Should police officers being rammed with a car be able to shoot?
924427
First off, I am a police officer, so consider that when you read this.\n\nI believe that the authority to shoot at a vehicle and its occupants is a necessary evil in modern law enforcement.  Of course, very few situations truly require deadly force.  i have been a police officer for 11 years and have never fired my weapon in the line of duty.  I have had several close calls, several situations where deadly force could have been used, but I have always found a way to resolve the situation without deadly force.  \n\nThat being said, if a vehicle is truly being used as a weapon, deadly force may be required to prevent injury to the officer(s) or the public.  Every situation should be considered on its own merits and, not knowing exactly what happened in the NY shooting, I don't know if the shooting was justified.\n\nI have long had the opinion that some police shootings are justified and others are only justifiable.  \n\nIn my opinion, a justified shooting is one that is a clear cut, clean shooting - such as when the police shoot a man who is armed with a gun, firing rounds at them or the public.  One where deadly force is truly the ONLY good option.  The best example I think of is the bank robbery that occurred in LA five or so years ago - the one when the two suspects were walking down the street firing automatic weapons at police and passers by. \n\nOn the other hand, once again in my opinion only, a justifiable shooting is one that, when viewed by the public, is questionable but that the police department says in justified.  Let's say a shooting when the suspect reaches for something and the police fire only to find out that the suspect was reaching for a phone.  The state of mind of the officer that the suspect was reaching for a gun, and depending on the totality of the circumstances, likely makes this a shooting that the police department will say was a good shooting even though it will appear to the outside world that the shooting was not justified.\n\nIt always sounds bad when the police shoot 30, 40, 50 or more rounds at an unarmed person, but I suppose we should wait to hear the whole story until we form an opinion as the legality of this shooting.
781113
I agree. This has happened in my town twice in the last 8 months, and both times they killed the men. One of them was my husband( I am not in any way joking). He was   the most wonderful man I have ever met in my life, and would never hurt anybody. He was following orders when he was shot, but the cops weren't communicating with each other very well, so within 10 seconds (literally)  my husband was gone. All thanks to a  jumpy, cop high on adrenaline. My husband was not armed, and he did not try to attack. I honestly don't know how they are getting away with it either, if  it was anybody else, they wouldn't. I'm sorry, but I just don't think that having a badge and a gun entitles ANYONE to take the life of someone else.
699090
The anwsers to this question are both predictable and a joke!!\n\nLast time I checked it didn't take 50 bullets to stop a moving car.\nBesides the most obvious thing that all the "Pro cop" anwsers are completing ignoring is that this guy had no drugs in his possession and no weapon on his person...These cops were all in plain clothes and made no attempt to identify themselves to the guy driving...If a bunch of guys who I had no idea of who they were tried stopping me I may act in a similiar fashion (Probably not...But who knows!!)  \n\nNo the one guy anwsered this right...This guy was shot 50 times and killed because he was black and overzealous cops who'd never been in a situtation like that (as stated right from the NYPD) overreacted...It's a joke!! And the punch line is they'll all get away with it.... I hope N.Y. has an L.A. type riot on it's horizon!!
979526
they should be shot ............. is it b/h ministies
311488
team up with the cops.
526073
There are none.  The idea of pre-emptive strike is totally illogical.  If I thought that a police officer was going to engage in unjust brutality against me, should I be allowed to preemptively shoot him to prevent this?\n\nSimilarly, war based on nothing more that a hunch is foolish.
960013
"Remember, you can't hit the nice police officer"
984950
The real question here was caliber of bullet.\n\nJust like the basic round in the army is a 5.56mm, and most would argue thats too light of a round to be effective against the Ak's of the world, i think the 9mm is the perfect round that preserves the ideals the police shoudl strive for.\n\na 45 or even a 40 cal would be nice, but its the 9mm that requires control of weapon control of mind.  We dont want our officers blowing away everythign that comes there way.  We shoot with intent on subdoeing the perpetrator, not straight killing him.\n\nYes, it does pose a risk for our officers, and puts them in more harms way when gang members carrying around high powered weapons that inflict more damage then our officers.\nBut our officers need to use restraint.  thats the key.  And the 9mm helps keep that ideal for restraint ever present.\n\nNow, whether or not I agree on 51 shots being fired.\nCouldnt say.  One officer reloaded 3 times - that would be 46 shots from one officer wouldnt it 1 chambered 15 per mag.\n\nWith hindsight, and the fact that none of us were there, would be difficult to truly judge the situation.\nBut I say, when are we going to support out officers' judgement under fire, just as we should support our troops for the terrible jobs they must endure.\n\nUntil you have put yourself in harms way in that way, I dont think anyone can truly judge the situation correctly.\n\nMe personally, if someone attacked me, or the guy fighting next to me, with a vehicle, theyd get every round I had.\n\nTheres reports of a 4th guy getting away.\nWouldnt it be funny, if he showed a gun, or he was the one that presented a threat and forced the shooting somehow.\n\nI spit on all those people who are quick to judge the situation without having ever served in the military or as a police officer, and who fail to sympathize with our boys in blue, who have the 2nd toughest job in all the world.\n\n1st would be kicking in doors as the #1 2 3 or 4th man and doing that over and over again for a year, or more.\n\nThis is a good debate question, but you havent earned a say until youve served.\n\nMy opinion anyways!
