• 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

stonewall50 said:
I would hardly call a low speed bumper cars "attacking" the police.
Click to expand...

Then you need an education, because that's the charge when you use your vehicle to ram someone. But hey, you're supposed to know this if you have a driver's license.
 
clownboy said:
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?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately there are many that are that dumb as we see time and time again cops shooting unarmed innocent people for little to no reason.
 
The initial claim of him being told to shut off the truck is false. There is no such event in the audio from the dash cams. The shots came fast.

I do understand officers' concerns of this now frantically out of control 19 year old. They should have just shot up the truck, not the driver, at that point. If they had backed of the chase it would not have reached that point. The voice on the police radio (repeatedly) had it right. It was the chase that was endangering others such as pedestrians. "We know the suspect so should back off..."

The irony is they continued the chase apparently to try to use tire-tear strips. But then one opted to shot the young man rather than take out the tires when the opportunity came. I still do NOT believe shooting the young man lethally and multiple rounds to do so was necessary.

For the intensity of the situation, I don't think I would call the officer a murderer though. I see it as reason for some SERIOUS changes in policy and some serious training of how to handle such situations.
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
The officer has already been officially cleared. That is in the video collection.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen it... ridiculous. I am all for cops blowing the hell out of people that deserve it or meet the terms for responding with violent force but if this qualifies then I might have to rethink that.
 
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...

Once again, one does not disable a vehicle like in the movies. Chances are you'd just be ventilating metal, the vehicle will still be in operation and you just might kill some innocent or a fellow officer with ricochet.
 
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...

Looks to me like this guy had demonstrated a willingness to injure bystanders.
 
clownboy said:
Then you need an education, because that's the charge when you use your vehicle to ram someone. But hey, you're supposed to know this if you have a driver's license.
Click to expand...

The only time I ever see anyone changed with attempted murder or assault with a deadly weapon for deliberately hitting another car is when it is a police car.

However, then we have to conclude that young man could correctly believe the police were now "trying to kill him with their cars" since they were ramming into him, right? This, with the police trying to "kill" him with their vehicles, he HAD to continue to try to get away - or die by being killed by the deadly police cars "attacking" him.

Do you claim that the police running into his car was the police trying to kill him or poise deadly danger to the young man? Or ONLY the police in their cars?

Yes, at that point they needed to stop the truck because he was now fully out of control. It has been escalated to that point. The solution at that point was to "kill" the truck, not the driver.
 
Last edited:
clownboy said:
Once again, one does not disable a vehicle like in the movies. Chances are you'd just be ventilating metal, the vehicle will still be in operation and you just might kill some innocent or a fellow officer with ricochet.
Click to expand...

Shooting out all four wheels is certainly an easy and achievable goal when the cop is out and the truck is stopped... don't have to be John McClane to pull that off.
 
joko104 said:
The only time I ever see anyone changed with attempted murder or assault with a deadly weapon for deliberately hitting another car is when it is a police car.

However, then we have to conclude that young man fully believed the police were now "trying to kill him with their cars" since they were ramming into him, right? Do you claim that the police running into his car was the police trying to kill him or poise deadly danger to the young man? Or ONLY the police?

Yes, at that point they needed to stop the truck because he was now fully out of control. It has been escalated to that point. The solution was to "kill" the truck, not the driver.
Click to expand...

Have you EVER worked highway patrol duty? Ever even seen an episode of COPS, I'm sure this kid had. You'd have to be living under a rock to not know of the PIT maneuver.
 
joko104 said:
The only time I ever see anyone changed with attempted murder or assault with a deadly weapon for deliberately hitting another car is when it is a police car.

However, then we have to conclude that young man fully believed the police were now "trying to kill him with their cars" since they were ramming into him, right? Do you claim that the police running into his car was the police trying to kill him or poise deadly danger to the young man? Or ONLY the police?

Yes, at that point they needed to stop the truck because he was now fully out of control. It has been escalated to that point. The solution was to "kill" the truck, not the driver.
Click to expand...

That is kinda ironic. Cops ram you and that is fine... you ram a cop and it is attempted murder...
 
clownboy said:
Have you EVER worked highway patrol duty? Ever even seen an episode of COPS, I'm sure this kid had. You'd have to be living under a rock to not know of the PIT maneuver.
Click to expand...

Did they Pit him? Many times cops do in fact ram a car without attempting to Pit it. That is on Cops too... ;)
 
Bodhisattva said:
Shooting out all four wheels is certainly an easy and achievable goal when the cop is out and the truck is stopped... don't have to be John McClane to pull that off.
Click to expand...

Doesn't work worth crap and doesn't prevent the vehicle from being used as a ram against your soft little body.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Did they Pit him? Many times cops do in fact ram a car without attempting to Pit it. That is on Cops too... ;)
Click to expand...

Have to say I've never seen them do that on ANY COPS shows from ANY country. You may be confusing that with a box maneuver.
 
Bodhisattva said:
That is kinda ironic. Cops ram you and that is fine... you ram a cop and it is attempted murder...
Click to expand...

