If someone is barreling at me in a car, in an ally,after they already ran over someone else, and I have a gun on me...I'm probably going to shoot them.
And my feelings on guns are pretty well known around here.
[br Right, but you're not a police officer. Higher standard and training.
Standards and training= If it's me or you that's going to die, it's going to be you. Most important thing is for the officer to be safe.
If someone is barreling at me in a car, in an ally,after they already ran over someone else, and I have a gun on me...I'm probably going to shoot them.
And my feelings on guns are pretty well known around here.
[br Right, but you're not a police officer. Higher standard and training.
Which brings us back to my question. At what point are you okay with an officer defending his life? At what point do you consider use of force okay if being ran down isn't enough cause?
My only question is why did they not shoot the tires out first?
I agree with the fact that a vehicle is a deadly weapon, and flame me if you want but in my mind if you hit someone with a car you give up some of your rights and police should be allowed to do what they need to do to prevent further harm. I just dont see why the tires weren't the first thing they shot - four flat tires will slow most people down. Shooting her should have been saved for if she was still trying to hit them after the car had been disabled.
It is my understanding that this really only works in the movies. Hitting a small moving object is really rather difficult even at close range.
[br Right, but you're not a police officer. Higher standard and training.
Which brings us back to my question. At what point are you okay with an officer defending his life? At what point do you consider use of force okay if being ran down isn't enough cause?
I am not being TIC. That's a real question.
Again, we don't know he was being ran down. The article doesn't say that. The teen may have done it accidentally, or panicked and tried to leave the alley. But I think the burden needs to be on the police (the force that holds the power) to prove force was justified.
Hell, even when the cop is shot first, there will be questions about why they shot back an "excessive" number of times or why they didn't just let the criminal go or how they knew for sure that this was really the criminal.
Which brings us back to my question. At what point are you okay with an officer defending his life? At what point do you consider use of force okay if being ran down isn't enough cause?
I am not being TIC. That's a real question.
Again, we don't know he was being ran down. The article doesn't say that. The teen may have done it accidentally, or panicked and tried to leave the alley. But I think the burden needs to be on the police (the force that holds the power) to prove force was justified.
Did you read the article?!
Authorities said Hernandez drove the car, which had four other teens inside it, into one of the officers and struck him on the leg.
My only question is why did they not shoot the tires out first?
I agree with the fact that a vehicle is a deadly weapon, and flame me if you want but in my mind if you hit someone with a car you give up some of your rights and police should be allowed to do what they need to do to prevent further harm. I just dont see why the tires weren't the first thing they shot - four flat tires will slow most people down. Shooting her should have been saved for if she was still trying to hit them after the car had been disabled.
Having flat tires will not stop a car from moving.
Again, we don't know he was being ran down. The article doesn't say that. The teen may have done it accidentally, or panicked and tried to leave the alley. But I think the burden needs to be on the police (the force that holds the power) to prove force was justified.
Who said it wasn't? Officers are on admin leave and an investigation is underway. No one is saying this is a done deal already.
The burden is absolutely not on the cops in the current system. There is a clear pattern of police departments not holding themselves accountable for use of force. And I'm not just speaking about the publicized incidents.
Again, we don't know he was being ran down. The article doesn't say that. The teen may have done it accidentally, or panicked and tried to leave the alley. But I think the burden needs to be on the police (the force that holds the power) to prove force was justified.
Did you read the article?!
Authorities said Hernandez drove the car, which had four other teens inside it, into one of the officers and struck him on the leg.
Yes, she drove the car into the officers. On purpose? Accidentally? With great speed and deliberation? Makes a big difference.
I honestly didn't know it was that hard to hit a tire with a gun. All my gun knowledge comes from TV. Not a gun owner here. I feel bad for everyone involved but I think we as a society need to stop assuming every time someone is killed by an office on duty the officer did something wrong. Are there times that is true? yes. Is this one of them? maybe, too soon to know. What is clear to me is that events of the past few months had not happened, I doubt this would be news.
Yes, she drove the car into the officers. On purpose? Accidentally? With great speed and deliberation? Makes a big difference.
If she was in an alley and the police were surrounding her because she stole a car, she shouldn't be trying to get away. It doesn't matter if it was an accident or not. She hit him.
People accidentally shot other while cleaning their guns, but they're still charged.
Yes, she drove the car into the officers. On purpose? Accidentally? With great speed and deliberation? Makes a big difference.
