Police Officer Preparation & Law Enforcement Resource - Archive

1PdnobeoKv0

Sorry about the bad quality.

Wow, that was AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!

BG hits one of us with his vehicle, we hit him back with one of ours... Turnabout's fair play... :D

I think the BG is going to have a headache after that!

We have a state trooper that just got indicted for hitting a runner with his car. Runner bounced off into the weeds and kept running.

It didn't help much when he was caught bragging about it and using racial slurs on his in-car video camera...:rolleyes:

I have always been told (by my explorer advisors, and my instructors at my college) that if you are going to hit someone with your vehicle, you BETTER be able to justify the use of deadly force. I believe that you would be able to articulate that in this instance. I am not sure of the situation that you mention Creeker.

How would You articulate the use of deadly force in this situation?

I couldn't embed any of the video I found. Here is one of the articles:

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/06/11/america/NA-GEN-US-Trooper-Aggression.php

South Carolina trooper seen ramming man with patrol car charged with civil rights violation

...

Steve C. Garren was indicted by a federal grand jury in Greenville, South Carolina on a charge of willfully depriving a man of his constitutional right to be free from the use of unreasonable force by a police officer, authorities said. Garren is white; the suspect he rammed is black.

...

This might work:

eJYLoZsMx4s

How would You articulate the use of deadly force in this situation?

Samuel, to be completely honest with you I do not know how I would articulate it in a report. All I know is that he had already rammed a patrol vehicle (I am uncertain if there was an officer inside or not), which shows that this guy has a SUBSTANCIAL disreagard for human life, and is not afraid to hurt/injure/kill someone to get away. That officer had to act quickly, and he did so discicavly. You don't know if he is going to hurt/kill someone if you let him go, so the officer did what he had to, to stop the threat of that individual harming another person.

I don't know if thats good enough, but I wasn't at the incident so I don't know all the fact surrounding what took place.

Samuel, to be completely honest with you I do not know how I would articulate it in a report.

Officer, you said that you had a legitimate reason to use deadly force on my client. What was that reason?

All I know is that he had already rammed a patrol vehicle (I am uncertain if there was an officer inside or not), which shows that this guy has a SUBSTANCIAL disreagard for human life, and is not afraid to hurt/injure/kill someone to get away.

Officer, you stated that you intentionally rammed my client with your vehicle, using deadly force, because you believed that he had a "substancial disreagard" (substantial disregard) for human life and was not afraid to hurt/injure/kill somoene to get away. Officer, my client lost control of his vehicle and accidentally struck an unmanned patrol car while he was trying to get home. How is accidentally hitting an unoccupied vehicle reason for you to try to kill my client?

That officer had to act quickly, and he did so discicavly. You don't know if he is going to hurt/kill someone if you let him go, so the officer did what he had to, to stop the threat of that individual harming another person.

Officer, my client is 40 years old. He is a family man with a wife and 4 children. He has no prior criminal history. He has never been arrested before. He is an upstanding member of the community. He has never ever harmed anyone else, including that night. My client simply became confused that night and got scared - he wasn't trying to hurt anyone, he was simply trying to get home to his family. Officer, why did you try to kill my client? Why did you try to leave his family husbandless and fatherless?

I don't know if thats good enough, but I wasn't at the incident so I don't know all the fact surrounding what took place.

If you don't know, then how can you be sure?

My point is not whether or not the force used in the incident was reasonable - my point is that you can't reach conclusions from just watching a video - whether you're for the LEO actions or against. (compare your supportive response to this video with your non-supportive initial response to the shooting video)

FWIW, I like the fact that the POS got plowed. I think he Probably had it coming and hope that the force review finds the actions reasonable. My "eye for an eye" comment in an earlier post was very much tongue in cheek...

Btw, you have open literary license to answer the imaginary POS public defender's questions... ;)

Ha wow, what a risky thing to do. There was one video like this, except the cop hit the suspect, and ANOTHER cop chasing him.

I wouldn't say it would hold up in court from what is seen just from the video. If he shot at the police and there was an officer in that car, both of which we cannot find out from a video, then as an officer, I would have felt justified.

But in those circumstances, it's an extreme and certainly effective maneuver with some apparent risks that one would have to have super strong justification to do.

What if the guy lived but was stuck in a bed, paralyzed, for the rest of his life? I'm sure Grandpa Joe was never happy about his illness; I don't think this guy's attorney would like it, not to mention the perp himself, too.

If you don't know, then how can you be sure?

