The Police Brutality Thread

[clackamascoug]

Duly noting a freefall in the "who's craziest" pecking order around here tonight.

The tribe has spoken.

[Surfah]

This is why I hate this thread and in general 90% of discussions involving police brutality.

[smokymountainrain]

You're right. Still gonna take those chances though. Something about the precision steering of a car going 50+ mph after jumping a curb and hitting a person makes me a little nervous.

NWC, I think the point here is that sure, the cop can be pretty accurate with his gun, but if he just wounds the guy, and the guy starts spraying bullets everywhere, the guy's reach is going to be much more dangerous than a car jumping a curb going 50 mph.

[Shaka]

Every day I drive past the facility the cops have to practice driving skills. It can be cool to watch and sort of freaks you out at night when there's a bunch of them going at it lights blazing. This facility has all the tools to simulate slick conditions and other hazardous situations. There the practice using their cars as weapons by learning techniques like the PIT maneuver. I hardly think that driving over a curb at high speed is going to present much of a challenge to most cops.

[dabrockster]

Let's pretend we're both bystanders on the corner near the perpetrator. Are you telling me you trust the accuracy of a car barreling down its target as opposed to a trained shooter? I'll take my chances with the guns. I would hope that at least one cop has him in his sights, and that if he started to point his rifle anywhere besides up, he would be shot before too many guns went blazing.

Let's say guns were blazing and one of the bullets goes through the home and hit a little girl hiding by her couch by the front window..


There are always "What If" scenarios that we can punch holes through on.. I am just glad the individual was stopped by whatever means neccesasry and no other person was injured.. No matter what way it had to go. By car or gun..

[byu71]

Let's pretend we're both bystanders on the corner near the perpetrator. Are you telling me you trust the accuracy of a car barreling down its target as opposed to a trained shooter? I'll take my chances with the guns. I would hope that at least one cop has him in his sights, and that if he started to point his rifle anywhere besides up, he would be shot before too many guns went blazing.

I have been thinking about this and here is an idea. Teach cops how to lasso.

That cop could have driven by the guy, lasssoed him and drug him a few feet until he let go of the gun. I know some people would claim the scapes and rope burn was cruel, but still better than getting hit by the car.

[smokymountainrain]

I have been thinking about this and here is an idea. Teach cops how to lasso.

That cop could have driven by the guy, lasssoed him and drug him a few feet until he let go of the gun. I know some people would claim the scapes and rope burn was cruel, but still better than getting hit by the car.

The lesson, as always: Cowboy is better at everything than everybody else - even trained officers. He's like a real life version of Walker, Texas Ranger.

[SoCalCoug]

My first reaction when I saw the video was to jump to the conclusion of excessive force. But, when I considered the backstory, and the fact the guy was in the middle of a crime spree, and he had a gun, and he had just shot the gun (I heard the shot on the video), I think the use of deadly force was justified here.

I don't think most would have criticized the cops if they'd shot him.

If deadly force is justified, under the circumstances, I'm okay with the use of the car. It was quick, safe for the public and the cops, and it had the desired effect of immobilizing the guy before he could hurt someone.

I'm pretty quick to criticize cops for use of excessive force, generally, but I don't have any criticism of what the cops did in this instance.

[San Juan Sun]

This is exactly why cops are given AR-15s. Sometimes a rifle is needed when a pistol won't work.

I am not familiar with running perps over as an accepted law enforcement tactic. I could be wrong though, I'll ask my brother who is a cop. While I am not sad he got run over (he deserved it, IMO), I am also not comfortable with just running people over to subdue them. Seems like if this becomes a thing, there will eventually be collateral damage. Again, use an AR-15.

[Eddie]

This scenario being discussed is weird in a lot of ways. We aren't talking about a guy who can be contained. He is very clearly walking - very quickly - to somewhere (or nowhere...whatever.) But the point is, this isn't a guy who was going to be contained where he was. He wasn't going to stop and talk. He was on the move. So a car pulls in at the other end of the street. You think he's going to stop or head up an alley? Into a home?

As far as potentially shooting the guy - remember, he's still on the move. So you want a cop jumping out of a moving vehicle, whipping out a gun, or popping the trunk to get to their AR, and then chasing the guy down the street? If the cop jumps out and pulls his gun and tells the guy to freeze, do you think THAT would get him to stop? No, he's a moving target. And getting out of the vehicle puts the officer at risk.

To be honest, hitting him with the car may be the most humane and least deadly option. It's not like they're going to draw on him and shoot the weapon out of his hands. If they start shooting, they are shooting to kill. And they aren't stopping until he is down and immobilized - and obviously not capable of returning fire with his loaded weapon.

So - is there another scenario in which the cops stop the "alleged perpetrator" with force (because he isn't stopping himself) and there is a greater possibility of the guy living through it? Hitting him with the car did him a favor.

Northwestcoug - if you see a dude walking down the street with a gun, you've heard a gunshot moments earlier, you see the dude is being followed by cop cars, and you still stay close enough to him to potentially get hit by any cop car approaching him instead of moving the other way long before - you probably deserve to get hit. Just sayin'.

[Northwestcoug]

This scenario being discussed is weird in a lot of ways. We aren't talking about a guy who can be contained. He is very clearly walking - very quickly - to somewhere (or nowhere...whatever.) But the point is, this isn't a guy who was going to be contained where he was. He wasn't going to stop and talk. He was on the move. So a car pulls in at the other end of the street. You think he's going to stop or head up an alley? Into a home?

As far as potentially shooting the guy - remember, he's still on the move. So you want a cop jumping out of a moving vehicle, whipping out a gun, or popping the trunk to get to their AR, and then chasing the guy down the street? If the cop jumps out and pulls his gun and tells the guy to freeze, do you think THAT would get him to stop? No, he's a moving target. And getting out of the vehicle puts the officer at risk.

To be honest, hitting him with the car may be the most humane and least deadly option. It's not like they're going to draw on him and shoot the weapon out of his hands. If they start shooting, they are shooting to kill. And they aren't stopping until he is down and immobilized - and obviously not capable of returning fire with his loaded weapon.

So - is there another scenario in which the cops stop the "alleged perpetrator" with force (because he isn't stopping himself) and there is a greater possibility of the guy living through it? Hitting him with the car did him a favor.

Northwestcoug - if you see a dude walking down the street with a gun, you've heard a gunshot moments earlier, you see the dude is being followed by cop cars, and you still stay close enough to him to potentially get hit by any cop car approaching him instead of moving the other way long before - you probably deserve to get hit. Just sayin'.

Right. Because that's exactly what I was saying.

Let me remind everyone why we have the luxury of debating which method of deadly force should have been used. It's because the best possible of outcomes happened. The criminal (who by accounts was likely very mentally unstable) was quickly taken out without even serious injury to himself. There was no collateral damage to innocent bystanders. Now imagine a couple of children playing behind the truck or tree that the cop was barreling towards. I seriously doubt if a kid was hit (or even if one wasn't hit but was close by) people would be extolling the virtues of a battering ram over gunfire.

Can't we at least agree that in this particular situation, the cop was very lucky that something worse didn't occur? Going forward, should targeting people on foot with police cars be considered a better option than gunfire? Should we trust cops' driving skills over their shooting skills? For those of you who think the car option is better than gunfire, are you comfortable with this incident becoming a precedent?

[byu71]

Right. Because that's exactly what I was saying.

Let me remind everyone why we have the luxury of debating which method of deadly force should have been used. It's because the best possible of outcomes happened. The criminal (who by accounts was likely very mentally unstable) was quickly taken out without even serious injury to himself. There was no collateral damage to innocent bystanders. Now imagine a couple of children playing behind the truck or tree that the cop was barreling towards. I seriously doubt if a kid was hit (or even if one wasn't hit but was close by) people would be extolling the virtues of a battering ram over gunfire.

Can't we at least agree that in this particular situation, the cop was very lucky that something worse didn't occur? Going forward, should targeting people on foot with police cars be considered a better option than gunfire? Should we trust cops' driving skills over their shooting skills? For those of you who think the car option is better than gunfire, are you comfortable with this incident becoming a precedent?

You make some good points. Interesting you say the "cop was very lucky something worse didn't happen". Yet, I don't ever think I have heard the term when something goes wrong the cops were very unlucky.

How about based on the outcome we say in this situation, the cop did the right thing and made the right choice.

[Bo Diddley]

This is exactly why cops are given AR-15s. Sometimes a rifle is needed when a pistol won't work.

I am not familiar with running perps over as an accepted law enforcement tactic. I could be wrong though, I'll ask my brother who is a cop. While I am not sad he got run over (he deserved it, IMO), I am also not comfortable with just running people over to subdue them. Seems like if this becomes a thing, there will eventually be collateral damage. Again, use an AR-15.

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.

[Surfah]

Right. Because that's exactly what I was saying.

Let me remind everyone why we have the luxury of debating which method of deadly force should have been used. It's because the best possible of outcomes happened. The criminal (who by accounts was likely very mentally unstable) was quickly taken out without even serious injury to himself. There was no collateral damage to innocent bystanders. Now imagine a couple of children playing behind the truck or tree that the cop was barreling towards. I seriously doubt if a kid was hit (or even if one wasn't hit but was close by) people would be extolling the virtues of a battering ram over gunfire.

Can't we at least agree that in this particular situation, the cop was very lucky that something worse didn't occur? Going forward, should targeting people on foot with police cars be considered a better option than gunfire? Should we trust cops' driving skills over their shooting skills? For those of you who think the car option is better than gunfire, are you comfortable with this incident becoming a precedent?

If you have to create a hypothetical to prove your point, it's probably not a strong argument. Nobody is talking about this being precedent. This was a crazy and unique situation that these cops encountered. They will likely never ever face this kind of situation again in their careers. And I guarantee they didn't have any sort of situation specific training for something like this in their academies. Instead the cops used their collective training and experience to handle this situation the best way they thought possible.

I cannot believe that people would rather a cop engage in a firefight with someone in a residential neighborhood than what happened here. This approach makes even less sense in your hypothetical. Engaging a suspect in needless shootout with a suspect with kids in the line of fire and residents in homes catching stray bullets is dumb.

Also, not all patrol units are equipped with rifles in their trunks. It varies from department to department. Tucson Police issues the .40 cal Glock 22. I don't think they have any rifles except those reserved for SWAT/SOU teams. So now we're talking about officers engaging a suspect who has a weapon with 5x the effective range of their handgun.

[Northwestcoug]

If you have to create a hypothetical to prove your point, it's probably not a strong argument. Nobody is talking about this being precedent. This was a crazy and unique situation that these cops encountered. They will likely never ever face this kind of situation again in their careers. And I guarantee they didn't have any sort of situation specific training for something like this in their academies. Instead the cops used their collective training and experience to handle this situation the best way they thought possible.

I cannot believe that people would rather a cop engage in a firefight with someone in a residential neighborhood than what happened here. This approach makes even less sense in your hypothetical. Engaging a suspect in needless shootout with a suspect with kids in the line of fire and residents in homes catching stray bullets is dumb.

Also, not all patrol units are equipped with rifles in their trunks. It varies from department to department. Tucson Police issues the .40 cal Glock 22. I don't think they have any rifles except those reserved for SWAT/SOU teams. So now we're talking about officers engaging a suspect who has a weapon with 5x the effective range of their handgun.

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.