Do not drive through New Mexico :O

[unokitty]

... The police acted appropriately and lawfully. ..

LOL

Supreme Court in Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may use deadly force only to prevent escape if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

If are welcome to your opinion.

But unlike the opinion of the Supreme Court, your opinion is not the law of the land.

Uno

 

[werepossum]

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.

She panicked because she had to make a decision on a speeding ticket? LOL Well, that's completely different. Obviously someone who cannot make a decision on a speeding ticket is perfectly suited to drive two tons of steel along public roads at high speed.

I totally agree with you over firing at the tires, but it wasn't over a speeding ticket, it was over fleeing from the cops. Cops are just like any other predator - if you run, they will chase you down and treat you like prey. If you fight, they will fight back. On the other hand, if you use a bit of respect and enough common sense to qualify as a rational adult, they will protect you from other predators. This principle is why man domesticated the wolf for protection and not, say, the sheep.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Now that is a screwed up analogy.

 

[SNC]

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.

If the cop fired on the van for the reason you stated above I would tend to agree with you.
The problem with your take on it completely ignores that fact that she fled not once but twice, her son attacked the officer, and a host of other things, but that doesn't matter to you right. If a gang member who just robbed a home and took the kids as hostages was pulled over because she didn't use a turn signal, you would be ok with her doing the exact same thing this woman did? How, please tell me, HOW is the officer to know that she is just a scared little old lady on her way to church, and he should just let her go on her way, HOW?

 

[spacejamz]

Thanks for the tip OP!!!! Those crazy old ladies with uncontrollable kids in the back running from the cops are a nuisance that the public shouldn't have to deal with...

 

[Paul98]

If the cop fired on the van for the reason you stated above I would tend to agree with you.
The problem with your take on it completely ignores that fact that she fled not once but twice, her son attacked the officer, and a host of other things, but that doesn't matter to you right. If a gang member who just robbed a home and took the kids as hostages was pulled over because she didn't use a turn signal, you would be ok with her doing the exact same thing this woman did? How, please tell me, HOW is the officer to know that she is just a scared little old lady on her way to church, and he should just let her go on her way, HOW?

And I hope the cop doesn't only get fired but hung in public for it.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Now it makes sense why she didn't wait the first time she was pulled over.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...after-traffic-stop-scuffle-in-new-mexico?lite

Ferrell was also charged with possession of drug paraphernalia, the newspaper reported. Ferrell, from Memphis, Tenn., has prior arrests for driving while intoxicated, and two apparent marijuana pipes were found at the time of the arrest, the paper said.

I suspect that nothing will happen to the officer that attempted to shoot out a tire.

 

[Tom]

LOL

Supreme Court in Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may use deadly force only to prevent escape if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

If are welcome to your opinion.

But unlike the opinion of the Supreme Court, your opinion is not the law of the land.

Uno

Fleeing the police in a motor vehicle can provide a significant threat to others. And it isn't established the officer used deadly force.

Your opinion they acted improperly is just an opinion too.

 

[ThinClient]

Fleeing the police in a motor vehicle can provide a significant threat to others. And it isn't established the officer used deadly force.

Your opinion they acted improperly is just an opinion too.

Deadly force is defined as firing your service weapon.

Driving away from an officer does not require the driver to swerve and speed and drive into oncoming traffic. This whole "THEY'RE DRIVING AWAY, SHOOT THEM!" knee-jerk reaction is nothing but a cop-out. (see what I did there)

 

[LostPassword]

meh. ladys fault. driving away was stupid.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

meh. ladys fault. driving away was stupid.

This post was stupid. Can we use deadly force on it?


People are stupid. Like it or not, people will make bad decisions, and someone who is paid to carry a gun and "protect and serve" should be held to a higher standard than this.

I get it, he shot at the tire, I understand why he made the choice - but it was a stupid, dangerous one.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Had the police officer shot and killed the driver many in the thread about would be going on and on and on as to why the officer didn't try to shoot out the car's tires instead. Just like they did in another thread in this forum

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Had the police officer shot and killed the driver many in the thread about would be going on and on and on as to why the officer didn't try to shoot out the car's tires instead. Just like they did in another thread in this forum

He shouldn't have shot at a car with innocent civilians in it.


I know, traffic stops are just a huge problem in america, and they absolutely have to make sure to give her that ticket for 16 over.... But it is not acceptable to use deadly force in this sort of situation unless they're the only person in the car.


It's not worth the death of an innocent person just so a cop can "get revenge" on her for pulling away at a traffic stop.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

He shouldn't have shot at a car with innocent civilians in it.


I know, traffic stops are just a huge problem in america, and they absolutely have to make sure to give her that ticket for 16 over.... But it is not acceptable to use deadly force in this sort of situation unless they're the only person in the car.


It's not worth the death of an innocent person just so a cop can "get revenge" on her for pulling away at a traffic stop.

How did the officer know that there were only innocent kids in the car? He did know that the driver had already ran from the initial stop and was fleeing yet again. As well as one occupant in the car had tried to assault an officer.

 

[HumblePie]

Deadly force is defined as firing your service weapon.

Driving away from an officer does not require the driver to swerve and speed and drive into oncoming traffic. This whole "THEY'RE DRIVING AWAY, SHOOT THEM!" knee-jerk reaction is nothing but a cop-out. (see what I did there)

Two wrongs. Firing the gun s not using deadly force unless the intent is to hit a person. The officer was shooting at the tires. Deadly force was not the intent to stop the vehicle. This deadly force was NOT used by legal standards.

The other wrong is that while speeding away the person in the car presents a threat to those on the highway by setting up a chase scenario. Their willingness to use violence by assaulting the officer moments ago is what gives police probable cause to assume the suspects are willing to use more violence to avoid arrest. Thus their speeding away actually presents a greater scenario for threat to others. If the teenage son had not assaulted the officer the scenario would have been slightly different.

 

[HumblePie]

LOL

Supreme Court in Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may use deadly force only to prevent escape if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

If are welcome to your opinion.

But unlike the opinion of the Supreme Court, your opinion is not the law of the land.

Uno

Unlike the Supreme Court, you have a problem understanding that decision and how it applies to this scenario. The family was presenting a significant threat of death and physical injury to the officers and other motorists on the highway by fleeing twice in a moving vehicle and showing they have the propensity for violence by already assaulting a police officer.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

How did the officer know that there were only innocent kids in the car? He did know that the driver had already ran from the initial stop and was fleeing yet again. As well as one occupant in the car had tried to assault an officer.

He walked up to the car and spoke with the women. If he didn't notice that the van was full of kids then he shouldn't be a cop.

And if his trigger happy buddy didn't know who was in the van then he shouldn't have just unloaded bullets into it.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

He walked up to the car and spoke with the women. If he didn't notice that the van was full of kids then he shouldn't be a cop.

And if his trigger happy buddy didn't know who was in the van then he shouldn't have just unloaded bullets into it.

The police officer that fired was not privy to that information. My bet he will not be fired much less reprimanded for his actions.

 

[HumblePie]

He walked up to the car and spoke with the women. If he didn't notice that the van was full of kids then he shouldn't be a cop.

And if his trigger happy buddy didn't know who was in the van then he shouldn't have just unloaded bullets into it.

The second cop didn't unload bullets into the van. Stop creating hyperbole. He shot out a tire. I'll reiterate again, the family showed a willingness for violence by already assaulting one officer and fleeing away to present a high speed chase. Such actions show they are willing to harm others to resist arrest. The law is quite clear on allowing officers to use up to deadly force to stop them. The fact is that deadly force was not used since the officer only shot out the back left tire.

 

[ThinClient]

The second cop didn't unload bullets into the van. Stop creating hyperbole. He shot out a tire. I'll reiterate again, the family showed a willingness for violence by already assaulting one officer and fleeing away to present a high speed chase. Such actions show they are willing to harm others to resist arrest. The law is quite clear on allowing officers to use up to deadly force to stop them. The fact is that deadly force was not used since the officer only shot out the back left tire.

