Policy Would Allow Cops To Shoot At Fleeing Cars

F107HyperSabr said:

Why stop short with lasers and such. We need to develope a weapon that will just reduce or transform the criminals and their vehicles along with the entire contents into vapor. That way there is no need for garbage disposal.

Click to expand...

That's cool but you gotta think "green" man! That's 3000 pounds of twisted metal than can be melted down to make Harley Davidson's! Think recycle!

F107HyperSabr said:

50 Cals would create too many colateral damage claims. Maybe during the imterim while we develope real hi-tech weapons we can equip the cops with a smaller calibre gatteling gun but that needs a computerized intelligent laser targeting system that will aquire and lock onto the correct target. RATE OF FIRE NEEDS TO BE 1800 - 2400 PER MINUTE. I am thinking something in the 30 cal range maybe smaller. Maybe something in the varmit calibre range like .204 and increase the rate of fire. There aresome possibilities here if we work at it.

Click to expand...

Like a minature, rack mounted, Phalynx? Close In Weapon System?

Genious!

Me likey.

This policy was suggested after yet another round of near-comical violence in the Chicago area.

They routinely put ten or twelve people in the ground over a weekend.

.

Cops shooting felons who are attempting to evade arrest isn't new.

I'm sure the cops have to show that the offense is likely to continue if the suspect gets away.

Korimyr the Rat said:

Police officers should be allowed to shoot people for fleeing from them. This is a case of "if you haven't done anything wrong", because people who haven't done anything wrong don't run from the police.

Click to expand...

Baralis said:

I am all for it. I believe we should have reimplemented this a long time ago. Why allow someone feeing to put innocents at risk? Granted I can see it being abused on occation but with modern camera equipment found in all police cars I suspect it would be minimal.

Click to expand...

DamnYankee said:

Cops shooting felons who are attempting to evade arrest isn't new.

I'm sure the cops have to show that the offense is likely to continue if the suspect gets away.

Click to expand...

Except, the "fleeing" people haven't really been convicted of anything... So, they're not guilty... and who's to say the cop doesn't interpret them as fleeing when they're driving down the street after passing him?


Cops wouldn't abuse laws for their own gain, would they?!?! NO!

TheNextEra said:

For those that are for this being legal, it is all great until a pregnant female is killed either as the driver or passenger.

Click to expand...

If someone is fleeing from the police in a car a pregnant female or someone else is likely to be hit anyways. Why not neutralize the situation as fast as possible. A dead scumbag fleeing the police is only able to go so far in a moving car.

stevenb said:

Except, the "fleeing" people haven't really been convicted of anything... So, they're not guilty... and who's to say the cop doesn't interpret them as fleeing when they're driving down the street after passing him?


Cops wouldn't abuse laws for their own gain, would they?!?! NO!

Click to expand...

They have no business fleeing the police. If a cop flashes his lights and signs behind you that means pull over and I am sure after a while they may even get on a speaker and tell you to pull over. This situation of the cop instantly shooting someone when he turns on his lights and siren is a load of fear mongering crap because cops are not idiots they do realize that you are not going to instantly stop and that you may even drive a little further to pull over in case you are in a area where you can't easily pull over to the side of the road.

jamesrage said:

They have no business fleeing the police. If a cop flashes his lights and signs behind you that means pull over and I am sure after a while they may even get on a speaker and tell you to pull over. This situation of the cop instantly shooting someone when he turns on his lights and siren is a load of fear mongering crap because cops are not idiots they do realize that you are not going to instantly stop and that you may even drive a little further to pull over in case you are in a area where you can't easily pull over to the side of the road.

Click to expand...

Much like no-knock warrants and the war on drugs... sure abuse isn't something that could happen! :doh

Forgive me for remembering that cops are human too.

stevenb said:

Much like no-knock warrants and the war on drugs... sure abuse isn't something that could happen! :doh

Forgive me for remembering that cops are human too.

Click to expand...

With dash cams it is very less likely that a police office is just going to open fire as soon as they turn on their sirens and flashers and many large cities would be able to place dash cams in their police cars.

jamesrage said:

I agree with that. Innocent people do not run from the police. With dash cams the "oh they might tell someone to run so they can shoot them" is a load of nonsense. If they can quickly take out someone they can avoid a high speed chase thus reduce the danger the person running the cops poses to other drivers and people.

Click to expand...

Lol... I can cite several precedences where the dashboard camera could provide the input needed to determine what really happened only to be told "the camera was off/broken/wrong angle."

As well, for most cops the idea would be preposterous... however, there are thuggish roid-head cops with chips on their shoulders and the idea that they ARE the law... THESE are the people that I hesitate to give ANY extra powers, regardless of justification, these do not represent all cops, probably not even MOST cops, but that the description fits for SOME cops is where the danger lies.

I do have to balance my opinion that people don't generally run from cops unless they are felons already... but it's more the point that every attempt should be made to give even the felons due process...

jamesrage said:

They have no business fleeing the police. If a cop flashes his lights and signs behind you that means pull over and I am sure after a while they may even get on a speaker and tell you to pull over. This situation of the cop instantly shooting someone when he turns on his lights and siren is a load of fear mongering crap because cops are not idiots they do realize that you are not going to instantly stop and that you may even drive a little further to pull over in case you are in a area where you can't easily pull over to the side of the road.

Click to expand...

True... this is the other situation : How long does a person have from when the cop turns on his light till being pulled over before it's considered 'fleeing'?
5 seconds? 10? If they speed up? If they take a turn?

BmanMcfly said:

True... this is the other situation : How long does a person have from when the cop turns on his light till being pulled over before it's considered 'fleeing'?
5 seconds? 10? If they speed up? If they take a turn?

Click to expand...

IF they speed up and trying to be evasive then it is pretty obvious the person is trying to flee the police. If he or she is trying to pull a OJ then that time can be based on the average it takes for someone to pull over regarding type of road,traffic conditions and etc.

jamesrage said:

If someone is fleeing from the police in a car a pregnant female or someone else is likely to be hit anyways. Why not neutralize the situation as fast as possible. A dead scumbag fleeing the police is only able to go so far in a moving car.

Click to expand...

And how many innocent civilians will that dead scumbag take out as his car lumbers out of control? And how is it fair and just that innocent civilians die because someone else wanted to be away from the police?

Shooting at fleeing felons is a bad idea because it creates dangers to innocent bystanders. The cops are supposed to make the public more safe, not less safe. Shooting at fleeing felons makes the public less safe.

I fleeing car is a 3000 pound deadly projectile. Not much different than somebody standing on the corner shooting aimless into the crowd. They might hit somebody and they might not.

I, for one, prefer to error on the side of caution and just take them out.

But, then again, I'm pretty insensitive when it comes to wants, needs and desires of the criminal element. Maybe that's one reason I have never been picked to serve on a jury?

Baralis said:

I am all for it. I believe we should have reimplemented this a long time ago. Why allow someone feeing to put innocents at risk? Granted I can see it being abused on occation but with modern camera equipment found in all police cars I suspect it would be minimal.

Click to expand...

One would have to assume you have no fear from stray bullets? :shoot

Whew. Lots to cover here.

When I was a cop you were allowed, under certain circumstances, to shoot at a fleeing felon. Chiefly, if you had probable cause to believe the person had committed a serious felony and that their successful escape would put the community at risk.

An unwritten corollary to this was "if you shoot at a fleeing suspect, you had BETTER be in the right, and you'd better be able to account for every round fired and no bystander injuries". Otherwise, it was your career for sure and maybe your arse.

The upshot was that not many fleeing felons were shot at, and those that were generally deserved it. Cops didn't want to take the risk of being found at-fault unless they were SURE the guy really had to be stopped.


Now, to address this fallacy about "stray bullets".

Anytime a cop shoots at someone there is a potential risk of "stray bullets". Hail, anytime anyone shoots at someone that risk exists. When it is a "two-way-range" and the perps are shooting back, quadruple it since most perps lack any concern about bystanders.

This is why part of your training underscores the risk of opening fire under conditions where bystanders may be put at risk, and the emphasis most good departments place on marksmanship and judgement.

A "fleeing felon" doesn't up the risk that much. Either you have a clear shot without bystanders in the line of fire, or you don't take the shot.

Granted cops are human and mistakes can be made; errors in judgement also. Granted there are a few jerks who abuse their authority, too.

The serial killer we had down here in my immediate AO brings this home to me in a way it might not do for others. If the cops believed they had located this guy and he tried to flee, they DAMN WELL BETTER HAVE SHOT AT HIM!! He was a KNOWN threat to the community who had murdered repeatedly!

We had cops standing in the middle of intersections with M4s and Remington870s, scanning the drivers of passing vehicles looking for the guy. You bet your assets they would have shot him if he'd tried to flee.

Life isn't safe. Sometimes you have to balance one risk vs another. Allowing for shooting at dangerous felons, under certain circumstances, is one such issue.

Captain America said:

That's cool but you gotta think "green" man! That's 3000 pounds of twisted metal than can be melted down to make Harley Davidson's! Think recycle!

Click to expand...

When YOU HAVE A POINT you have a point! oK Build an elemental stratifier into the plazma-laser so that each metal and usefull element can be reused.

I reada story at my car dealership that the Indian motorcycle is being mad again in NC. The Indians useed to be made 20 miles north of my home town up in theStae of Taxetuessteets.

Wdheneverthey canmake an Amercan vehicle I am happy. Would loveto see Harley and Indian compette

BmanMcfly said:

New Policy Allows Chicago Police Officers To Shoot At Fleeing Vehicles - cbs2chicago.com


Wow... isn't that awesome, cops can just go around shooting cars that are 'fleeing'... if they are a 'suspected' felon.

No, cops wouldn't abuse that... now, even if you ARE a felon and running from cops... the adrenline is already pumping enough that the person running almost DESERVES the beat down he gets once caught. Telling cops, someone runs you can shoot... let's say their's a drunk driving checkpoint and someone tries to run it cause they are drunk (on it's own not quite a 'felony') are they telling me that cops just won't pull out their guns and start shooting??

But hey "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear." The biggest fallacy ever... since there's no limit to that. We just want to take a walkthrough your house... no, 'what have you got to hide??'

Is it just me, or is America starting to look more and more like an occupied country?

Click to expand...

This isn't big news in Texas. If you run from cops here, you are going to end up getting your butt shot off.

Notice this happened in Chicago though. The "no guns allowed" capital of the world.

Innocent until proven guilty.

People don't just run because they are guilty, but any number of other reasons.

Even though I don't agree with cops killing people, shooting someone in self-defense makes a lot more sense than shooting someone who is actually running away from you.

Shooting someone who poses no risk to you is abuse of power and any cop who kills someone in this way should be charged with murder.

:agree

A person who is fleeing is trying to avoid confrontation and really isn't an immediate threat (unless using the vehicle as a weapon).

BmanMcfly said:

Thankfully...

At face value, yes I agree with you. But when it hits the streets, giving cops the authority to pull their guns out when 'fleeing' and 'suspected felons'... Consider, how many seconds do you have to pull over before it counts as 'fleeing'?

What if the cop is having a particularly bad day and pulls someone over he tells them 'run'... "What? I had to... they looked liked al-quaida and they fleed from me so I shot them."

Plus there is a vast difference between someone fleeing the scene (not something that I'd urge anyone to do), since it's pretty much a guaranteed prison term WHEN you get caught. Is very different then someone that is attempting to flee and trying to run down a cop... then by all means stop the guy. I'd rather keep the laws TIGHT and have to deal an officer then at its extreme which would be your turnoff just happens to be a block before a checkpoint the cops say 'he's fleeing' and the open fire.

I understand there needs to be a line drawn as to when it's appropriate for a cop to pull out his gun... let's not make the laws so that cops feel the need to pull the trigger a lot more then they already do.... which admittedly is generally a justified action to take... afterall, at the end of the day a wants to go home safe, and I don't blame them.

Click to expand...

Just pull over and stop.

As someone in law enforcement ( not a patrol cop, federal law ) this is total ****.

You don't fire unless a threat is being imposed onto yourself. Then, and only then, you can fire. If someone is running away, and they're unarmed, then it's your damn job to get off your lazy ass and chase the guy, not draw your weapon and unload 3 shots into his back.

Gargantuan said:

As someone in law enforcement ( not a patrol cop, federal law ) this is total ****.

You don't fire unless a threat is being imposed onto yourself. Then, and only then, you can fire. If someone is running away, and they're unarmed, then it's your damn job to get off your lazy ass and chase the guy, not draw your weapon and unload 3 shots into his back.

Click to expand...

It depends on the circumstances. I mentioned the serial killer in my neighborhood from a couple months back. He was being searched for based on a sketch and various information. He had already killed five people. If he were found and tried to run, it was absolutely imperative that he be stopped; if he were not, it was a given that more innocent people would die. Under that circumstance, it would have been negligent for an officer to NOT use lethal force to prevent his escape if that was what it took.

Korimyr the Rat said:

Police officers should be allowed to shoot people for fleeing from them. This is a case of "if you haven't done anything wrong", because people who haven't done anything wrong don't run from the police.

Click to expand...

Please tell me you're kidding. This is nuts and then some. No sane rational person could either believe or promote such a goofy notion. I'm not even going to go over all of the legal ramifications of such a policy would result in but I can tell you one thing for certain before such a policy was struck down by The Supreme Court the first victims family would be millionaires from the wrongful death suit.
You can not shoot a suspect in the back. The law in every state of know is you can shoot in a life or death situations only, not at suspects, and never at cars that could contain children.
I'm glad this was not a true story it would have meant we are closer to the National Socialist State we are being pushed into than I thought. Heil Dumb asses. Carry on. Semper Fi!