• 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

CRUE CAB said:
He pushed himself into a death sentence.
Click to expand...

Yes. A low speed collision that doesn't jeopardize the targets life...warrants being shot to death. One could make a case for the endangerment of others while in the midst of a chase, but I maintain that cop would have greater risk playing bumper cars while wrapped in bubble wrap.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
I don't think either the father or the son deserved what they got, and yeah, maybe I should have been more sensitive in my phrasing. But what they did-- each of them-- was stupid, incredibly stupid, and the son's death was a direct consequence of their stupidity. Instead of "looking for answers" from the police, who only did their job and only killed his son because he was endangering them (and others), he should be wondering what the hell was wrong with his son to make him behave in that fashion.
Click to expand...
Oh, I agree with you that it was stupid. Most definitely. I just hate to think a father lost his son due to his own stupidity.....and now has to live with it. That would be awful. Thanks for your post though. :peace
 
Actions have consequences. Trying to teach your son a lesson by cop is highlighted here. The kid refused to turn off the truck....well that truck is still a weapon. If you go up to it and he backs into you he could kill you, or maim you, or even just cause minor injuries. I see people saying it would be slow and would certainly caused minor injuries....clearly these people have never floored the accelerator...especially in a truck with a decent motor. So that assertion is clearly wrong. However think of it this way...the cops didn't know this was father/son teaching by cops....they thought they we're chasing an armed suspect in a grand theft auto incident who actively evaded the police. I blame the Father more than anyone else for his abuse of the 911 system.
 
clownboy said:
Yeah, and if just one innocent (or the officer) had been harmed or killed by your inability to react to a judgement deficient young man with a 4300 lb weapon your career in law enforcement should be over.
Click to expand...

There is no duty for any police officer to ever shoot anyone. Name any time any law enforcement officer - ever - anywhere -was fired for NOT shooting someone.

Curious how I think we should have equal legal status and you think I have 100 times more rights than you.
 
Constantine said:
Actions have consequences. Trying to teach your son a lesson by cop is highlighted here. The kid refused to turn off the truck....well that truck is still a weapon. If you go up to it and he backs into you he could kill you, or maim you, or even just cause minor injuries. I see people saying it would be slow and would certainly caused minor injuries....clearly these people have never floored the accelerator...especially in a truck with a decent motor. So that assertion is clearly wrong. However think of it this way...the cops didn't know this was father/son teaching by cops....they thought they we're chasing an armed suspect in a grand theft auto incident who actively evaded the police. I blame the Father more than anyone else for his abuse of the 911 system.
Click to expand...

It is outrageous to blame the father. For what? For reporting his son stole his employer's truck?

OH, that's right, in YOUR opinion it is perfectly legal to steal vehicles, provided you are an adult and steal the keys to that vehicle from a relative. You found the PERFECT way to legally steal vehicles. Just make sure you steal a company's vehicle by stealing the eyes from one of the employees. THAT - in your opinion - then makes it ok. :lamo

The police knew this was NOT an armed suspect in grand theft auto. MAYBE, just MAYBE, you should listen to dispatch and to the call to the police. :roll:
 
MarineTpartier said:
Oh, I agree with you that it was stupid. Most definitely. I just hate to think a father lost his son due to his own stupidity.....and now has to live with it. That would be awful. Thanks for your post though. :peace
Click to expand...

If that was NOT the father's truck and was his employer's truck, and since the father knew his son had gotten the keys from him and took it, the father could be charged with accessory to felony auto theft - and as this was a crime-in-progress would be criminally and civilly liable for whatever the son did. If the son did kill someone during the theft, the father also could be prosecuted and sued for it if he had NOT called the police.

SO> we now read many members believing that a parent MUST agree to be willing to go to prison for the crimes of their adult children. I think that is absurd!

Then again, we can look at other threads where members ragingly blast parents who did not report their kid to the police.
 
Last edited:
stonewall50 said:
Bingo!!!! They made a stupid ass decision. Why not shoot tires first? Especially on grass? Traction. Hello? I don't think they wanted to kill him, but then again...why are they shooting "at the engine block?" And why leave the safety of a vehicle when the suspect vehicle isn't disabled? Seems that the SMART call would be boxing him in. Once he hit the grass it was game over. That truck had way too many cops nearby to get away.
Click to expand...


Yes, there is a reason drag racing tracks aren't made of grass and dirt.
 
One of the most interesting parts I find about this story is that the police in question were asked twice to call of the chase. (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/videonetwork/2808789798001)

So, why didn't they? As others have already mentioned, they could've responded by just waiting until the kid got home and dealt with him.

However, something is rather strange to me. In has been stated that "Comstock, at one point, is accused of stopping the vehicle and reversing, pushing the trailer into the police car and partially onto its hood, according to police." (Police Identify 19-Year-Old Killed On Iowa State Campus After Chase | KCRG-TV9 | Cedar Rapids, Iowa News, Sports, and Weather | Top 9)

People are taking this as fact, however, the only evidence of this at the moment is from the police who have a vested interest in ensuring that they don't look as if they needlessly killed a young man. I think that there needs to be further investigation into that claim.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
One of the most interesting parts I find about this story is that the police in question were asked twice to call of the chase. (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/videonetwork/2808789798001)

So, why didn't they? As others have already mentioned, they could've responded by just waiting until the kid got home and dealt with him.

However, something is rather strange to me. In has been stated that "Comstock, at one point, is accused of stopping the vehicle and reversing, pushing the trailer into the police car and partially onto its hood, according to police." (Police Identify 19-Year-Old Killed On Iowa State Campus After Chase | KCRG-TV9 | Cedar Rapids, Iowa News, Sports, and Weather | Top 9)

People are taking this as fact, however, the only evidence of this at the moment is from the police who have a vested interest in ensuring that they don't look as if they needlessly killed a young man. I think that there needs to be further investigation into that claim.
Click to expand...


No, his backing a trailer into that cruiser is in the chase video. That statement by police is accurate. He had stopped. He did back the trailer into the police cruiser, and the trailer then came loose.
 
joko104 said:
No, his backing a trailer into that cruiser is in the chase video. That statement by police is accurate. He had stopped. He did back the trailer into the police cruiser, and the trailer then came loose.
Click to expand...

Ah, ok. My bad. I didn't look at the vid.
 
joko104 said:
The shift in how people think seems to be that now the question is "MAY the police have shot the person?" from "did the police HAVE to shoot the person?"

At the same time, elsewhere, arguing people have to basically do nothing to ever defend themselves against assault by police, even if it may cost the person their life.

There are the rights of Police and rights of citizens.

That is NOT what the American revolution was about - people furious that the government and it's authorities were too weak and nice.

If anyone who ever went into an irrational rage on some occasion was shot to death for it? Wouldn't be anywhere NEAR as many members on this forum.

The photo shows the pickup on the dirt with a 4000 pound cruiser right behind it and another beside it. The tire on the truck showing sure doesn't look flat to me.

Sure are a lot of people that want the death penalty IF it involves something with the police. Posting that kid deserved to be shot?

Do you think 5 shots was enough? Maybe it should have been 25 times.

Candidly, I can't recall a story where an officer shot someone just once. Can you?
Click to expand...

It's kind of a version of the Lucifer Effect, as observed by Philip Zimbardo.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Um, no. I acknowledge he got what he was asking for.
Click to expand...

Of course the question is "was he actually ASKING for it?" and whether guns are always necessary?
 
joko104 said:
I agree. I have no problem with the father calling the police. The son took his employer's truck. The father could lost his job over that and sometimes a parent should call the cops on their kid, although unfortunately that assumes reasonable police response... and I don't think the father really thought that one thru as his son was an adult and would be treated like one. Probably still thought of his kid as a minor.
Click to expand...

Didn't it used to be that you called the cops to teach the kid a lesson and they got a lecture and threat of jail time next time?
 
CRUE CAB said:
Um, no. I acknowledge he got what he was asking for.
Click to expand...

Different words, same statement - only less accurate.

If you have ANYTHING to show that he wanted to be shot twice in the chest, present it. I think who got what he wanted was that officer. He wanted that 19 year old dead.
 
After all the dust settled they found those bikers guilty and if this wasn't a cop they would have found him guilty too...
 
Bodhisattva said:
Didn't it used to be that you called the cops to teach the kid a lesson and they got a lecture and threat of jail time next time?
Click to expand...

Exactly, In that situation, they'd have taken the kid to jail, impounded the truck, and then when the father showed up the next day asked him if he still wanted to press charges. A SMART father would say "I need a day to think about it" and the next day say "no, not this time. I will next time."

Then tell the kid "you're 19, so you got 30 days to get out of the house and on your own" - ending the parent - child relationship with the child in the role of a dependent minor child permanently. He's 19. Time to get out of the house and stop acting like a spoiled teenager reliant on his parents.
 
CRUE CAB said:
No, sure. They could have just let him go with a pat on the head and a ride to the store for smokes.
Click to expand...

No, they should have arrested him and taken him to jail. That's how it works.
 
joko104 said:
It is outrageous to blame the father. For what? For reporting his son stole his employer's truck?

OH, that's right, in YOUR opinion it is perfectly legal to steal vehicles, provided you are an adult and steal the keys to that vehicle from a relative. You found the PERFECT way to legally steal vehicles. Just make sure you steal a company's vehicle by stealing the eyes from one of the employees. THAT - in your opinion - then makes it ok. :lamo

The police knew this was NOT an armed suspect in grand theft auto. MAYBE, just MAYBE, you should listen to dispatch and to the call to the police. :roll:
Click to expand...

They knew. You we're there?? Do tell. DO TELL. :doh

In an police event you don't know who is armed. Ever. If I had a nickel for every time the police arrested someone and I was told a patient was unarmed and then to my shock found a patient was armed at the hospital...I'd have some dough. So your assumption falls right flat on it's face.

However YOUR opinion, however laughable it is, assuming you are an adult, is noted. :2wave:

Just MAYBE, MAYBE you should chill and look at the big picture instead of running your mouth lol
 
In this case, I think the father was justified in calling the police. His kid stole his truck, and was obviously in a bad state mentally. On face value, a police officer firing 6 shots into a truck because the driver won't cut the engine sounds ridiculous. Although, there isn't enough info on what went down in the moments leading up to the shooting for anyone to say whether or not it was justified in my opinion.
 
DaveFagan said:
All over the Country, the police have become too militarized. Center mass, shoot to kill. All the Federal monies for better weapons, vests, tasers, training schools is just to make these police agencies feel subservient to Federal police agencies. I don't like it. It feels oppressive and the immediate results don't look promising. More dead citizens and the Police claim they are doing the right thing and seem to have Federal support because the agencies are not investigated for promoting manslaughter or worse.
Click to expand...

Can you blame them, there are more gun owners out there and more nutballs out there then there ever have been. Of course this is going to increase the number of officers shooting people. When people think they can just say or do anything around a police officer because the constitution says they can, you going to have some conflicts. Officers, like people, run on emotion. If they feel threatened, or are taunted enough, they will act out. You don't poke a tiger with a stick, so why poke an officer with a gun. Does not seem very smart to me no matter what a piece of paper tells you your legally entitled to. Fight the officer in court, not on the street. If he is wrong, then it will be easy to prove it in a court of law. Which is what the constitution was designed to encourage. You have rights, sure.. But there is a time and place to fight that fight, and its not on the street with the officer, right or wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom