Cops turn left in front of fleeing rider to stop him... Holy cow.

[Lawman]

It's the stories of these that are not stopped by force that bother me..

 

Trooper Burns wife and family had the right to have him come home last night.

 

http://www.policelink.com/news/20612-trooper-gunned-down-in-east-texas

[Mike]

First note my opinion, above, that the perp bears full responsibility . . . IMHO, once you run, you bear full responsibility for any harm that befalls you.

 

If he had blasted through an intersection, weaved through traffic, or been riding on the wrong side of the road, I could buy that. Here, it's not clear that he was even speeding, though it's quite possible he was.

 

He didn't run into the cop on the other side of the street. The cop pulled in front of him. He certainly didn't do enough to warrant the use of deadly force the Supremes used in deciding Scott v. Harris, and to my eyes based on this limited information -- we don't know how long the chase was going on or what happened up to this point -- this seems barely beyond Garner.

 

First note my opinion, above, that the perp bears full responsibility . . . IMHO, once you run, you bear full responsibility for any harm that befalls you.

 

If he had blasted through an intersection, weaved through traffic, or been riding on the wrong side of the road, I could buy that. Here, it's not clear that he was even speeding, though it's quite possible he was.

 

He didn't run into the cop on the other side of the street. The cop pulled in front of him. He certainly didn't do enough to warrant the use of deadly force the Supremes used in deciding Scott v. Harris, and to my eyes based on this limited information -- we don't know how long the chase was going on or what happened up to this point -- this seems barely beyond Garner.

 

Greg, thanks for the explanation, but if you'll note my earlier comment, I stated that my opinion was in no way based on a legal analysis. Rather, it's based on my personal gut feeling that when you become a runner, you bear full moral responsibility for whatever fate befalls you. Someone who intentionally eludes a traffic stop almost always puts someone else at great risk . . . in almost every instance the cops in pursuit and, very often, innocent folks who happen to be in the path of the perp. I've been down the road of being a cop and while we do--and should--expect them to exercise their best judgment, the simple fact of the matter is that in situations such as this, an officer must often make decisions in a fraction of a second as to how a runner is going to react and what the consequences for all--including other officers and bystanders--may be. Once the legal system gets involved, we all have the benefit of months, and perhaps years, to analyze a decision often made in a second or two.

 

There's an example of the peril--and the difficulty an officer faces in judging that peril--in this video clip. The car behind the cop who took out the biker made a left turn that placed them directly in the path of the perp. Had the officer not forced the runner to slow down and, ultimately to stop (rather abruptly), it seems clear that the biker might have t-boned the turning car, with potentially dire consequences for its innocent occupants. I don't know if the cop was trying to avert that collision and intentionally placed himself at risk for the protection of those people, but it sure seems quite possible. If nothing else, it illustrates just one way in which the runner could have injured or killed an innocent motorist.

 

It's just dandy that John, you and I can go through the events in slow motion, freeze the frames, and try to second guess the actions of everyone involved, but the stark truth is that the moral responsibility for placing others in danger and placing the officer in the position of having to make a split-second life-or-death decision falls squarely on the shoulders of the nitwit who was trying to escape. Absent a clear demonstration of malice on the part of an LEO in this position, my personal judgment stands. When the lights start flashing and you make the decision to roll on the throttle rather than pull over, you've knowingly and intentionally accepted the risk of serious injury or death.

[SeanC]

I see red and blue flashing lights, and I stop. Period.

 

If I'm on the bike, most likely, I could run and get away with it. But that's not who I am.

And so's Michael. And so am I. And so are most people. But that's not the point. The question is, when is lethal force reasonable?

 

So far, I'm with Michael on this one. I just don't think it's reasonable to use police cars as weapons. Is it okay to use squad cars to crash into bicyclists? Pedestrians?

 

Also, ask a motor officer whether he'd be willing to ride his bike into the path of a moving vehicle.... I'm guessing not. It would be unreasonable to the point of insane.

 

Call a chopper. Tighten the radio net. At some point the perp has got to get off the bike. I'm all for the courts throwing the books at convicted felons, but we don't need cowboy cops or Hollywood stunts to bring that about.

[MattS]

Is it okay to use squad cars to crash into bicyclists? Pedestrians?

It's pointless.

 

You can just throw them to the ground with your hands.

[Agent_Orange]

 

It's the stories of these that are not stopped by force that bother me..

 

Trooper Burns wife and family had the right to have him come home last night.

 

I do not get the connection, if any.

Are you saying the LEO's should shoot first so that they can go home?? Cause that is all I can see of your post.

But hey, that is one reason they wouldn't let me become a LEO. And that my friend, is the truth.

[ericfoerster]

Greg, has the ACLU hired you yet?

 

Some folks won't be happy unless we are all getting stoned, watching porno on regular TV, and running from the cops just for the fun of it.

Why have rules?

Let's just continue this slide into the abyss.

 

No wonder our country is slipping into oblivion. Personal accountability is long gone.

[Roadwolf]

Post of the day...

 

Classic.

[Roadwolf]

Greg, has the ACLU hired you yet?

 

Hey Greg,

 

I'd take that as a compliment.

 

Chris "Card-carrying member of the ACLU" Parker

[4wheeldog]

Brings up a thought......Can you belong to both the ACLU and the NRA? How about the Sierra Club.......Where does that fit in? Is anyone cross checking these member lists? Other than Dick Cheney, that is.....

[Mike]

Greg, has the ACLU hired you yet?

 

Some folks won't be happy unless we are all getting stoned, watching porno on regular TV, and running from the cops just for the fun of it.

Why have rules?

Let's just continue this slide into the abyss.

 

No wonder our country is slipping into oblivion. Personal accountability is long gone.

 

Seems to me you're being a bit harsh on ol' Greg. He's not advocating anarchy, just expressing the opinion that the use of deadly force wasn't justified in making the stop.

 

I think most of us agree with the principle that the use of force by an LEO should be proportional to the threat and that deadly force should generally be reserved for those instances where an individual poses the threat of death or great bodily harm to others. The difference of opinion comes in how we view a particular situation. Greg doesn't see the requisite level of danger posed by the biker that would justify using lethal force. You and I apparently both do.

 

My guess, though, is that most of us are in agreement on the fundamental principle.

[ericfoerster]

Sure it's cute, being a card carrying member and all.

 

"We" on the other side get to put up with all the monday morning assessments. We have split seconds to make decisions and more often then not they are correct.

 

I'm still glad my parents raised me with accountability.

 

The cops would not have done enough if the chase continued and result in a fatality accident later.

[David]

No wonder our country is slipping into oblivion. Personal accountability is long gone.

 

Personal accountability applies to someone with the power, too.

[ericfoerster]

Personal accountability applies to someone with the power, too.

 

 

If that were my kid I'd have helped cuff him. How's that for accountability?

[David]

Personal accountability applies to someone with the power, too.

 

 

If that were my kid I'd have helped cuff him. How's that for accountability?

 

That's terrific, Eric. Of course that's about accountability for someone else, not yourself, and that wasn't my point.

 

I get tired of officers who choose a public profession and then whine (with apparently very thin skins) when the public comments. If the public did NOT comment like this from time to time, and the press did NOT publish videos like the post from that South Carolina department, the propensity of people in power and with guns would be to head in what direction? Do you think there would be more or less abuse?

 

Not you specifically, but law enforcement needs to get over the scrutiny or get into another field. It's a dangerous job, but you chose it. And with it comes the scrutiny and lack of gratitude from some quarters. It needs to be dealt with or another field needs to be chosen. There are several dozen fields like that, and there's no need to pull the martyr card.

 

I'm very grateful for most folks in law enforcement, but I've also personally witnessed two cops handcuff a street person to a railing and beat them senseless, just to name one abuse of power. I'll give you a few dozen more if you want.

 

I have no idea if this act here was an abuse of power or not. That doesn't trouble me as much as the attitudes like the one you've touched on.

[Mike]

No wonder our country is slipping into oblivion. Personal accountability is long gone.

 

Personal accountability applies to someone with the power, too.

 

I couldn't agree more. In the various "cop-bashing" ( ) threads that show up here, I sometimes take the role of cop-basher and, at other times, cop-defender. My belief is that LEOs should be held up to a high standard of accountability, but also one that recognizes that they are occasionally faced with having to make split-second decisions based on less than perfect information.

 

Here, I see a cop faced with having to make a decision on whether to use deadly force in a matter of a couple of seconds. If he fails to act, he loses any ability to prevent the runner from maiming or killing others. Since the runner placed himself and the cop in this position, I'm willing to give the cop's decision great deference.

[Husker Red]

Personal accountability applies to someone with the power, too.

 

 

If that were my kid I'd have helped cuff him. How's that for accountability?

Do you still need to cuff them after you've broken their arms and legs with your cruiser? I doubt you'd be so gung ho about loading your kid into the ambulance on his way to the morgue.

 

Unnecessary.

[ericfoerster]

Unnecessary.

 

That's what I think about folks running from the cops.

 

So, down the road this joker causes a non-contact fatality accident, are you still on his side?

 

 

Come on folks...there is blood in the water here. Get the fishing poles out. So far, pretty weak stuff.

[ericfoerster]

I get tired of officers who choose a public profession and then whine (with apparently very thin skins) when the public comments.

 

David, either stop paying taxes and we will go away, or stay off the internet. I can't help you much with this one.

[David]

I get tired of officers who choose a public profession and then whine (with apparently very thin skins) when the public comments.

 

David, either stop paying taxes and we will go away, or stay off the internet. I can't help you much with this one.

 

Eric, you're playing right into the stereotype--overstatement, defensiveness, and martyrdom. That's not what I'm looking for in servants of the public.

[ericfoerster]

Eric, you're playing right into the stereotype--overstatement, defensiveness, and martyrdom. That's not what I'm looking for in servants of the public.

 

 

Thanks David.

 

I'd expect this type of pontification from a consultant.

I'm sure the resulting diatribe will follow.

[ghaverkamp]

"We" on the other side get to put up with all the monday morning assessments. We have split seconds to make decisions and more often then not they are correct.

 

And if they are incorrect but reasonable, there is no violation and officers are protected through qualified immunity. I wouldn't disagree that most -- probably the vast majority, in fact -- decisions made by police are correct. That doesn't mean we let the bad ones go, and it doesn't mean that criticizing the bad decisions is an attack on police in general.

 

The cops would not have done enough if the chase continued and result in a fatality accident later.

 

From a press perspective, that may very well be correct. That's unfortunate. However, the press doesn't trump the Constitution. Use of deadly force must be conditioned on the need to protect others from imminent harm. From what's in the video, I don't see how it's the least bit possible to determine any imminent harm.

[ericfoerster]

Use of deadly force must be conditioned on the need to protect others from imminent harm. From what's in the video, I don't see how it's the least bit possible to determine any imminent harm.

 

I agree

 

Except, the mere fact he is failing to pull over puts others in danger. Other traffic issues are caused from the resulting pursuit.

[David]

Eric, you're playing right into the stereotype--overstatement, defensiveness, and martyrdom. That's not what I'm looking for in servants of the public.

 

 

Thanks David.

 

I'd expect this type of pontification from a consultant.

I'm sure the resulting diatribe will follow.

 

I don't see any way of taking that other than a slam, so I'm going to assume you don't want to have a discussion. That's cool. Here's the pontification I just wrote for a two-day seminar I'm doing tomorrow:

 

You haven’t noticed yet, but there are several little red light points on your chest. And no, it’s not because the neighbor kid is playing with the slide presentation pointer that fell out of your briefcase last night when you stumbled home, finally, after a hard day at work. It’s more that you’re in the cross hairs of one or more people who are watching very carefully how you react in the next few weeks.

 

You’ve crossed a threshold, see, by either managing people for the first time, or trying to do it right for the first time. This is your chance. You’ve experienced a seminal event in your life by entering the “management” room that you’ve only heard of in the past. You’ve criticized the people who have occupied this room without ever knowing what it was really like to be in their shoes.

 

Now you get to find out, and you get to do it better. Are you ready? Have you been paying attention? Do you understand the minuses that will come with the pluses?

 

I can’t remember much about the first time I managed people. Maybe for you it was like my experience, a more gradual transition in that I was managing them in reality long before I was managing them officially, and being promoted was more about recognizing what was already taking place. That’s probably the best way for it to happen.

 

But I probably don’t remember that first time simply because our culture doesn’t value management all that highly. You don’t read about great managers like you read about great athletes, and so we aren’t accustomed to thinking of the entry to management as some sort of anniversary.

 

It is, though, because it changes your life. It may not change your life to the same extent childbirth, marriage, divorce, or death, but it certainly sets a course with all sorts of implications for your life.

 

This is a change, and how you react to it will affect your happiness, relationships, health, and wealth. It will also have a strong impact on the people you manage.