My point is not whether or not the force used in the incident was reasonable - my point is that you can't reach conclusions from just watching a video - whether you're for the LEO actions or against. (compare your supportive response to this video with your non-supportive initial response to the shooting video)

FWIW, I like the fact that the POS got plowed. I think he Probably had it coming and hope that the force review finds the actions reasonable. My "eye for an eye" comment in an earlier post was very much tongue in cheek...

Btw, you have open literary license to answer the imaginary POS public defender's questions... ;)


Great points Samuel, I knew I had A LOT to learn, guess I just didn't know how much.

BigFan, I gave you literary license - meaning, I would like you to rebut the POS defense attorney with information/factors that you (as the driver of the vehicle that hit the scumbag) had which led you believe that ramming him with your car was reasonable. I.e. what things (before or during the pursuit, perhaps not shown on the video or not clearly shown on the video) made you believe that the suspect 'needed stopping right then and there'? Don't let a POS defense attorney push you around! :)

Officer, you said that you had a legitimate reason to use deadly force on my client. What was that reason?
The defendant had previously struck a police squad car. I appered to me that the defendant had intentionally done this, because the defendant had deviated arcross three lanes of traffic and onto the shoulder of the road and then struck the squad. In my opinion this ilistrated the fact that he was trying to injure or kill someone if I allowed the defendant to keep running.


Officer, you stated that you intentionally rammed my client with your vehicle, using deadly force, because you believed that he had a "substancial disreagard" (substantial disregard) for human life and was not afraid to hurt/injure/kill somoene to get away. Officer, my client lost control of his vehicle and accidentally struck an unmanned patrol car while he was trying to get home. How is accidentally hitting an unoccupied vehicle reason for you to try to kill my client?
I did not believe at the time of the incident that it was accidental. I then had to assume that the defendant perpousfully rammed the squad, which in itself could be concidered deadly force.


Officer, my client is 40 years old. He is a family man with a wife and 4 children. He has no prior criminal history. He has never been arrested before. He is an upstanding member of the community. He has never ever harmed anyone else, including that night. My client simply became confused that night and got scared - he wasn't trying to hurt anyone, he was simply trying to get home to his family. Officer, why did you try to kill my client? Why did you try to leave his family husbandless and fatherless?

Sir, I did not intend to kill the defendant. I was trying to stop the threat that your client imposed. The only way I could do this was with a descisive action at a moments notice. I did not intend to leave his family husbandless or fatherless.

The defendant had previously struck a police squad car. I appered to me that the defendant had intentionally done this, because the defendant had deviated arcross three lanes of traffic and onto the shoulder of the road and then struck the squad. In my opinion this ilistrated the fact that he was trying to injure or kill someone if I allowed the defendant to keep running.


Appeared? Careful with that word in court...attorneys loooove that word...


I did not believe at the time of the incident that it was accidental. I then had to assume that the defendant perpousfully rammed the squad, which in itself could be concidered deadly force.


So do believe different now? You assume? How often do you assume? Do you assume the 65 year old grandmother is about to get out and shoot you so do you get out and pull her out at gunpoint for a stop sign vio?



Sir, I did not intend to kill the defendant. I was trying to stop the threat that your client imposed. The only way I could do this was with a descisive action at a moments notice. I did not intend to leave his family husbandless or fatherless.

You did not intend to kill? Then why were you trying to run my client over? You did not intend is the WORST thing you could ever say



Not trying to insult you at all, but you might want to take a look at downloading Firefox (Its a browser just like Internet Explorer). It incorporates spell check into anything you type...

It has helped me out tremendously (including that word that I spelled tremoundsly) with typing and spelling

http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/

:)

...It incorporates spell check into anything you type...

It has helped me out tremendously (including that word that I spelled tremoundsly) with typing and spelling

:)

The Google toolbar spellcheck apparently does a better job... ;)

Getting there... :)


The defendant had previously struck a police squad car. I appered to me that the defendant had intentionally done this, because the defendant had deviated arcross three lanes of traffic and onto the shoulder of the road and then struck the squad. In my opinion this ilistrated the fact that he was trying to injure or kill someone if I allowed the defendant to keep running.

Deputy District Attorney: Officer, isn't also true that prior to the suspect ramming the squad car with the Tractor/Trailer, he was involved in 3 major collisions with other vehicles and had caused several more accidents? (Yes) Officer, isn't also true that after ramming the squad car, he attempted to ram 2 more occupied marked patrol vehicles, causing them to make evasive maneuvers, and attempted to run over another officer who was laying spike strips? (Yes)

I did not believe at the time of the incident that it was accidental. I then had to assume that the defendant perpousfully rammed the squad, which in itself could be concidered deadly force.

DDA: Officer, isn't also true that the suspect had originally carjacked the owner of the tractor/trailer at gunpoint and pushed him out of the moving tractor? (Yes) Prior to the suspect robbing the owner of his tractor/trailer, did you also see him attempt to carjack a family in a blue mini-van by shattering the driver's window with his gun, pointing it at the head of the driver, and attempting to pull the driver's door open? (Yes)

Sir, I did not intend to kill the defendant. I was trying to stop the threat that your client imposed. The only way I could do this was with a descisive action at a moments notice. I did not intend to leave his family husbandless or fatherless.

DDA: Officer, moments before your vehicle collided with the running suspect, did you see that he was carrying a blue steel semi-automatic handgun in his hand? (Yes) Was a fully loaded and operational .40 handgun later recovered from the middle of the street next to where you apprehended the suspect? (Yes) So officer, to recap, you made a split second decision to use your car to neutralize the threat of an armed and dangerous carjacking suspect who had led the police on an hour long pursuit. The same suspect who had robbed the owner of the tractor/trailer at gunpoint, had caused serious bodily injury to innocent motorists and had attempted to intentionally run over and/or crash into uniformed police officers and marked police vehicles with a recklessly driven Twenty Ton tractor trailer. The same suspect who, had he been allowed to escape, would have posed an imminent threat to the safety of the public and law enforcement personnel? (Yes)


That's kinda what I meant by "literary license"... ;) :D

Oh, ok.....now I get it!!!! I think they should do more training such as this in my explorer program, I think I will bring that up to my advisor. Thanks Samuel, your insight into this situation has opened my eyes.

Hockey, I will take everything you said and apply it, thank you.

Oh, ok.....now I get it!!!! I think they should do more training such as this in my explorer program, I think I will bring that up to my advisor.

Personally, I don't think you need that type of training as an explorer. If/when you become sworn, you Will get that type of training (hopefully). IMO, the most fun or exciting training you guys should get is the events at explorer competitions. That stuff, however, isn't realistic - I highly doubt you, as an explorer, will get to call out commands on a felony stop, be part of a team looking to neutralize an active shooter, administering FSTs, interviewing/arresting subjects/suspects, etc in real life.

If you want to be useful and realistic, get training on how to do the basic, mundane stuff that LEOs do on a daily basis - writing reports/filling out forms, using the radio/MDT/computer, familiarizing yourself with your service area (navigating), etc. The more of an asset you can be to an LEO or your station, the more your presence will mostly likely be tolerated or might even be welcomed... ;)

Personally, I don't think you need that type of training as an explorer. If/when you become sworn, you Will get that type of training (hopefully). IMO, the most fun or exciting training you guys should get is the events at explorer competitions. That stuff, however, isn't realistic - I highly doubt you, as an explorer, will get to call out commands on a felony stop, be part of a team looking to neutralize an active shooter, administering FSTs, interviewing/arresting subjects/suspects, etc in real life.

If you want to be useful and realistic, get training on how to do the basic, mundane stuff that LEOs do on a daily basis - writing reports/filling out forms, using the radio/MDT/computer, familiarizing yourself with your service area (navigating), etc. The more of an asset you can be to an LEO or your station, the more your presence will mostly likely be tolerated or might even be welcomed... ;)

I agree with you Samuel that an explorer must learn the "basics" before they get to do all the "fun" stuff. I will NEVER get to call out commands on a felony stop as an explorer and HOPE I don't ever have to do one in the field, but if I do have to I will bet they will teach me to the fullest in the academy. I am familiar with the MDT and computer in the squad (after 4 years of ride-alongs, with EVERY one of the officer making you type the information into the MDT). EVERYONE can ALWAYS improve on their report writing, and I KNOW I could use EXTRA training :D:rolleyes:.

We are usually welcome, there are only a few officers in the department that don't like the explorers and that is because they got the "too excited" explorers, the ones that ask 1,000,000,000 questions on a ride-along and don't let the officer hear the radio when their call number is called.

But, WE (explorers) do like doing the "fun" stuff, and I think that a "report writing" competition would be boring to the explorers. I know that in our last competition, they made us write reports on EACH event that we participated in, and we received the points based on the incident and the report. I liked that format.

1PdnobeoKv0

Sorry about the bad quality.

You should be....next time fly your chopper lower and use the wide angle lens with 20 megapixels. Some FLIR and thermal imaging might be nice, too. Geez, no more video from you if that's the best you can do..:D

lmao thats funny when i saw the car comming i was like....uh oh..suspect+car=OWNED :D