Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

LA Cops fatally shoot car chase suspect on TV

A slow moving car can turn in to a fast moving car very quickly.

Three officers fired about 11 rounds into the rear window of the car. Approx 4 shots per officer. Unsure how many times the guy was hit. Is 4 shots excessive? You shot until the attacker is neutralized.

If your target is in a car backing into you, where can you aim to stop him. Shooting out the tires will not stop a car. All you have is a head shot. These tend to be fatal.

Sorry, but I got to side with the police on this one.
 
Originally posted by Diatribe
And what is it with someone deserving to die when they are running from the police?
Click to expand...

I dont think that is what we're saying, at least, thats not what IM saying.

My argument is a three-parter:

1) The police were right in killing him because at a moment of tension (having him surrounded, trapped, etc) they felt he was beginning to act in an aggressive manner, and had they not acted, they could have been killed. Now, if thats true, then they (the police) were right. If, however, it turns out that he was just putting the car in park, and his reverse lights just flipped on and they overreacted, then they were wrong....

But that leads me to point

2) In Los Angeles or any large city, 9 times out of 10, if a robbery is committed and a car chase insues, the perp is considered a danger/threat to society. (It happens so much, and many many times it has killed pedestrians and officers) He is instantly charged with wreckless driving, and his vehicle then becomes a weapon. Neutralizing that weapon becomes #1 priority. So therefore, overreaction by the police is expected, because they are aware of the damage this person is able to inflict. Yes, they still overreacted, but not because they are "bad" police officers, but because they know the statistics, and know that there is very high liklihood that this dude is gonna flip.

And finally

3) People dont deserve to die when they rob a bank and run from the police. (please re-read that so you dont get confused) But when you do such an action, you should know that there is a good liklihood that the situation could escalate (in this case, it did) and you could wind up shot. Its called risk. The police can misinterpret your actions (which they did) or you could lose your cool, and wind up getting shot. Therefore, ultimately, it is still the perps fault. Trust me, the po po will leave you alone if you dont do something to attract their attention.

Its the same thing that would happen to you if you brandished a fake knife on an airplane as a practical joke on an airplane (to a stewardess). No, you wouldnt deserve to die, but theres a good chance you would get shot by the air marshall.
 
Originally posted by Diatribe
I think they should stop someone like this, yes, but to shoot 11 or more rounds into that guy. I've seen pursuits where they KNEW that the guy had a gun end better than this. And what is it with someone deserving to die when they are running from the police?
Click to expand...

11 rounds. Do you know how long it would take to fire 11 rounds? With 3 cops, an average of 4 rounds a piece, that is still not a long period of time. I've gone through IDPA shoots, and it does not take a long time to shoot 4 rounds. And the cops have thought through whether to shoot or not. It requires 1.5 seconds to draw. Thats 1.5 seconds the bad guy could have used to give up. If you are a bad guy, the best way to NOT get shot by police is to give up BEFORE their sidearms clear the holster.

I knew a couple of police officers who shot and killed a man on NewYearsEve. They will carry the memory of that for the rest of their lives. The way I hear the story, they received a call for man with a gun, shots fired, so they have to approach it with the utmost caution. Happens the guy was shooting up in the air on NewYearsEve, and when he the cops arrived, he turns with the gun at the cops.
 
Originally posted by agreenster
3) People dont deserve to die when they rob a bank and run from the police. (please re-read that so you dont get confused) But when you do such an action, you should know that there is a good liklihood that the situation could escalate (in this case, it did) and you could wind up shot. Its called risk. The police can misinterpret your actions (which they did) or you could lose your cool, and wind up getting shot. Therefore, ultimately, it is still the perps fault. Trust me, the po po will leave you alone if you dont do something to attract their attention.
Click to expand...

GIVE ME YOUR WALLET while pointing a deadly weapon causes fear of serious injury. The fear of serious injury, and likelihood of being able to carry out that injury gives you plenty of justification to act in self defense. Who initiated deadly violence? When a person initiates deadly violence against another, they have relinquished their right to life, IMO. Note, that violence is not a bad thing. Violence used to combat the intiator of violence is good. The more this happens, the less the likelihood of having violence be initiated.
 
Originally posted by bwilke
A slow moving car can turn in to a fast moving car very quickly.

Three officers fired about 11 rounds into the rear window of the car. Approx 4 shots per officer. Unsure how many times the guy was hit. Is 4 shots excessive? You shot until the attacker is neutralized.

If your target is in a car backing into you, where can you aim to stop him. Shooting out the tires will not stop a car. All you have is a head shot. These tend to be fatal.

Sorry, but I got to side with the police on this one.
Click to expand...

Details were released today, there were 2 rounds of shootings, the suspect was hit 10 times. 9 in the "chest", and 1 in the left arm. IIRC


-edit: In case anyone hasn't seen the video, there's a snippet here..
 
Whats worse?

ABC showed the shootout completly, 2 times.

I mean you show a boob censored 1000 times, but YOU SEE A GUY BEING FIRED AT AND FALLING OUT OF A CAR AND SHOW IT 2 TIMES?


What is WRONG with this COUNTRY!!??!!

I can take your word on it that he was killed, why do I need to see a REAL live, non-hollywood person DIE right infront of me.


This is worse then the ****ING brease that Ms. Jackson exposed.

Shame on ABC.

Shame on any network that plays it.

Where are the rules of broadcasting this?

Where?
 
Originally posted by MrMacman
I can take your word on it that he was killed, why do I need to see a REAL live, non-hollywood person DIE right infront of me.


This is worse then the ****ING brease that Ms. Jackson exposed.
Click to expand...

My sentiment exactly. Where are the protections for my kid who's watching TV and sees an actual human being killed? This kind of thing has happened before, and it always happens during the day when young children are likely to be watching. How is that less offensive than seeing a breast with the nipple covered? Where are the congressional hearings? Where is the outrage? Why is this country so OK with violence, and so outraged by sex?
 
Originally posted by Frohickey
Yep. Did you know that in a given year, more people get killed with vehicles than they do with guns?
Click to expand...

Yeah, warms my heart to know that "only" 12,000 people were killed by guns last year. We need cars. We don't need guns.
 
You gotta be careful with that 'if it saves even one life' argument, it could easily be used to mean the opposite of what you want it to...
 
Originally posted by mactastic
You gotta be careful with that 'if it saves even one life' argument, it could easily be used to mean the opposite of what you want it to...
Click to expand...

Its not me that brought forth the 'if it saves even one life' argument. You hear that from the other side that would like to curtail a civil right. I'm the one that wants more freedom and responsibility, remember? ;)
 
Originally posted by Les Kern
Yeah, warms my heart to know that "only" 12,000 people were killed by guns last year. We need cars. We don't need guns.
Click to expand...

What we need is sentencing that makes sense. What we need are judges in criminal proceedings that try to to second guess the law (Though Martha is happy there are judges like that).

Does it seem right that someone with the right amount of Pot, gets a longer term then some that gets behind the wheel of a car at 2 to 3 times the legal limit and kills someone? The state does not have to prove that the amount of Pot was for "distribution", only that the amount can "be" for distribution.

But this goes beyond simple ideals of right and wrong. We have allowed our justice system to be hijacked by the rich and the politicians. All in the name of the state and local budgets.

It goes to the simplest of laws, including traffic laws. We have allowed ******s to hijack the hiways doing speeds 15-30mph or better. To allow them to park in no standing or parking zones. To allow them to park going north bound in a south bound lane. It may seem trivial, but if the simple laws can not be enforced or obeyed, what hope for the more serious laws?

It is time for us to demand that all laws be punished under the constraints of the law to their fullest. Bush may have a point about activist judges (though he owes his office those type of judges IMHO).

It is time for the ordinary person to stan up and demand that criminals be held accountable for their actions. No matter what the offense, even if we are caught in that net.

It can only lead to a better society.
 
Originally posted by Chip NoVaMac
What we need is sentencing that makes sense. What we need are judges in criminal proceedings that try to to second guess the law (Though Martha is happy there are judges like that).

But this goes beyond simple ideals of right and wrong. We have allowed our justice system to be hijacked by the rich and the politicians. All in the name of the state and local budgets.

It is time for the ordinary person to stan up and demand that criminals be held accountable for their actions. No matter what the offense, even if we are caught in that net.

It can only lead to a better society.
Click to expand...


OJ Simpson got off on 2 murder charges. He's rich. Politicians are mostly lawyers. Its when you have lawyers writing law that things get messy and convoluted.

One problem that we have is the multitudes of obscure laws and regulations made by politicians over the years trying to fix something, but these laws have unintended consequences. I bet that over the course of a single day, you break at least 20 laws that are on the books. Sounds like some of these laws should be sunsetted. I would go for an automatic 10 year sunset of all laws passed, subject to a periodic renewal by the legislatures. That would get rid of the cruft of stupid laws.

When you have stupid laws, you end up with people not following them, and that ends up eroding the respect for the law.
 
Originally posted by Frohickey
OJ Simpson got off on 2 murder charges. He's rich. Politicians are mostly lawyers. Its when you have lawyers writing law that things get messy and convoluted.

One problem that we have is the multitudes of obscure laws and regulations made by politicians over the years trying to fix something, but these laws have unintended consequences. I bet that over the course of a single day, you break at least 20 laws that are on the books. Sounds like some of these laws should be sunsetted. I would go for an automatic 10 year sunset of all laws passed, subject to a periodic renewal by the legislatures. That would get rid of the cruft of stupid laws.

When you have stupid laws, you end up with people not following them, and that ends up eroding the respect for the law.
Click to expand...

You have the issue of a jury of your peers. Unfortunately unless we are wanting to limit access to lawyers by what you can afford, we have no solution. I was referring more to those of us that did not have the deep pockets of O.J. Simpson.

I will not get into whether O.J. was guilty or not.
 
Originally posted by Frohickey
Its not me that brought forth the 'if it saves even one life' argument. You hear that from the other side that would like to curtail a civil right. I'm the one that wants more freedom and responsibility, remember? ;)
Click to expand...

Originally posted by Frohickey
Tell that to Virginia "Sue" Devoe. I guess she should be better off dead. Oh wait... wrong story. Since you are in Illinois...

Urban predator shot, paralyzed by female victim 10

What is the mantra that we always hear? If it only saves one life
Click to expand...

Oh. I guess we should just ignore you when you post then? Were you not trying to justify the ownership of guns on the basis of it saving a life?
 
Originally posted by mactastic
Oh. I guess we should just ignore you when you post then? Were you not trying to justify the ownership of guns on the basis of it saving a life?
Click to expand...

Do anything you want. Its a free country. At least, it is right now, anyway.

I don't need to justify anything. Its already the supreme law of the land.
 
Originally posted by Frohickey
A few things to remember, a typical 9mm bullet has 396 ft-lbs of energy (115grains or 1/4 of an ounce, going at 1245feetpersecond or 850milesperhour). This can definitely kill.

A Ford Tempo weighs 2500lbs, and can go backwards up to 25MPH, or more, lets say a typical 10MPH. A Ford Tempo has 7616 ft-lbs of energy, thats 20times the energy!!!
Click to expand...

Except the bullet puts all of its energy into a small contact area, while the truck only puts its energy into the points it comes into contact with you. This means the bullet will do a lot more damage since the truck is only giving you the percentage of its energy proportional to the contact area.

Steve
 
Originally posted by darkwing
Except the bullet puts all of its energy into a small contact area, while the truck only puts its energy into the points it comes into contact with you. This means the bullet will do a lot more damage since the truck is only giving you the percentage of its energy proportional to the contact area.

Steve
Click to expand...

Percentage of its energy proportional to the contact area? Its not like the car has to hit a wall of people as large as the potential contact area. If the front grill of the car is 5 feet wide and 2 feet tall, and the contact area with a hit on a person is only 2 feet wide and 2 feet tall, you are still hit with 100% of the energy (assuming negligible air resistance) at the time of contact. Then, depending on the density of the materials involved, you could have some energy wasted in deforming the car, or energy used in deforming the person.

