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.
It is just logical deduction from the original information...
Yeah, but deducing and knowing are two very different things, and I'd rather make policy decisions on community policing standards in Chapel Hill based on facts, not guesses or assumptions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kelly237
Like it or not if an officer is being run down by a car ( in forward or reverse) the officer has every right to shoot to kill the driver..
You continue to make a lot of assumptions about facts that haven't come out yet.
Regardless, I believe the residents of Chapel Hill, its elected officials, and its police leaders need to give thoughtful consideration to what our community standards should be around the use of deadly force by our police department. I'm very reluctant to advocate a "right to kill" except in extreme cases.
What's wrong with thinking about the kind of policing we want in our community? Is there some reason we shouldn't use these types of situations to think about these topics and ask questions - whether the outcome is to confirm current approaches or perhaps change them? We don't have a lot of police shootings in Chapel Hill, thankfully. So when one does occur, it seems fair to me for residents to ask if the approach taken was the right thing for our community. I don't get the fear of inquiry.
Conversely, I would argue that since it DOES happen so infrequently, that it allows us to give officers the benefit of the doubt. If the CHPD were known to be trigger happy, It would raise cause for alarm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHTransplant
We got a one paragraph news blurb from the town. For me, it's not enough to declare that one approach or another is the right one. But it's enough to raise questions.
They are public servants, so you don't even need that much reason to question their approach. It is your right as a citizen.
This particular incident doesn't do it for me, as he didn't shoot at a person, per se, and since no one was injured, and since he had been backed into, and since he had to chase her, the facts don't amount to needing a magnifying glass put on this case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHTransplant
I must have missed this fact - where is the report that the the driver attempted to run down the police officer? Again, the town report said only the driver "struck the officer with her vehicle by backing into him."
There are a lot of details missing, including what the driver's intent was when the officer was struck.
Intent doesn't really matter. If someone swings a gun across a police officer, then he can reasonably shoot regardless of what the guys intent is.
A car is every bit as deadly as a loaded gun, when intentionally used against a person.
My point was, that a car is just as deadly as a firearm. If it is being driven at a police officer, much in the same way as if a gun is pointed at a police officer, Intent goes out the window, especially if the subject was already evading. Intent follows the bullet, or in this case, the bumper.
I must have missed this fact - where is the report that the the driver attempted to run down the police officer? Again, the town report said only the driver "struck the officer with her vehicle by backing into him."
There are a lot of details missing, including what the driver's intent was when the officer was struck.
intent? Are you serious right now? It doesn't take much to read between the lines here. The person was actively attempting to evade the police and backed into a standing officer. The officer did the ONLY thing he could do to disable the vehicle and avoid a dangerous driver from entering a roadway. By the time he gets back in his car and on the road to chase, the driver would have been AT LEAST 300 yards away. And even at that, car chases are highly dangerous.
Regardless, I believe the residents of Chapel Hill, its elected officials, and its police leaders need to give thoughtful consideration to what our community standards should be around the use of deadly force by our police department. I'm very reluctant to advocate a "right to kill" except in extreme cases.
Where do you continue to get this "deadly force" and "right to kill" with regards to TIRES BEING SHOT OUT.
He didn't shoot at any people! He shot at a vehicles tires! There is a huge difference. Her risk of being harmed from his shots at her tires were slim to nil; she probably was in more physical danger when she was actually cuffed.
My point was, that a car is just as deadly as a firearm. If it is being driven at a police officer, much in the same way as if a gun is pointed at a police officer, Intent goes out the window, especially if the subject was already evading. Intent follows the bullet, or in this case, the bumper.
Yeah, but deducing and knowing are two very different things, and I'd rather make policy decisions on community policing standards in Chapel Hill based on facts, not guesses or assumptions.
Regardless, I believe the residents of Chapel Hill, its elected officials, and its police leaders need to give thoughtful consideration to what our community standards should be around the use of deadly force by our police department. I'm very reluctant to advocate a "right to kill" except in extreme cases.
I am sure the police department will have a few things to say about
"policy decisions on community policing standards" if it means a police officer cannot
use deadly force when their life is threatened...
You don't seem to grasp that a car being used to hit you is like a gun being pointed at you...
There is not really time to ask the other person how they are feeling !
My point was, that a car is just as deadly as a firearm. If it is being driven at a police officer, much in the same way as if a gun is pointed at a police officer, Intent goes out the window, especially if the subject was already evading. Intent follows the bullet, or in this case, the bumper.
I agree. This is assault with a deadly weapon.
The point being, that this proves the suspect is willing to risk (and actively try to take) police lives. I'm OK with presuming this overlaps to her being OK risking civilians too.
If I was a bystander, I'd hope the officer used whatever force was necessary to stop her, ASAP.
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.
