Do not drive through New Mexico :O

[OCGuy]

Cop should be sitting at a desk with only a flashlight for the rest of his career. What an idiot.


The idea that Police need to chase someone who fled from a speeding ticket is from the movies. It is complete BS and endangers innocent people out on the road and on the sidewalks. Opening fire without an imminent threat to life should end his street career.

They would have been home that evening, and a felony evading arrest could have been made at that time.

 

[werepossum]

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.

I thought that initially, but SNC changed my mind.

Just imagine had the lady driven through a red light and into a bus full of kids on their way to a church gathering killing all 35 kids inside and wounding the 6 kids in her van. Was there things wrong here, yep. But if you want to play the "what if" game there are a 1000 outcomes. I would much rather the person responsible for starting the issue get fucked up that an innocent bystander. There is no way to know if the kids in the van were kidnapped, stolen, sold, runaways or what ever. They could have been mules carrying drugs, guns or explosives. There had to be a reason for her to leave while the cop was giving her a ticket, or should it be OK to just leave if you don't feel there was a reason to be stopped?

Had she been just left alone after pulling away the first time and had had a load of explosives she used to blow up a bank because her home was foreclosed on, everyone would be blaming the cop for not chasing her.

The cops in the video look like they could use a bit more training though.

The shooting was stupid - could easily have a ricochet up into the van, striking a child. I suspect that is a result of insufficient information being relayed to the backups. Had the oncoming cruiser simply pulled in ahead of the van instead of at a threatening angle, this would have been avoided as she could not have pulled away the second time.

Either way, I see no reason here to avoid New Mexico.

 

[Geosurface]

This lady had a perfectly good option to continue on about her normal stupidity and her usual business, including keeping her weed and bong or whatever she had.

All she had to do was take the piece of paper from the officer, and continue on her way.

She had another opportunity to at least keep her kids out of any trouble, and just comply with the officer when he pulled her over the second time. She chose a course of action which ended up getting her son in hot water too, and she endangered all of her children's lives.

The cops cannot just allow someone behaving like that to drive away. They've indicated there is good reason to detain them and figure out what's going on.

The officer who fired at her rear tire, and fired in a very careful and deliberate, slow fashion from what I saw, acted correctly.

And I agree with those who have pointed out the hypocrisy of the kneejerk cop-haters who would normally be saying "why didn't they just shoot out her tires?" now crying foul when that's what they did here.

 

[Tom]

Cop should be sitting at a desk with only a flashlight for the rest of his career. What an idiot.


The idea that Police need to chase someone who fled from a speeding ticket is from the movies. It is complete BS and endangers innocent people out on the road and on the sidewalks. Opening fire without an imminent threat to life should end his street career.

They would have been home that evening, and a felony evading arrest could have been made at that time.

There was an imminent threat to life. To the kids in the van and to anyone she might crash into while fleeing.

 

[Tom]

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?

To prevent the woman from killing the kids in the van or anyone else while she flees.

I don't know if the trooper acted properly, I'm sure its being reviewed.

 

[feralkid]

There was an imminent threat to life. To the kids in the van and to anyone she might crash into while fleeing.

"Imminent" does not mean what you think it does.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Honestly if she had drugs in the car or something and that stunt allowed her to dump them maybe it was a smart move on her part.

 

[Eureka]

I think it's funny that people are defending the occupants of the van. When you assault a cop, what happens to you is on you. What kind of person defends fleeing from a speeding ticket and assaulting an officer for pulling someone over?

 

[feralkid]

I think it's funny that people are defending the occupants of the van. When you assault a cop, what happens to you is on you. What kind of person defends fleeing from a speeding ticket and assaulting an officer for pulling someone over?

Yeah, no; they're mostly saying that's incredibly stupid, but it doesn't warrant being shot at.

 

[Eureka]

Yeah, no; they're mostly saying that's incredibly stupid, but it doesn't warrant being shot at.

Cops aren't there to give you a fair fight. There's no reason to assault a cop in a traffic stop and at minimum that deserves a taze. Disabling a vehicle with a gun isn't unreasonable and if they had turned around to drive towards the cop I would expect gunshots through the windshield.

 

[feralkid]

Cops aren't there to give you a fair fight. There's no reason to assault a cop in a traffic stop and at minimum that deserves a taze. Disabling a vehicle with a gun isn't unreasonable and if they had turned around to drive towards the cop I would expect gunshots through the windshield.

Right...
Using a gun to disable a vehicle with children on board is reasonable.

Somehow I don't think that's Department policy.

Woah, Daddy!

 

[Svnla]

I will put this (from OT) here = http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35758111&postcount=159


Lawyers and cops (current and retired) always told me that a person should NEVER NEVER EVER run away from the cops and make sudden move toward them in an aggressive manner.

 

[HumblePie]

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.

When you speed off from a cop two times in a row, and especially after committing a violent felony of assaulting a police officer, you are showing yourself as willing to do anything, even the use of violence, to avoid arrest. When you speed off, the cops can only come to one conclusion. That you will do whatever is needed to avoid arrest and in doing so would present a potential threat to the public and officers. The law is quite clear on this. Cops may use up to deadly force in this situation to stop a person in this scenario.

But the officers didn't use lethal force. They used the appropriate level of force and shot the tires out to prevent a potential high speed chase scenario that would endanger more lives, including the lives of those two children in the van you have a bleeding heart for.

 

[Tom]

"Imminent" does not mean what you think it does.

Yes it does. Maybe you don't know what "threat" means.

A threat is potential, doesn't require an actual crash.

As soon as she fled she represented an imminent threat to safety of the van's occupants and anyone she might crash into while fleeing.

 

[feralkid]

Yes it does. Maybe you don't know what "threat" means.

A threat is potential, doesn't require an actual crash.

As soon as she fled she represented an imminent threat to safety of the van's occupants and anyone she might crash into while fleeing.

No.

That would be "potential", not "imminent".

Ask an attorney if you are still confused.

 

[HumblePie]

No.

That would be "potential", not "imminent".

Ask an attorney if you are still confused.

Her driving off shows an imminent threat.

Here is the difference.

If she was a known violent criminal previous and the cop knew that before approaching the car while she was initially detained, she would be posing a "potential" threat. Meaning she has the potential for violence as demonstrated by her past, but is currently not actively doing any actions would could be construed as an imminent threat to others.

So when her family assaulted the officer and sped off previously, they showed their potential for more violence and endangerment to others. The moment she speeds off again shows an action for imminent threat to others. It is that "action" in the making that causes something to go from potential to imminent. And yes speeding off after immediately assaulting an officer is posing an imminent threat.

 

[unokitty]

How many police does it take to give a ticket to a mother in a mini-van full of kids?

Is it appropriate for police to employ deadly force against a mother in a mini-van that was driving away from them?

No one is defending the mother. The issue here is the inability of the police to control the situation and the inappropriate use of deadly force.

The reality is that, despite her actions, if the lady can afford a good enough lawyer, he will bring a psychologist into court that will testify that the lady has an 'anxiety disorder' ... and, with enough money, the case will get plea bargained down to a traffic ticket with perhaps some rehab time for the mother.

Obviously, the lady behaved inappropriately. But do you really want police to be authorized to employ deadly force whenever someone behaves inappropriately?

The fact is that if you can't handle giving a ticket an anxious mother in a mini-van, you shouldn't be on the police force.

Uno

 

[HumblePie]

How many police does it take to give a ticket to a mother in a mini-van full of kids? One, but nice strawman as in the incident shown in the video and discussed in this thread it was only 1 officer attempting to give a ticket. It took more officers to maintain protection for the public and themselves once the minivan of idiots drove off when the officer tried to radio in for a K9 unit to come and sniff the car after he smelled weed in there.

Is it appropriate for police to employ deadly force against a mother in a mini-van that was driving away from them? After they assaulted an officer and already fled from police already in an attempt to prevent a K9 unit from detecting weed in their vehicle? Yes it is. But nice strawman again in attempting to change the scenario to something you want versus what actually happened

No one is defending the mother. The issue here is the inability of the police to control the situation and the inappropriate use of deadly force. Police were in complete control. The original lone officer approached the mini-van to issue a ticket because the lady was speeding by doing a 71 in a 55. The officer detected a smell of weed from the vehicle. This by law is enough for probable cause to allow an officer to call in for a K9 unit to verify the presence of contraband materials. Woman drives off. Police catches up and for some reason the woman stops again. While attempting to detain the woman away from the car so that she would not drive off yet again, the officer was assaulted as the family attempts to flee again. Other officers move to intercept to protect the public from the actions of now known violent criminals. The officers use an appropriate level of force to prevent the family from doing a high speed chase and endangering the lives are far more than are currently being endangered.

The reality is that, despite her actions, if the lady can afford a good enough lawyer, he will bring a psychologist into court that will testify that the lady has an 'anxiety disorder' ... and, with enough money, the case will get plea bargained down to a traffic ticket with perhaps some rehab time for the mother. you are clueless and have no idea how bad the hammer is going to be nailed to those idiots.

Obviously, the lady behaved inappropriately. But do you really want police to be authorized to employ deadly force whenever someone behaves inappropriately? Yes. The police acted appropriately and lawfully.

The fact is that if you can't handle giving a ticket an anxious mother in a mini-van, you shouldn't be on the police force. the fact is you are all about only using strawman scenarios to defend your arguments and can't deal with what actually happened.

Uno

Responses in bold.

 

[OCGuy]

I think it's funny that people are defending the occupants of the van. When you assault a cop, what happens to you is on you. What kind of person defends fleeing from a speeding ticket and assaulting an officer for pulling someone over?

Why are you stuck on the idiots in the van? The worry is public safety during chases, and especially breaking every rule you learn when you first take a gun safety course.

The problem is that it could put me in danger, when it is completely unnecessary.

There was zero chance that the person wouldn't be identified, and they will be free on bail anyway until trial or plea bargain..........what is the difference when the booking takes place?

Rich people who commit much more serious crimes schedule appointments for their bookings...nobody is kicking down their door.

"Disobeying orders" does not give a police officer sudden judge, jury, and executioner powers last time I checked. An officer's pride being hurt temporarily shouldn't be this big of an issue.

 

[Tom]

No.

That would be "potential", not "imminent".

Ask an attorney if you are still confused.

No, potential is why it's a threat instead of an actual act. Imminent is when it could happen, not the likelihood it will happen.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Part of the problem is we have really militarized out police departments. As everyone points out a soldiers cannot do a cop's job and I believe a cop cannot and should not do a soldiers job.

 

[Eureka]

Why are you stuck on the idiots in the van? The worry is public safety during chases, and especially breaking every rule you learn when you first take a gun safety course.

The problem is that it could put me in danger, when it is completely unnecessary.

There was zero chance that the person wouldn't be identified, and they will be free on bail anyway until trial or plea bargain..........what is the difference when the booking takes place?

Rich people who commit much more serious crimes schedule appointments for their bookings...nobody is kicking down their door.

"Disobeying orders" does not give a police officer sudden judge, jury, and executioner powers last time I checked. An officer's pride being hurt temporarily shouldn't be this big of an issue.

Because it's not disobeying orders, it's assault. If they're daring enough to attack a cop for a traffic stop, they may be daring enough to kill him and/or anyone else.

The moment you threaten someone is the moment you step across the line and it is now in their right to escalate. Same reason that we have stand your ground laws and castle doctrine. Cop not only has a right to defend himself but also a duty to apprehend them.

 

[OCGuy]

Because it's not disobeying orders, it's assault. If they're daring enough to attack a cop for a traffic stop, they may be daring enough to kill him and/or anyone else.

The moment you threaten someone is the moment you step across the line and it is now in their right to escalate. Same reason that we have stand your ground laws and castle doctrine. Cop not only has a right to defend himself but also a duty to apprehend them.

Huh? You know nothing about self-defense law if you think anything in your post is true.


They started breaking off chases here in CA if it became too dangerous to the public to continue.

Cops don't have a "duty" to do anything other than investigate crime, they don't have to stop crime in progress. AG Holder and the ATFE are in hot water for not only watching felony gun purchases and exportation go down, but for actually facilitating it in "Fast and Furious."

 

[HomerJS]

Just saw the entire video. Woman panicked because cops forced her to make decision on the ticket. Why not just issue ticket and she can mail in her response later? Being from out of town she did not want to make that kind of decision on the spot.

No excuse firing bullets into a car of kids over this kind of speeding ticket.

Cops completely bungled this.

 

[Perknose]

No, potential is why it's a threat instead of an actual act. Imminent is when it could happen, not the likelihood it will happen.

You simply don't understand the connotative meaning in "imminent," and how it is posited in legal terms.

The danger HAS TO BE LIKELY for a threat to be legally classified as "imminent," contrary to the distinction you attempt to make; said threat's likelihood underscored by the denotative meaning of imminent as "soon," which is the only meaning you seem to understand.

If you are in imminent danger, YOU ARE IN DANGER.

Imminent danger is an immediate threat of harm, which varies depending on the context in which it is used. For example, one state statute defines imminent danger in relation to mines as "the existence of any condition or practice in a mine which could reasonably be expected to cause death or serious physical harm to any worker if mine operations were to proceed in the affected area (You see? HIGHLY LIKELY!!!) or if workers were to enter the affected area before the condition or practice was eliminated."