of videos like this and of extreme violent police abuse, some day someone who kills a police officer will use those videos to claim he has a reasonable fear for his life when the officer put his hand on his sidearm what shouting furiously at him. Too many videos show that no matter what the person did, the officer was going to and did shot that person. No one has to allow anyone, including police, to murder you.The is plenty of old cases where that was the defense - but now police loyalty no-matter-what is so strong, finding 12 jurors to convict a police officer - and for civil liabilities a DA who actually tries to get a conviction - is all but impossible.

 

While that does happen, the most likely senario is the car spins out or gets stuck exactly like what happened.

Also, in that situation, the practice of police would have been to put the nose of his cruiser behind the car to prevent any possibility of backing up, not off to the side - and then getting out and shooting everyone in the car to stop possible escape OF THE DRIVER.

 

No, that's not what you posted (bait and switch time?). I honestly believe that if you merely threaten one's life (as you stated) that shouldn't be cause to abrogate your constitutionally protected right to due process, which is an essential part of a fair trial.

 

Maybe so. Maybe the cop didn't put the car where it was supposed to be. Maybe he couldn't. I don't know.

The point is the driver clearly had zero regard for anyone's life and could have killed a lot of people with his actions. Deadly force was authorized due to the drivers actions.

Now he's dead and can never do it again, and the passengers (who all survived) just learned a valuable life lesson that will probably turn their lives around.

 

I'd like to remind you that the group of people who commit most of the murder in this country are 14-28 year old kids.

Fire 10 rounds without your earmuffs on and see how well you hear after that. You don't.

If a police officer is in a situation where they know a fleeing criminal represents a deadly threat to others, they are obligated to use deadly force to prevent them from killing someone else.

 

How?