Yep, the rules are different for those committing the crimes and those enforcing the laws. Welcome to reality. Guess what, the rules are different for fire fighters than they are for arsonists.
 
clownboy said:
Once again, one does not disable a vehicle like in the movies. Chances are you'd just be ventilating metal, the vehicle will still be in operation and you just might kill some innocent or a fellow officer with ricochet.
Click to expand...

LOL. Yes, need a human body to stop "ricochet." :roll: Unfortunately, there were 6 "ricochets" since only 2 of the 8 rounds hit the driver. SO... you are saying the officer endangered innocent people and fellow officers by shooting at the truck, right?
 
Bodhisattva said:
That is kinda ironic. Cops ram you and that is fine... you ram a cop and it is attempted murder...
Click to expand...


People use 1-sided slogans on these topics. If ramming a vehicle with another vehicle constitutes "attempted murder," then at that point the guy had no choice but to continue to try to get away with 2 officers trying to kill him. In fact, he was not trying to kill cops and cops were not trying to kill him in the slow speed vehicle collisions.

If his backing the trailer or truck into a police car at all of 5 mph constituted trying to kill the officers, then the officers hitting the truck constituted trying to kill him. But that isn't what it was for either. For him it was trying to get away. For them it was trying to stop him. Nothing more or less than that. None of it even set off airbags - that police cars have half a dozen of.
 
mac said:
Looks to me like this guy had demonstrated a willingness to injure bystanders.
Click to expand...

Yes to some degree, though not deliberately nor do I see him having done so.

But, then, so were the police in the chase, right? In fact, dispatch or whoever was on the police radio repeatedly pointed that out to the pursuing officers - specifically danger to pedestrians by the police cars. Specifically given pedestrians as reason to "back off" the chase due to "pedestrians in the area."

This is the problem with police chases. The guy was not armed. NOTHING indicated his goal was to harm anyone. They knew who he was. They knew whose truck and why he took it. How did police cars racing thru campus make this safer for "bystanders?"
 
clownboy said:
Doesn't work worth crap and doesn't prevent the vehicle from being used as a ram against your soft little body.
Click to expand...

Shooting out tires doesn't work? Why not? We see what trouble a car has with one flat tire all the time...

Have to say I've never seen them do that on ANY COPS shows from ANY country. You may be confusing that with a box maneuver.
Click to expand...

No, they do the Pit, the Box and ram. I live in New Zealand and we get shows from the USA, the UK, Australia and local shows all the time and I see them do it in every country. ...And for good or bad I watch a LOT of these shows.

Yep, the rules are different for those committing the crimes and those enforcing the laws. Welcome to reality. Guess what, the rules are different for fire fighters than they are for arsonists.
Click to expand...

You don't have to be a dick... as an ex-fire fighter I understand the difference. I only said it was ironic, not that it wasn't right.
 
joko104 said:
People use 1-sided slogans on these topics. If ramming a vehicle with another vehicle constitutes "attempted murder," then at that point the guy had no choice but to continue to try to get away with 2 officers trying to kill him. In fact, he was not trying to kill cops and cops were not trying to kill him in the slow speed vehicle collisions.

If his backing the trailer or truck into a police car at all of 5 mph constituted trying to kill the officers, then the officers hitting the truck constituted trying to kill him. But that isn't what it was for either. For him it was trying to get away. For them it was trying to stop him. Nothing more or less than that. None of it even set off airbags - that police cars have half a dozen of.
Click to expand...

I think that cops ramming cars in most instances is fine. Ramming cop cars is not, but it should not be attmepted murder. Assault works nicely as long as the cop is in his car. No need to get crazy with the charges as if the cop is some god like Obama.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I think that cops ramming cars in most instances is fine. Ramming cop cars is not, but it should not be attmepted murder. Assault works nicely as long as the cop is in his car. No need to get crazy with the charges as if the cop is some god like Obama.
Click to expand...

There are certain charges that are vastly overused - like "resisting arrest" or "interfering with a police officer."

An officer tells someone "you're under arrest, turn around." The person answers, "Why?! What law did I break?" Now it's also "resisting arrest" and if the person's friend says "what are you arresting him/her for?," that person has committed "interfering with a police officer." And for many police a person tying to prevent being further beaten by blocking blows with their arms constitutes "assaulting a police officer" too.
 
Last edited:
Or the fella in Oklahoma who got a life sentence for spitting on a police officer. But, in Oklahoma, if a police officer all but beats someone to death he MIGHT lose his job at the worse.
 
Buck Ewer said:
Well dad got his way on this one.
He will never have to buy the little prick cigarettes again.
He must be so proud...
Click to expand...

Smoking kills.

joko104 said:
Kill every emotionally upset person. Shoot them multiple times in the chest. :roll:

Luckily, moderators dont' have that ability. How many times would they have had to shoot me dozens of times so far? :lol:
Click to expand...

Most emotionally upset people do not nearly hit people with their car.

Are you complaining about moderating?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom