Is it national policy to pursue anyone who speeds away from a traffic stop regardless the reason for the stop?
Cop in America doing a bad job, again
- Thread starter Sigma
- Start date
Tattoos are the same as Lay’s potato chips.
This explains your point of view then, if you feel you would never take a life, even in self defense. I respect that. I just think most people would want to live and survive, even if it means killing someone to do so.
No, pursuit policies vary from department to department.
True, but I still find it hard to get past the armed citizenry and militarised police.
And the cops reacted by shooting 90 bullets, most of those 90 into a defenseless man laying on the ground. So drop the reaction talk when you clearly don't mean it.
Very good point. Clearing the car first was definitely an option, as a lot of departments do. It’s a little different when they know he had a gun and already fired it. If he runs away with the gun into a building or home, do you still want to clear the car first, or run after him and stop him first?
Don’t mean what?
I doubt that searching the car would result in a different outcome. Even if it gets relayed to the cops who are pursuing him that there was a gun found in the car, the cops would still think that he may have another one on his person and he would still have been executed. Chances are with so many cops around, he would still have been shot if even one cop felt that he wasn't complying with their directions.
You say that the cops only reacted to Walker. Walker also only reacted to the cops. In you think what the cops did is excusable but Walker isn't, then it's obviously irrelevant that reactions are involved.
They shot at Walker 90 times, hit him 60 times, and for a lot of those hits he was laying on the ground. That's what you're defending, not the cops "only reacting to Walker".
Of course the reactions are relevant. He reacted badly, repeatedly. He didn’t comply simply put, like the majority of people do when getting pulled over or detained.
I never defended shooting him on the ground. I defended the cops’ decision to shoot at the time they did.
I said that it's relevant that they are reactions. Every single action is a reaction, so when you say that the cops "only reacted" that is a meaningless phrase that says nothing about what they actually did. What they did was to shoot at him 90 times, hit him 60 times, a lot of those hits while he was laying defenseless on the ground. Walker also "only reacted". It's completely irrelevant, which you obviously get because your response when this is pointed out is to describe what his reactions actually were.
To me that depends on the situation. If he had been shooting at random people and was likely to keep doing that if he gets away then yes, pursue immediately.
If he was only shooting at the police then perhaps the urgency of pursuit is lessened. In this particular instance I think there were enough officers on scene that one or two could have stayed back and cleared the vehicle (I realize the officers involved may feel differently) This might have provided a slight chance of a better outcome.
Very true, a couple officers could have stayed back to clear the vehicle. But in the chaos of it all I don’t think they’re wrong for pursuing him either.
Seriously, piss off. My point remains that US cops are fecking shit at trigger discipline first and foremost. They do NOT deserve the right to even carry a gun on the job.
some*
Sorry the truth hurts. Yea, all US cops hace shit trigger discipline, so unarm them. In America ffs. What a brilliant idea.
Charlotte channeling that de-escalation vibe.
What the hell? Is that cop totally blind?
What did I say? Trigger-happy and psychologically inapt at carrying a gun on the job.
Pigs.
Pigs.
Totally justified, he could have had a gun and he could have tried to use it and he could have hit one of the cops. The only way to stop a maybe bad guy who maybe has a gun is to shoot them 20 times.
i know you are being sarcastic here, but even if he was armed he is literally face the camera when he is shot.
edit: I think he was facing. I am not watching that again.
We have to factor in the adrenaline.
He was definitely facing away from the cops. But you know someone is going to pop in here at some point and make all of those points sincerely.
@Skizzo @choiboyx012 when did PDs begin dressing their patrolmen and SWAT in traditional military style (color) tactical gear?
I saw a group of them in Vegas this past weekend, standing around in ACU/OCP pattern gear looking like operators I would have seen hanging around a TOC at a deployed location.
I saw a group of them in Vegas this past weekend, standing around in ACU/OCP pattern gear looking like operators I would have seen hanging around a TOC at a deployed location.
it varies agency to agency. With the CHP we can’t even get load-bearing vests because the upper management is so traditional with the tan wool uniforms and duty belts. Feck our long term health I guess
That is why SFOs are cherry-picked and further trained to be ice cold under pressure. They are the only ones to carry guns in the entire British police force because the odds of a feck-up are controlled to remain low.
Adrenaline, fear beyond belief, poor training, power trips, guns feeling fun to shoot, idiots as police officers, take your pick
Good point and someone should always stay with the vehicle if there’s sufficient numbers.
Prevents him from running in a circle and driving back off for one, and placing everyone at risk again, as well as being important to secure and preserve evidence.
Had no idea about the initial part of the incident where the guy opened fire at the officers so do feel I’ve been misled somewhat in all honesty so that’s my fault. That said I see no justification as to why so many shots were fried by so many different officers. Doing so places everyone, including other members of the public, in eminently more danger.
Feels highly unprofessional, looks really poor and displays a lack of discipline.
The guy was executed, and you condone it. Speaks for itself.
Speaks for what? I condone him being rightfully shot at, at the time he was. That’s it.
Unless you know which bullet killed him, and that it was one of the first, then no, that's not true.
You said that he caused his own death. If he was killed while laying defenseless on the ground then you condone shooting him while laying defenseless on the ground.
They were justified in shooting him, but again, I was speaking generally and each officer is responsible for his own actions. Some of them may very well have been unjustified if they started shooting late or when on the ground.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
What's the unit?
I assume you also meant to add "if they continued shooting when on the ground". If any of these situations killed Walker, who caused his death?
If you want to get technical then sure, his medical cause of death is by gunshot wounds. No one can determine for sure, but one can assume the initial shots until he hits the ground were enough to kill him. My point was that Walker himself is to blame for being shot.
No, I didn't want to get technical.
If Walker was killed while lying defenseless on the ground, who is to blame for the death? Was it the cops who killed a defenseless man lying on the ground, or was it the guy lying defenseless on the ground?
Last edited: