U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Iowa
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 11-08-2013, 01:02 PM
 
130 posts, read 319,582 times
Reputation: 172

Advertisements

If the OP thinks this he clearly didn't watch the dashboard camera video. The only salvation from this is there were not students out and about. How he did not kill anyone speeding through that intersection (where tons of underclassman walking 24/7) is a miracle. What is sad is the media not reporting headlines correctly.

It's a shame he was killed but really the only option as he sped away from police, rammed them multiple times, drove the wrong way up a one-way street on campus, rammed police cars again, and tried to run over an officer. He had ample opportunity to walk away from this the first time the police lights went on.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-08-2013, 01:05 PM
 
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
2,401 posts, read 3,815,537 times
Reputation: 1444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dport7674 View Post
A classic case of seeing all the evidence before deciding what is and what isn't a crying shame.
In the OP's defense, if her sole source was that short article she linked to, it hard to get a sense of all that went on here.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2013, 06:47 PM
 
Location: Des Moines
4 posts, read 4,423 times
Reputation: 11
If you watch both dash cam videos, you can see in one that the adult (not kid... he's 19) almost hits students (within a few feet) at least twice, and the shooting occurred within 30 or so feet from a large tent on campus which might be occupied. By the way, I would not consider someone in a vehicle unarmed. I will repost something a cop said about lethal force:

I'll explain from the perspective from the other side of the gun. Officers are NOT trained to "shoot out tires" We are specifically told to never, ever try and shoot out someones tires. There's two major reasons why.
A) discharging our firearm is permitted only to control a "deadly force threat" (imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury to ourselves or others). If we shoot at someone, it better be because we reasonably believe that the subject WILL kill/hurt someone if we fail to act. We are trained to shoot until the threat is controlled. For us, that typically means shooting at a person's center of mass. why? You ask? Because center of mass is the largest target, meaning we are more likely to score a hit and most likely to stop that subjects deadly force threat the quickest. We cannot "shoot to wound",because, a wounded subject is still capable of killing or harming you or someone else. Shooting to wound is using "pain compliance" to establish control....but we are using a lethal force control option. WE are using a level of force that is likely to cause death or serious bodily injury, to address a threat that we feel can be managed through non-lethal means. The very act of using a firearm to "wound", negates your justification for using that level of force. We use lethal force to "stop" a deadly force threat. We are trained to stop the threat in the quickest, most effective, means.
B) we are responsible for every bullet that leaves our firearms. This includes richochets. If we're shooting at someone to "stop" their deadly force threat, and a bullet misses and injures a bystander, we are only responsible for the failure to make sure all our shots hit the correct target (whether that is because of a lack of range training, or improper equipment, whatever). Referencing my first point, if we shoot to "injure" their car....well we aren't stopping the threat. A flat tire doesn't stop a car, it doesn't make the driver less capable of getting out and opening fire. We would be using lethal force to control a resistance that we de facto aknowledge can be met with less lethal control. So NOW, that stray bullet or that richochet, has injured or killed an innocent bystander...when we had NO justification for using it in the first place. That's why we have things like tire strips..or tazers. Those are ways for us to flatten tires...or stop a threat, that are not "lethal force". Our failure to have access to less lethal control options is not justification for excessive force.
It is sad what happened to this woman. But honestly, you feel that her behavior was excusable? How was anything about what she did before, during, and after this video reasonable? Reasonable people do not drive into police barricades and strike officers trying to stop them. Reasonable people do not lead police on vehicle pursuits. Reasonable people do not ram police cars blocking them.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2013, 04:51 PM
 
5,239 posts, read 7,042,936 times
Reputation: 11345
Officers need to all be equipped with body cams, it would help clarify exactly what happened in situations like this and could be helpful to both officers and the public.

It's amazing no one else was injured given how he was driving. And you can bet if someone had been killed there would have been a law suit and questions regarding why he didn't back off when the suspect was known.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2013, 10:41 AM
 
3,492 posts, read 5,224,841 times
Reputation: 5386
"An Ames police officer began chasing the younger Comstock, even after an unidentified staff person suggested the officer back off. Twice.
Comstock finally stopped the truck, after ramming the officer’s car, but would not cut the engine, reports say.
The officer fired six shots into the truck and Comstock died from two gunshot wounds, according to the Iowa state medical examiner’s office."


This is an example of the decline of journalism. An unidentified staff person does not have the authority or expertise to tell the officer what to do. If it was the captain, he would have ORDERED the officer, not suggested. That doesn't merit being in the story.
The criminal (committed grand theft auto = a criminal) refused to turn off his weapon -- a vehicle. When the criminal refused to surrender, the officer terminated him. He wasn't unarmed, he had an operational vehicle.



Officer reported to a crime in progress. Stopped the criminal. Demanded surrender. The criminal refused to surrender, and the officer went to the next level to end the showdown. That sounds like a cop doing exactly what he is trained to do. It is sad the man wouldn't surrender to the police. It is sad that journalism gave itself a bad name. Finally, it is sad that so many people jumped to conclusions without reading, understanding, and analyzing all the facts.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2013, 11:27 AM
 
25 posts, read 35,714 times
Reputation: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by everheist View Post
If you watch both dash cam videos, you can see in one that the adult (not kid... he's 19) almost hits students (within a few feet) at least twice, and the shooting occurred within 30 or so feet from a large tent on campus which might be occupied. By the way, I would not consider someone in a vehicle unarmed. I will repost something a cop said about lethal force:

I'll explain from the perspective from the other side of the gun. Officers are NOT trained to "shoot out tires" We are specifically told to never, ever try and shoot out someones tires. There's two major reasons why.
A) discharging our firearm is permitted only to control a "deadly force threat" (imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury to ourselves or others). If we shoot at someone, it better be because we reasonably believe that the subject WILL kill/hurt someone if we fail to act. We are trained to shoot until the threat is controlled. For us, that typically means shooting at a person's center of mass. why? You ask? Because center of mass is the largest target, meaning we are more likely to score a hit and most likely to stop that subjects deadly force threat the quickest. We cannot "shoot to wound",because, a wounded subject is still capable of killing or harming you or someone else. Shooting to wound is using "pain compliance" to establish control....but we are using a lethal force control option. WE are using a level of force that is likely to cause death or serious bodily injury, to address a threat that we feel can be managed through non-lethal means. The very act of using a firearm to "wound", negates your justification for using that level of force. We use lethal force to "stop" a deadly force threat. We are trained to stop the threat in the quickest, most effective, means.
B) we are responsible for every bullet that leaves our firearms. This includes richochets. If we're shooting at someone to "stop" their deadly force threat, and a bullet misses and injures a bystander, we are only responsible for the failure to make sure all our shots hit the correct target (whether that is because of a lack of range training, or improper equipment, whatever). Referencing my first point, if we shoot to "injure" their car....well we aren't stopping the threat. A flat tire doesn't stop a car, it doesn't make the driver less capable of getting out and opening fire. We would be using lethal force to control a resistance that we de facto aknowledge can be met with less lethal control. So NOW, that stray bullet or that richochet, has injured or killed an innocent bystander...when we had NO justification for using it in the first place. That's why we have things like tire strips..or tazers. Those are ways for us to flatten tires...or stop a threat, that are not "lethal force". Our failure to have access to less lethal control options is not justification for excessive force.
It is sad what happened to this woman. But honestly, you feel that her behavior was excusable? How was anything about what she did before, during, and after this video reasonable? Reasonable people do not drive into police barricades and strike officers trying to stop them. Reasonable people do not lead police on vehicle pursuits. Reasonable people do not ram police cars blocking them.
Very well said and accurate. As someone whose family is law enforcement, I can only say that it seems cops are often in a lose/lose situation when it comes to public perception and analysis of their actions. Police are trained to assess situations and respond accordingly in ways that civvies are not.
Yes, as human beings mistakes can and will be made by LEO. But overall, I will always trust the instinct of the officer in the midst of the situation more than any Monday morning quarterbacking by people who have no idea what its like to be a cop.
Thanks for sharing this.
Back the blue!
Quick reply to this message
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 update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Iowa
View detailed profiles of:
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top