Right, because shooting a tire out from a vehicle that's FULL OF CHILDREN certainly won't make it harder for the driver to control the vehicle or anything.

Shit, shooting the tire is significantly ENDANGERING CHILDREN.

The cop should be fired and prosecuted.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Right, because shooting a tire out from a vehicle that's FULL OF CHILDREN certainly won't make it harder for the driver to control the vehicle or anything.

Shit, shooting the tire is significantly ENDANGERING CHILDREN.

The cop should be fired and prosecuted.

So the mother that was trying to flee was not endangering the children?

 

[HumblePie]

Right, because shooting a tire out from a vehicle that's FULL OF CHILDREN certainly won't make it harder for the driver to control the vehicle or anything.

Shit, shooting the tire is significantly ENDANGERING CHILDREN.

The cop should be fired and prosecuted.

OMG the children!!! think of the children of a violent criminal who is the one endangering their own children by using them as a hostage shield. Nevermind that this criminal would be endangering far more lives if she had been allowed to flee with a high speed chase.

 

[ThinClient]

OMG the children!!! think of the children of a violent criminal who is the one endangering their own children by using them as a hostage shield. Nevermind that this criminal would be endangering far more lives if she had been allowed to flee with a high speed chase.

That is no excuse to choose to be responsible for the deaths or injuries of children by firing unnecessarily at the van and letting chance decide. It would be more prudent, especially for a trained law enforcement officer, to let the driver retain control of the vehicle and simply chase them.

 

[unokitty]

Unlike the Supreme Court, you have a problem understanding that decision and how it applies to this scenario. The family was presenting a significant threat of death and physical injury to the officers and other motorists on the highway by fleeing twice in a moving vehicle and showing they have the propensity for violence by already assaulting a police officer.

John Eterno, a professor of criminal justice at the private Molloy University in New York and a former New York City police captain who trained officers on use of force, questioned Montoya’s use of his handgun...

“Reckless driving is not a reason to start shooting,” Eterno said. “You could have let them go and found them anyway.”

Eterno said it’s clear from the video that DeTavis lost control of the situation during the initial stop, when he walked away from Ferrell’s vehicle and she drove away. The expert said the officer could have taken her car keys or immediately called for backup. He also said DeTavis endangered his life by standing in the highway as he argued with Ferrell.

Eterno and Philip Stinson, a professor of criminal justice at Bowling Green State University in Ohio, cited Tennessee v. Garner, a 1985 U.S. Supreme Court decision that ruled deadly force cannot be used against a fleeing, unarmed driver unless that person poses a threat to the officer or the public at large.

Stinson, a former police officer in New Hampshire and a former criminal defense lawyer, said he doesn’t like to second guess an officer’s decision to use deadly force in life-or-death situations, but he asked, “Where was the threat to officers? I just don’t see it. It’s an inappropriate use of force.”

--link

Supporting the use of deadly force against a mother in a mini-van that is driving away from an officer does not reflect well on the majority of police that are disciplined and professional.

Everyone can watch the video. Everyone can see, as the professors above state ..."its an inappropriate use of force." Repeating your denials doesn't change that fact.

Police are expected to be able to handle traffic stops without the use of deadly force. If they can't, then they shouldn't be on the police force.


Uno

 

[ThinClient]

So the mother that was trying to flee was not endangering the children?

I've driven fast before. I've taken off from red lights quickly where my tires chirped. Am I endangering the lives of those in my car? Not in any rational sense, no. In some sensationalist exaggeration, probably.

Was she driving into oncoming traffic? Was she swerving all over the road or something? Exactly how was she endangering them more than FMJ @ 1200 ft/sec? What if the officer missed and hit a passing motorist who was moving in the opposite direction? Is that worth the risk to take to shoot out a damn tire instead of simply get back in your car and follow her?

Causing the fleeing vehicle to be harder to control is irresponsible. A trained officer should know better. Hell, I'm a dumbass civilian and I know better.