Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 04/28/2025 4:44:23 AM PDT by billorites
A police officer in Johnston, Rhode Island, shot a man who drove a car at him at a gas station late Saturday night.
According to WJAR, the shooting stemmed from an incident around 11:30 p.m,. Saturday, when Johnston police responded to a report of a disturbance at a Shell gas station on Hartford Avenue. A witness called 911 to say that there was an ongoing argument between a man and a woman.
Johnston police said the driver stepped on the gas as the officer approached the car, hitting the officer. The officer then fired multiple rounds at the driver.
The 28-year-old man who was shot was taken to Rhode Island Hospital in Providence and is expected to survive.
"I don't think the cops had any right to shoot him," the man's father, David Peterson said. "I want to see this video. I want to see my son run over a cop because I know my son did not run over a cop. He wouldn't do that."
Peterson said his son has been arrested before, but recently had been doing better.
"He's been working every day. He's been trying his hardest," Peterson said. "It's just not right and not fair what they're doing to him."
The Johnston police officer suffered minor injuries and was also taken to the hospital for treatment.
The shooting is under investigation by Rhode Island State Police and the Rhode Island Attorney General's Office.
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
He a good boy, he dindu nuffin.
CC
Wrong. Who had the deadlier weapon?
The question I ask is: ‘If someone intentionally tried to run me (my body) down or run (my body) off the road - and I pull my pistol and shoot the driver - would the RI DA charge me for a crime?’ In other words, is there one set of laws for cops and another for you and me?
Multiple 124 grain projectiles vs one 4000# guided projectile.
But not enough information to form any reasonable kindof an opinion.
Such a statement by the father makes it easier to understand why the cop was right in shooting his son.
Bingo.
The LEO should just be glad he’s not in Providence.
No after what his bodycam showed, he’d likely be screwed.
Police do not have the right to shoot at a fleeing suspect driving away
They do however have the right to shoot at a fleeing suspect driving away who attempts to run them over.
This being true, there are cases of police officers intentionally making contact with the car as it’s leaving in order to shoot the suspect as he tries to flee.
Thin Line.
Unfortunate.
"I don't think the cops had any right to shoot him," the man's father, David Peterson said. "I want to see this video. I want to see my son run over a cop because I know my son did not run over a cop. He wouldn't do that."
Small wonder the kid turned out as he did. What delusion and denial.
Nobody is going to wait until they are actually run over to take action. The guy deserves what he got. I just hope the cop is protected by the police dept.
An armed driver of a violent crime fleeing can most definitely be shot.
More here....
Supreme Court Rulings on Police Shooting at Fleeing Suspects in Cars
The U.S. Supreme Court has addressed the question of when police may use deadly force-including shooting-against fleeing suspects in vehicles in several key cases. The rulings establish that such force is permissible only under specific, fact-intensive circumstances.
Key Supreme Court Cases:
Tennessee v. Garner (1985)
The Court held that police may not use deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect unless the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
Shooting an unarmed, non-dangerous fleeing suspect is constitutionally unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
Scott v. Harris (2007)
The Court ruled that an officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment by ramming a fleeing suspect’s car during a high-speed chase, given the danger posed to the public.
The ruling emphasized that the officer’s actions must be weighed against the risk to innocent bystanders, and that force may be justified if the suspect’s flight poses a substantial and immediate threat.
Plumhoff v. Rickard (2014)
The Court extended the reasoning in Scott v. Harris, holding that officers who shot at a fleeing driver to end a dangerous car chase did not violate the Fourth Amendment and were entitled to qualified immunity.
The Court found that, where a suspect’s continued flight poses a deadly threat to others, the use of deadly force (including shooting into the car) can be reasonable, especially if the suspect continues to try to escape after other means of stopping the vehicle have failed.
The presence of a passenger in the vehicle does not enhance the fleeing driver’s Fourth Amendment rights.
Mullenix v. Luna (2015)
The Court granted qualified immunity to an officer who shot at a fleeing car, emphasizing that the reasonableness of force depends on the specific facts, such as the threat posed by the suspect, the speed of the chase, and the danger to officers and the public.
The Court stressed that these cases are highly fact-specific and that deadly force is justified only when the fleeing suspect poses a grave threat.
Summary Table
Case Key Holding
Tennessee v. Garner Deadly force only if suspect poses significant threat of death/serious injury
Scott v. Harris Ramming car is reasonable if fleeing suspect endangers public safety
Plumhoff v. Rickard Shooting at fleeing car is reasonable if suspect poses deadly threat; qualified immunity
Mullenix v. Luna Qualified immunity for shooting at fleeing car if suspect poses grave threat
Practical Standard
Police may use deadly force against a fleeing suspect in a vehicle only if the suspect poses an immediate and significant threat of death or serious injury to officers or the public.
Each case is fact-specific; mere flight is not enough-there must be a clear, articulable threat.
Officers are often granted qualified immunity if their actions do not violate clearly established law under the specific circumstances.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court has ruled that police may shoot at fleeing suspects in cars only when the suspect’s actions present a significant and immediate threat to public safety or officers. The use of deadly force in these situations is highly fact-dependent and subject to constitutional limits under the Fourth Amendment.
He couldn’t attack with a pack of cohorts, per usual, so a car had to do.
Relatives always say this, even in the face of hard evidence. Show him the video - then he'll claim it's been doctored.
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.