If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Jim Yanik wrote:
> > Ashton Crusher > wrote in > : > > > On 10 May 2005 09:58:18 -0700, "N8N" > wrote: > > > >> > >>MidnightDad wrote: > >>> http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=744016 > >>> > >>> LOS ANGELES May 10, 2005 - Authorities promised a full > >>investigation > >>> Tuesday into why deputies riddled a sport utility vehicle and a > >>> Compton neighborhood with 120 bullets after the driver led them on a > >>> chase, wounding an unarmed driver and possibly striking a deputy. > >>> > >>> ... > >> > >>Um, ****ing DUH? the cops got a shots fired call and when they > >>attempted to pull over a vehicle fitting the description of the perp's > >>vehicle the driver ran for it. > > > > Except he had no gun and had fired no shots and they did NOT have a > > positive ID. Firing on him was NOT warranted anymore then they would > > fire on a car that speed away when they stopped if for a traffic > > ticket. > > He was not "speeding away",he was trying to ram police in front of him. > Clear justification for shooting him. Did you even read the article? "When deputies tried to stop Hayes' white Chevrolet Tahoe, he led them on a 12-minute chase at speeds of up to 35 mph, Baca said. Patrol cars tried to box in the SUV, but it drove onto a lawn and then backed into the street toward three deputies, authorities said." Yeah, it's perfectly obvious that a guy backing up is going to hit ramming speed Real Soon Now. Photo caption: "Los Angeles County Sheriff Commander Lee Baca takes questions from the media about a videotaped deputy shooting in Compton, during a news conference Monday, May 9, 2005, at the Sheriffs headquarters in Los Angeles. A high speed chase ended Monday in a barrage of gunfire that injured two men, including a Los Angeles County sheriff's deputy who may have been caught in the crossfire of other deputies." "High speed chase"? Give me a break. Maybe on foot or on a bicycle, but it probably wasn't even worth a speeding ticket. The guy sounds dumb and disoriented, but not violent. The local cops used to be respectable. Not any more. -- Cheers, Bev *=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*= *=* It is just a bicycle. It is not dedication and bugs in your teeth and dust and rain and mud. It is not madness and harmony and glory and rhythm. It is not muscle and flesh and sweat and lycra and wind. It is just a bicycle. -- Bianchi *=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*= *=* |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
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. The cops have to always leave an out when setting up barricades to stop a speeding car. Not sure about your suggested technique of 'rolling roadblock'. Harry K |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
The Real Bev wrote:
> including a Los Angeles County sheriff's deputy who may have been caught in > the crossfire of other deputies." *May* have been? What other explanations are they trying to push? Did the suspect just happen to have one slug with him and throw it really hard at the deputy? |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
>> 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. The cops have to always leave an > out when setting up barricades to stop a speeding car. Not sure about > your suggested technique of 'rolling roadblock'. And shooting at the car 200+ times isn't? Clearly the decision to use deadly force had already been made. We're just discussing how to do it without needlessly endangering bystanders. This isn't rocket science. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
John David Galt wrote: > >> 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. The cops have to always leave an > > out when setting up barricades to stop a speeding car. Not sure about > > your suggested technique of 'rolling roadblock'. > > And shooting at the car 200+ times isn't? Clearly the decision to use > deadly force had already been made. We're just discussing how to do it > without needlessly endangering bystanders. This isn't rocket science. At the time of the shooting there was no 'fleeing vehicle' thus no need for a roadblock or time to set one up. From what I saw it looked like he was pretty well boxed in anyhow. I did a quick and dirty google on roadblocks this morning. Didn't find any discussing leaving an opening but several equating roadblock=lethal force. Harry K |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
John David Galt wrote: > >> 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. The cops have to always leave an > > out when setting up barricades to stop a speeding car. Not sure about > > your suggested technique of 'rolling roadblock'. > > And shooting at the car 200+ times isn't? Clearly the decision to use > deadly force had already been made. We're just discussing how to do it > without needlessly endangering bystanders. This isn't rocket science. At the time of the shooting there was no 'fleeing vehicle' thus no need for a roadblock or time to set one up. From what I saw it looked like he was pretty well boxed in anyhow. I did a quick and dirty google on roadblocks this morning. Didn't find any discussing leaving an opening but several equating roadblock=lethal force. Harry K |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
John David Galt wrote: > >> 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. The cops have to always leave an > > out when setting up barricades to stop a speeding car. Not sure about > > your suggested technique of 'rolling roadblock'. > > And shooting at the car 200+ times isn't? Clearly the decision to use > deadly force had already been made. We're just discussing how to do it > without needlessly endangering bystanders. This isn't rocket science. In the instant discussion there was no 'fleeing vehicle'(at the time of the shooting) thus no need for a roadblock of any kind nor even time to set one up. I did a quick and dirty google on use of road block this morning. Found several that equated a roadblock with lethal force but couldn't find any discussing leaving an opening. Harry K |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
It is their marksmanship that is the real question. Four hits out of
120 shots fired. They did, however manage to riddle a second floor apartment with bullets. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Shooting at Toledo Jeep Plant | mabar | Jeep | 10 | February 1st 05 01:34 AM |