Okay, let us say that the bullet is 100% efficient, and the Ford Tempo is only 40% efficient. Which would you rather get hit on the chest area by?

Some bullet wounds are survivable, same with some vehicle/person collisions. But the outcome of that is really because nothing vital was hit.

The bullet being smaller would require a more precise aim before its lethal. A car with the larger area would not require as much a precise path.

Okay, so the bullet hits you in the chest and destroys your heart leaving the lungs and other vital organs intact. Are you any more dead than if the car hits you in the chest cavity and crushes the heart, lungs AND other vital organs?

As anecdotal evidence, how many stories have you heard of deer being shot by rifles and running away never to be found (bad hunting practice, IMO), and how many stories have you heard of deer being hit by a car and getting killed. There is a small industry made around products designed to help track wounded deer shot by hunters. ;)
 
Originally posted by Frohickey
Okay, let us say that the bullet is 100% efficient, and the Ford Tempo is only 50% efficient. Which would you rather get hit on the chest area by?
Click to expand...
Getting run over by a car, you might be dissipating more energy over a larger part of your body -- at the expense of massive knee (lower leg or hip damage) and good chances of massive head injuries.

You also run the risk of having more injuries that'll cause multiple disabilities for the rest of your life.

A bullet is going to concetrate your injuries to a smaller area, and the risk of a major permanent multiple disabilities is much smaller for a single shot.
 
Hey I didn't say you were wrong! I simply meant that the numbers you used are way disproportional in favor of the truck, but it should be considered that the truck hits you on a large area. The point I was drawing was that if you hit a wall with your fist or hit a wall with your forearm using the same force, the fist does more damage. When wrestlers fall, they smack the ground with their arm on the way down to absorb some of the impact. Just something to consider.

I didn't think about what the other guy said that gunshot wounds are often survivable, while getting run over causes multiple damage.

I didn't mean my comment to make me sound anti gun. I own several and don't get in front of bullets or cars. :)

Steve
 
One thing that has not been brought up to my knowledge is the effect of the media (in particular in the LA area, and the news copters).

There appears to be far more car chases in LA, with the news people following every move, then in other areas of the country. Do they end up creating a problem themselves, or even worse creating the news?

Here in the DC area we have just came up to speed with news copters. But with all the restricted airspace, and other air traffic; they have restricted abilities.

So the question becomes as the public how much do have a right to know about?
 
Frohickey said:
Do anything you want. Its a free country. At least, it is right now, anyway.

I don't need to justify anything. Its already the supreme law of the land.
Click to expand...

Talk about the biggest cop-out to an argument I've seen in a while...

I'm disappointed in you Frohickey, you can do better than that! ;)
 
darkwing said:
Hey I didn't say you were wrong! I simply meant that the numbers you used are way disproportional in favor of the truck, but it should be considered that the truck hits you on a large area.

I didn't mean my comment to make me sound anti gun. I own several and don't get in front of bullets or cars. :)

Steve
Click to expand...

The numbers quoted were realistic numbers to energy posed by typical projectiles. A 2500lb Ford Tempo with the same energy as a typical 9mm bullet going at 1245fps (396ftlbs) would be going 2.2MPH. I think you can dodge that, or survive that (unless you are being pinned to a wall by it). :D

A 115gr 9mm with the same energy as a 2500lb Ford Tempo going 10MPH would be going 5461fps, Mach 1 is around 770MPH, and this would be Mach 4.8! :eek:

Fun with numbers.

Yeah, getting in front of cars or bullets is usually a very bad idea. Everyone I know is very allergic to those.

Not really saying that anyone was anti-gun. I'm just saying that a car is a potential deadly weapon. And with the types of velocities it can achieve in a very small amount of time, its very deadly.

Okay, out of topic question... 45 or 9mm. :D :D :D
 
mactastic said:
Talk about the biggest cop-out to an argument I've seen in a while...

I'm disappointed in you Frohickey, you can do better than that! ;)
Click to expand...

Well, why don't you start a proper thread then? ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back