Is this proper police procedure?

[Robert*PPS]

Judge Napolitano's take on this.

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/11/19/na ... -full-kids" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Napolitano is wrong.

"The law is that the police can't use deadly force unless deadly force has been used on them," said Napolitano,

Police can use deadly force at the threat of deadly force, not only after it's been used on them. That would be crazy.

Watching the video, it appears to me that the officer was trying to shoot out the tires, not shoot into the minivan.

Wow.....the amount of misinformation out there is staggering.

[SewTexas]

Judge Napolitano's take on this.

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/11/19/na ... -full-kids" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Napolitano is wrong.

"The law is that the police can't use deadly force unless deadly force has been used on them," said Napolitano,

Police can use deadly force at the threat of deadly force, not only after it's been used on them. That would be crazy.

Watching the video, it appears to me that the officer was trying to shoot out the tires, not shoot into the minivan.

you can't even see the tires from the dash cam, much less from a standing position...the kid's acting like Walker Texas Ranger shooting at that mini-van, except he wouldn't have...

[texanjoker]

Judge Napolitano's take on this.

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/11/19/na ... -full-kids" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Napolitano is wrong.

"The law is that the police can't use deadly force unless deadly force has been used on them," said Napolitano,

Police can use deadly force at the threat of deadly force, not only after it's been used on them. That would be crazy.

Watching the video, it appears to me that the officer was trying to shoot out the tires, not shoot into the minivan.

you can't even see the tires from the dash cam, much less from a standing position...the kid's acting like Walker Texas Ranger shooting at that mini-van, except he wouldn't have...

Let's remember this is real life and not a TV show. I haven't formed an opinion one way or another because there are too many unknown factors. One being I don't know that departments specific policy, but he may be within their policy. I would be curious to hear the radio traffic as well. He appeared to be a responding officer and we don't know what was being communicated via the radio. He many not have known there were additional kids in the car when he possibly shot at the tires. We also don't know what he stated his intentions were. Many agencies shoot tires to stop a threat to the public and this lady is clearly a threat. High speed pursuits can be very dangerous, and the officer was also assaulted by her son so they are no saints. Of course they were just about to turn their life around . Now if he was trying to use deadly force on the driver I say no bueno.

[cb1000rider]

Maybe she's read about what happened to David Eckert for running a stop sign. A bunch of x-rays, enemas and a colonoscopy. I wonder what medical procedures a speeding violation would get you in the Great State of New Mexico. That LEO may have had a few fingers of a rubber glove sticking out of his shirt pocket!

Hey, they were just trying to save his life.

[Texsquatch]

I can't defend anyone's actions - police, woman, kids in this video. What a cluster.
-I don't think cop was trying to shoot the occupants - otherwise, he needs to go back to range for training because it didn't seem like any rounds hit the van/glass.
-If this lady was so concerned for her family's safety, why did she run? Why was she speeding for that matter?
-Yes, 14 years old is still a kid, but kids can carry knives and guns too. Was the cop supposed to stand there and take it?

[Jaguar]

Let's remember this is real life and not a TV show. I haven't formed an opinion one way or another because there are too many unknown factors. One being I don't know that departments specific policy, but he may be within their policy. I would be curious to hear the radio traffic as well. He appeared to be a responding officer and we don't know what was being communicated via the radio. He many not have known there were additional kids in the car when he possibly shot at the tires. We also don't know what he stated his intentions were. Many agencies shoot tires to stop a threat to the public and this lady is clearly a threat. High speed pursuits can be very dangerous, and the officer was also assaulted by her son so they are no saints. Of course they were just about to turn their life around . Now if he was trying to use deadly force on the driver I say no bueno.

Sorry, but the "following department policy" defense rings about as sincere as the "just following orders" defense.

There are some policies that need to be revoked and the person who wrote them hung by their heels. Even the lowly Private in the military is held accountable for following illegal orders, law enforcement professionals should have the same standard for policies that are an affront to citizen's natural rights.

But for the record, it is clear I have an ingrained distrust of authority that colors my perception and responses here.

[EEllis]

Let's remember this is real life and not a TV show. I haven't formed an opinion one way or another because there are too many unknown factors. One being I don't know that departments specific policy, but he may be within their policy. I would be curious to hear the radio traffic as well. He appeared to be a responding officer and we don't know what was being communicated via the radio. He many not have known there were additional kids in the car when he possibly shot at the tires. We also don't know what he stated his intentions were. Many agencies shoot tires to stop a threat to the public and this lady is clearly a threat. High speed pursuits can be very dangerous, and the officer was also assaulted by her son so they are no saints. Of course they were just about to turn their life around . Now if he was trying to use deadly force on the driver I say no bueno.

Sorry, but the "following department policy" defense rings about as sincere as the "just following orders" defense.

There are some policies that need to be revoked and the person who wrote them hung by their heels. Even the lowly Private in the military is held accountable for following illegal orders, law enforcement professionals should have the same standard for policies that are an affront to citizen's natural rights.

But for the record, it is clear I have an ingrained distrust of authority that colors my perception and responses here.

Here there is almost no doubt that the officers actions were legal but stupid. If you can shoot the tires on a fleeing vehicle than the kids in the vehicle shouldn't affect the legality of the shooting. The agencies policies have greater restrictions than law. Law is what sends people to jail. Policies are what communities decide what and how they want their cops to act.

[talltex]

Let's remember this is real life and not a TV show. I haven't formed an opinion one way or another because there are too many unknown factors. One being I don't know that departments specific policy, but he may be within their policy.

It doesn't matter to me what the department's policy is...because "policy" doesn't make bad decisions right. The woman and her son were clearly wrong in their actions, but there is no justification for shooting at a van with children inside over a speeding ticket. I understand it had escalated beyond just the speeding ticket, but at the time shots were fired, none of the officer's lives were in danger. The kid that attacked the original officer had already been chased back into the vehicle by threat of "tasering" and was no longer threatening anyone. At the time they drove away they were guilty of evading/resisting arrest, but I just can't see that as sufficient justification to start shooting. I can also see how the woman could panic and attempt to flee when they started smashing the glass out and screaming at them. Given some of the examples of marksmanship seen in officer involved shootings, even if he was trying to hit the tires, he could easily miss and hit the van or the gas tank.

[texanjoker]

Let's remember this is real life and not a TV show. I haven't formed an opinion one way or another because there are too many unknown factors. One being I don't know that departments specific policy, but he may be within their policy. I would be curious to hear the radio traffic as well. He appeared to be a responding officer and we don't know what was being communicated via the radio. He many not have known there were additional kids in the car when he possibly shot at the tires. We also don't know what he stated his intentions were. Many agencies shoot tires to stop a threat to the public and this lady is clearly a threat. High speed pursuits can be very dangerous, and the officer was also assaulted by her son so they are no saints. Of course they were just about to turn their life around . Now if he was trying to use deadly force on the driver I say no bueno.

Sorry, but the "following department policy" defense rings about as sincere as the "just following orders" defense.

There are some policies that need to be revoked and the person who wrote them hung by their heels. