Shoot car thieves or not?

[Shaggy]

Never liked the whole step-in-front-of-the-car-so-you-can-squeeze-off-some-rounds thing. Yeah yeah, I know, if the guys weren't thieves, what if your kids were run over by them because they got away, if their momma raised them right, if abortions were easier, if alcohol didn't cause birth defects, blah blah blah, doesn't change that looks shitty to me.

A: An officer stepping in front of a moving vehicle, thus creating his own exigency is not a justifiable shooting. Courts have ruled that creating your own exigency to force a lethal encounter is not legal.

B: That’s not what happened in this case. The video clearly shows an undercover officer tackling th suspect to the rear of the vehicle. The driver then backs up over the officer and his accomplice. The suspect had a clear avenue of escape had he chose it. He made a conscious decision to use his vehicle as a weapon. That’s a justified shooting any day of the week.

 

[MysterYvil]

If only the officer who killed Jordan Edwards had been so mindful.

Yes, the situations were completely analogous.

 

[norcalAF]

How many do the dickheads get to kill before the kill rate is OK?? I say zero.

I say shoot the mutherfuckering thieves dead if that is what it takes.

Exactly, thieves steals someone's property, which is usually something they depend on to survive, and even if that's not the case and it's just a valuable possession, I still think taking what someone has earned should be met with significant force.

 

[TylerW]

Yes, the situations were completely analogous.

The situations are different, and that's kind of the point.

One involved an officer firing into a retreating vehicle, killing an innocent boy.

The other showing the better part of valor in deciding to not shoot into a vehicle intending to run him down. I wouldn't fault him for firing at this vehicle, but perhaps he realized maybe he could command this situation better without bloodshed.

I applaud him for this.

 

[Johndicezx9]

I don't know, the driver turned the car into a weapon IMO.

 

[Joebar4000]

Property != life.

However, he turned a car into a weapon.

Shooting would have been OK to me; we don't see the wider view, so... shooting into a car is no guarantee the bullets are going to stay there. Despite what Hollywood shows us, they are somewhat permeable depending on where you hit.

The officer used discretion in a highly charged situation, which is amazing, and to be applauded. But I wouldn't have anything bad to say, had he shot that fucker dead.

 

[JesasaurusRex]

Shoot all thieves

Pretty much how i feel. Im not sure i feel the same about shop lifters since getting shot for a candy bar seems a little extreme. On the flip side, if you're stealing stuff most people need to take loans out for them you deserve to get shot. Right in the face.

 

[Brokenlink]

Pretty much how i feel. Im not sure i feel the same about shop lifters since getting shot for a candy bar seems a little extreme. On the flip side, if you're stealing stuff most people need to take loans out for them you deserve to get shot. Right in the face.

+1. Too many people in this world. Why waste time with wastes of time? Release them from their misery and make the world a better place.

 

[ABC]

Right in the face lmao!!

 

[AbsolutEnduser]

The video clearly [ed: NOT so clearly] shows an undercover officer tackling the suspect to the rear of the vehicle. The driver then backs up over the officer and his accomplice. The suspect had a clear avenue of escape had he chose it.

Nope.. he didn't. Wasn't there a third Ofc. RIGHT in front of him?

, he turned a car into a weapon.

Shooting would have been OK to me; we don't see the wider view, so... shooting into a car is no guarantee the bullets are going to stay there. Despite what Hollywood shows us, they are somewhat permeable depending on where you hit.

Can you guys re-watch the video? The Infinity might have been trying to escape backwards... isn't there a third Ofc. RIGHT in front of him?

There is some weird reason that the officer by the driver's doors facing the camera didn't shoot. I applaud him for that. He was also facing a sidewalk *I* have walked on many many times, right under the camera. (I never walk on the other side in front of the school).

The officer used discretion in a highly charged situation, which is amazing, and to be applauded.

Glad they got caught and glad that same officer knocked the dude in the place after the car escaped.

