The Police Brutality Thread

[San Juan Sun]

That was my first thought as well, but you also have to consider the backdrop even more when shooting a rifle. Those rounds go quite a bit farther than pistol rounds.

Bottom line, I think we all agree deadly force was justified in this situation. Using a car the way he did was using deadly force--just another weapon. Any weapon he could have chosen to use, he would also have to consider the potential of collateral damage. This is a great example of a good quick judgement call.

Two thoughts:

1- I agree that rifles certainly have the ability to injure bystanders. But the point is that police officers are well trained in administering that deadly force. I do not think that have have a "Running Over Perps 101" class at the academy.

2- I do not think this is a great judgment call. From the video I've seen, it appears that the police car in question sped into action at a very high rate of speed with little opportunity to scene. It was effective, sure, but it was lucky too. And I garuntee you one thing: there are other knuckleheads out there that will soon be trying to do the same thing. This won't be the only time.

[smokymountainrain]

I can't use a hypothetical situation to make a valid argument? That's weird. I offered a hypothetical situation and asked if people would be as gung ho with the car as battering ram choice. Without that hypothetical, yes, the car choice works out wonderfully. No collateral damage, cops and civilians are happy. But I don't think that favorable scenario happens all the time if you start using a car as deadly force more often.

You might not be arguing that this should set a precedent. Yet everyone except SJS and I are lauding its safety over a gunfight. If it is that much safer that gunfire, then why shouldn't it become precedent?

Most people here aren't as concerned as I that the cop's actions might have been ill-advised, even though in the end they worked out. I'm concerned that it wasn't the best decision, and given the favorable outcome it could potentially be viewed as a precedent. I'm not sure that's a good decision. Others disagree. That's fine.

Whoa, Nelly!

I don't think anybody is "lauding" its safety over a(ny) gunfight. Rather, I think some of us recognize that it may have been the best course of action in that particular situation.

[Northwestcoug]

Whoa, Nelly!

I don't think anybody is "lauding" its safety in a(ny) gunfight. Rather, I think some of us are recognize that it may have been the best course of action in that particular situation.

OK, let the record state that SMR is more reasonable than the others

[smokymountainrain]

OK, let the record state that SMR is more reasonable than the others

Thanks! That's all I really wanted.

[Eddie]

I'm totally unreasonable. I can accept that.

I just think that there are hypotheticals that can cut both ways. If there are kids crouched behind the tree next to the perp, I don't want cops driving OR shooting. Remember the earlier video - the Walter Scott shooting? Mr. Scott was what - 20 feet away when the cop started shooting and 30-50 feet away at most when he stopped? However you look at it, he was EASILY half the distance of this guy. That cop fired 8 shots. 5 of them hit Mr. Scott. The other 3 could be hitting your kid playing behind a tree - among other things.

I think the main point I was trying to make is that this guy wasn't letting the cops get close. And he wasn't letting the cops contain him. He was quickly walking - somewhere or nowhere - but he wasn't about to stop. Every time they tried to get him to stop, he turned a corner, pointed the gun at them or himself, fired a shot into the air. Pulling out guns works for a standoff. This guy wasn't going to allow a standoff. He was moving and there was no indication he was going to stop moving. While unconventional, I think this was the right choice. Not just because of how it worked out. But because I can't imagine anything else not having at least as serious of consequences while placing more people at risk.

And I can imagine all of the other alternatives resulting is much worse consequences. So the cops pull over and pull out their own guns - he keeps walking and moves further away. What do you have them do - follow him on foot now? They point guns at him and he points guns at them. What happens next? I just don't see anything other than a shootout happening. He's already demonstrated a willingness to fire his gun. You can't let him point it at anyone - so as soon as he does the shooting begins.

I won't deny that using the vehicle had the potential of being deadly force. I'm just saying it also has more of a potential of NOT killing him, unlike a shootout, while also NOT putting the cops at risk.

BTW - I wouldn't be surprised at all to learn that cops have discussed the possibility of using their vehicle as a weapon in certain circumstances during training. I hope they still treat it as deadly force and not a disarming move. But I'm OK if it happens again in the future when appropriate.

[Bo Diddley]

Two thoughts:

1- I agree that rifles certainly have the ability to injure bystanders. But the point is that police officers are well trained in administering that deadly force. I do not think that have have a "Running Over Perps 101" class at the academy.

2- I do not think this is a great judgment call. From the video I've seen, it appears that the police car in question sped into action at a very high rate of speed with little opportunity to scene. It was effective, sure, but it was lucky too. And I garuntee you one thing: there are other knuckleheads out there that will soon be trying to do the same thing. This won't be the only time.

It was a great judgement call because it worked. Was he lucky? I like to look at it as a calculated risk with the least downside. Cops train with all sorts of weapons, including guns and cars. Did we use our vehicles as weapons in Iraq? You bet we did. You use whatever is expedient at the time, without being excessive to the point of creating undo risk of collateral damage.

[mtnbiker]

1- I agree that rifles certainly have the ability to injure bystanders. But the point is that police officers are well trained in administering that deadly force.

I don't know if I agree with that. While some officers might be pretty handy with a gun, a lot of them aren't. Many only practice once or twice a year, when recertification comes up. When examining evidence after shootouts, studies show that cops only hit the bad guy about 30% of the time. While I was shocked to see the police car run over that suspect, after knowing all the facts, it seems like it was probably the best alternative. But I wouldn't want that to set a precedent as the accepted way to end a confrontation, either.

[myboynoah]

What the hell?

What if that guy had been carrying a nuclear bomb and the car hitting him caused it to detonate? Then what would you say?

I can't believe the "hey, it was okay for the police to run the guy over with a car" crowd in this thread. Bunch of kooks.

[dabrockster]

What the hell?

What if that guy had been carrying a nuclear bomb and the car hitting him caused it to detonate? Then what would you say?

I can't believe the "hey, it was okay for the police to run the guy over with a car" crowd in this thread. Bunch of kooks.

This response has to be MBN trolling. HAS to be.. A effing nuclear bomb. Really??



In regards to the overall thread:
What I hate about this thread most.. Is the Armchair Quarterbacking people make on Police decisions that are made in very quick and intense situations. I get the discussion on stupid Little-Man Syndrome/idiot cops, but the other ones where regular citizens make judgment calls about situations they have no reasonable experience to provide opinions on, Drives me NUTS...

[Topper]

Two thoughts:

1- I agree that rifles certainly have the ability to injure bystanders. But the point is that police officers are well trained in administering that deadly force. I do not think that have have a "Running Over Perps 101" class at the academy.

2- I do not think this is a great judgment call. From the video I've seen, it appears that the police car in question sped into action at a very high rate of speed with little opportunity to scene. It was effective, sure, but it was lucky too. And I garuntee you one thing: there are other knuckleheads out there that will soon be trying to do the same thing. This won't be the only time.

I disagree that cops as a rule are well-trained in the use of deadly force. Most have never fired their weapons but once or twice in the course of their duties. Many rarely practice except to re-certify. And few train on rifles extensively. Yes there SWAT team members who are crack shots and well-trained and former special forces but they are the exception and not the rule.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I don't know if I agree with that. While some officers might be pretty handy with a gun, a lot of them aren't. Many only practice once or twice a year, when recertification comes up. When examining evidence after shootouts, studies show that cops only hit the bad guy about 30% of the time. While I was shocked to see the police car run over that suspect, after knowing all the facts, it seems like it was probably the best alternative. But I wouldn't want that to set a precedent as the accepted way to end a confrontation, either.

I have seen stats like this too.

Watched a documentary recently on the hunt and capture of the Boston bomber brothers. When they stopped them in the street, the cops opened fire at close range. It was incredible how few of the shots fire actually hit the suspects.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/boston-bombing-anniversary/too-many-guns-how-shootout-bombing-suspects-spiraled-chaos-n80236

In effect, the suspects ended up at the center of a ring of cops on Laurel Street between Dexter and School streets during the 20-minute firefight, and the bullets that were fired at them often hit near the officers on the other side.

...


But on Laurel Street, rounds flew into parked cars and police vehicles and chewed up fences and trees. A round entered the home of Andrew Kitzenberg on the north side of the street and lodged in a chair. Another ripped through the exterior wall of Adam Andrew and Megan Marrer's house and landed on their living room floor.


More than a dozen officers suffered minor injuries during the mayhem, but none was believed to have been wounded by the suspects. The only serious wound was suffered by Richard Donohue, a transit cop with the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, who was hit in the groin by a police bullet and began to bleed profusely.

When this was happening, the cop in question was shooting at the suspect at very close range (missed every shot):

The suspects, meanwhile, had not surrendered. Twenty minutes into the firefight, however, Tamerlan Tsarnaev left the shelter of the SUV and began walking toward Watertown police Sgt. Jeff Pugliese.

"It absolutely felt like it was something from a movie," said local resident Andrew Kitzenberg, who watched - and filmed - some of the action from inside his Laurel Street home. "He was charging them and engaging them in gunfire."


Tamerlan, though wounded, kept walking toward Pugliese until his gun jammed or he ran out of ammo. Then he threw the weapon at Pugliese, hitting him in the arm, and turned to run back to his vehicle.

In spite of this, one suspect still escaped:

When the shooting was over, police had fired at least 100 rounds.

[Uncle Ted]

Tamerlan, though wounded, kept walking toward Pugliese until his gun jammed or he ran out of ammo. Then he threw the weapon at Pugliese, hitting him in the arm, and turned to run back to his vehicle.

WTF? Where is "Dirty Harry" these days?

[byu71]

In the Movie the Unforgiven, Clint Eastwood explains clearly why in a shootout so many of those shooting miss.

[Topper]

WTF? Where is "Dirty Harry" these days?

For the life of the average cop, being a great shot is not a necessary skill set. Being able to defuse situations is more important. Unfortunately when those latent or absent skills are called upon they often fail.

The competition marksmen I know literally shoot hundreds of shots most days. I doubt few cops do this unless they just love to shoot and in all likelihood were former military.

[byu71]

For the life of the average cop, being a great shot is not a necessary skill set. Being able to defuse situations is more important. Unfortunately when those latent or absent skills are called upon they often fail.

The competition marksmen I know literally shoot hundreds of shots most days. I doubt few cops do this unless they just love to shoot and in all likelihood were former military.

Yea, I think my non cop son is a better shot than my cop son. The non-cop son goes to the range more often.