Originally Posted by Lex Talionis:
You don't know the mindset of many cops.
Over on the LEO forum, the cops there, and especially the moderator Rel who holds himself out to be a CHP, have indicated it's a case of shoot first and ask questions of the survivors, if any, after.
Rel said killing a female passenger on an evading motorcycle is department policy. "She was asking for it," he'll say. No cop on the forum disagreed.
Read this and be entertained:
http://bayarearidersforum.com/forums...d.php?t=180277
Lex
He must have deleted it because I didn't see any comment like that from Rel. I'm not one to defend police officers often, but Rel and some of the other leo's on this board have earned a lot of respect in my book. I'd love to see the exact quote though.
My apologies to Rel, I misquoted him, it's been a while, I got his replies confused with motorman4life, another moderator on the LEO forum, and a cop of some sort. I have no quarel with Rel. In fact, it was Rel who stated: "Per CHP Policy, we can NOT step in front of moving vehicle, and then fire a round in self defense."
motorman4life stated in post #32, as justification for the other cop shooting at a motorcyclist with a female passenger:
"As for the passenger. They have a choice. I have seen unwilling passengers end pursuits in cars and on bikes. There is no way you could get my mother, sister or daughter to sit tight and hang in there while you ran from the cops. No one gets kidnapped on the back of a sportbike. Let's get real."
motorman4life clarified in post #39:
"I'm thinking you must have a low opinion of women if you believe them to be "powerless" in all situations. As for what my wife would do at freeway speeds to extracate herself... trust me, she would not be on a bike fleeing the police at any speed! As I stated previously, I have seen passengers on motorcycles and cars stop pursuits, firsthand and without anyone getting injured. I have seen fleeing motorcycles stop and let passengers off and I have seen passengers beating on the drivers or make such a ruccus that the driver chooses to give up rather than take additional risks. The further that passenger went without asserting a demand to stop, the more risk she was in.
If she never communicated her intent to remove herself from the situation, then she was a willing participant. (my highlighting) If she did, then she was a kidnapping victim and the operator should be charged appropriately."
As you can see, in motorman4life's world view, you are judged guilty by association - none of this impediment to street justice called "presumed innocent."
I responded in post #41
"Ever hear of the term “scared stiff?” Ever seen the look on some folk’s faces who’ve just survived a harrowing experience? Can you standing 40 yards distant hear a scream from inside a helmet? See the look of absolute fear in eyes hidden behind a face shield? Ever occur to you that the girl was doing all she could at the time, just to hold on, in hopes of not falling off the back of the bike? I have a granddaughter; without a doubt I know that in this scenario she would have her eyes squeezed closed, a death-grip on the pilot and a scream on her lips – and that is absolutely all she would be capable of. This attitude on the part of cops of participatory culpability is pure horseshit. And here’s another thing – even if that girl saw the cop, she probably had all of 3 seconds to indicate to the cop not to shoot her, that she wasn’t, in fact, shouting at the pilot to go faster, but was shouting at him to stop, only the helmet and wind noise got in the way. Are you defending a cop who didn’t have time to take careful aim or move out of the way, and instead made the immediate decision to shoot at the girl? Your argument in this instance holds no water. And if you tell me the cop thought all this out and then shot at the back of the retreating girl as noted elsewhere in this thread, that’s just pure vindictiveness on the cop’s part."
Be careful out there.
Lex
