- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Chicago police release video related to shooting of unarmed man
Posted on 8/5/16 at 12:46 pm to LSUTANGERINE
Posted on 8/5/16 at 12:46 pm to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
Their departmental policy specifically prohibits shooting into a car if the only weapon is the car.
bunch of fricking idiots in Chicago...what if the car was doing what the truck did in france?
0
Posted on 8/5/16 at 12:46 pm to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
As a reminder, Chicago police policy prohibits the use of shooting at a car when the only danger presented is the car it's self
Ramming into two cop cars and almost running over an officer doesn't seem like "danger was presented" to you?
I'll help you out. A car will always win the head on battle when it is human vs car. In this situation, the car was a weapon.
Posted on 8/5/16 at 12:47 pm to AU_251
So...you say another lawbreaker was shot while running from the popo. No way!
This post was edited on 8/5/16 at 12:49 pm
Posted on 8/5/16 at 12:48 pm to tween the hedges
beat me to it 
Posted on 8/5/16 at 12:49 pm to LSUTANGERINE
Let me help you out here,
the reason im asking where it specifically prohibits shooting into a car if the only weapon is the car, is because thats not in accordance with national use of force models nor Chicago PD's own Use of Force Model:
As you can see, at the top left where its dark red, it says that if the "assailants actions will likely cause death or physical injury," then the proper use of force would be for officers (go to the bottom right where its dark red) to "Use firearms and Other lethal force"
Now, if an assailant tries to ram a person with a car, is that "likely to cause death or physical injury?"
If the answer is yes, according to the above Use of Force model, then an officer can fire at him.
the reason im asking where it specifically prohibits shooting into a car if the only weapon is the car, is because thats not in accordance with national use of force models nor Chicago PD's own Use of Force Model:
As you can see, at the top left where its dark red, it says that if the "assailants actions will likely cause death or physical injury," then the proper use of force would be for officers (go to the bottom right where its dark red) to "Use firearms and Other lethal force"
Now, if an assailant tries to ram a person with a car, is that "likely to cause death or physical injury?"
If the answer is yes, according to the above Use of Force model, then an officer can fire at him.
Posted on 8/5/16 at 12:50 pm to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
It was already shown to violate departmental policy. So it is already unjustified.
Policy doesn't take the effect of law. Justification is in no way correlated to department policy. It is in terms of employment, but not in terms of a legal case.
Posted on 8/5/16 at 12:50 pm to AU_251
These were the videos that were supposed to cause civil unrest? That's basically just stirring the pot to GET people to protest.
For frick's sake. Idiot steals car, leads police on chase, Rams cop head on, runs away, gets shot.
I see 0 issue here besides the cops firing into the car. Granted I didn't watch the full videos, so I didn't see what precipitated that that could have absolved the officers of wrongdoing.
Again, idiot breaks the law, idiot rams police, idiot gets shot. I feel ZERO sympathy.
For frick's sake. Idiot steals car, leads police on chase, Rams cop head on, runs away, gets shot.
I see 0 issue here besides the cops firing into the car. Granted I didn't watch the full videos, so I didn't see what precipitated that that could have absolved the officers of wrongdoing.
Again, idiot breaks the law, idiot rams police, idiot gets shot. I feel ZERO sympathy.
Posted on 8/5/16 at 12:51 pm to Ash Williams
quote:
Now, if an assailant tries to ram a person with a car, is that "likely to cause death or physical injury?
Shh you're making too much sense. The BLM crowd won't have any of that
Posted on 8/5/16 at 12:59 pm to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
LSUTANGERINE
As usual, you suck.
First of all, even if it was against department policy, that doesn't render the shooting justified or unjustified. Those are legal standards. "Department policy" doesn't necessarily reflect legal standars. They are guidelines.
Second, you're wrong. As usual. Use of lethal force is well justified when a suspect uses a vehicle as a deadly weapon and endangers the lives of police officers or the public. This is almost universal.
Posted on 8/5/16 at 1:00 pm to Ash Williams
quote:
Can you show me the link to that information?
Sure.
quote:
The city’s use of force policy explicitly bars police from shooting into a car when the vehicle represents the only danger.
LINK
The policy itself. You must go to the second section called deadly force.
LINK
quote:
DEADLY FORCE (second section) III.E
Firing at or into a moving vehicle when the vehicle is the only force used against the sworn member or another person
Posted on 8/5/16 at 1:03 pm to Fun Bunch
I didn't not say legal or illegal. I said unjustified. Meaning unjustified according to Police policy. Of course there are legal standards which will differ. And this will likely get the officers off. However given that they violated departmental policy, the family of the thug will receive a cash payout .
what about the actual shot that struck and killed the criminal? He was unarmed and shot in the back. The officer incorrectly thought that he had shot at the Police . It will be interesting to see how that plays out
what about the actual shot that struck and killed the criminal? He was unarmed and shot in the back. The officer incorrectly thought that he had shot at the Police . It will be interesting to see how that plays out
This post was edited on 8/5/16 at 1:05 pm
Posted on 8/5/16 at 1:07 pm to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
He was unarmed and shot in the back. The officer incorrectly thought that he had shot at the Police . It will be interesting to see how that plays out
He rammed two police cars, purposefully, after stealing a car, and then ran from the police. IF the police officer had a reasonable perception that the offender was then committing ANOTHER violent act (after already attempting to kill police officers, twice), then I don't see the problem.
If the officers perception was not reasonable, then obviously there could be a problem.
It drives me crazy that black people apparently always pick the wrong shootings to lose their shite over. This one is murky at best. Michael Brown was complete bullshite.
Pick one where its actually bad.
Posted on 8/5/16 at 1:07 pm to LSUTANGERINE
They will just get fired from the department. This will be a non story by Sunday.
Posted on 8/5/16 at 1:07 pm to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
I said unjustified. Meaning unjustified according to Police policy
you said it with intentions of it meaning the shooting in legal terms is unjustified.
Posted on 8/5/16 at 1:09 pm to LSUTANGERINE
Well i'll be, i cant believe its against policy for an officer to shoot a guy trying to run him down in a car. That goes against every Use of Force policy i've ever seen
I cant imagine the union was too happy about that
like you said, though, all they have to say is that they feared for their life or another's life and thats why they shot
thats the legal self defense standard
This will be interesting because if the officer that shot him honestly thought that the suspect was armed, then it technically doesnt matter that he shot him in the back
There have been studies showing that it can take a person running away from you with a gun less than half a second to turn around and fire that gun, while it takes an officer much longer to recognize the threat, and raise his own firearm to defend himself
Because of this, many officers are taught that if a guy is running away from you with a gun and they do not throw the gun away after you've clearly commanded them to do so, they must be perceived as an immediate to everyone in their surroundings
I cant imagine the union was too happy about that
like you said, though, all they have to say is that they feared for their life or another's life and thats why they shot
thats the legal self defense standard
quote:
what about the actual shot that struck and killed the criminal? He was unarmed and shot in the back. The officer incorrectly thought that he had shot at the Police . It will be interesting to see how that plays out
This will be interesting because if the officer that shot him honestly thought that the suspect was armed, then it technically doesnt matter that he shot him in the back
There have been studies showing that it can take a person running away from you with a gun less than half a second to turn around and fire that gun, while it takes an officer much longer to recognize the threat, and raise his own firearm to defend himself
Because of this, many officers are taught that if a guy is running away from you with a gun and they do not throw the gun away after you've clearly commanded them to do so, they must be perceived as an immediate to everyone in their surroundings
This post was edited on 8/5/16 at 1:11 pm
Posted on 8/5/16 at 1:11 pm to Ash Williams
quote:
As you can see, at the top left where its dark red, it says that if the "assailants actions will likely cause death or physical injury," then the proper use of force would be for officers (go to the bottom right where its dark red) to "Use firearms and Other lethal force"
Now, if an assailant tries to ram a person with a car, is that "likely to cause death or physical injury?" If the answer is yes, according to the above Use of Force model, then an officer can fire at him.
You seem to be pretty knowledgeable on the subject. If I'm not mistaken, the suspect was killed while running away on foot. Perhaps they broke policy by firing into the vehicle, perhaps not, but if the vehicle is the weapon being used for bodily harm, and the suspect flees that vehicle, when is deadly force no longer warranted?
Posted on 8/5/16 at 1:13 pm to slackster
It would be whether or not the cops were reasonable in their perception that deadly force was necessary.
Posted on 8/5/16 at 1:14 pm to LSUTANGERINE
quote:Unless it contradicts with:
DEADLY FORCE (second section) III.E
Firing at or into a moving vehicle when the vehicle is the only force used against the sworn member or another person
A sworn member is justified in using force likely to cause death or great bodily harm only when he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary:
1.to prevent death or great bodily harm to the sworn member or to another person, or:
2.to prevent an arrest from being defeated by resistance or escape and the sworn member reasonably believes that the person to be arrested:
a.has committed or has attempted to commit a forcible felony which involves theinfliction, threatened infliction, or threatened use of physical force likely to causedeath or great bodily harm or;
b.is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon or;c.otherwise indicates that he or she will endanger human life or inflict great bodily harmunless arrested without delay
Posted on 8/5/16 at 1:16 pm to Ash Williams
quote:
Their departmental policy specifically prohibits shooting into a car if the only weapon is the car.
Wait so they can only fire upon a car if they for sure know there is an additional weapon (other than the car) inside of the car? I'm sorry but that policy (ETA: but of course that isn't the ACTUAL policy as perpetuated by TANGERINE) is asking for shite like this to happen. That makes no logical sense.
So a guy runs down 10 civilians in a vehicle but NOPE cant shoot him and stop him because of policy! Just have to let him finish the act until he is ready to stop.
Got it.
ETA: Sorry Ash this wasn't directed at you, just the quote.
This post was edited on 8/5/16 at 1:22 pm
Posted on 8/5/16 at 1:16 pm to slackster
quote:
You seem to be pretty knowledgeable on the subject. If I'm not mistaken, the suspect was killed while running away on foot. Perhaps they broke policy by firing into the vehicle, perhaps not, but if the vehicle is the weapon being used for bodily harm, and the suspect flees that vehicle, when is deadly force no longer warranted?
right, in regards to the use of force chart, i was mainly referring to the guys that shot at the car while it was gunning straight at them
See my above post regarding shooting the guy in the back
The supreme court has ruled that an officer may shoot when there is an imminent risk of harm to self or others, or to stop someone who poses a danger to others if allowed to escape. So if the officer that shot the guy honestly thought he was armed, noticed he did not drop his weapon, then it could be argued taht it was reasonable for him to take a shot to protect him or others in the neighborhood
Page 4 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News