 

[Eldritch]

That's extremist.

Not really. I mean, that has been the general rule for nearly all of civilization for nearly all of history. If you find someone taking your shit, you stick a spear/sword/arrow/bullet into them. That is not even anachronistic. I mean, going back to the 1980's this was still pretty common thought in this country. You handled the business and the Police/Burgermeister/Chieftain/ Whatever didn't make much of it, unless they had reason to suspect the person was not actually a thief. This new idea that people are not entitled to defend themselves is nuts to me.

Yes, your property is an extension of your self.

Nothing wrong with people getting shot, if they are the right people..

Well, I feel that is a dangerous statement. I would say any scenario where you have to shoot someone there is a safe assumption that something went terrible wrong, but sometimes, killing another person is a better than the alternative, which I believe holds true in this case. Better to kill an acre of men than allow a single one to steal a trifle of property from you. It is not about the property itself, it is about the right of the individual to maintain the dignity of not being victimized.

I mean similarly, one could say life is valuable so you should not kill a rapist when he is attempting to rape, as the victim will survive and heal with time, therefore should be allowed to live, but I do not agree with allowing predators to victimize others. I believe the the right to defend ones self from being victimized by the open aggression of others is a right that must be universally recognized as inalienable.

 

[nebulous]

"This new idea that people are not entitled to defend themselves is nuts to me."

Insane to me as well. These new Enlightened ideas are clearly Enabling behaviors that are not serving law abiding citizens.

Not really. I mean, that has been the general rule for nearly all of civilization for nearly all of history. If you find someone taking your shit, you stick a spear/sword/arrow/bullet into them. That is not even anachronistic. I mean, going back to the 1980's this was still pretty common thought in this country. You handled the business and the Police/Burgermeister/Chieftain/ Whatever didn't make much of it, unless they had reason to suspect the person was not actually a thief. This new idea that people are not entitled to defend themselves is nuts to me.

Yes, your property is an extension of your self.



Well, I feel that is a dangerous statement. I would say any scenario where you have to shoot someone there is a safe assumption that something went terrible wrong, but sometimes, killing another person is a better than the alternative, which I believe holds true in this case. Better to kill an acre of men than allow a single one to steal a trifle of property from you. It is not about the property itself, it is about the right of the individual to maintain the dignity of not being victimized.

I mean similarly, one could say life is valuable so you should not kill a rapist when he is attempting to rape, as the victim will survive and heal with time, therefore should be allowed to live, but I do not agree with allowing predators to victimize others. I believe the the right to defend ones self from being victimized by the open aggression of others is a right that must be universally recognized as inalienable.

 

[byke]

A: An officer stepping in front of a moving vehicle, thus creating his own exigency is not a justifiable shooting. Courts have ruled that creating your own exigency to force a lethal encounter is not legal.

B: That’s not what happened in this case. The video clearly shows an undercover officer tackling th suspect to the rear of the vehicle. The driver then backs up over the officer and his accomplice. The suspect had a clear avenue of escape had he chose it. He made a conscious decision to use his vehicle as a weapon. That’s a justified shooting any day of the week.

Totally. Was referring to the guy at the driver's fender positioning himself to shoot, though I think *think* he did. Was commenting on that technique, which has been justified in courts over and over again.

Speaking to morals and thieves in general, they absolutely deserve to be shot, but you're a level ten asshole if you kill someone for stealing.

 

[Eldritch]

"This new idea that people are not entitled to defend themselves is nuts to me."

Insane to me as well. These new Enlightened ideas are clearly Enabling behaviors that are not serving law abiding citizens.

If you wish to subjugate a people, convince them that they require your protection in order for their families to survive.

 

[bojangle]

The problems with shooting at a moving vehicle, however justified, are this:

1) It will often not be effective.

2) If it is effective, you now have a moving uncontrolled missile that can hurt or kill others.

