So Whats WRONG with this Picture

[bigstick509]

I may be in the minority, but coming from a family in law enforcement I don't think having the suspects know that they can run without any regard as to what may happen is a wise decision. HALT means just that.
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4489683

[pierhogunn]

Let me see if I can recall the words of Chris Rock during one of his stand up routines

Hey People, if you don't want the cops to beat you, . . . DO WHAT THEY SAY!!!

[Hellrazor]

I don't have a problem with that at all. They are fleeing for a reason and in order to sensationalize the issue, the news report will omit the reason they are being chased. I don't have a problem with using a k9 to teach someone manners either.

[cgallery]

+1 what Hellrazor said.

BTW, the video linked in Mike's post is a video of a guy that is confessing to putting his daughter in a microwave? Probably not the intended video. The cops should save us some time and run over him, too.

[cabinetman]

I don't see anything wrong with it. If the bad guy wants to run on foot or in a car he/she deserves what it takes to be stopped.

Cop: "Why were you runnin'?".

Bad guy: "Because you were chasin' me".
.

[radhak]

I do have a problem with this. Somehow it conveys a sense of the-hunter-and-the-hunted, and that's not how it should be.

This is a sure case of 'using excessive force', and that's not just for the legalese. eg, should the cop be allowed to shoot the fugitive down just to stop him, even if, say, on the leg (ie, the intention being not to kill him)? I sure hope not!

What he's running for, or from, should not matter. He needs to be stopped, arrested, charged, etc, but not hunted down. Otherwise it's very close to a 'posse' of yore. Normal procedures of law should dictate the punishment, not a policeman in his white charger.

[gsmittle]

Just being the Devil's Advocate here...

Where do you draw the line? When is tapping somebody with your car "excessive force?" Beats the heck out of me.... What happens if you run over the guy and he turns out to be innocent? As an example, more than once I've asked to speak to a student who assumes he's in trouble for something, even if he doesn't know what. I would imagine that sort of thinking carries over to the street, too. I can't imagine the fear some people feel when the po-po want to talk to them. OTOH, the dudes should have stopped.

I did have a conversation with a LEO once who said that on numerous occasions he chased a suspect w/his cruiser until the suspect was too exhaused to run any more. Makes for an easy collar.

I'm just glad I don't have to decide when/how to apprehend a suspect. I get in enough trouble just trying to keep my classroom disciplined. (Don't get me started about the kid who called me an f'in racist, questioned my parentage, etc.)

g.

[jonmulzer]

It is excessive force plain and simple and one minor miscalculation on the officer's part and he just executed the man before questioning. Police in this country have been given way too much power and leniency and it needs to be stopped immediately. It is very rare anymore that a person is actually innocent until proven guilty. Too many bitter cops, who have spent too much time chasing people and seeing the worst side of humanity. We are all only human and after a while you become what you have been fighting.

[Bruce Cohen]

Police in this country have been given way too much power and leniency and it needs to be stopped immediately.

Somehow I don't you'll hear a statement like that from a mother whose kid just got in the way of a drive-by and was killed.

Bruce

[jonmulzer]

Somehow I don't you'll hear a statement like that from a mother whose kid just got in the way of a drive-by and was killed.

Bruce

Somehow I think you would from a mother who's son was wrongfully ran down and killed dying a horrible death while tangled up on the underside of a police cruiser.

[Wood_workur]

I have no problem what so ever. If you know you did nothing, then you should stop, let them arrest you, and fight it in court, not in the street.

[drumpriest]

I'm pretty sure that I would want neither mother in charge of deciding the law. As either way rights will be lost. A guy running away on foot shouldn't be hit by a cruiser unless he was an imminent threat. That's my opinion. Tase the guy when you pull along side. Shoot him in the leg with a rubber bullet. These non-lethal means are acceptable to me as he is breaking the law by running away, hitting one with a car seems to risky. Especially as I don't fancy paying out the law suits, which my taxes would do.

Logic would dictate that the actions of a person in a drive by shooting should not determine the REaction to a person running from a cop for j-walking, for instance, as they are not equivalent. Rendering that mother's argument to be fallacious in form. Unfortunately our society's lack of knowing such things continually strip us of freedoms and constitutionally protected rights.

This one is sure to skirt our rules against political and religious discussions though, as eventually the legality of an act escalates to the politicians making these decisions.

[jonmulzer]

I agree with everything you said Drumpriest, except rubber bullets and tasers being non-lethal. They never advertise them as being NON-lethal, just less than lethal. And even that should have a *most of the time* added to it. Rubber bullets and tasers kill citizens all the time. Police should use them with the same rules and care they are supposed to use their service arms with because under the wrong circumstances they are every bit as deadly.

[LinuxRandal]

Where do you draw the line? When is tapping somebody with your car "excessive force?" Beats the heck out of me.... What happens if you run over the guy and he turns out to be innocent?

g.

I know too many people on both sides of the issue, from cops and both their limitations (that do go up and down based in part on political climate) and what is expected of them, as well as some people who, if I had my way, wouldn't see the light of day. This video will change the normally allowed procedure, as well as the way officers would report it. Cops already drive incredibly close to people, and I know a few who WILL slam on their brakes in the middle of the street so they get hit. So seeing both sides, I can't draw the line.
That said, however, the people they hit ARE innocent, until PROVEN guilty. If NOT proven, then they have an ADW against the police dept.

[Warren]

I used my vehicle more than once to spill a fleeing motorcyclist. I used my vehicle more than once to stop a fleeing snow machine driver. With regards to fleeing perps on foot, I usually let them run into the vehicle.

And, I always let the perp determin how much force was to be used on him/her.

As an aside, tasers, rubber bullets and pepper sprays are not dependable weapons. I would not use any of them unless lethal force was justified. And, I wanted only weapons I could rely on. Weapons which would do what I wanted them to do, each and every time I deployed one. Besides my brain, I carried a side arm, shotgun, stick, hands and feet. Not one of them ever failed me.

One of the best methods for stopping a person fleeing on foot is the skipping of a Kelite or the stick off the ground so that it gets between the runners feet. All you have to do then is walk up and put on the cuffs as they are usually totally disoriented. Of course this only works on pavement or concrete. I don't know what a rural cop would do. I'd probably use the vehicle to run them into the ground if possible.

Actually, I'd prefer to use a dog . . . a big, well trained dog. Dogs are really great. They'll take a bullet for you and never complain. They draw cop groupies like a magnet. Heck, they'll even bite a member of media without provocation. Yes, I do so love the dogs.