Reckless Anaheim Police Chase/Shooting

[Maverick44]

The dead guy didn't shoot at cops, but don't let facts get in the way.

Nah, he just pointed what strongly looked like a gun at them.

 

[Maverick44]

words

Whatever dude. It's obvious you don't know what the hell you're talking about in the least. It's not worth my time to try to convince you of that.

 

[Renegade]

I am shocked the probey do not shoot his driving hand.

 

[majormadmax]

Ah yes, the "walk a mile in their shoes" logical fallacy. The implication being one must lose his objectiveness and have a pro-police bias in order to discuss police malfeasance. Sorry, not playing that game.

In other words, you have no qualifications or experience whatsoever; you're simply stating your uninformed opinion. Got it, now I know to simply ignore whatever you say as it's baseless.

Oh they are absolutely liable. But they enjoy qualified immunity so that liability is quite different from what a pleb would face.

You sure like that term, "qualified immunity;" who told it to you? I can attest to numerous cases where officers were held legally liable for their actions, just as any "pleb" (I take it you are referring to yourself), would.

See above shoes logical fallacy. Also this is more of a legal matter and we know how well versed cops are in that arena.

And I suspect you are no more qualified to talk on a legal basis as you are concerning law enforcement tactics. Again, got it, now I have a second reason to simply ignore your comments!

Just curious, do you happen to be a Democrat?

 

[majormadmax]

Whatever dude. It's obvious you don't know what the hell you're talking about in the least. It's not worth my time to try to convince you otherwise.

It's much easier to add such "experts" to your 'ignore' list. dmancornell just joined mine!

 

[Renegade]

II can attest to numerous cases where officers were held legally liable for their actions, just as any "pleb" (I take it you are referring to yourself), would.

I would be curious to know more about them if they are apples/apples.

In the 2 LAPD shootings of hostages last year, no police were charged AFAIK, in both cased liability was sent to the hostage taker, not the police.

 

[dmancornell]

In other words, you have no qualifications or experience whatsoever; you're simply stating your uninformed opinion. Got it, now I know to simply ignore whatever you say as it's baseless.

I will make it easy for you. "No true scotsman" logical fallacy. Go look it up.

You sure like that term, "qualified immunity;" who told it to you? I can attest to numerous cases where officers were held legally liable for their actions, just as any "pleb" (I take it you are referring to yourself), would.

Heh, do the quote marks mean you think qualified immunity is not real? I already said there is liability, but the legal circumstances are grossly different for cops and everyone else. This is not even a debatable matter, if you truly believe civilians operate under the same legal scheme as cops, then produce case law that states qualified immunity covers non government employees.

And I suspect you are no more qualified to talk on a legal basis as you are concerning law enforcement tactics. Again, got it, now I have a second reason to simply ignore your comments!

Just curious, do you happen to be a Democrat?

Why? Because Democrats hate cops so much? Do you have any logical arguments other than whining about your subjective notion of qualifications?

Frankly if a civilian did what this cop did it would be equally stupid and reckless, but "law enforcement tactics" allows for stupid and reckless.

 

[dmancornell]

Whatever dude. It's obvious you don't know what the hell you're talking about in the least. It's not worth my time to try to convince you of that.

You were trying to convince people with boiler plate pro-police blabber?

 

[oldag]

What do you suppose would happen if they did back off, but the guy high off his ass had a real gun and went on to kill some innocent bystander. Hell, he wouldn't even need a gun for that. He could just hit them with his truck.

Then there would be people online bitching that they didn't stop him sooner. The police cannot win.

Also, what do you think would happen when backup did show up? That he would magically give up? He was waving a gun out of his window and pointing it at police. They are not going to PIT in that situation and they are not going to let him keep doing that. He would be seen as a significant threat to everyone around him, and they would have to treat him as such.

It easy to armchair quarterback and say they should have done this, or that, especially when you have time to think and have the power of hindsight, but it's something else entirely to be in that position at that moment and to have to make those split second decisions. I'm not going to say everything they did was right, but I'm not going to completely condemn them either. They were told that a guy had a gun and was hallucinating, he pointed a "gun" at them when they showed up, and they acted accordingly.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Well, if he DOES actually start shooting THEN the officer not driving starts firing back. Just because they hold off on beginning to shoot does NOT mean they can't shoot later if appropriate. You have set up a straw man here.

Ditto for backup not showing up.

What do they do when backup arrives and they get the stop? Well, if the perp starts shooting THEN they can shoot back. But their shots should be more accurate as they aren't shooting from a speeding car, especially while trying to drive and shoot through a windshield. Less chance of rounds going astray. Hopefully they will be mindful of the backstop.

This is not an OFF or ON situation, as you want to make it out.

 

[oldag]

It's much easier to add such "experts" to your 'ignore' list. dmancornell just joined mine!

So we cannot stand a disagreement of ideas? Just put anyone who disagrees on the ignore list.

That is part of what is wrong with our country.

Just curious, do you happen to be a liberal?

 

[BillFairbanks]

They obviously should’ve used explosive arrows

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bobk]

"They get a call about a guy on drugs, hallucinating, armed with a knife and gun and attempt to stop him. He flees, pointing his gun at them in the process."

BB gun, cap gun, water gun….really doesn't matter.

Douchebag....sums it up.

 

[Mowingmaniac 24/7]

Pronstar summed it upped with accuracy......I just hope those inside the car rounds didn't permanently destroy the L.E.O.'s hearing......

 

[Renegade]

Pronstar summed it upped with accuracy......I just hope those inside the car rounds didn't permanently destroy the L.E.O.'s hearing......

There is no possible way you can uncork 50+ rounds in a car without hearing damage.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

LOL, that and the cussing and flinching from firing the carbine inside the car, there is one cop with hearing damage and one former cop with hearing damage.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Hard to believe that a training officer would fire his carbine inside the car, through the windshield...

 

[Sublime]

Hard to believe that a training officer would fire his carbine inside the car, through the windshield...

Can you hear me now?

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Can you hear me now?

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

No!

 

[Maverick44]

Well, if he DOES actually start shooting THEN the officer not driving starts firing back. Just because they hold off on beginning to shoot does NOT mean they can't shoot later if appropriate. You have set up a straw man here.

Just curious, would you hold off shooting if some dude that was high as a kite pointed a gun at you? I mean, come on. That's not a reasonable request.

What do they do when backup arrives and they get the stop?

You're kind of jumping the gun here. HOW do they get the stop? Is the guy just going to magically give up with 50 more cops show up? They best way that I can see to stop him would be spike strips, and that's not going to stop him immediate. In fact, it might not stop him for awhile. At that point, you have a guy that's high off his ass driving down the roads in a truck that is now hard to control. What if he hits and kills someone? Again, you can't really expect the police to use a PIT maneuver when he's sticking a gun out the window and pointing it at them. What are they supposed to do in that situation?

Also remember, this guy had what the officers had every reason to believe was a gun. I don't care if it ended up being a toy or not, they were told it was a gun, it looked like a gun, and he was pointing it at them like a gun. Who's to say someone like that wouldn't start shooting at the officers in the pursuit or at random citizens? Can the officers shoot back during the chase once one of their own is killed?

You see the point I'm getting at, right? It's not always as simple as waiting for back up.

Well, if the perp starts shooting THEN they can shoot back.

Again, would you give an attacker the first shot? No? Then why would you expect the police to wait until the guy shoots at and potentially kills an officer to use lethal force?

But their shots should be more accurate as they aren't shooting from a speeding car, especially while trying to drive and shoot through a windshield. Less chance of rounds going astray. Hopefully they will be mindful of the backstop.

In a perfect world, every bullet would be accounted for, every violent suspect would be in front of a mountain of dirt, and every officer would be able to hit a bullseye at 50 yards with their side arm. This is not a perfect world, and rarely do police have the luxury of having everything you described. They should be mindful of where they are shooting no doubt, but you don't always get to choose the circumstances in which that happens.

This is not an OFF or ON situation, as you want to make it out.

Never said it was. Nothing is solely black or white.

 

[Maverick44]

So we cannot stand a disagreement of ideas? Just put anyone who disagrees on the ignore list.

That is part of what is wrong with our country.

Just curious, do you happen to be a liberal?

Oldag, it's one thing to have a civil disagreement such as you and I are having. What was happening with that member was not a civil disagreement. He started out his conversation with me and Majormadmax with insults, and disrespect. I don't know if you read what all he had written as I noticed that all his posts were deleted, but he is not on my ignore list just because we disagreed on something. I'd venture to say I've disagreed with just about every member here on something at some point, yet he is the only one to have ever been put on my ignore list.

I welcome discussion and even disagreement. I will not tolerate blatant and uncalled for disrespect.