HOW IN THE WORLD WOULD THE OFFICER THAT GOT RUN OVER KNOW WHAT HER INTENT WAS?
She stole a car. She tried to flee. She ran him over. Those are the facts of this case.
He doesn't. He doesn't know anything. Which is why I think he shouldn't be firing a weapon into a moving vehicle. there could be a reasonable explanation, but at this point it strikes me as irresponsible.
Yes, she drove the car into the officers. On purpose? Accidentally? With great speed and deliberation? Makes a big difference.
I bet you wouldn't be making so many 'what if's' if the officer was your husband/dad/brother. You would expect them to act accordingly to preserve their life, which is what they are supposed to do in 'this' situation.
The facts of what happened so far are: Car accelerated, hit and injures officer, officer tried to STOP the threat by any means necessary.
HOW IN THE WORLD WOULD THE OFFICER THAT GOT RUN OVER KNOW WHAT HER INTENT WAS?
She stole a car. She tried to flee. She ran him over. Those are the facts of this case.
He doesn't. He doesn't know anything. Which is why I think he shouldn't be firing a weapon into a moving vehicle. there could be a reasonable explanation, but at this point it strikes me as irresponsible.
You make exactly zero sense. She wasn't stopping to give him a reasonable explanation. She was too busy running him over with her fucking car.
HOW IN THE WORLD WOULD THE OFFICER THAT GOT RUN OVER KNOW WHAT HER INTENT WAS?
She stole a car. She tried to flee. She ran him over. Those are the facts of this case.
He doesn't. He doesn't know anything. Which is why I think he shouldn't be firing a weapon into a moving vehicle. there could be a reasonable explanation, but at this point it strikes me as irresponsible.
He doesn't have a right to shot AT A MOVING VEHICLE THAT IS RUNNING HIM OVER? WHAT??
HOW IN THE WORLD WOULD THE OFFICER THAT GOT RUN OVER KNOW WHAT HER INTENT WAS?
She stole a car. She tried to flee. She ran him over. Those are the facts of this case.
He doesn't. He doesn't know anything. Which is why I think he shouldn't be firing a weapon into a moving vehicle. there could be a reasonable explanation, but at this point it strikes me as irresponsible.
He should let the car run over him? He should let it run over the next officer in the alley? They should just say, "Hey, car theft isn't a big deal" and yell, "Enjoy the new ride!" as she drives off into the sunset?
He doesn't. He doesn't know anything. Which is why I think he shouldn't be firing a weapon into a moving vehicle. there could be a reasonable explanation, but at this point it strikes me as irresponsible.
HOW IN THE WORLD WOULD THE OFFICER THAT GOT RUN OVER KNOW WHAT HER INTENT WAS?
She stole a car. She tried to flee. She ran him over. Those are the facts of this case.
He doesn't. He doesn't know anything. Which is why I think he shouldn't be firing a weapon into a moving vehicle. there could be a reasonable explanation, but at this point it strikes me as irresponsible.
Please tell me what reasonable explanation you can think of as to why it would be ok to run over someone.
And the friend could be a giant liar. But that's why I want the investigation. Because cops lie, too.
OMFG THERE'S AN INVESTIGATION HAPPENING.
Why are you acting like they've already been cleared of wrong doing when that couldn't be further from the case?
I'm not. I never said that. There just seemed to be a lot of "why can't we ever side with the cops?" talk, and my response is "I need to see the facts before siding with the cops". I will not take their word for it.
This is not even the point. You have said he shouldn't have shot even after being run down by the car. What the friend says doesn't even matter. Even if the car hit the officer after the girl was shot, if it was heading toward him he had a right to shoot her. Or the other officers had a right to shoot to stop her from hitting him.
He doesn't. He doesn't know anything. Which is why I think he shouldn't be firing a weapon into a moving vehicle. there could be a reasonable explanation, but at this point it strikes me as irresponsible.
Please tell me what reasonable explanation you can think of as to why it would be ok to run over someone.
Being shot and unconscious which is what the friend says happened.
This is not even the point. You have said he shouldn't have shot even after being run down by the car. What the friend says doesn't even matter. Even if the car hit the officer after the girl was shot, if it was heading toward him he had a right to shoot her. Or the other officers had a right to shoot to stop her from hitting him.
[
Right. In some circumstances it makes sense, but not in others. Maybe it does here, maybe it doesn't. I think firing at a moving car seems irresponsible. I will stand by that.
Then Comes Family, LLC is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising
program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.