Jim Yanik wrote:
> "Harry K" > wrote in
> ups.com:
>
> >
> > John David Galt wrote:
> >> Nate Nagel wrote:
> >> > If they're obviously fleeing (and in this case it sounds like
they
> > were,
> >> > not just "driving to a safe location) why the hell not? My only
> >> > question is why it took so many rounds to stop them. Geez, why
> > don't we
> >> > take away the officers' guns and just issue them bullhorns so
they
> > can
> >> > politely ask drivers to pull over.
> >>
> >> There are perfectly good tactics for stopping a suspect like that
> >> which don't endanger bystanders nearly as much. The obvious one
here
> >> would be to surround him with cop vehicles, which then gradually
> > stop.
> >> Maybe a few parked cars get crunched in the process, but nobody
gets
> >> shot.
> >>
> >> What a bunch of Barney Fifes.
> >
> > Unfortunately, forcing a vehicle to stop by use of barricades has
been
> > ruled 'deadly force' by the courts.
>
> Do you have a cite for this?
>
> > The cops have to always leave an
> > out when setting up barricades to stop a speeding car.
>
> Why? Maybe to let others depart the stop zone before the suspect
arrives?
>
>
>
> --
> Jim Yanik
> jyanik
> at
> kua.net

Nope, no cite. I was curious having seen it somewhere and also having
heard it being applied while listening to the scanner. Asked the
question in a BS session with county deputies. They confirmed that
yes, the (IIRC) supreme court ruled that a total road block is use of
deadly force. I certainly don't agree with it. Looks to me like a
fleeing subject crashing into a clearly visible roadblock is only
committing suicide by cop.

Harry K