What NOT to do when pulled over

[SVT-40]

Because as long as no one gets hurt, then reckless behavior is tolerable.

Said by the arm chair critic who was not there, and is not privy to all the information related to the situation....

Check.....

[SactoDoug]

Said by the arm chair critic who was not there, and is not privy to all the information related to the situation....

Check.....

Even you had to admit that he may have violated one of his department's policy. Why would any LE agency have a policy against shooting out tires if it were not dangerous.

You don't have a leg to stand on.

[Lu(ky]

All I got from this is a BLACK WOMEN not wanting to following the rules as everyone else over a $100 ticket that just because you sign doesn't mean you are guilty tell you go to court and fight it.

Now think what she just did to her 5 kids in the car showing them not to follow the rules and teaching her 5 kids to hate the police because they are white.

But yet everyone is talking about on how the police officer used his weapon instead.

[doctor_vals]

Holy crap is that person a licensed driver? She should have followed law enforcements commands. I dunno why the cop shot but i feel that the driver put her family in that situation by not complying. At that point with the assault on a peace officer (driver and passenger) that is a feeing felon...

Refusing to follow an officers orders and having people assault a cop is not a good way to insure a happy ending.

As you can see at 0:50 - "peace officer" first assaulted that woman.
So, her son want to protect his mom.

When we finally agreed that police using deadly weapon in situations, when it is not necessary.
He able to call for backup and follow her until she finally stopped and at that point make arrest.
Instead, what we saw - that cop pointed gun on unarmed kids (they did not have even toy guns) than he smashed vehicle - his rage is so visible...
And finally somebody came and even do not know who in that car - start shooting.
And even he try to shoot tires - it is not excuse, because we all know when police in rage and shooting - bullets flying everywhere...

And before angry replay or sending pm's - just check statistics and admit - police used deadly option more and more often.
It is why 20 -30 y ago communication between LEO and people were more friendly than today, when anybody try to stand as far as possible from cop.

[doctor_vals]

All I got from this is a BLACK WOMEN not wanting to following the rules as everyone else over a $100 ticket that just because you sign doesn't mean you are guilty tell you go to court and fight it.

Now think what she just did to her 5 kids in the car showing them not to follow the rules and teaching her 5 kids to hate the police because they are white.

But yet everyone is talking about on how the police officer used his weapon instead.

Maybe because he (that officer) hate blacks - he start firing...?
We going to play racist card again.....

[RicksYo]

If this lady got onto a car accident from driving on the wrong side of the road, got into a head on collision with another family killing everyone involved. everyone one would be saying "the cops should have shot her tires out." The cop was trying to prevent a crazy lady from creating a 4000lb projectile.

[ChaoSS]

If this lady got onto a car accident from driving on the wrong side of the road, got into a head on collision with another family killing everyone involved. everyone one would be saying "the cops should have shot her tires out." The cop was trying to prevent a crazy lady from creating a 4000lb projectile.

Actually, I doubt anyone would say that. Maybe some idiot who doesn't know what happens when police start shooting stuff, but no, no intelligent person would have said that.

[Dee_Dub]

Fleeing from LE, even in a vehicle, is not justification for use of deadly force. Also, the use of deadly force is only allowed to stop the perpetrator. It is not a blank check to shoot innocent by-standers such as the children in the van.

yes it can. Some agencies allow their LEOs to used deadly force for a fleeing felon.

[Dee_Dub]

As you can see at 0:50 - "peace officer" first assaulted that woman.
So, her son want to protect his mom.

When we finally agreed that police using deadly weapon in situations, when it is not necessary.
He able to call for backup and follow her until she finally stopped and at that point make arrest.
Instead, what we saw - that cop pointed gun on unarmed kids (they did not have even toy guns) than he smashed vehicle - his rage is so visible...
And finally somebody came and even do not know who in that car - start shooting.
And even he try to shoot tires - it is not excuse, because we all know when police in rage and shooting - bullets flying everywhere...

And before angry replay or sending pm's - just check statistics and admit - police used deadly option more and more often.
It is why 20 -30 y ago communication between LEO and people were more friendly than today, when anybody try to stand as far as possible from cop.

You sir should never post in this forum again. Its been awhile since I have seen such dochebaggery

[Corsair415]

I feel this was fully justified especially finding out he wasn't shooting the kids but at the tires.

I agree, since cops are known for their impeccable accuracy this is a valid tactic.

[ChaoSS]

yes it can. Some agencies allow their LEOs to used deadly force for a fleeing felon.

That should never be acceptable.

When use of deadly force is acceptable is spelled out in penal codes. There should not be an option for Law Enforcement Agencies to set their own rules in those regards.

They should be able to set rules more strict than the law, of course. But no agency should be able to authorize itself to act outside of the law, or to make their own law.

[SVT-40]

Even you had to admit that he may have violated one of his department's policy. Why would any LE agency have a policy against shooting out tires if it were not dangerous.

You don't have a leg to stand on.

Well here you go. A layman writing about something of which he has no real knowledge.

I don't think anyone said any agency has a specific rule related to shooting out a vehicles tires, I know mine did not.....

I did say it would be up to the agency to decide if the officer violated any rules....Just SOP in any shooting or use of force....

Regarding so called "dangerous" activities...

Many times the police are in dangerous situations, and resort to the use of force... That is "dangerous"... However those actions are in reaction to what the suspect is doing....