 

You do realize that, right? Twenty years from now, let me sit down with one of your current clients and ask them about you, your impact, and what they learned. Chances are they won’t even be able to dredge a name out of their murky memories. The same is true of your vendors.

 

But let me do that with one of your current employees in twenty years and they’ll remember you for sure. Hopefully it’ll be for the right reasons, and that’s the opportunity that is in front of you.

 

I'd like to think my consulting work is improving the world. At any rate, that's the spirit of the work I do. Sounds like you've had some bad experiences with consultants! Maybe we should start running video on the dashboards of their fancy expensive cars.

[SeanC]

"We" on the other side get to put up with all the monday morning assessments. We have split seconds to make decisions and more often then not they are correct.

Exactly. In other words, doing what "We" pay you to do. You were selected and trained to make difficult decisions, correct decisions, and to make them within the limits and confines of the power and authority "We" have granted you. More often than not you do, and for that I say "thank you."

 

"Our" society may or may not be slipping into the abyss, but if it is, rest assured it's not your fault or the fault of police officers in general. In other words, there was never a time in our history when police departments were authorized to use whatever force necessary to enforce the law, ensure compliance, apprehend criminals, etc. You have ALWAYS had to do so under strict guidelines, one of them being the use of reasonable force.

 

Being a free society, we (and by that I mean the myriad of "We's" that comprise our society) can all debate what does and doesn't constitute "reasonable" force. If you don't want to listen or contribute to it, fine. But if you feel you can't abide whatever decisions come out of that debate, well, you're under no contractual obligations to remain in society's employ.

 

I'm still glad my parents raised me with accountability.

As am I. But it's still not enough, i.e., let's not discard the strict guidelines.

 

The cops would not have done enough if the chase continued and result in a fatality accident later.

Or maybe, had the chase in fact continued, they would have done too much rather than not enough. There are police departments around the country that have come to similar conclusions and adjusted their policies accordingly, so don't be too quick to write off that possibility.

 

I mean, consider the number of fatalities that happen day in and day out from DUIs alone. The police do a pretty good job of catching offenders before they take someone else out, but think of all the many thousands of offenders who aren't caught, or who are only caught after they've killed or injured themselves and others.... You're simply not going to apprehend them all and achieve 100% compliance. No one expects you to. The same applies to those who flee. Some you'll catch and some you won't.

[ghaverkamp]

Here, I see a cop faced with having to make a decision on whether to use deadly force in a matter of a couple of seconds. If he fails to act, he loses any ability to prevent the runner from maiming or killing others. Since the runner placed himself and the cop in this position, I'm willing to give the cop's decision great deference.

 

So, where does that line end? I hate to trot out the slippery slope, but that logic could be applied to virtually any unreasonable seizure. It's not the cop's place to use deadly force because maybe, possibly, somewhere down the road, there might be someone harmed or maimed by the runner. There are laws to deal with that if it happens.

 

What we see in the video is a person on a motorcycle riding in a lane with on traffic ahead of him and a cop pulling in front of him.

 

Does the rider bear some moral responsiblity? Assuming he knew the cops were behind him, sure. Does that absolve the cop of any responsiblity, moral or otherwise? I hardly see how. If he got out of his car and shot the rider as he went by, I doubt there'd be any discussion.

 

(When I first got Steve's old Sprint ST, I has a sheriff's deputy track me for almost a mile -- at least, that's what he told me -- before I realized he was behind me. Couldn't see anything but elbow in those mirrors.)

[ericfoerster]

Post deleted by ericfoerster

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

The question is, when is lethal force reasonable?

 

If that's the question, then the manner in which lethal force is applied is not particularly relevant; you use whatever you've got handy.

 

Is it okay to use squad cars to crash into bicyclists? Pedestrians?

 

If the bicyclist or pedestrian is pointing a gun at someone, then you take them down ASAP by whatever means you have handy. If the cop is there with his own gun drawn, he pulls the trigger; if the cop is behind the driver's seat, he puts his foot in the carburetor.

 

And if a guy is driving a dangerous motor vehicle at high speeds while hyped up on adrenaline, then you use whatever you've got - gun, baseball bat, katana, RPG, squadcar - to eliminate the threat to the public. This is not supposed to be the punishment phase of the process (that would be after the trial), but officers need to be able to use appropriate force (up to and including lethal) to protect the public.

