Posted on 07/30/2016 10:27:39 PM PDT by Enchante
I’m sorry to see we still have a few cop-haters like you here.
The question is not whether he used lethal force at one time, but whether he posed a lethal threat at the time they shot him. Police are only legally permitted to use the force necessary to subdue the threat. If there is no lethal threat, then lethal force is excessive. Police have other weapons to deal with non-lethal threats. Again I don’t know the details and I am not judging the officers, just the hypothetical situation. We grant police a lot of leeway and we should, because they have to make a judgement call in the heat of the moment and when adrenaline is flowing. But if he was fleeing on foot he may no longer have posed a lethal threat.
Folks don't pay attention to the facts anymore, they've been trained to respond emotionally so they can be manipulated by the elites.
Take, for example the excerpt from above. Quote: "he struck a responding police SUV". Inside that police SUV is an Officer of the LAW. So when he "struck" that vehicle he was really striking the Officer of the LAW and AGAINST THE LAW with a weapon.
What weapon you say? A BIG Weapon called a Car. Now there are other weapons the perpetrator could have used. He could have used a bullet, he could have used a rock, he could have used an RPG, an anti-tank weapon, But in this case the perpetrator used a handy vehicle called a Car. And a Car is no less deadly than any of the above when used properly.
So if you put the facts together, you come up with a conclusion the elites Obama and Hillary do not want you to come up with: THE PERP USED A WEAPON TO ATTEMPT THE MURDER OF A POLICE OFFICER AND AGAINST THE LAW WHICH THE OFFICER REPRESENTED.
"O'Neal then collided with another police SUV". Note - he did it again AND IF YOU APPLY THE LAW TO ITS FULLEST EXTENT THE PERP COMMITTED ATTEMPTED MURDER A SECOND TIME according the the article.
THE ELITES, AND THAT IMHO often includes some of our PRESS, do not want you looking at the FACTS and DO NOT WANT YOU TO THINK of the RAMIFICATIONS OF WHAT THE PERP WAS DOING ACCORDING TO THE LAW AND THEY WANT YOU TO HAVE SYMPATHIES FOR HIM. AND THE PERP DESERVES NO SYMPATHIES.
Because, note "he struck ... a parked car". That parked car could have had a Homeless person in it or a baby and it's mother. They could be sleeping in it AND THE PERP DOESN'T CARE AND THE ELITES DO NOT WANT YOU CARING EITHER.
FOR IF YOU CARED. YOU WOULD DEMAND THAT THIS PERP GET THE WORST THE LAW CAN GIVE HIM OR THAT THE LAWS BE STRENGTHENED EVEN MORE TO DETER THESE. But According to OBAMA AND HILLARY, attacking the police (and the LAW) is a good thing. THEY WANT THE LAW DIMINISHED OR ELIMINATE FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSES. And what purpose may that be?? WHY TO VOTE FOR LAWLESSNESS OF COURSE.
And what person would be the beneficiary of THAT?? Why HILLARY AND THE DEMOCRATS WHO ELSE?
I’m just trying to be creative and maybe a little idealistic. I’m not saying not to go after the car at all or the person that stole it. But absent another good reason, I wouldn’t chase a horse thief until the horse was run to death; I’d wait and see where the horse turned up, and what finding the horse turned up. Tow drivers have contracts with the city and insurance companies already. People see a tow driver pulling away with a vehicle they know they stole, they’re more apt to hide than fight for it. Once it’s back at the yard, forensics can have at it. Same end result, car’s back, but thief gets arrested at a time and place of the PD’s choosing. Tow driver gets his bounty for a stolen, and Officer Friendly can concentrate on broken windows, assorted nasty scumbags and going home safe.
“Isn’t it SOP to put an officer on desk duty without badge or service weapon while an investigation is underway?”
Desk duty without forfeiting badge & gun was the norm. Strip an officer of those and he or she is effectively terminated.
I read the story. They only say the Jaguar was reported to have been stolen (in the beginning). Then Nothing else mentioned about it......so, I’m guessing it was stolen (by the victim) and that they don’t want to bring that up any more.
