Here is the guy.
Here is the guy.
“A gun is a tool, Marian; no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that.” - Shane
I think that the bias toward shooting at moving vehicles is grounded in two beliefs: 1) nothing we carry will immediately 'stop' a vehicle; 2) if the driver is disabled you have created an unguided missile which may do more damage than it otherwise would have.Originally Posted by TGS
Those beliefs have resulted in most police agencies I'm aware of having policies that forbid shooting at moving vehicles as a one size fits all measure. IMO that is wrong as there are circumstances where an officer would be able to articulate a reasonable need to shoot at the driver, or occupants of a moving vehicle.
I also think that while some in these in discussions have had training and practice in engaging moving targets, most haven't had any training or practice engaging a moving target moving at vehicular speeds.
Finally, you need to be willing to consume what you've put on your plate. In a situation like the one we are discussing, successfully engaging the driver may cause the vehicle to swerve off its original course and go onto the sidewalk striking someone there. Wouldn't it be foreseeable that someone will attempt to bring suit alleging that but for your actions their client wouldn't have been harmed?
All this pretty much leads me to operate under the only as a last resort caveat.
Adding nothing to the conversation since 2015....
I'm speculating, but this is General Discussion.
There are a lot of use-of-force videos showing up over the last couple of years where someone is driving in the general direction of officers, but not directly at them, resulting in deadly force by officers who felt threatened. Some of the videos look pretty bad, even to my eye, and I'm sure it's a matter of time until one of these is the next national rallying cry for protests.
Administrators are probably thinking more of these and less of terrorism.
Thanks. That article does confirm the suspect will be charged with intentional homicide. I looked up the Wisconsin statutes for both first and second degree intentional homicide. I’m interested to see the complaint they draw up for the articulation and any statements the suspect may have made.
My posts only represent my personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official policies of any employer, past or present. Obvious spelling errors are likely the result of an iPhone keyboard.
Traditionally yes.
Practically, most places have limited felony murder to a number of predicate felonies (as an example, robbery is a common one), so the defendant must be committing one of the listed felonies in order to be charged with felony murder.
“Intentional” and “premeditated” are not necessarily the same thing. He may not have driven down there planning to run folks over, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t see them and step on the gas anyway. I’d expect EDR data from the vehicle to be pretty telling here.
Actually, the AP story doesn’t say, or even really imply that he did it intentionally.
It does mention that he was fleeing a domestic disturbance, and that he was not being pursued by police at the time.
It also says:
“ He has been charged with crimes 16 times since 1999 and had two outstanding cases against him at the time of the parade disaster — including one in which he was accused of deliberately running down a woman with his vehicle.”
Wait. Are you suggesting that firearms don’t solve all our problems in LE? //sarcasm
Gaming will get you killed in the streets. Dueling will get you killed in the fields.
-Alexander Hamilton
And who will be prosecuting this one????
I am just tired of all the shitbags out in the world. Fuck them. That is all.
Reply With Quote