excessive force

[digger]

I gussesing most of yall have seen the vidio thats been in the news and the Today show with the 3 cops and the mini van stop.The leo seemed justified in what they in my opinion and should have tased both the mother and the son.Instead of giving the leo a hard time why arnt they giving the mother hell for putting her childern in danger by not obeying an order from a leo?

[MSDawg870]

I think the officers were completely right doing what they did EXCEPT firing at the vehicle as it was driving away. I'm not a LEO but I figure deadly force is supposed to be used as a last resort when you feel your life is in danger. If the van is driving towards them then by all means fire away.

[digger]

Sorry for the double post just learning how to use my new phone.The shooting may have been alittle much but the officer said he was shooting at the rear left tire but.The officer's did'nt know what she was resisting for or why she was fleeing for all they knew she could have just killed someone.It was the mother's fault all the way around she was pulled over for speeding,take your ticket and be on your way kid's are safe,resist and flee get shot at kid's not safe all on her.

[Wildfowler]

I'm thinking that if someone broke into my house saw me with a gun and ran AND if I shot him in the back as he is running out of my yard, down the street killing him. I am sure I would be tried with murder?

Same for these guys. Police or gov't are not above the law.

[Curtdawg88]

I have not seen this video. Can someone post a link please?

[fireplug]

Police or gov't are not above the law.

You must have missed the last 20 years of the growing police state we live in.

Even our own Govenor is joining in with wanting a special task force to be added. People laugh it off as conspiracy theory and tin hat stuff,
but agenda 21 and NWO is taking place right in front of us while people scratch their heads and wonder what's happening. Better start paying
attention to what your government is doing right under your nose. Deadly force should only be used to repeal deadly force in my opinion. No way
any officer should fire into a vehicle unless he recognized a threat. Woman driving off is not a threat. Officer should be fired or penalized
and retrained.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUKpxcKhD3E

[cwink]

I think the officers were completely right doing what they did EXCEPT firing at the vehicle as it was driving away. I'm not a LEO but I figure deadly force is supposed to be used as a last resort when you feel your life is in danger. If the van is driving towards them then by all means fire away.

I agree, I wouldn't have fired at the van. I am not a LEO.. Even if he was firing at the tire you have all kinds of other issues to deal with.. ricochet off the pavement and into the van or other on coming cars, he also had another officer in front of him and too his right..

However, it shows you how quickly things can get out of hand and how emotions can take over...

[Wingman]

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may use deadly force only to prevent escape if 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.

[cwink]

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may use deadly force only to prevent escape if 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.

i agree, I think he had the right to do so, but I just don't think it was the smartest move given a van full of kids.. Although, he may not have known who or what was in the van..

[MSDawg870]

I seriously wonder if tazing every person that got out of the vehicle and came at the officer would have been a better course of action.

[Wingman]

I haven't seen the video, nor was I there. I was just throwing Tennessee v. Garner out there to quell the "officers aren't above the law" rebellion.

In training, we are given the scenario of shooting a criminal as he is running away. The example we usually get is, we pull up to the 7-11, a dude runs out the door with a gun in his hand. He runs around the corner. Can you shoot him as he is fleeing?

There are many that say, "No, he didn't point the gun at you." Then the instructor says, "Ok, he runs around the corner, you hear ,'POP! POP!' and you run over to find a bystander dead. Now you are held responsible for not stopping the threat before he killed someone."

To be the cop is a damned if you don't, damned if you do life. Everybody sits back on Monday morning analyzing what you did or didn't do, but none of them were there when the sugar turned to crap and you did what you thought you had to do at the moment.

[hntrpat1]

I haven't seen the video, nor was I there. I was just throwing Tennessee v. Garner out there to quell the "officers aren't above the law" rebellion.

In training, we are given the scenario of shooting a criminal as he is running away. The example we usually get is, we pull up to the 7-11, a dude runs out the door with a gun in his hand. He runs around the corner. Can you shoot him as he is fleeing?

There are many that say, "No, he didn't point the gun at you." Then the instructor says, "Ok, he runs around the corner, you hear ,'POP! POP!' and you run over to find a bystander dead. Now you are held responsible for not stopping the threat before he killed someone."

To be the cop is a damned if you don't, damned if you do life. Everybody sits back on Monday morning analyzing what you did or didn't do, but none of them were there when the sugar turned to crap and you did what you thought you had to do at the moment.

everybody gets analyzed at their job. It's called performance. If i don't perform I get the can

[Wingman]

Yeah. It's a little different comparing TPS reports to shootings.

[teul2]

Yeah. It's a little different comparing TPS reports to shootings.

Wingy may have just made the ole signature.

[cwink]

I haven't seen the video, nor was I there. I was just throwing Tennessee v. Garner out there to quell the "officers aren't above the law" rebellion.

In training, we are given the scenario of shooting a criminal as he is running away. The example we usually get is, we pull up to the 7-11, a dude runs out the door with a gun in his hand. He runs around the corner. Can you shoot him as he is fleeing?

There are many that say, "No, he didn't point the gun at you." Then the instructor says, "Ok, he runs around the corner, you hear ,'POP! POP!' and you run over to find a bystander dead. Now you are held responsible for not stopping the threat before he killed someone."

To be the cop is a damned if you don't, damned if you do life. Everybody sits back on Monday morning analyzing what you did or didn't do, but none of them were there when the sugar turned to crap and you did what you thought you had to do at the moment.

I agree with you Wingman.. Too many people want to question the actions of LEO. It is easy to judge when you don't have an overload of adrenaline running through your body, your now sure if you're going to get shot at or not.. What about if the dude in the 7-11 runs around the back of the store and the officer gives chase and the guy is waiting on him and shoots him...

As civilians we have a duty to protect ourselves and our family, a LEO has a duty to protect all of us.. I am going to give them the bennefit of the doubt....