Use of Force

Nevermind. Easier to just ignore.

I think they should disband ALL law enforcement agencies...and let the public fend for themselves....

:sweat:

As the old saying goes in the newspaper business: If your circulation numbers are falling, run an anti-police story. This is a classic example, as the paper's numbers are falling each year, and it has one foot in bankruptcy.

Considering this series is coming from the SF Chronicle, I see little reason to expect objectivity from that very anti-police newspaper (a stance that it makes clear and does not hide). And reading the first two days, I see no objectivity, nore factual basis in its skewed statistical analysis, especially when comparing S.F. to other cities, without taking into account any demographical differences.

-dan

I would have liked to see portland oregon in their graphs.

what would make a news source anti police ?
I guess it might sell more papers - kinda like why people slow down to check out a bad car wreck.
why is it that bad news is more interesting to some people ?

Dano - your point kind of re- inforces something I said in another post. LEOs are always going to be subject to this kind of situation unless there is a clear way to prove that it is not the case.

Pepsi was able to quickly clear its name from a false "something is in my can of Pepsi" a few years ago, because it had done such a good job, over a long period of time, of making sure its systems and practices were broadly judged by the general public (and expert analyst) as sound, safe, and logical. Many people have seen Pepsi being made and bottled / canned, and feel much more comfortable about the probability of it being "good" as a result.

Most police agencies do not have a strong, independent, citizen based, equivalent of this kind of quality control. Instead, they rely on "internal experts", who the public may or may not believe. (If you need an example of what the public really thinks of "internal controls" - think Enron and Tyco )

While important for public relations, an elementary grade schol tour of the local Police / Fire Station does not fill this gap. The SF PD did not help itself in this area, when it apparently did not provide even basic responses to the appointed citizen review board requests.

I am not saying anyone there is doing anything wrong, but the fact that they "appear" to be doing something wrong is actually worse, because it enables articles like this, factual or not, to be taken as "likely". Once our public safety officers embrace strong, independent, citizen oversite, the number of articles like this will rapidly decline, as the content will loose its potential to cause a sensation.

why not just get out of the way of the car ?

does killing the operator of the vehicle stop the car instantly or gaurantee that it will stop acelerating - no.

I was not there so who knows.

markdi said:

why not just get out of the way of the car ?

does killing the operator of the vehicle stop the car instantly or gaurantee that it will stop acelerating - no.

Click to expand...

Picture that the officer is behind the door of his patrol car with the suspect's car in reverse heading straight towards him. Where can he physically go in the one or two seconds he might have to react? If he runs away from the patrol car the suspect's car might have changed direction and still ran him over. If he jumps into his patrol car he could become severely injured when the suspect's car hits the patrol car.

No, killing the operator doesn't guarantee than the car will instantly stop but it does prevent the car from leaving the scene and forcing other patrol cars to give chase, which in turn would endanger the public further.

I'm frankly amazed that this poor officer is going to be hung out to dry over this. This was a proper use of deadly force in every way. The suspect's age is irrelevant. Maybe the earlier suggestion in this thread of letting the public fend for themselves in areas where they're always complaining about the police is a good one.

jtr1962 said:

Maybe the earlier suggestion in this thread of letting the public fend for themselves in areas where they're always complaining about the police is a good one.

Click to expand...

In San Francisco? Where you cannot even exercise your constitutional right to own a firearm? Protect themselves?

That would be a lovely experiment!

markdi said:

why not just get out of the way of the car ?

does killing the operator of the vehicle stop the car instantly or gaurantee that it will stop acelerating - no.

I was not there so who knows.

Click to expand...

Your position seems to be that a Police Officer's life is worth less than a criminal.

A Police Officer's number one priority is to come home for dinner every night just the way he left. There is no obligation for a cop to be injured or killed just to protect a teenager who is intent on doing just that. Sometimes the decision, made in 0.2 of a second, isn't as good as one made by a commission who took 6 months to decide. That's the way it is when you deal with human beings.

I have some advice markdi. Get a law degree pass the bar. Public defenders office is usually hiring. You can then fight the battle in the court room instead on this little flashlight forum.

I for one believe the police never do anything wrong..
Unless of course they are caught on tape.


Thank goodness video has helped screen some of the criminals out of their uniform.

If possible and I was the cop I would rather get out of the way rather than having the dead persons foot still holding the throttle down.

markdi,

Some will think that I am playing both sides of the fence, but to me this is a clear case of self defense.

The commission is wrong! If the events occurred as noted, the officer had every right to defend himself. A car, used like this, is every bit as dangerous, perhaps more so, than a gun. If the 13 y/o had been shooting, would it change your mind?

Until people understand, whether they are cops, regular citizens, whatever, that all of your actions have consequences, than none of us can truly be safe.

A hundred and twenty years ago, 13 y/o's commonly carried guns as protection against wild animals and bad guys. They understood that if they used them inappropriately, there would be consequences. Some teenagers were hung when they killed. Today's kids don't always seem to understand that.

The commission screwed up, pure and simple.

The cop was right on this one!

Unlike most people nowadays, it seems, I believe that there is a right and a wrong to every such decision. In this case, the cop was right. I'm not yet sure about the Deputy shooting the Air Force cop last week, but it looks as if he was wrong there.

Bill

Bill

I could debate the tactics involved in dodging cars (done it myself, sort of, didn't shoot) but let's not miss the larger point.

Police officers get latitude to use force to make arrests. Every arrest contains the implicit death threat of a gun hanging from the officer's hip.

A wise person would pay attention to what cops think about another cop's use of force, just as wise people would ask doctors which procedures are necessary for which conditions.

The ubiquity of police in movies, TV and books makes it tempting for, say, home electronics wizards to also believe that they are police tactics experts. Jump out of the way of the car. Use a rolled up coat to grab the glass. Sounds good to me, but maybe there are other factors involved. I personally would never increase my risk or the public's risk to decrease the risk to a suspect who was trying to harm me or the public.

Believe it or not, officers HAVE been hit by cars driven at them. I recently watched a drug addict on foot get hit by a car driven at him by an LEO of a country that will not be named. There was no place for the guy to run, no obstacles to hide behind. He was going to get hit and he did, though he walked away after falling off the hood. Of course, murder by car has happened a few times in the last couple of years here in SoCal, too.

like I said I was not there

I would kill a 13 year old to save my own life or others.

the tazer - little kid incident is another thing

I can not spell I need sugar.

off to 7/11 I go.

Thank goodness video has helped screen some of the criminals out of their uniform.

Click to expand...

heh, I think you'll find that almost without exception police officers welcome being videotaped as often as possible when dealing with a potentially difficult situation. Thats why many departments mount cameras in their cars and record with a body mic the entire interaction that takes place during every traffic stop. It protects the police officer because 9 times out of 10 you can look at the tape and understand exactly why the officer made the decision that he did.

and of course, you are right, there have always been and there always will be those drawn to the power of being a police officer for the wrong reasons. Being on video may make them seek other ways to misbehave. But far more officers have gotten off the hook by having the tape available than have been found guilty of any wrong doing.

It feels so strange to be defending the cops It doesn't feel that long ago since I was a teenager and in my relatively safe hometown the cops really didn't have much to do but write parking tickets and give us kids a hard time when we were minding our own business.

I did not click the link. But coming from the SF Chronicle I would SERIOUSLY doubt fairness.

From reading the thread, I back what the officer did 125%! These days WAY under 13YO are doing BAD stuff!

jtr1962 said:

Maybe the earlier suggestion in this thread of letting the public fend for themselves in areas where they're always complaining about the police is a good one.

Click to expand...

ditto.. they'll just kill each other!