Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
-Steals a car
-Tries to run over a cop
-Speeds down residential streets in a police chase
-Purposely runs into a cop car head on
-Flees on foot
This is a person people are trying to defend. What if he ran over one of your kids, friends or Tboned someone at an intersection??? My mom was tboned by a punk like this in the same exact situation and all the kid said was sorry in court to her and he is probably out of jail by now. Not trying to be crude, but he deserved the outcome.
For everyone saying he didnt have to die, its punks like this that will car jack you or steal your car, go to jail and be out a in few years with good behavior due to overcrowding(thanks war on drugs) and since he is a felon and cant get a job, will probably steal a car again and kill you if he needs to. People like that kid will go in and out of the system their whole life.
The cop that shot him broke the law so he joins the ranks of the criminals, unless you can show me where it is the law that cops are able to shoot unarmed fleeing people?
I'll be waiting........
The CPD Police Chief stated they did violate a department policy, but it wasn't the one you think it is.
It's against department policy to shoot at or into a moving car when the vehicle is the only potential use of deadly force by a suspect.
That's the violation he relieved them of duty for. Nothing more.
-Steals a car
-Tries to run over a cop
-Speeds down residential streets in a police chase
-Purposely runs into a cop car head on
-Flees on foot
This is a person people are trying to defend. What if he ran over one of your kids, friends or Tboned someone at an intersection??? My mom was tboned by a punk like this in the same exact situation and all the kid said was sorry in court to her and he is probably out of jail by now. Not trying to be crude, but he deserved the outcome.
For everyone saying he didnt have to die, its punks like this that will car jack you or steal your car, go to jail and be out a in few years with good behavior due to overcrowding(thanks war on drugs) and since he is a felon and cant get a job, will probably steal a car again and kill you if he needs to. People like that kid will go in and out of the system their whole life.
I honestly think some of the people here would blame the police for that. "Well, if the cops hadn't pursued him, making him drive so fast....."
My comment will sound contradictory to some, but I encourage you to read what I am saying and not read INTO what I am saying.
First, I hate this site because they misrepresent facts under the guise of a brief synopsis of events. It is not AGAINST the law to fire into a vehicle of the vehicle is the only weapon. It is, however, contrary to many agencies' policy. In fact, the Supreme Court has held that the law regarding this is not clearly defined . Personally, I believe there are very few instances where one should shoot at a vehicle, but each case lives and breathes in its own. The facts and circumstances of each case dictate what a reasonable response is.
I am not familiar with the facts of this case, as this is the first I have heard of it. A better argument in support of this video's position centers around Tennessee vs Garner, which holds that mere flight does not justify the application of deadly force. There must be some other articulable factor that places sometime in fear of IMMINENT death or serious bodily injury.
I will wait until I research the facts for myself before I form an opinion on this specific case, as I know this site's history of molding facts to fit a narrative for the sake of brevity.
***EDIT*** I watched this particular video again, and must admit that when I watched it on my phone initially, I missed one of the captions, which stated that it was against CPD policy. The following slide stated that they were barred from firing into the moving vehicle. This was my mistake. My overarching point remains the same, if not is strengthened in saying that when using captions over the video, if one misses a slide, the entire context is thrown off, and everyone is not going to take the time to go back and view the video multiple times. They will take their initial reaction/opinion and run with it. And I stand by my opinion that often they misconstrue the facts in their captions. But in this case, it was partially my error.
I honestly think some of the people here would blame the police for that. "Well, if the cops hadn't pursued him, making him drive so fast....."
Many dont realize as well in these pursuits, if the suspect or cops crashes into you, the police can be exempt from any charges or lawsuits. Ive seen it happen in GA many times and the cops were not liable because they were in pursuit and they injured the other party pretty bad. If cops were held accountable for pursuing someone in a public street and what can happen as a result, they would think twice about it if the offense isnt serious. Im all for shooting into a car if a suspect wants to flee if thats what stops many innocent people from being injured, crippled or killed as a result if them running through intersections, so be it.
My comment will sound contradictory to some, but I encourage you to read what I am saying and not read INTO what I am saying.
First, I hate this site because they misrepresent facts under the guise of a brief synopsis of events. It is not AGAINST the law to fire into a vehicle of the vehicle is the only weapon. It is, however, contrary to many agencies' policy. In fact, the Supreme Court has held that the law regarding this is not clearly defined . Personally, I believe there are very few instances where one should shoot at a vehicle, but each case lives and breathes in its own. The facts and circumstances of each case dictate what a reasonable response is.
I am not familiar with the facts of this case, as this is the first I have heard of it. A better argument in support of this video's position centers around Tennessee vs Garner, which holds that mere flight does not justify the application of deadly force. There must be some other articulable factor that places sometime in fear of IMMINENT death or serious bodily injury.
I will wait until I research the facts for myself before I form an opinion on this specific case, as I know this site's history of molding facts to fit a narrative for the sake of brevity.
***EDIT*** I watched this particular video again, and must admit that when I watched it on my phone initially, I missed one of the captions, which stated that it was against CPD policy. The following slide stated that they were barred from firing into the moving vehicle. This was my mistake. My overarching point remains the same, if not is strengthened in saying that when using captions over the video, if one misses a slide, the entire context is thrown off, and everyone is not going to take the time to go back and view the video multiple times. They will take their initial reaction/opinion and run with it. And I stand by my opinion that often they misconstrue the facts in their captions. But in this case, it was partially my error.
I'm assuming you're referring to my post, since I believe I'm the only poster to have referenced this, correct?
If so, where did I say it was against the law? I clearly stated it was against department policy.
Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson, who pledged the department's "full cooperation" with the investigation, told reporters the shooting troubled him.
"If it's an honest mistake, we'll get them training, coaching, mentoring and get them back out there. But if it was intentional misconduct, then they have to be held accountable for it," he said.
So a cop can kill you by "honest" mistake and all he gets is more training, coaching and mentoring to do the same "honest" mistake all over again.
Honest mistake or not, if you kill someone, you deserve a long prison sentence.
Obviously, that's how law works for civilians but not for cops who are the law.
Where else it's as easy as "oops honest mistake" and get away with murder?
Some mistakes are worse than others, but a mistake is not murder.
I don't know what fool would take a job where a judgement
error would cost you everything, including your freedom.
Just more idiots covering them!!!!!!!! (NOTHING HONEST ABOUT IT -- Not a mistake)
Really. Do you really believe they are idiots covering them? Why dont we wait till all the facts come out.. Based on what happened, many people would have put the kid down too..
I bet you think its okay to keep soldiers from shooting people in war, if they have no weapon too..
Do we want a system of policing that allows a LEO to kill a person as long as there is a crime, any crime, in progress? That's the system currently in place. If judges and juries put the innocent away, we will have to accept that police will have to kill innocent people.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
*
