Hence my confusion.The official report claims the action was necessary in order "to stop the ongoing threat to the public and the officers."
Tyler's dad says he was unarmed at the time.
"So he didn't shut the damn truck off, so let's fire six rounds at him?" exclaimed Gary Shepley, Tyler's step-grandfather. "We're confused, and we don't understand."
I am in far more potential "danger" than some unarmed punk in an old pickup on grass backing into my vehicle.
In your theory and others on the forum, what I SHOULD do is wait until I have a big oak tree to shelter low behind with plenty of undergrowth to otherwise not make my location immediately apparent, and - taking careful aim with a 20 round magazine M1A - shout out "POLICE! DROP THE FIRE ARMS!" Anyone who even in the slightest turns my way then shoot him in the head and chest at least 3 to 5 times.
In that situation not 1 in 100 are going to drop their rifle or shotgun. They're going to look all around trying to figure out where the hell that voice came from and what the hell is going on. Of course, as they turn about I really then MUST shoot all of them multiple times, right?
Often, evaluating police shootings have many unknowns and gray areas. But not this one. There was no need to kill that young man.
We haven't seen a video of that stop and shooting - and for some reason I suspect we never will... that, somehow, they forgot to turn on the video cams or accidentally deleted or lost then. But there are a couple photos and combined they show an old pickup truck on grass boxed in with trees in front of it and a 4000 pound cruiser behind it and another off a rear corner totally boxing in the pickup.
They could have emptied dozens of rounds into that truck to disable it if necessary. Or the cruiser behind could have just continued to shove the truck into the trees and bushes making moving the 1 wheel, lightweight on the rear old pickup on grass immovable. This was a no-brainer arrest.
Knowing exactly what the situation was and that he was unarmed, they should have backed off the chase. In very short order they could have arrested the unarmed likely-troublesome-punk already out of the vehicle and then thrown the book at him in jail. Maybe a bit of a beating before taking him there for "resisting" if the goal is to get him to move out of the area. THAT is how you deal with someone like that and if the goal is to get him out of town, that is how you do that too.
Last edited by joko104; 11-08-13 at 03:40 PM.
I read this
I don't think the cops needed to kill this kid.The family's demands for answers got even louder following the revelation that a member of the Ames police department suggested twice that officers call off the chase.
I get it, in your opinion, not knowing what kind of record the kid had, you would have tried to shoot up the truck - something against policy in every police and sherrifs departments I've ever seen out West here. The reason why that is not done is that ricochets kill and maim innocents and it takes a lot of ammo to disable a vehicle in real life. And no, gas tanks don't explode when you shoot them like they do in the movies.