Man Flees Seatbelt Stop on Foot, Cop Runs Him Over and Kills Him

[sgtonory]

Mike, I disagree. I think all of us essentially saying "he brought this on himself" are all saying "he did not deserve to die", but that it was more likely an accident (perhaps it wasn't). If it wasn't an accident then the officer should be brought up on all applicable charges and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

I haven't read anything that even implied he "deserved to die", rather, play with fire and get burned. It's a sad set of events and could have been avoided in a number of ways, but I have to place the majority of the blame on the criminal who placed himself in those circumstances. Not the officer, most likely, trying to catch him.

So lets say someone try's to rob you and you resist then you are the criminal? I consider forcing someone to pay a "ticket" when there is no victim then the LEO was trying to steal from the man.

 

[IndyDave1776]

On this note we'll agree to disagree (with almost everything you said here). You're reading into all of this and getting your desired results. I guess by your logic then had he pulled over they would have just probably killed him anyway. His fleeing had nothing to do with his death.

I don't understand the disagreement. You asked for posts indicating that killing the man was justified. Some of them even cheered the event and clearly stated that the result was one less undesirable individual in circulation. Again, a false argument is forming up. Fleeing absolutely did contribute to the situation, but summary execution, deliberate or otherwise, is not an acceptable solution. In my opinion, this is simply the day two stupid MFSBs met and one left in a box. I fail to see anything justifiable in the outcome in this situation. The most important issue is to remember that what can be done to one person can be done to all, and the circumstances under which any particular act of police can be done is constantly expanding and rarely contracts. We are still some distance away from the end result of this being allowed to take root as a trend, but it would still be wise to think about the conditions associated with living places where 'street justice' is handed out by the police with impunity. If this guy gets away with saying 'oops' and walking away, we can rest assured that this will happen again with targets increasingly mainstream unlike the one in this case who is not one to inspire much sympathy with most people. Make no mistake. If it is allowed here, it will eventually affect the 'pretty people'.

 

[IndyDave1776]

There are some really.....ummm.....hard-headed people who post here who read what they want to read to support their anti-LE rant. It's the same rant to which we are treated each and every time they post. After a while, you will ignore them.

There are people at least equally hard headed who worship government and law enforcement and would probably defend the police in the event thee police were killing their mothers, raping their sisters, and cutting their brothers' n**ts off.

 

[irl104]

I was taught that if you run from the police your guilty. Get rid of the trash and it will save the tax payers money.

 

[sgtonory]

"The most important issue is to remember that what can be done to one person can be done to all" quote from IndyDave1776. Well said.

 

[MikeDVB]

On this note we'll agree to disagree (with almost everything you said here).

So what was written and quoted has a different meaning than what it says?

You're reading into all of this and getting your desired results.

There's not a whole lot to read into to be honest... It's the same impression I got when reading the posts and I wasn't trying to look at it from any particular perspective.

I guess by your logic then had he pulled over they would have just probably killed him anyway. His fleeing had nothing to do with his death.

Nobody said fleeing was smart, but answer this:

He was running from police and they pull and draw on him... Inexperienced officer accidentally squeezes off a round and kills the man - would you still feel he got what he deserved?

So lets say someone try's to rob you and you resist then you are the criminal?

To make your example more similar to the actual situation - somebody robs me and then starts to run... I would absolutely be a criminal for running them down with my car even if I didn't mean to kill him and just meant to knock him over/stop him.

Being a criminal or violating the law is not carte blanche to kill them - we do have a legal system for a reason.

I consider forcing someone to pay a "ticket" when there is no victim then the LEO was trying to steal from the man.

Then your issue is with legislation and not the officer.

 

[sgtonory]

So what was written and quoted has a different meaning than what it says?

There's not a whole lot to read into to be honest... It's the same impression I got when reading the posts and I wasn't trying to look at it from any particular perspective.

Nobody said fleeing was smart, but answer this:

He was running from police and they pull and draw on him... Inexperienced officer accidentally squeezes off a round and kills the man - would you still feel he got what he deserved?

To make your example more similar to the actual situation - somebody robs me and then starts to run... I would absolutely be a criminal for running them down with my car even if I didn't mean to kill him and just meant to knock him over/stop him.

Being a criminal or violating the law is not carte blanche to kill them - we do have a legal system for a reason.

Then your issue is with legislation and not the officer.

Was saying that the cop was the robber and the guy that died was justified in fleeing.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I was taught that if you run from the police your guilty. Get rid of the trash and it will save the tax payers money.

What happens when they decide that you're the trash (which isn't far from the situation as we speak presuming that you are a gun owner)?

 

[rambone]

it was more likely an accident (perhaps it wasn't). If it wasn't an accident then the officer should be brought up on all applicable charges and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

In the world of firearms, there is no such thing as an "accidental discharge," only a negligent one. Running over a human being with a car is not much different.

I was taught that if you run from the police your guilty.

You should ask for your money back.

He was running from police and they pull and draw on him... Inexperienced officer accidentally squeezes off a round and kills the man - would you still feel he got what he deserved?

An apt analogy.

 

[KG1]

I say it was a not so successful attempt at a non textbook pit maneuver.

 

[steveh_131]

How many people need to die in the prosecution of victimless crimes before we decide that it's just not worth it to be the world's nanny?

 

[rw496]

Enough conjecture. Let's see how the US Supreme Court feels about this subject in Scott v. Harris (2007):
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4948472922795514650&q=scott++v.+harris&hl=en&as_sdt=2,14

 

[rw496]

Here's a clip:
So how does a court go about weighing the perhaps lesser probability of injuring or killing numerous bystanders against the perhaps larger probability of injuring or killing a single person? We think it appropriate in this process to take into account not only the number of lives at risk, but also their relative culpability. It was respondent, after all, who intentionally placed himself and the public in danger by unlawfully engaging in the reckless, high-speed flight that ultimately produced the choice between two evils that Scott confronted. Multiple police cars, with blue lights flashing and sirens blaring, had been chasing respondent for nearly 10 miles, but he ignored their warning to stop. By contrast, those who might have been harmed had Scott not taken the action he did were entirely innocent. We have little difficulty in concluding it was reasonable for Scott to take the action that he did.[10]

 

[MikeDVB]

Here's a clip:
So how does a court go about weighing the perhaps lesser probability of injuring or killing numerous bystanders against the perhaps larger probability of injuring or killing a single person? We think it appropriate in this process to take into account not only the number of lives at risk, but also their relative culpability. It was respondent, after all, who intentionally placed himself and the public in danger by unlawfully engaging in the reckless, high-speed flight that ultimately produced the choice between two evils that Scott confronted. Multiple police cars, with blue lights flashing and sirens blaring, had been chasing respondent for nearly 10 miles, but he ignored their warning to stop. By contrast, those who might have been harmed had Scott not taken the action he did were entirely innocent. We have little difficulty in concluding it was reasonable for Scott to take the action that he did.[10]

Nowhere did I say running from the police was reasonable or justified, I just asked how killing him as a result is justified.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Soooo, you are saying the Cop should have jumped out of his car 100 yards BEHIND the guy and chased & caught up with him? How many people have you caught while giving them a 100 yard head start, at night in an urban environment?

If so then my hat off to you sir, you are one bad ass mother ****er.

Just one myself, but he was 2 years old.

 

[Stickfight]

Here's a clip:

And here are some others:

There we see respondent's vehicle racing down narrow, two-lane roads in the dead of night at speeds that are shockingly fast. We see it swerve around more than a dozen other cars, cross the double-yellow line, and force cars traveling in both directions to their respective shoulders to avoid being hit. We see it run multiple red lights and travel for considerable periods of time in the occasional center left-turn-only lane

And:

That was the case here with regard to the factual issue whether respondent was driving in such fashion as to endanger human life.

Then:

Judging the matter on that basis, we think it is quite clear that Deputy Scott did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

And it gets better:

Garner held that it was unreasonable to kill a "young, slight, and unarmed" burglary suspect, 471 U.S., at 21, 105 S.Ct. 1694, by shooting him "in the back of the head" while he was running away on foot, id., at 4, 105 S.Ct. 1694, and when the officer "could not reasonably have believed that [the suspect] ... posed any threat," and "never attempted to justify his actions on any basis other than the need to prevent an escape,"

Do you think the foot escape of a seatbelt violator who was observed behaving strangely in the middle of the road with a carload of women, endangers the public similarly? Does killing him with the car, even though it was obviously unintentional, meets the reasonableness test in Garner?

 

[Bunnykid68]

Enough conjecture. Let's see how the US Supreme Court feels about this subject in Scott v. Harris (2007):
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4948472922795514650&q=scott++v.+harris&hl=en&as_sdt=2,14

How is this the same? Scott attacked the officers with his vehicle

 

[rw496]

I think the initial vehicle chase initiated by the suspect endangered the lives of all of the occupants of the vehicle, the police, and the public. The court focuses on the culpability of the suspect and the possibility of him being killed vs. the potential danger to the public. In other words, his life is secondary because he chose to put himself in this position by fleeing. The police are justified in using up to and including lethal force to stop the danger posed to the public. I don't think this usually includes running over a guy on foot, but he did put himself in that position and hopefully it was not intentional

 

[Spazzmodicus]

Was the officer justified in running this person over? Hell no. Was it done intentionally? I dunno, you tell me. If it was intentional then the officer should face the music and criminal charges he earned. If it was unintentional the blame lies with the person who chose to run.

Um, no. You are quite wrong. The original officer in this report responded with common sense and terminated the pursuit. It was another agency with a brand-new gung-ho rookie cop not even involved in the original pursuit that exercised poor judgement and committed the unnecessary murder. His partner in another car also exercised common sense by stopping his vehicle at the suspect's vehicle, probably to pursue on foot.

 

[femurphy77]

All right, I'm all about holding the police accountable when they screw up, but this was a guy that didn't want to go to jail so he decided to flee from the police. He was definitely in the wrong.

I myself find it hard to believe that the officer ran the guy over on purpose. Maybe he meant to clip him, maybe not.

So a guy running from a seatbelt ticket at the very least deserves to get hit by a police car?? And it was just his dumb luck that he died? Punishment fit the crime then I take it?

Really???