A high speed pursuit is one of the most "dangerous" activities a officer can be involved with... But still it's a legal and a reasonable reaction to a suspects actions. Thats just part of the job... Breaking out the window of the van was "dangerous"... and that action will be reviewed by the agency..

In fact all the officers actions will be reviewed.

Thats just standard practice....

However just because what the officer did was "dangerous" does not mean it violated any law or policy.....

The standard which will be used to determine if the officer acted within policy will be the "reasonableness" standard, and will be based on what the officers knew at the time of the action, as well as what they intended to do.

..Not just because it was "dangerous".

Additionally I never said whether I believed the officers actions were proper....

I'll leave those decisions to those with all the information.

Knee jerk decisions made without all the evidence and information available are usually made in error.....

[Dee_Dub]

Well here you go. A layman writing about something of which he has no real knowledge.

I don't think anyone said any agency has a specific rule related to shooting out a vehicles tires, I know mine did not.....

I did say it would be up to the agency to decide if the officer violated any rules....Just SOP in any shooting or use of force....

Regarding so called "dangerous" activities...

Many times the police are in dangerous situations, and resort to the use of force... That is "dangerous"... However those actions are in reaction to what the suspect is doing....

A high speed pursuit is one of the most "dangerous" activities a officer can be involved with... But still it's a legal and a reasonable reaction to a suspects actions. Thats just part of the job... Breaking out the window of the van was "dangerous"... and that action will be reviewed by the agency..

In fact all the officers actions will be reviewed.

Thats just standard practice....

However just because what the officer did was "dangerous" does not mean it violated any law or policy.....

The standard which will be used to determine if the officer acted within policy will be the "reasonableness" standard, and will be based on what the officers knew at the time of the action, as well as what they intended to do.

..Not just because it was "dangerous".

Additionally I never said whether I believed the officers actions were proper....

I'll leave those decisions to those with all the information.

Knee jerk decisions made without all the evidence and information available are usually made in error.....

well said

[TRICKSTER]

Well here you go. A layman writing about something of which he has no real knowledge.

I don't think anyone said any agency has a specific rule related to shooting out a vehicles tires, I know mine did not.....

I did say it would be up to the agency to decide if the officer violated any rules....Just SOP in any shooting or use of force....

Regarding so called "dangerous" activities...

Many times the police are in dangerous situations, and resort to the use of force... That is "dangerous"... However those actions are in reaction to what the suspect is doing....

A high speed pursuit is one of the most "dangerous" activities a officer can be involved with... But still it's a legal and a reasonable reaction to a suspects actions. Thats just part of the job... Breaking out the window of the van was "dangerous"... and that action will be reviewed by the agency..

In fact all the officers actions will be reviewed.

Thats just standard practice....

However just because what the officer did was "dangerous" does not mean it violated any law or policy.....

The standard which will be used to determine if the officer acted within policy will be the "reasonableness" standard, and will be based on what the officers knew at the time of the action, as well as what they intended to do.

..Not just because it was "dangerous".

Additionally I never said whether I believed the officers actions were proper....

I'll leave those decisions to those with all the information.

Knee jerk decisions made without all the evidence and information available are usually made in error.....

The problem that we have in all these discussions is that the critics expect the often split second decision to be the perfect decision, not a reasonable based on the known facts at the time decision. They are unreasonable and just can't seem to comprehend the realities of what it's like to make what may end up being split second life or death decisions out in the real world. Luckily society, our lawmakers, and the courts have recognized the existence of these unreasonable people and have put laws in place to protect us from them and allow LEOs to do their job in a reasonable manner.

[SactoDoug]

Well here you go. A layman writing about something of which he has no real knowledge.

I don't think anyone said any agency has a specific rule related to shooting out a vehicles tires, I know mine did not.....

I did say it would be up to the agency to decide if the officer violated any rules....Just SOP in any shooting or use of force....

Regarding so called "dangerous" activities...

Many times the police are in dangerous situations, and resort to the use of force... That is "dangerous"... However those actions are in reaction to what the suspect is doing....

A high speed pursuit is one of the most "dangerous" activities a officer can be involved with... But still it's a legal and a reasonable reaction to a suspects actions. Thats just part of the job... Breaking out the window of the van was "dangerous"... and that action will be reviewed by the agency..

In fact all the officers actions will be reviewed.

Thats just standard practice....

However just because what the officer did was "dangerous" does not mean it violated any law or policy.....

The standard which will be used to determine if the officer acted within policy will be the "reasonableness" standard, and will be based on what the officers knew at the time of the action, as well as what they intended to do.

..Not just because it was "dangerous".

Additionally I never said whether I believed the officers actions were proper....

I'll leave those decisions to those with all the information.

Knee jerk decisions made without all the evidence and information available are usually made in error.....

Obfuscation.

check...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57612743/n.m-police-fire-on-minivan-filled-with-kids-their-mom-how-it-happened/

CBS News senior correspondent John Miller, a former FBI assistant director, said there are a few, "built-in" problems in this case.

"In many departments, it's against policy to fire at a moving vehicle," Miller said. "Now, the officer later said he was trying to shoot the tires out. The problem is, when you're trying to shoot at a moving car, it's inherently ineffective. You almost never stop the car, and it's also dangerous. If you're firing on a car with five children, you're firing in the direction of two other officers who are in front of the car so, I think, for police, the biggest problem is going to be justifying the use of firearms in what is a traffic stop that's spinning out of control."

Don't like a "layman"'s opinion, then have even more experts:

http://www.taosnews.com/news/article_8f887fc2-51f1-11e3-ae5b-001a4bcf887a.html