 

My understanding is that the PIT maneuver (in which a fleeing car is spun out by a well-placed bump from the cruiser) is considered application of lethal force, since the ensuing crash of the fleeing car may cause injuries or fatalities. And yet it's considered a valid police tactic. So yes, under the right circumstances, it is considered OK to use the squadcar as a lethal weapon.

 

Also, ask a motor officer whether he'd be willing to ride his bike into the path of a moving vehicle.... I'm guessing not. It would be unreasonable to the point of insane.

 

Indeed, as unreasonable as asking him to stand there and deliberately take a bullet. What's your point?

 

Call a chopper. Tighten the radio net. At some point the perp has got to get off the bike.

 

Before or after the biker runs down an innocent pedestrian?

[David]

What's your point as it relates to this discussion? I only brought up my work because you slammed me for being a consultant. I'm not slamming anyone for being a police officer.

[Lawman]

It's the stories of these that are not stopped by force that bother me..

 

Trooper Burns wife and family had the right to have him come home last night.

 

I do not get the connection, if any.

Are you saying the LEO's should shoot first so that they can go home?? Cause that is all I can see of your post.

But hey, that is one reason they wouldn't let me become a LEO. And that my friend, is the truth.

 

Yeah I guess that's exactly what I'm saying if it comes down to shooting first or not going home..The point I'm trying to make by posting the link is that I wish someone had forced the person fleeing off the road before he took the opportunity to kill the officer. Then you guys could critcize him for the unnecessary use of force but at least the trooper would still be alive..Although I think that's more important to some than others.

[ghaverkamp]

Except, the mere fact he is failing to pull over puts others in danger. Other traffic issues are caused from the resulting pursuit.

 

People are put in danger by many things. People are put in danger whenever a cop doesn't arrest someone who looks suspicious but only eventually goes on to commit a crime. People are put in danger by walking alongside the road. Or by walking. Or by living.

 

Should we find it acceptable to just start using deadly force against anyone who presents a danger? (I'm not looking forward to going out to my car right now...)

[ericfoerster]

What's your point as it relates to this discussion? I only brought up my work because you slammed me for being a consultant. I'm not slamming anyone for being a police officer.

 

It was an analogy. Missed the point I guess. I removed it as not muddy the water of this important issue.

[ghaverkamp]

My understanding is that the PIT maneuver (in which a fleeing car is spun out by a well-placed bump from the cruiser) is considered application of lethal force, since the ensuing crash of the fleeing car may cause injuries or fatalities. And yet it's considered a valid police tactic. So yes, under the right circumstances, it is considered OK to use the squadcar as a lethal weapon.

 

The devil is in the details. The use of force must be reasonable. The determination of what's reasonable is complex, and PITing was the subject of Scott v. Harris, decided a year ago today. In short, the line lies somewhere between shooting a fleeing burglar in the back of the head when he fails to stop (unreasonable) to PITing a car that has led police on a high speed chase for miles, weaving in and out of traffic and by a large number of pedestrians (reasonable).

 

Before or after the biker runs down an innocent pedestrian?

 

You must be seeing pedestrians at risk that I don't see.

 

By this standard, cops should just drive in front of any speeding motorcyclist. After all, they might run over an innocent pedestrian before the cop can get them pulled over.

[russell_bynum]

Is it okay to use squad cars to crash into bicyclists? Pedestrians?

 

If they are attempting to flee...yes.

[Lawman]

The entire discussion hinges on what is "reasonable". The officer may use reasonable force to effect the arrest. In my opinion he did exactly that..From what I see I believe that contact between the two vehicles could have been avoided by the cyclist and that if the officer's intentions were simply to take him out with the car he would not have entered into the cyclist's path as early as he did..If he had simply wanted to run him down he could have done that..I do not believe that was his intention..For those who are critical of the officer's action I would like to hear from you what force should have been used.

[Stir]

So you are for a Police state.

I don't think so, but I also don't approve of coddling people who do bad things and then don't want to face the consequences of their actions. I also don't choose to live in a fantasy world with respect to the police and the use-of-force. That same use (or abuse, as the case may sometimes be) keeps you and your family safe in your home. In lieu of a gun, next time you face a home invasion or, say, a rapist, why don't you try that short leash as a weapon? At least they won't be able to hang you with it.