Yes I’ve read other articles on the case, the perp stole the car, was chased by police, when blocked/boxed in he rammed police cars with potential to kill or maim the police officers involved as well as anyone else who got in his way. What happened at the final moments of shooting I don’t know, but he certainly earned his Darwin Award.
and the victim of the crime? The owner of the car? You know, whom the police are commission to serve and protect?
How long do they have to walk, ride a bus, a bicycle or whatever until all of those things happen to validate a claim for the insurance company who will only pay pennies on the dollar for the intrinsic value of the stolen article?
You also make a very uneducated deduction that the car will be just sitting around waiting for someone to discover it. Most times it won’t because it goes directly to a chop shop. How is anyone going to recover it when it is in hundreds of pieces scattered all over the continent or world? In the meantime, all of our insurance rates keep climbing and will skyrocket if police simple let car thieves run at their pleasure. Maybe now that it affects you personally, your tune just might change a bit I’m sure.
Most think that new car dealerships make the largest part of their profit from selling cars. Wrongo, they make the greatest part from service and parts. If you would really like to have that point made, I’m sure there are places on the internet in which someone has calculated what the cost of a new car would be if just the parts were purchased at a dealer. That alone would take your breath away and then add to it paying someone to put it all together. Now combine that with there is a very large market where people will shop forever to find a lower cost means to have their car repaired. Therein lies the massive market for stolen parts from chopped cars.
How can a guy driving several thousands of pounds of steel that can move over 100 mi/h be “unarmed?” It’s certainly a more dangerous weapon than a hammer, a sword, a hatchet.
Bump!
Did you see the Jag in the photos? Totaled after bouncing off a few other vehicles. The driver is going to be walking, bussing, rentalcar=ing anyway. So are the drivers who’s cars were just sitting there getting sideswiped.
Your car being stolen doesn’t entitle you to a brand-new car, so yes, your insurance company is going to pro-rate it. Same way a car battery is prorated if it fails. And at the current rate of a car stolen every 44 seconds (33% stolen after being left with the engine running, 20% more left unlocked)*, the insurance companies worked that stupidity factor into our premiums long ago.
According to Broward Sheriff’s detective Michael Grimm**, 75% of cars stolen by juvies are ditched when the tank hits empty (and, more than likely, near where they live). Juvie boys make up 40% of car thefts and most are joyriding, not driving to chop-shops. I’m not saying let people steal cars at their pleasure. It’s the city’s job to ‘protect and serve’ and police are one arm. I’m offering, why not utilize other resources that are already there, to take some burden off the police, a resource already towing and already less threatening than a cruiser pulling in behind some stupid kid who, dollar to donut is going to go cray-cray.
* http://www.rmiia.org/auto/auto_theft/statistics.asp
** http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1989-03-01/news/8901120000_1_auto-theft-car-last-week-teen-age-boys
He deserved to be shot if those are the facts. Lynch/Obama/Rahm government in action in gangstertown. Isn’t Chicago Hillary Rotten Clinton’s town?
“BLM/Obama/Rahm/Hillary/Holder/Lynch will rue the day they started this. Whites will move out of Chicago and other Democrat cities and that will be that.”
Yup, and then blacks will whine that racist whites destroyed the city by leaving them with no tax base.
“....so that it is always the police who are at fault.”
“Why are you running?”
“Cuz you chasin’ me!”
If the police had fired at the man as he was in the process of ramming cars and endangering lives then that would be one thing. But the police shot the man after he had left the stolen auto. He was unarmed and not a threat to anyone. What was the justification other than he was running away?
He was shot in the back and he was unarmed. What circumstances would have justified that?
Why?
And it will turn Dearborn because that's what happens when you leave the animals in charge and care of a city. It begins it's decent into rot the first day.
We don’t know but I’m more willing to wait for a thorough investigation. Ofc the police superintendent is trying to keep the mobs at bay, but I’m more interested in respecting the police officers on the scene who were trying to stop a ruthless, dangerous perp.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.