Department policies I'm aware of generally strongly discourage, but don't outright ban, the shooting at or from a moving vehicle. I wouldn't be surprised if San Francisco' policy was even more restrictive, to ban the option completely, but I don't happen to know what their policy is.

 

[Brokenlink]

The problems with shooting at a moving vehicle, however justified, are this:

1) It will often not be effective.

2) If it is effective, you now have a moving uncontrolled missile that can hurt or kill others.

Department policies I'm aware of generally strongly discourage, but don't outright ban, the shooting at or from a moving vehicle. I wouldn't be surprised if San Francisco' policy was even more restrictive, to ban the option completely, but I don't happen to know what their policy is.

Step 1: Is he an illegal?

A: No. Shoot.
B: Yes. Be kind, ensure his safety and understanding. Give him money and an award.

 

[Shaggy]

Nope.. he didn't. Wasn't there a third Ofc. RIGHT in front of him?



Can you guys re-watch the video? The Infinity might have been trying to escape backwards... isn't there a third Ofc. RIGHT in front of him?

There is some weird reason that the officer by the driver's doors facing the camera didn't shoot. I applaud him for that. He was also facing a sidewalk *I* have walked on many many times, right under the camera. (I never walk on the other side in front of the school).



Glad they got caught and glad that same officer knocked the dude in the place after the car escaped.

The officer that approaches from the front AFTER the driver runs over the officer appears to enter at an angle from the driveway/sidewalk. He was not directly in front of the car.

 

[AbsolutEnduser]

The officer that approaches from the front AFTER the driver runs over the officer appears to enter at an angle from the driveway/sidewalk. He was not directly in front of the car.

I'd definitely leave this one to a court to figure out, given evidence.
I do not see it that way. There was definitely a person in front, one foot to the left of the hood, approaching the car. And maybe another car, too... which would explain why backing up.

 

[littlebeast]

Not really. I mean, that has been the general rule for nearly all of civilization for nearly all of history. If you find someone taking your shit, you stick a spear/sword/arrow/bullet into them. That is not even anachronistic. I mean, going back to the 1980's this was still pretty common thought in this country. You handled the business and the Police/Burgermeister/Chieftain/ Whatever didn't make much of it, unless they had reason to suspect the person was not actually a thief. This new idea that people are not entitled to defend themselves is nuts to me.

Yes, your property is an extension of your self.



Well, I feel that is a dangerous statement. I would say any scenario where you have to shoot someone there is a safe assumption that something went terrible wrong, but sometimes, killing another person is a better than the alternative, which I believe holds true in this case. Better to kill an acre of men than allow a single one to steal a trifle of property from you. It is not about the property itself, it is about the right of the individual to maintain the dignity of not being victimized.

I mean similarly, one could say life is valuable so you should not kill a rapist when he is attempting to rape, as the victim will survive and heal with time, therefore should be allowed to live, but I do not agree with allowing predators to victimize others. I believe the the right to defend ones self from being victimized by the open aggression of others is a right that must be universally recognized as inalienable.

go all john wick on his happy ass. shoot. and then when he’s laying there half alive writhing in pain - shoot again. head shot. done and dusted. and then saunter off through an alley with steam billowing up from the sewer grates. OMG - i LOVE this shit!

 

[Eldritch]

go all john wick on his happy ass. shoot. and then when he’s laying there half alive writhing in pain - shoot again. head shot. done and dusted. and then saunter off through an alley with steam billowing up from the sewer grates. OMG - i LOVE this shit!

LOL, that is a fun idea, but draws an unrealistic image of violence that does not paint the picture of a a very responsible society. If your assailant is already wounded to the point of being incapacitated, you should just call the authorities to come mop him up. Throw him a towel if he is gushing, but do not get within arms reach of him. People often do not die right away when you shoot them, issue head trauma with a blunt object, etc.. It will be fast, loud, ugly, and unglamorous. Violence usually is. It is always better than allowing someone to victimize you. There are only two types of animals in the world, never allow yourself to be the prey.