 

I'll put my faith in my own weapon and my very capable ability to use it. Very simply, if I aim at it and shoot at it, I hit it. I just don't miss. Even at long distances. The Ninth court is of the opinion that there is no right to expect that law enforcement will protect you. If they said that an officer was obligated to take a bullet for a citizen like the secret service would take a bullet for the president, I'd agree with you. As it stands....maybe they will show up.

 

That said, I have a few friends who are cops. They went into the profession with a genuine desire to help people. But I've met far more where the position offers them power. The CHP lost a case not too long ago where a jury found that officers were harassing a citizen because the citizen turned one of the officers in for an equipment violation. Officers who think they are above the law should be made examples of. I'm not willing to give them free reign because other officers are righteous.

[exwingnut]

Is it okay to use squad cars to crash into bicyclists? Pedestrians?

 

If they are attempting to flee...yes.

 

OK...I am left wonder if the officer would have pulled in front of me in the 2500 series '96 Dodge truck I drive or was it just expedient to do it against a motorcyclist. I am getting the sense that some responders here are upset that motorcyclists are somehow expendable or devalued somehow because we are more easily stopped than a person in a tank would be.

[Lawman]

Is it okay to use squad cars to crash into bicyclists? Pedestrians?

 

If they are attempting to flee...yes.

 

OK...I am left wonder if the officer would have pulled in front of me in the 2500 series '96 Dodge truck I drive or was it just expedient to do it against a motorcyclist. I am getting the sense that some responders here are upset that motorcyclists are somehow expendable or devalued somehow because we are more easily stopped than a person in a tank would be.

 

Are you serious? If it takes a bomb to stop a tank do you think we should drop a bomb on a cyclist?

[russell_bynum]

Is it okay to use squad cars to crash into bicyclists? Pedestrians?

 

If they are attempting to flee...yes.

 

OK...I am left wonder if the officer would have pulled in front of me in the 2500 series '96 Dodge truck I drive or was it just expedient to do it against a motorcyclist. I am getting the sense that some responders here are upset that motorcyclists are somehow expendable or devalued somehow because we are more easily stopped than a person in a tank would be.

 

Whatever works. Obviously, pulling in front of a semi rollin at 90mph is going to be much less effective than pulling in front of a motorcycle going 90mph.

[Stir]

How can you say the officer "caused" the head on crash?? The person refusing to stop caused the crash. The officer was blocking the inside lane, which if you were watching the video pause it a couple of times, had enough time to stop or swerve. The officer did not block the whole lane and there was an "out" if the rider choose so. So the cause of this crash is solely the rider, who BTW was operatiing his motor vehicle in reckless mannor.

 

That is not what I saw Eric. The officer's car was in motion and he swerved to match the the biker's actions. He deliberately hit the biker head on. It was a routine traffic stop and the biker decided to evade. Only here would that be considered a capital offense. The officer decided that he was going to "show" this punk, who was in charge. The officer is up on attempted murder charges..as he should be. Joe public is now going to show the officer who really is in charge. There was no excuse for what he did.

[David]

I think your perspective is laudably simplistic.

 

As Greg related, he didn't know someone was chasing him one time. A good friend of mine (Rob Hajacos) was doing the same thing, only it lasted for a couple miles. The county officer (Williamson County) called in backup, and they were there by the time he noticed. He pulled over immediately. They threw him to the ground, impounded his bike, and he lost his license. All because he didn't know they were asking him to pull over.

 

Would it have been okay for an officer to have rammed him off the road?

[Lawman]

"The officer is up on attempted murder charges"

 

I'd be interested in following up on this.. Can you supply any additional info.?

[Stir]

I think your perspective is laudably simplistic.

 

As Greg related, he didn't know someone was chasing him one time. A good friend of mine (Rob Hajacos) was doing the same thing, only it lasted for a couple miles. The county officer (Williamson County) called in backup, and they were there by the time he noticed. He pulled over immediately. They threw him to the ground, impounded his bike, and he lost his license. All because he didn't know they were asking him to pull over.

 

Would it have been okay for an officer to have rammed him off the road?

 

I second this. I was heading north on five. I could hear a siren but I just couldn't figure out where it was coming from. He was directly behind me and I could not see him. I then hear, "Pull Over!" I'm still hesitant because I still can't figure out where it is coming from and I don't want to pull over into something that I can't see. The officer finally goes to the left and I realize where he had been. He wasn't after me but I was between him and a speeder that he wanted. He waved his fist at me like I had done it on purpose. Suppose he decided to nudge me out of the way in his frustration. That shook me up pretty good.

[smiller]

Is it okay to use squad cars to crash into bicyclists? Pedestrians?

 

If they are attempting to flee...yes.

Some more examples of fine police work...

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/20/national/main3955101.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_3955101

[Stir]

Google "south carolina you tube officers" Give you several hours of reading. These guys even ran down people with their cars who were fleeing on foot. These aren't good guys. They ARE the bad guys.

[SeanC]

If that's the question, then the manner in which lethal force is applied is not particularly relevant; you use whatever you've got handy.

So you're saying lethal force is reasonable to apprehend anyone who fails to pull over when ordered to, regardless of why he fails to comply?

 

If the bicyclist or pedestrian is pointing a gun at someone, then you take them down ASAP by whatever means you have handy.

I assumed we were talking about what's reasonable force to stop someone who flees from cops. You know, like, for what would otherwise be a traffic violation... If they're fleeing and shooting, let me be the first to say ram 'em with a squad car if that will work. I have yet to hear anyone argue that lethal force is an unreasonable response to someone pointing or shooting a gun at police officers or others (not that there aren't people in Sweden or Lesser Baldwinia who might in fact hold such a belief; I just haven't heard them).

 

Indeed, as unreasonable as asking him to stand there and deliberately take a bullet. What's your point?

A motor officer isn't going to risk his life to stop a fleeing traffic violator, even one lane-splitting at breakneck speed through, say, stop and go traffic. I'm guessing he'd pursue as safely as he could under the conditions. A minor bump from a motorist or lane changer could result in the officer's injury or death, and he knows that's too high a price to pay to apprehend what may be a misdemeanor. I.e., the motor officer understands not only the laws of the vehicle code, but the laws of physics as well. So the question becomes, is it acceptable to risk the life of the perp to enforce what may be a misdemeanor? Many here say yes. I'm not convinced that's reasonable.

 

Before or after the biker runs down an innocent pedestrian?

How many innocent pedestrians (or vehicle operators for that matter) are killed every day by violators who aren't being pursued? Let's assume it's a large number. Now how many of those were killed by motorcyclists? What risk level should we reasonably apply here? Is it really high enough to risk the life of the motorcyclist?

 

I'm not convinced it is.

[ghaverkamp]

Some more examples of fine police work...

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/20/national/main3955101.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_3955101

 

"You better run," then-Lance Cpl. Daniel C. Campbell said to a suspect, using a derogatory term for blacks, "because I'm fixin' to kill you."

 

Campbell was reprimanded, suspended and ordered to undergo anger and diversity training, but Gov. Mark Sanford said Roark and Schweitzer should have fired him.

 

Everytime I read these stories, I'm bothered that this is the one that is singled out. There's no suggestion that the officers involved acted in a racially prejudiced manner, even if one of them uttered some generally reviled words. However, it was not firing this officer, not the ones who drove wildly through apartment complexes or kicked handcuffed arrestees, that got the heads of the SC DPS sacked.

 

Apparently, it's better to counsel those who act unreasonably under pressure than those who say horrible -- but not illegal -- things under pressure.

[russell_bynum]

I think your perspective is laudably simplistic.

 

As Greg related, he didn't know someone was chasing him one time. A good friend of mine (Rob Hajacos) was doing the same thing, only it lasted for a couple miles. The county officer (Williamson County) called in backup, and they were there by the time he noticed. He pulled over immediately. They threw him to the ground, impounded his bike, and he lost his license. All because he didn't know they were asking him to pull over.

 

Would it have been okay for an officer to have rammed him off the road?

 

Clearly some common sense is called for (I know...there's no place for common sense with legal issues). One would think it's pretty obvious if someone is intentionally running vs. just hasn't noticed that they're being chased.

 

For example, with all of the chases that I've seen televised, I'd be perfectly OK with police ramming the perp (or shooting them, or dropping precision-guided tactical nukes on them...whatever works) because it is obvious (even to a lawyer) that they're fully aware they're being chased.

[David]

Yeah, well, that ain't the case. There are two examples we've cited here.

 

I don't know about this guy in the video.

[russell_bynum]

Yeah, well, that ain't the case. There are two examples we've cited here.

 

I don't know about this guy in the video.

 

Like I said...I know there's no place for common sense in today's world.

[Mike]

Since we can't seem to come to an agreement based on the application of current law and morality, may I suggest the following?