Do not drive through New Mexico :O

[cubby1223]

Fail all around.

Biggest fail is definitely that trigger-happy cop. He should be stripped of all rights to own a firearm, and blacklisted from every being in any position of power ever again.

Because he is a black officer?

 

[ViperXX]

Why anyone would want to venture into the epic cesspool that lies south of the Rio is beyond me.

Ignorant dumbass, New Mexico is the 47th state.

 

[Linux23]

is it just me or would anyone else break mamma off a piece?

 

[who?]

Why anyone would want to venture into the epic cesspool that lies south of the Rio is beyond me.

This part of New Mexico, the forty seventh of the fifty United States of America is probably EAST of the Rio Grande and is definitely NOT south of it. The Rio Grande is a north south river that divides New Mexico.

 

[who?]

And did you notice the scary looking uniforms the NM state troopers wear? I'm amazed there aren't a lot of stories about NM state troopers getting run over at night.

 

[Paul98]

The police officer clearly knows what she looks like, and clearly has the licenses plate number of the car. They should have just let them go instead of this insane shit that these dumb ass cops feel they need to do to show how stupid they are.

I would bet she would have turned her self in and payed for the ticket given the chance.

There was NO good reason that the cops should have reacted even remotely how it did.

 

[SolMiester]

you seem like a self proclaimed expert on this matter. tell us, how would you have handled this unruly driver.

Could of stuffed a cloth up the exhaust to prevent her starting the car and driving off for a start....or just removed the car keys!...

 

[MtnMan]

If you get stopped for speed, and you actually were speeding, let the cop hand you the ticket, say 'have a good' day, and then drive off.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes and time in a cell. She earned them.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Why am I not surprised the usual far-right authoritarians are all here saying it isn't a big deal? I'm shocked, I really am.

Never realized disobeying a police office gives them the legal reason to shoot at you....perhaps y'all watch too many movies?

 

[who?]

I wonder if the cops learned this behavior working roadblocks in Iraq.

 

[feralkid]

I like New Mexico. Agree though that it is one giant speed trap. They also have cameras that take your speed and send you tickets in the mail and drones that fly around and estimate your speed and it can send you a ticket as well. Horrible place to drive through but it's beautiful out there.

Yes, it's quite beautiful to drive through, and the Interstate speed limit is 75 mph. What's the problem?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Yes, it's quite beautiful to drive through, and the Interstate speed limit is 75 mph. What's the problem?

The NM state police normally allow 5 mph over the speed limit before they issue a ticket. So how fast was this van going to get pulled over? 85 mph? 90 mph? Doesn't sound like the driver cared about the safety of the people in the car. Just imagine a blow out at 85-90 mph in that van.

 

[feralkid]

The NM state police normally allow 5 mph over the speed limit before they issue a ticket. So how fast was this van going to get pulled over? 85 mph? 90 mph? Doesn't sound like the driver cared about the safety of the people in the car. Just imagine a blow out at 85-90 mph in that van.

Agreed; I was just responding to Oilfield's post about speed traps.

 

[who?]

She was pulled over for going 71 in a 55 zone on a two way highway south of Taos, not on the interstate.

 

[Tom]

Why am I not surprised the usual far-right authoritarians are all here saying it isn't a big deal? I'm shocked, I really am.

Never realized disobeying a police office gives them the legal reason to shoot at you....perhaps y'all watch too many movies?

More happened than disobeying an officer.

And how do you know a person was shot at ?

 

[HumblePie]

Didn't realize this is the duplicate thread that is going on in the Off topic section.

I'll post here what I posted there. The shooting was justified. The cop pulls over a lady for speeding. Asks her to turn off the vehicle. She speeds off because she doesn't want the cop to find her weed stash and weed pipes.

Cop catches up and drags her out of the car. Asks her to stand in plain view while he runs some checks on her. She refuses and runs back into the car. Which is fleeing twice. Cop tries to hold her, but teenage son jumps out of car to assault cop. That's committing a violent felony right there on the cop. First cop pulls out taser and tries to stop the son. He runs around to other side of van, hops in, and locks the door. Cop tries to break window to attempt to get the door open. While doing so the mother speeds away again.

Second cop that arrived on scene moments before to witness the first cop get assaulted sees the assault and the family speeding away in the van. Shoots out the tires.

Why this is legal?

1) The family committed a violent felony when they assaulted the cop. The family showed they were willing to use violence to avoid being arrested. At this point the cops have no idea how much more violence the family is willing to use to avoid further detention.

2) The woman was driving off to cause a potentially dangerous high speed chase which could endanger the lives of the police as well as the public. Again with point 1, they already demonstrated a propensity to use violence to avoid arrest.

3) The cops have no idea if they are also armed at this point

4) The cop ONLY shot at the tires to prevent a high speed chase. This can be seen in the video as the back left tire is flat when the cops catch them.

