• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dad calls cops on son...cops shoot son

clownboy said:
There is little significant difference between someone driving through town recklessly at 100 mph on their own and being chased. Whether and how long to pursue is a judgement call. Depending upon policy it's sometimes the officer on the scene who makes that call, sometimes an experienced incident commander.
Click to expand...

I think there is a large difference between the two. When you add more cars going the road at 100 miles an hour and the criminal knows people are after him the situation is with little doubt worse.
 
clownboy said:
Read the thread.
Click to expand...
I did.
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."
Click to expand...
Hence my confusion.
 
Henrin said:
I think there is a large difference between the two. When you add more cars going the road at 100 miles an hour and the criminal knows people are after him the situation is with little doubt worse.
Click to expand...

I can see you won't be convinced that sometimes the police need to chase people. I suppose we could just stop that altogether and roll out some form of honor system where folks eventually think better of their crimes and turn themselves in. We'll just all hope against reality that too many innocents aren't harmed before they do decide to turn themselves in.
 
clownboy said:
Yeah, nice exaggeration. I'm sure it's a daily occurance for you to have someone reverse and back a truck into your cruiser in attempt to get away and then refuse to stand down when cornered - not.
Click to expand...

No, I just approach individuals or groups of men, commonly drunk or hyped up on something, in the middle of nowhere, armed with AR15s, Remington 270s and 12 gauge pumps - chambered and holding them in both hands, for which they usually know they are all engaged in serious criminal offenses at the time.

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:
calamity said:
I did.

Hence my confusion.
Click to expand...

Now read the whole thread. If you're still confused by the shooting of a fellow (who had previous trouble with the law) who backed into cruisers purposely and refused to stand down when cornered, can't really help you.
 
clownboy said:
Now read the whole thread. If you're still confused by the shooting of a fellow (who had previous trouble with the law) who backed into cruisers purposely and refused to stand down when cornered, can't really help you.
Click to expand...
Ah, previous trouble with police = license to kill.

I read this
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.
Click to expand...
I don't think the cops needed to kill this kid.
 
clownboy said:
I can see you won't be convinced that sometimes the police need to chase people. I suppose we could just stop that altogether and roll out some form of honor system where folks eventually think better of their crimes and turn themselves in. We'll just all hope against reality that too many innocents aren't harmed before they do decide to turn themselves in.
Click to expand...

Oh please, like people would just disappear and there would just be no way to ever find them again. Hell, I bet the kid wouldn't have return home. Nope. It was totally proper to chase him down and shoot him dead, because hey, it's not like you could have realized the kid has a home or anything.
 
clownboy said:
Now read the whole thread. If you're still confused by the shooting of a fellow (who had previous trouble with the law) who backed into cruisers purposely and refused to stand down when cornered, can't really help you.
Click to expand...

"Refused to stand down"? Yeah, well chosen words. Leaving out "unarmed." "The offense of taking his father's truck." "Stopped and boxed in on grass."

Please specify "previous trouble with law" as to details. A cop-killler? Murderer? Rapist? What "previous trouble?"
 
joko104 said:
No, I just approach individuals or groups of men, commonly drunk or hyped up on something, in the middle of nowhere, armed with AR15s, Remington 270s and 12 gauge pumps - chambered and holding them in both hands, for which they usually know they are all engaged in serious criminal offenses at the time.

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 boxes 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.
Click to expand...

I forwarded no such theory, that's all your strawman as are the distorted details of your presumed reaction. And if you're all alone in the middle of nowhere when you know you're going to be faced with a number of armed individuals all hostiles, either your Sheriff hates your guts and wants you dead or you're doing some serious against policy cowboy crap. The correct response to the situation you engineered is to leave and come back with enough backup to effect the arrests with the least chance of a gun battle and enough backup to win said battle decisively if it does occur.

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.
 
Henrin said:
Oh please, like people would just disappear and there would just be no way to ever find them again. Hell, I bet the kid wouldn't have return home. Nope. It was totally proper to chase him down and shoot him dead, because hey, it's not like you could have realized the kid has a home or anything.
Click to expand...

Not the issue here, and you keep ducking from the general to the specific.
 
Henrin said:
Oh please, like people would just disappear and there would just be no way to ever find them again. Hell, I bet the kid wouldn't have return home. Nope. It was totally proper to chase him down and shoot him dead, because hey, it's not like you could have realized the kid has a home or anything.
Click to expand...

People do just disappear, but this young man wasn't going to. He wasn't a fleeing robbery, rapist or violent felon. And his identity was 100% known.

Usually citing movies is just ridiculed, but it reminds me of the first RAMBO - and the suggestion to just let him go and arrest him in a few days working at a car wash or doing dishes. Defuse the situation the police were rapidly escalating.

They knew who this kid was. They knew the offense - taking his father's pickup to go get cigarettes. All they had to do was wait for him to go back home. It was that simple.
 
joko104 said:
"Refused to stand down"? Yeah, well chosen words. Leaving out "unarmed." "The offense of taking his father's truck." "Stopped and boxed in on grass."

Please specify "previous trouble with law" as to details. A cop-killler? Murderer? Rapist? What "previous trouble?"
Click to expand...

A 4000 lb vehicle is not unarmed. Especially when that vehicle has already been used as a battering ram. And we don't know what previous record the kid had, we just know he had one.
 
joko104 said:
People do just disappear, but this young man wasn't going to. He wasn't a fleeing robbery, rapist or violent felon. And his identity was 100% known.

Usually citing movies is just ridiculed, but it reminds me of the first RAMBO - and the suggestion to just let him go and arrest him in a few days working at a car wash or doing dishes. Defuse the situation the police were rapidly escalating.

They knew who this kid was. They knew the offense - taking his father's pickup to go get cigarettes. All they had to do was wait for him to go back home. It was that simple.
Click to expand...

Once again, all that disappeance talk was regarding a general question about car chases, not at all related to this specific incident.

And was the kid driving in such a manner as to endanger others when he stole the truck, BEFORE they started chasing him? The story suggests that is the case. That's a good reason not to just wait for him to come home.
 
clownboy said:
Not the issue here, and you keep ducking from the general to the specific.
Click to expand...

That is exactly the issue here and it is always about specifics, not generalities. That is why I poised the question of then ALL people "endangering" others - meaning any moving violation - should be promptly shot to death on the "general" rules of ending danger to others.

"My kid who lives here is upset about his girlfriend breaking up with me and took my truck to go get cigarettes" does NOT justify a high speed chase for many reasons. First, it likely will result in the truck being wrecked - which certainly doesn't help the "victim," does it? It is the chase that endangers others, not being in a truck stolen from your dad.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
It's what he ****ing gets for calling the police to "teach his son a lesson".

Not to mention, of course, what the son ****ing gets for refusing to disable the two-ton weapon when the police order him to.

Maybe some day, people will ****ing learn.

edit: Also, from the comments:
Click to expand...

This isn't the Wild West. He isn't a victim, but there was no need to kill him.
 
stonewall50 said:
This isn't the Wild West. He isn't a victim, but there was no need to kill him.
Click to expand...

Was he or was he not still in control of two-ton truck with which he had previously attacked the police?
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Was he or was he not still in control of two-ton truck with which he had previously attacked the police?
Click to expand...

I would hardly call a low speed bumper cars "attacking" the police.
 
justabubba said:
[emphasis added by bubba]
see that? that is why this 19 year old is not a victim



Family Of Tyler Comstock, 19, Wants Answers After Youth Shot Dead By Police On Iowa State Campus
Click to expand...

That is not a reason to unload a gun into a person... tasers, stop sticks should be tried first. The could shoot out the tires or fire rounds into the engine block. Shooting the driver is completely unacceptable and the officer (and others that do this crap) should be tried and hopefully found guilty of manslaughter or murder. Not reacting to the cops satisfaction the instant they want it is NOT a valid reason to kill somebody... it is pretty much state sanctioned murder.
 
How many people that approve of the cops actions are also pro-death penalty... because that is all this was. State Santioned Murder. Problem is that here, there was no trial. The Constitution is violated. It is a travesty and I think that many of you should be ashamed of yourselves. If you are not then you have ****ing problems...
 
Citing dangers of continuing the pursuit to pedestrians, being on campus etc, it was repeatedly suggested to STOP the pursuit.

"We know the suspect so we can probably back it off."
 
Bodhisattva said:
That is not a reason to unload a gun into a person... tasers, stop sticks should be tried first. The could shoot out the tires or fire rounds into the engine block. Shooting the driver is completely unacceptable and the officer (and others that do this crap) should be tried and hopefully found guilty of manslaughter or murder. Not reacting to the cops satisfaction the instant they want it is NOT a valid reason to kill somebody... it is pretty much state sanctioned murder.
Click to expand...

The officer has already been officially cleared. That is in the video collection.
 
joko104 said:
That is exactly the issue here and it is always about specifics, not generalities. That is why I poised the question of then ALL people "endangering" others - meaning any moving violation - should be promptly shot to death on the "general" rules of ending danger to others.

"My kid who lives here is upset about his girlfriend breaking up with me and took my truck to go get cigarettes" does NOT justify a high speed chase for many reasons. First, it likely will result in the truck being wrecked - which certainly doesn't help the "victim," does it? It is the chase that endangers others, not being in a truck stolen from your dad.
Click to expand...

Well then you missed a part of the thread where I was responding to a general query as to whether chases are EVER necessary. That is where you pulled the disappeared comment from.

As to the chase being justified by a kid stealing his Dad's truck to get cigs - again you're leaving out pertinent info. We don't know for sure, but it's implied in the article that the kid was driving recklessly before the police responded with chase (or recklesly tried to avoid a simple stop). Your advice seems to be to let the kid drive away recklessly from an attempt by police to do a simple stop on the vehicle. If that's your policy I'm not sure why anyone would stop for you, ever.

Also surprising to me is that you seem to have no reconning of what every officer knows will be the result of an officer involved shooting. Are you really going to choose guaranteed suspension, a virtual proctological exam, mountains of paperwork and a possible civil suit with the forfeiture of your job if there are other good options available. Are the other officers that work with you really that dumb in your opinion?
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Was he or was he not still in control of two-ton truck with which he had previously attacked the police?
Click to expand...

Ramming a cop car is not something that will almost ever result in death... to respond with deadly force is as cowardly and unjust as to punch a baby in the face when it hits you in the balls. It is a sissy bitch move and should be illegal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom