Skip to comments.
L.A. Officers Kill Suspect as Viewers Watch on TV
TvSpy Shoptalk ^
| 2-25-2004
| Richard Winton and Kevin Pang
Posted on 02/25/2004 7:22:34 AM PST by Hillary's Lovely Legs
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-89 next last
To: coloradan
Do you think a citizen, who saw a car roll SLOWLY towards him, could shoot to kill the driver and expect to be cleared of wrongdoing, because a slowly moving car is a deadly threat that merits deadly force? I suppose it depends on how long the citizen was chasing the driver.
41
posted on
02/25/2004 9:15:58 AM PST
by
1rudeboy
To: Hillary's Lovely Legs
I'm one of the first guys to get after the cops for abuse, but this time, I don't think anything wrong happened. The whole story just glossed over the fact that this guy had just robbed a store with a knife - none of this would have happened if this idiot had not of committed a criminal act. Police do what they got to do - it was a judgement call - you can pick nits if you want, but if you ask me . . . one more bad guy off street.
42
posted on
02/25/2004 9:19:32 AM PST
by
realpatriot71
("But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise . . ." (I Cor. 1:27))
To: Hillary's Lovely Legs
Good police work! They stayed alive and well to take out another criminal in society without any further training or disability time off duty. Good job, Men.
43
posted on
02/25/2004 9:20:32 AM PST
by
B4Ranch
(Nobody can make you feel inferior without your consent.--Eleanor Roosevelt)
To: paul51
Why didn't they just shot him once in the right leg so he couldn't work the accelerator or better still, shoot the steering wheel off the car. Or in the back right pocket, destroying his drivers license. I'm sure he would have stopped immediately rather than risk driving without a license.
You seem to have forgotten the satire tag.
To: coloradan
The standard for deadly threat that merits deadly force sure seems a lot different for these cops than for the rest of us. You know, I hate police abuse an brutality as much as the next guy. The LAPD really makes some questionable calls sometimes. I know, I live here.
But, then I scolled back up to this.
"Killinger, armed with a knife, is suspected of tying up the gas station attendant and stealing $180 from the register, authorities said. Killinger was convicted in 2003 for assault with a deadly weapon, court records show. "
And then, I stop and think. What did the LAPD do? They took a dangerous many off the street and save the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of dollars to deal with this individual.
As much as I hate to admit it ... some people just get what that deserve.
When they are wrong, I call them on it ... but I just can't get upset at the LAPD for this one. Soceity was protected and served here.
To: Dead Corpse
"When in doubt, empty the clip."What? No reload???
46
posted on
02/25/2004 9:43:38 AM PST
by
null and void
(Never use a premonition to end a seance with)
To: 1rudeboy
Do you think a citizen, who saw a car roll SLOWLY towards him, could shoot to kill the driver and expect to be cleared of wrongdoing, because a slowly moving car is a deadly threat that merits deadly force? No. But neither could a citizen chase someone in a high-speed pursuit.
And if the citizen had just taken down someone who had tied someone up, and robbed them ... I sure wouldn't convict them.
To: ArmstedFragg
You seem to have forgotten the satire tagHey, I was SERIOUS!!
48
posted on
02/25/2004 9:45:36 AM PST
by
paul51
To: ArmstedFragg
Very interesting news cast here last night in San Diego. First I watched this scene in LA with the cops shooting this guy. Then the next story was a chase that happened here in San Diego yesterday. The guy wrecked the car and jumped out and ran. One police car tried to hit the guy, barely missing as the guy jumped out of the way. Then another police car lined the guy up, accelerated into him and sent him flying about 10-15 feet. Just very interesting to see both clips played back to back.
To: Ophiucus
"The essential point it that I have had to try to save these guys lives when I worked as a paramedic and now see them roll into my trauma ER. People like you don't comprehend just how much danger is involved in a scene described by this article and how many cops are killed or permanently injured due to 'they don't have to shoot' ordinances that kill cops but make the lefties feel good that cops won't be able to shoot the bad guys."
++Excellent explanation. I suspect that many of us were unaware of just how lethal a slow-moving vehicle can be. Yes, there are cops who do the wrong thing, but my money is on the cops 99.9% of the time, when it comes to a choice between them and the person they are pursuing.
50
posted on
02/25/2004 9:53:54 AM PST
by
trisham
To: coloradan
Do you think a citizen, who saw a car roll SLOWLY towards him, could shoot to kill the driver and expect to be cleared of wrongdoing, because a slowly moving car is a deadly threat that merits deadly force? I don't.Do you enjoy taking things out of context? The police knew that they were pursuing a suspect who had a weapon and who had just committed an armed robbery, and who would probably do just about anything to try to avoid being arrested and eventually end up in prison. That is a bit of a different situation than if a person on the street saw a car slowly back up toward them without any information in regard to the driver of the car or the driver's motive at that particular moment.
To: null and void
Carry a spare, loaded mag! Always.
52
posted on
02/25/2004 10:03:14 AM PST
by
7.62 x 51mm
(Dogs have masters; Cats have staff...)
To: SanDiegoBushMan
I missed the local news this morning, I'll see if it shows up at noon. Weird things happen when adrenaline gets running free during a pursuit. In Oxnard, about ten years ago, there was a guy who shot up the local unemployment office. He was armed with, among other weapons, a medium caliber rifle. One of the officers who pursued him was killed, and when the guy was finally cornered, the officer who took him out forgot all his training and experience and just rushed the guy. In post-incident interviews, the officer said the only thing going through his mind was, "I want him dead". It was an emotion he'd never experienced before, and it was so alien to him that he ultimately couldn't come to terms with it and quit the job.
A little closer to the San Diego experience was an incident I was at in Burbank where an officer requested help. Help showed up loudly and quickly, lead by one officer who slammed on the brakes, bailed out of the car and ran toward the struggle, followed slowly by his car (which he had failed to put in "park"). Fortunately he managed to get to the other officer and the suspect and drag them out of the way before his vehicle got there. It was pretty damn serious at the time, but later about all you could do was laugh.
To: Hillary's Lovely Legs
"Mess with the bull, and you'll get the horns..."
54
posted on
02/25/2004 10:11:41 AM PST
by
CommandoFrank
(If GW is the terrorist's worst nightmare, Kerry is their wet dream...)
To: judgeandjury; Ophiucus; ampat; Lancey Howard; em2vn
That is a bit of a different situation than if a person on the street saw a car slowly back up toward them without any information in regard to the driver of the car or the driver's motive at that particular moment.You're right, it is a different situation. But then again, many people on this thread have told me that it takes but a split second to depress the gas pedal. I have bumped them.
55
posted on
02/25/2004 10:16:09 AM PST
by
coloradan
(Hence, etc.)
To: Stu Cohen
When they are wrong, I call them on it ... but I just can't get upset at the LAPD for this one. Soceity was protected and served here. I'm not shedding a tear for the loss of the perp, but I am concerned about the precedent set. Suppose a cop pulls someone over for speeding, and after pulling over, the driver, nervously, puts the car in reverse instead of neutral for a split second, which means the reverse lights come on and the cop, behind, sees this. Should this become a textbook deadly force situation?
56
posted on
02/25/2004 10:19:10 AM PST
by
coloradan
(Hence, etc.)
To: paul51
Why didn't they just shot him once in the right leg so he couldn't work the accelerator or better still, shoot the steering wheel off the car. you forgot /sarcasm>
To: coloradan
I'm not shedding a tear for the loss of the perp, but I am concerned about the precedent set. Suppose a cop pulls someone over for speeding, and after pulling over, the driver, nervously, puts the car in reverse instead of neutral for a split second, which means the reverse lights come on and the cop, behind, sees this. Should this become a textbook deadly force situation? No, of course not. I am in the rare camp which thinks that the force used was NOT necessary, but was BENEFICIAL to society as a whole.
I see your point about the precident. Actually the local news has been on this like white on rice and it seems that the LAPD is getting it's nads roasted a bit over this. Bratton is even proposing a "new pursuit policy" in response to this.
I think it is having the opposite effect of setting a precident. It may have served a purpose to discourage it from happening again.
I'm just glad it was a guy like this that brought it to light, instead of some nervous speeding soccermom who got 'P' and 'R' mixed up.
To: coloradan
Do you think a citizen, who saw a car roll SLOWLY towards him, could shoot to kill the driver and expect to be cleared of wrongdoing, because a slowly moving car is a deadly threat that merits deadly force? I don't. You have to put yourself in the position of the officers. They are standing behind their car doors with their weapons pointed at the suspect's car. Suddenly the car starts to move towards them. They are sitting ducks if that car suddenly speeds up and smashes into their car, as they will be knocked to the ground and possibly run over by their own vehicles. You don't stop and estimate the speed of the vehicle or do the physics calculations on whether the vehicle has the requisite amount of kinetic force to knock you down and push your vehicle over you. You see the threat and you respond.
The fact that the perp had started moving his vehicle towards the officers was more than sufficient threat for them to use deadly force.
Just put yourself in their position. The car is headed for you, you don't know if he is going to punch the accelerator, all you know is that if you don't respond, you could be seriously injured or killed. The police did exactly what I would have done in that situation. Indeed, they did exactly what YOU would have done in that situation.
59
posted on
02/25/2004 10:28:06 AM PST
by
P-Marlowe
(LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o* &AAGG)
To: Hillary's Lovely Legs; Poohbah; mhking
The rules for how to avoid being shot and killed by police:
1. Don't commit crimes.
2. If you don't follow rule 1, don't run from the cops.
3. If you can't follow rules 1 and 2, don't have a deadly weapon.
4. If you can't follow rules 1, 2, and 3, don't try to use the deadly weapon.
Did I miss any?
60
posted on
02/25/2004 10:29:01 AM PST
by
hchutch
("I never get involved with my own life. It's too much trouble." - Michael Garibaldi)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-89 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson