Opinions of this

[fuzzyka]

It appears to me that the guy tried running over the officers that were appraoching his car, in that case he was using his car as deadly weapon and the shooting was justified. Even if that wasn't the case, as erratic and fast as he was driving he could have easily lost control and hit and killed an innocent bystander if he was allowed to get away, so yeah, it was justified.

[Buddha]

For the bg to have attempted to run over the cop, the cop would have had to run out in front of the car. Then the cop would have had to run and jump on the hood of the car rather than just getting out of the way to be safe.
Attempting to run over the cop implies that the bg had no gun because that would be the easy way to kill a cop compared to shooting him in this case.
Reasonable force means to save a life. In this video, there was no life endangered when the bg was shot. Hopefully there is more to come out in court.

[Buddha]

Lots of police departments have policies that prohibit high speed chases for the specific purpose of letting the bg get away and slow down in order to not kill anyone by accident. Cops who continue the chase violate policy if they do so. If someone is hurt as a result of an accident during the chase, they are in serious trouble, but I don't remember the specifics of punishments allowed.
Regardless, shooting someone because they might be in an accident and hurt someone else is a tad illegal.

[Davidtxs]

well none of us know if they bg was reaching for something or even looked like it to the officer who knows, noone will ever know since the guys dead, but i know one thing the cops up there need faster cars dam it took a long time to catch him

[wjmphoto]

The shooting was clean. The idiot, should have stopped the vehicle the moment the officer got in front of it. The second he touched the accelerator and moved the vehicle toward the cop, he gave them the right to pump him full of lead and that is exactly what happened.

The argument about the courts sorting it out are offbase 100%. Every officer on the street has the right to use deadly force in order to protect themselves. Utlimately, better the cop kill the guy, than the courts end up trying the BG for murdering the cop by running him over. One less piece of garbage on the street!

[Buddha]

The passenger never mentioned a gun, so I think that is out, and explains why the cop felt safe in jumping on the hood.

[Buddha]

I looked at the tape repeatedly and the car didn't move until the cop jumped on the hood and shot him, at which point his foot would have come off of the brake pedal. Given the benefit of the doubt considering the poor tape quality, the cop may have been in front of the car prior to that, but I can't be sure.
In Harris County, the sheriff' s deputies used to do that same thing until last year. Finally the citizenry got tired of the deaths and the explanations and forced the County to look into why so many people were being killed. The investigation found that deputies would jump in front of moving vehicles which couldn't possibly stop in the second or so that the deputies used to justify a danger to themselves, and shot lots of folks. That is another practice that has been stopped as a matter of policy, along with high speed chases.
What else could have been done here? The bg's car could have been rammed until it stopped. The officer could have waited until other cars arrived and blocked the car in place. There was no reason for him to jump in front of the bg car immediately.
The tape showed shooting by an officer seconds earlier. What was that about? Why was the shooting required? Noone was trying to run over that cop?
Noone wants cops to be killed, but neither do they get to decide who lives and dies. The citizenry does that through the court system.

[Cope]

Originally Posted by Davidtxs

but i know one thing the cops up there need faster cars dam it took a long time to catch him

That was the first thought I had too. Back in the day, they would have had a Dodge or Plymouth with plenty of power, and a chassis to keep it on the road.

[markfh]

Originally Posted by Buddha

there was no life endangered when the bg was shot.

Sorry but that's a stretch. In my opinion the shooting was justified. The BG was given many opportunities to end the situation with all being safe. He CHOSE not to and paid the ultimate stupid tax.

[TheObiJuan]

Originally Posted by Buddha

The comment made while underway about "taking this guy out" will be devastating to the cop in court. Given later events, it will be indefensible unless the cop can show that the bg endangered his life.

"Taking this guy out" refers to disabling the vehicle with his own by ramming it, not killing him.

[adirty1]

Deadly force was not needed.
That BG's car was crawling when the cop jumped on it and started shooting. WTF.
There where three cop cars and using them together you mean to tell me you couldnt stop one car. the cops had the guy but couldnt get it together to box him in at that corner.



My biggest problem is when that first cop gets out of his car and starts shooting. WTF. Let me ask you this. Would you get out of your car after some one just shot at you. HELL NO.

I would find it hard to believe if these cops walk away clean. Some one is going to get sued over this.

[Rson]

Isn't this called post chase syndrome or something like that? The adrenaline of the situation is pumping and fight or flight comes into play, most pick fight. I think he used to many bullets.

http://www.wlwt.com/news/13990296/detail.html

[Buddha]

'I'm taking this guy out' is the sort of thing a defense counsel dreams of hearing regardless of what it might mean. Any attorney will connect it to the shooting and make the cop sound as if he planned it in advance.

"Sorry but that's a stretch. In my opinion the shooting was justified. The BG was given many opportunities to end the situation with all being safe. He CHOSE not to and paid the ultimate stupid tax."
Unless the cops were in danger at the moment of shooting him, it was not justified. Shooting someone after the danger ends is no less illegal for the cops than for us. I still say that noone exposes himself completely as the cop did when he got on the car unless he felt perfectly safe. That means it was unjustified. if the cop had seen one, he would have seen it from the side of the car and would have stopped and shot from that spot.
Why did the first cop start shooting? He wasn't being run over?