287818
UNFORTUNATELY IT WORKS, IS DIRECTLY CONNECTED WITH A SPEED SENSOR CONNECT TO THE OFFICER'S VEHICLE.  IT WORKS APPROACHING OR ON-COMING.  ANTENNA'S ON VEHICLES ARE DIFFERENT BUT DOWN HERE WE USE A ANTENNA WHICH APPEARS TO BE A SPOTLIGHT HOOKED OVER THE TOP OF THE WINDOW GLASS.  IT MAY BE AIMED UP OR DOWN THE ROAD.\n\nWORKS AS LONG AS THE VEHICLE IS IN SIGHT!\n\nDRIVE CAREFUL HEAR !
506738
THis question will have several answers provided however, as a general rule this practice falls into about 3 primary reasons.\n1.) Changes to the vehicle motor and/or gear setting will generally be felt by a person touching the car and is a indicator to the officer to either move away from the vehicle or be aware of the change to prevent being struck by the vehicle in reverse or otherwise.\n\n2.) If an officer is following proper training in approaching the rear of a vehicle at that proximity then often they are or should be pulling up or pushing down on the trunk as they approach. THis is to serve two purposes, keep anybody hiding inside locked inside (pushing down) or making the interior of the trunk and its occupants/contents visible for officer safety reasons (pulling up)\n\n3.) Yes the placement of a hand on the trunk or body of the vehicle is often a evidentiary thought of experienced officers to attempt to leave evidence through finger/palm prints in case a violent act occurs against the officer using the motor vehicle in some capacity. It would allow for a better indentification of the vehicle if recovered away from the scene at a later time.\n\nlastly, the reality is that it is often just a force of habit for some officers to be in contact with the nearest object that could be used for cover in case of a need to take such cover, in this case the vehicle is often the cover most readily available (although tactically and safety wise not usually the best).
334186
Yes but they won't call it a quota system. most police officers are totally against it. but that is how their job performance is evaluated because the city wants them to bring in the maximum amount of revenue. So, if they want their yearly raise they do it
793340
Police are trained very heavy in multi-tasking so yes the can talk on the phone and chase people at high speeds and talk on the radio while running after someone and send a description of the suspect via phone or radio. So give them a bit of a break. Tough job. Before you criticize try it first. Bet you will be all over them thanking them when YOU need them. \nBut yes you Can report them if they are relay doing something wrong. just get the car number. But as far as speeding for them...How do you know they are not on a mission....they do have to obey the laws but if they are on a call that needs a silent alarm..do you know...NO. And buy the way Fire trucks and Ambulances have to adhere to the rules too..even with the lights and sirens on!
125927
If you really think you stopped, fight it. I think most cop cars have cameras in them, maybe they can get something from there...
878431
If the Officer was driving around in his vehicle it would be illegal. The officer is subject to the same laws as we are not to mention that this is dangerous for anyone else on the road. However if he is parked offside the road of course he can have his lights off while radaring people. \nIt is not entrapment the Officers lights off is not forcing you to speed. I'm sure if he had is headlights on and was offside the road alot of people would still speed by.
411290
They have good reason. Look at the condition of our country. Now, that's not saying that I agree with rogue cops who like to use their badge as power.\n\nBut think about it, if you were a cop and you were approaching a car (stopped for violation) or breaking up a brawl somewhere, wouldn't you be wanting to pull your gun too. Just about everyone, it seems, carries a gun. Sadly, many are minors..but anyway...a cop has to protect themselves and anyone (civilians, fellow officers, etc.) around them.\n\nBelieve me, cops see much more than what we see...they are lied too, they are attacked, they have guns pulled on them, etc. They see the violence on a day to day basis and I don't think you'd ever get used to that. It'd make you leary and cynical and frankly, I'd imagine, scared. It makes them very skeptical about entering any situation without their hands on their guns. AND you said trigger happy...but drawing a gun, doesn't necessarily mean that they are going to pull the trigger.
716325
The whole thing is very tragic. It's way to early to tell what happened. I do know that when Officers have made the desicion to use deadly force, they are trained to fire until the threat is neutralized, no matter if it takes one bullet or several hundred. A vehicle attempting to run down an Officer would be justification for the use of deadly force. Like I have said though, this is too early to tell and no one should make any "Knee Jerk" judgements until all the evidence is in and the investigation is complete.
1074006
Yes...just give some sort of signal that you know the police are behind you.  Turn on your hazards and slow down.  Keep driving until you are in a lit area or parking lot.  A good officer will know what you are doing.