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.
My opinion of the video shifted 180 degrees once I saw that the suspect had a rifle to his head and then earlier had been shooting into the air. The police would have been justified in shooting him. Running him down with a patrol car was unique problem solving but caused damage the taxpayers will have to pay. Still, if the guy lived maybe that was best. Then again, if he ends up suing, again the tax payers will have to pay. Why didn't they just shoot him again?
I drove by a police arrest today along a busy highway. Traffic was backed up and three police cars were stopped along the highway median at an intersection. They had a suspect in handcuffs by his car and a stack of boxes of diapers were by his trunk. I'd surmise he shoplifted from a nearby Target and the police station only being a half mile away made a quick response possible. Kudos to Target, they have a good loss prevention system.
It looked like the guy was holding the gun on himself. Like the only person being threatened was the person himself. I thought at first this was going to be understandable but no. If he had been pointing the gun at an officer I would have no problem with an officer doing this to protect himself or others.
That doesn't appear to be the case.
How exactly are the police to know when and if he would turn violent? I think his open possession a of gun and not dropping it when its clear he knows the cops are onto him was foolish mistake by him and it got him ran over. You do not know if someone is going to shoot until they shoot and by then its too late. I'm not sure there is a way to disarm this guy with out presenting undue risk to others....I think ultimately the outcome is a positive one.
My opinion of the video shifted 180 degrees once I saw that the suspect had a rifle to his head and then earlier had been shooting into the air. The police would have been justified in shooting him. Running him down with a patrol car was unique problem solving but caused damage the taxpayers will have to pay. Still, if the guy lived maybe that was best. Then again, if he ends up suing, again the tax payers will have to pay. Why didn't they just shoot him again?
You shoot someone holding a gun to their own head?
How exactly are the police to know when and if he would turn violent? I think his open possession a of gun and not dropping it when its clear he knows the cops are onto him was foolish mistake by him and it got him ran over. You do not know if someone is going to shoot until they shoot and by then its too late. I'm not sure there is a way to disarm this guy with out presenting undue risk to others....I think ultimately the outcome is a positive one.
The police aren't suppose to shoot simply because someone is in possession of a gun. Training, training, training.
The police aren't suppose to shoot simply because someone is in possession of a gun. Training, training, training.
He's not just some guy in possession of a gun. He robbed a Wal Mart for the gun, set fire to a church, shot the weapon in public and is now ignoring commands of police officers heading towards a densely populated area.
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.
