Posted on 07/30/2016 10:27:39 PM PDT by Enchante
“. . .O’Neal as he drove a Jaguar that had reportedly been stolen in Bolingbrook. As O’Neal drove north in the 7400 block of South Merrill Avenue, he struck a responding police SUV and a parked car, police sources told the Tribune. Two officers opened fire as O’Neal continued into the 7300 block of Merrill. O’Neal then collided with another police SUV, causing significant damage, and fled from the car. A third officer chased him and shot him behind a nearby residence, the sources said.”
A really nice guy. . .a nice kid on his way to community college. . .a true din-du-nuffin kinda guy that wouldn’t hurt anyone.
You seem to make what seems IMHO an unwarranted assumption. You state that having fled the car the perp was unarmed. At what point does a fleeing perp who was armed become unarmed? How are the police supposed to know this?
By your logic, if the recent Dallas cop killer had laid down his weapons and was fleeing, the cops couldn’t shoot him.
If these facts are correct, being unarmed and shot in the back seems to justify the chief of Police action...
The perp was obvious a threat while driving...
Was the LEO life in danger when he chased the perp behind a residence running on foot...?
That's the $64,000 question...
My guess is no...but I wasn't there...
Not universal.. So dept do, some don’t.
In this case:
“the department has routinely put officers involved in shootings on desk duty for 30 days to allow time for supervisors to monitor the officers and for them to attend training.”
They go on to say: “The policy is not considered punitive, and officers retain their badges and guns.”
If it is not punitive, then why do they mention it is not punitive. Why? Because it IS punitive.
oh yes, he was getting his life together and ready to pursue his M.D. in order to serve humanity.
In Texas the police may shoot a “fleeing felon.”
But that’s just it, none of us was there and we don’t know how close the perp was to the officer, whether the perp had armed himself in anyway, whether or not the perp was in any position to attack the officer etc.
Ofc it may be that the chief thinks all these questions already have been answered to his satisfaction....
Following up...it seems to me that in a country with 500 million, give or take, weapons in civilian hands perhaps the default should be is “everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, is armed.” Perhaps if we ALL had this mindset this would be a better place. Not trying to be difficult here but maybe this is the problem.
I don’t that anything that was said there could construed as hating cops. While I instinctly side the cops’ version of events, as an investigator I’ve seen IA files which made me fear for the safety of decent citizens living in districts policed by these officers. While these cases are rare, I’m glad investigations are done and there is oversight. Questions for you. Do you think that if the shooting by Ofc. Michael Slager in S.C. was not caught on video there would’ve been charges? How about if no one witnessed?
In Texas the police can shoot a “fleeing felon.”
If a felon is fleeing and may cause significant risk/threat to life, the police can shoot to stop that threat.
In this case, the thug already demonstrated his willingness to try and kill the police, disregarded the public’s safety (placing them at risk), and now running to do what? Continue his actions that place the police and the public at risk?
My smaller point is there are a bunch of posts declaring the shot as justified because he used a vehicle to ram the police vehicles...
If they shot him while in the vehicle, I'd call it a HAPPY ENDING...
Except he wasn't in a car when he was shot, he was shot while on foot and fleeing...which goes to your point...
Or we can prosecute those that run with reckless endangerment, and charge him with attempted murder if he collides with anyone. It is the thugs fault, not the police. It is the thug that decided to place people at risk by running, not the police.
By saying the police will not chase means all the thug need to is run and he will get away. . .hide the license plate before the crime and he is out-of-there.
“. . .some stupid kid who, dollar to donut is going to go cray-cray”
Or we can let Darwin take its course.
;-)
“He was unarmed and not a threat to anyone. “
How do we know that?
What was he going to do to ensure he got away?
Car Jack?
Home invasion?
Or go to the library for a quiet read?
In Texas, police can shoot a fleeing felon based on violent acts committed and the thugs immediate threat to the public.
Kind of like our, no-kidding Afghanistan ROE. . .bad guy shoots at our troops, runs out of ammo, drops his weapon and runs away and we can’t shoot him.
After all, the weapon is no longer in use.
“Finally, they boxed her in and shot her a dozen times. The next day, we learned that she was an adult with Down’s Syndrome. But, it was a good shoot because the cops “feared for their lives” (as they placed their cars in the path of the moving vehicle).”
So, their lives were not at risk simply because the drive had DS?
I bet you an adult beverage the police did not park in her way and remain in their cars, but knowing this driver was ramming vehicles, this driver was a deadly threat to not only them but the public as well.
If you steal and are ramming cars I have no problem with the cops killing them. I think we need to be tougher on crime in order to slow it down. The thief is dead.
Yes, I am a believer that an armed society is a polite (law abiding, respectful) society.
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.