5) The law clearly states that police can use up to deadly force to stop a fleeing criminal if they pose a danger to the cops or the public while they are fleeing. If the woman had ran alone on foot and unarmed then the cops would not be allowed by law to shoot her with a gun. But since she sped away in a potentially dangerous car after showing that those with her will attack an officer, the law is quite clear on allowing cops to use up to deadly force to stop them.

6) Even though the cops were legally allowed to use deadly force in this incident, they did not and only shot at the tires as the car tried to speed away. Obviously the cop shooting can hit what he aims at since he hit exactly what he was aiming for, the tires. The cop should be commended for such quick action and reflexes to bring this terrible family to justice without anyone getting hurt.

Anyone that thinks the cops did wrong in this scenario are idiots, dyed in the wool cop haters, or criminals themselves.

 

[Jaskalas]

From OT, this needs to be read:

Using lethal force against an unarmed mother with a minivan full of kids is just sad.

When I was at the MP Academy, my instructors were very clear that unless I was sure I was going to die to never draw my weapon when civilians were around. Our policy was to first maneuver the perps away from any civilians, then take appropriate action.

The woman violated a traffic law and then panicked. At no point did it appear that any police were in danger.

Appropriate action was to call the DMV, get her address, and meet her at her house. That is, a professional would have deescalated the situation.

If a person can't handle a traffic stop with a mother in a minivan without resorting to lethal force, that person shouldn't be part of the police force.

Uno

People panic. It is human nature, and for that we have officers who escalate the situation, who then ultimately decide to fire a gun? I cannot call that acceptable.

The poll in OT is 50/50. It is a disregard for life and rights to support such aggression. Like that poor woman in Washington DC last month. She didn't deserve to die. Yet we have people cheering it on....

 

[HumblePie]

From OT, this needs to be read:


People panic. It is human nature, and for that we have officers who escalate the situation, who then ultimately decide to fire a gun? I cannot call that acceptable.

The poll in OT is 50/50. It is a disregard for life and rights to support such aggression. Like that poor woman in Washington DC last month. She didn't deserve to die. Yet we have people cheering it on....

And unokitty has no clue what he was talking about in that thread. The law is quite clear on when and what levels of force can be used. The cops used the appropriate level of force in that situation. Deal with it.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

More happened than disobeying an officer.

And how do you know a person was shot at ?

You did see the officer shooting right? What gives him the right to shoot at the woman/car/whatever? Cop's aren't always good shots (see all the news articles when people are shot at 30+ times), bullets can richochet, etc....

Just because the woman is an idiot doesn't give the police the free reign to do something wrong as well.

So please explain how a cop is justified using deadly force in this case?

 

[HumblePie]

You did see the officer shooting right? What gives him the right to shoot at the woman/car/whatever? Cop's aren't always good shots (see all the news articles when people are shot at 30+ times), bullets can richochet, etc....

Just because the woman is an idiot doesn't give the police the free reign to do something wrong as well.

So please explain how a cop is justified using deadly force in this case?

Uh, they are given the right because the law gives them the right as interpreted by the Supreme Court?

I posed this question in the other thread. It should simplify things.

Does a person that has already demonstrated a violent felony (assaulting a police officer) pose a potentially dangerous threat to the public if they are driving a car in a high speed chase on a major highway to escape arrest? Answer yes or no.

 

[Smoblikat]

I dont see any reason to charge the son. What would you do if someone was grabbing your mother? That part doesnt make sense to me, the son didnt do anything that requires reprimand.....the dumb mother on the other hand......

 

[Broheim]

I dont see any reason to charge the son. What would you do if someone was grabbing your mother? That part doesnt make sense to me, the son didnt do anything that requires reprimand.....the dumb mother on the other hand......

uhm, so what you're saying is that when we see a police officer detain someone we should assault that officer because that's the only reasonable response?

 

[abaez]

Uh, they are given the right because the law gives them the right as interpreted by the Supreme Court?

I posed this question in the other thread. It should simplify things.

Does a person that has already demonstrated a violent felony (assaulting a police officer) pose a potentially dangerous threat to the public if they are driving a car in a high speed chase on a major highway to escape arrest? Answer yes or no.

You are ridiculous. She wasn't driving a car in a high speed chase, she was driving away from a dead stop. At about 10mph. And that gives reason for the police to shoot? Really? I guess anyone driving away from being pulled over can be shot at... they are "potentially" a dangerous threat.

 

[Broheim]

You are ridiculous. She wasn't driving a car in a high speed chase, she was driving away from a dead stop. At about 10mph. And that gives reason for the police to shoot? Really? I guess anyone driving away from being pulled over can be shot at... they are "potentially" a dangerous threat.

no, they shot at it because the occupants had escalated the situation from traffic violation to assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest.

 

[Geosurface]

Having watched the dashcam video for this earlier today, and rewatching it a couple of times, I see nothing wrong done by any of the officers.

The gunfire was clearly directed at a tire.

If she'd gotten her kids killed by driving in oncoming traffic shortly after that, she'd have been wishing the officer had hit her tire and stopped her dumb ass adventure at that point.