• 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!

Policy Would Allow Cops To Shoot At Fleeing Cars

Goshin said:
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.
Click to expand...
I do not agree.
Suspecting someone of, is not the same as having committed the crimes.
Lethal force should not be used even in your example.
 
Coolguy said:
I do not agree.
Suspecting someone of, is not the same as having committed the crimes.
Lethal force should not be used even in your example.
Click to expand...

So if they found the guy they were looking for, having evidence he'd committed five murders in less than two weeks, they should have let him escape rather than using lethal force, if that was the alternative?

Bro, all five of those murders were within 10 miles of my house. My entire family lives in this area, I knew some of the victims. Live under that terror for a couple weeks and you might reconsider.
 
Goshin said:
Bro, all five of those murders were within 10 miles of my house. My entire family lives in this area, I knew some of the victims. Live under that terror for a couple weeks and you might reconsider.
Click to expand...
No, I wouldn't change my opinion.


Goshin said:
So if they found the guy they were looking for, having evidence he'd committed five murders in less than two weeks, they should have let him escape rather than using lethal force, if that was the alternative?
Click to expand...
Suspecting someone of, is not the same as having committed the crimes.
Lethal force should not be used, even in your example, just because the person is fleeing.
 
Coolguy said:
No, I wouldn't change my opinion.


Suspecting someone of, is not the same as having committed the crimes.
Lethal force should not be used, even in your example, just because the person is fleeing.
Click to expand...



Well, oddly enough, most of the people in my community felt otherwise about our local serial killer.


how about: If a cop sees a man shoot someone in the face, then attempt to flee the scene, he still shouldn't shoot a fleeing felon?
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
Well, oddly enough, most of the people in my community felt otherwise about our local serial killer.


how about: If a cop sees a man shoot someone in the face, then attempt to flee the scene, he still shouldn't shoot a fleeing felon?
Click to expand...


So that somehow makes Coolguy's opinion invalid somehow?

People can be mistaken, working on emotion rather than rationality.
 
Travelsonic said:
So that somehow makes Coolguy's opinion invalid somehow?

People can be mistaken, working on emotion rather than rationality.
Click to expand...


Granted, in general.

You understand, I'm not talking about shooting at someone just because they ran from the law? I'm not talking about shooting some stupid kid who runs away when the cops catch him selling weed behind the bowling alley. I'm talking about cases where a suspect is believed to have committed serious violent crimes, and where his continued freedom is an ongoing threat to the community.
 
Goshin said:
how about: If a cop sees a man shoot someone in the face, then attempt to flee the scene, he still shouldn't shoot a fleeing felon?
Click to expand...
This is a totally different situation now, isn't it?
 
Goshin said:
I'm not talking about shooting some stupid kid who runs away when the cops catch him selling weed behind the bowling alley. I'm talking about cases where a suspect is believed to have committed serious violent crimes, and where his continued freedom is an ongoing threat to the community.
Click to expand...
Law Enforcement spots the person they suspect of killing 5 people, behind the bowling ally.
This suspect fits the description.
The suspect flees and the LEO opens fire, killing the suspect.
Turns out it wasn't actually who they were looking for but some kid who ran because he had a small amount of mj on their person.

Alternative.

Law Enforcement spots the person they suspect of killing 5 people, behind the bowling ally.
It is the person that evidence points to having committed the crimes.
The person flees and the LEO shoots and kills him.
Turns out that the evidence was not accurate and an innocent person was killed.​

The determination of what evidence is, or isn't, as well as guilt or innocence, should be left to the Courts.

As far as I am concerned, just being suspected is not a good enough reason to shoot for fleeing, unless they are an immediate threat.
 
How about this:

Cops spots serial killer suspect. SKS runs away, cop does not fire. SKS escapes, and goes on to kill five more innocent people.

That's what we were looking at a couple months ago. Everyone was on edge, everyone knew that you'd better not run from the police during this crisis and that you'd better not startle a homeowner or businessman either.
 
Goshin said:
How about this:

Cops spots serial killer suspect. SKS runs away, cop does not fire. SKS escapes, and goes on to kill five more innocent people.
Click to expand...
Doesn't work for me because it assumes the 'suspect' actually did the killing.
 
Jerry said:
Just pull over and stop.
Click to expand...

The "Just pull over and stop" suggestion is a very standard and very appropriate suggestion but that is what the suspects should do. The issue at hand that we are discussingis not what the suspects should do but what the police should do. It's a question of when is it apropriate to use deadly force.

Yet your suggestion to the suspects is still good even though missplaced.
 
Last edited:
galenrox said:
Dude, it's the city of Chicago, there are people everywhere, police firing at moving vehicles in guaranteed to eventually take out people who aren't involved in the crime.
Click to expand...

Isn't what you say true in any cittyof town for that matter that ramdom shoooting by anyone can take out inocents as well as those who deseve to die.
 
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...
I don't know, devil's advocate here, but I have always wanted to test my driving skills in a situation like being chased by police, kind of like what Jesse James did on his new show, even though I'm legal I'd love to see how long I could hold off, or if I could get away.
 
galenrox said:
Yes, police should not be randomly shooting in populated areas (really, they shouldn't be randomly shooting anywhere). The irresponsibility involved increases with the rate of population, so shooting randomly at a moving car in a place where there are 20,000 people living per square mile is just about as bad as it gets.
Click to expand...


"Shooting randomly" presupposes that bullets are being sprayed around indiscriminately. I'm not going to say it never happens, but there is this esoteric concept known as aimed fire. They actually teach this at police academies, you know: the idea of hitting what you're aiming at, and of not shooting if bystanders are in the line of fire.

I'm not saying there isn't some risk; I'm just saying the risk is being overstated.
 
galenrox said:
You don't have to be a bad shot for a shot at a moving car to be considered "random". It would take a world class shot who had aimed very carefully for such a shot to be considered genuinely deliberate.
Click to expand...

I would have to disagree. I can hit moving targets consistently, and I'm definately not "world class".

At lot of it depends on conditions. If the vehicle is moving directly away from you, it is far easier than if it is moving lateral to your position. Hitting a target whose movement is across your field of fire and rapid, requires proper lead, which is tricky and takes considerable practice...hitting one moving directly away from you (or very close to "directly away") is not that much harder than a stationary target.

Weapon makes a difference. I've engaged living moving "targets" with a handgun; I would have preferred a rifle or shotgun but sometimes you make do with what is on hand.

Perps frequently shoot back at you as they are running away. Sometimes they do this running sort of sideways; or running backwards, or even shooting blind over their shoulder. If I can drop him without any bystanders in the line of fire, should I not do so? He is, after all, the one endangering the public since he IS "spraying bullets everywhere."

Almost anytime the police engage any perp with gunfire, there is some risk to bystanders. This is why you train to shoot straight and to be aware of who is in your line of fire.

Again, I'm just saying that the risks to bystanders are being overstated a bit by some.
 
Shooting at a fleeing suspect implies that the suspect is automatically guilty under the law, therefore the shooting is justified. Here in the United States, guilt or innocence isn't determined by the police. It's determined in a court of law. Police should not be allowed to shoot at fleeing suspects.
 
galenrox said:
Yes, police should not be randomly shooting in populated areas (really, they shouldn't be randomly shooting anywhere). The irresponsibility involved increases with the rate of population, so shooting randomly at a moving car in a place where there are 20,000 people living per square mile is just about as bad as it gets.
Click to expand...

The message you then send the criminal, is that he can use civilians as human shields and there's nothing you're going to do about it. Ultimately, you've provided him with one more chance to continue to be a criminal and the deterrance no longer exists.
 
Singularity said:
Shooting at a fleeing suspect implies that the suspect is automatically guilty under the law, therefore the shooting is justified. Here in the United States, guilt or innocence isn't determined by the police. It's determined in a court of law. Police should not be allowed to shoot at fleeing suspects.
Click to expand...

If they don't run, they won't get shot. Problem solved!:2wave:
 
apdst said:
If they don't run, they won't get shot. Problem solved!:2wave:
Click to expand...

Again, it isn't up to the police to determine guilt or innocence. If the police are authorized to shoot at someone suspected to be guilty, then we are authorizing our police to be judge, jury, and executioners. No thanks.
 
Singularity said:
Again, it isn't up to the police to determine guilt or innocence. If the police are authorized to shoot at someone suspected to be guilty, then we are authorizing our police to be judge, jury, and executioners. No thanks.
Click to expand...

Not quite.

We are authorizing police that IF
1. there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a serious violent felony
2. the suspect is attempting to flee
3. there is no other viable alternative allowing for stopping the suspect except the use of lethal force...and
4. there is probable cause to believe the suspects' escape would put the community at substantial risk...

THEN and only then may they fire, IF they have a clear shot without endangering bystanders.

When fired on, the perp may cease movement and surrender. The perp may be hit and only wounded, and live to stand trial.

"Judge jury and executioner" is an overstatement.
 
Singularity said:
Again, it isn't up to the police to determine guilt or innocence. If the police are authorized to shoot at someone suspected to be guilty, then we are authorizing our police to be judge, jury, and executioners. No thanks.
Click to expand...

If the subject attempts to murder/death/kill/injure/harm/maim an officer, then the question of guilt has been answered.

But, again, if you're innocent, you have no reason to run. Simple as that.

I've never run from the cops and it's worked out great everytime.
 
Singularity said:
Again, it isn't up to the police to determine guilt or innocence. If the police are authorized to shoot at someone suspected to be guilty, then we are authorizing our police to be judge, jury, and executioners. No thanks.
Click to expand...
The future of law enforcement
I am the law! Put down your weapons and prepare to be judged.
Click to expand...
dreddss.jpg

​
 
apdst said:
But, again, if you're innocent, you have no reason to run. Simple as that.

I've never run from the cops and it's worked out great everytime.
Click to expand...


Hey, there's something to be said for that attitude right there. :mrgreen:


Chris Rock said, in "How to Not Get Your *** Beat by the Police" (hilarious video btw), "Dont' run from the police...cuz if you make them chase you, they're bringing an ***-whoopin' with 'em!"
 
Ya know, not running from the cops could be a great way to tell the good guys from the bad guys. Bad guys run, get shot. Good guys stand still and cooperate. I mean, I don't understand what's so hard about that.


Goshin said:
Hey, there's something to be said for that attitude right there. :mrgreen:


Chris Rock said, in "How to Not Get Your *** Beat by the Police" (hilarious video btw), "Dont' run from the police...cuz if you make them chase you, they're bringing an ***-whoopin' with 'em!"
Click to expand...


Kinda like when Sinbad did a bit about the Rodney King beat down.

"'If I'da been Rodney, I'da...', you'da been on the ground gittin yo butt kicked"...LOL!!!!
 
apdst said:
If the subject attempts to murder/death/kill/injure/harm/maim an officer, then the question of guilt has been answered.
Click to expand...

Police officers are certainly allowed to defend themselves, but shooting at a fleeing suspect that is not shooting at an officer should not be allowed. We aren't talking about some dude firing his shotgun at the police attempting to get away. Few people if any would disagree with the police officer defending himself in such a case. What we are talking about is the police officer shooting at a suspect who is not firing back.

Nuh-uh. I'll pass on that.

apdst said:
But, again, if you're innocent, you have no reason to run. Simple as that.

I've never run from the cops and it's worked out great everytime.
Click to expand...

Congrats! But that still doesn't change the fact that police shouldn't be judge, jury, and executioner. In our country, you are innocent until proven guilty, and running from the police does not determine guilt or innocence. Guilt or innocence is determined in a court of law. There it should remain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom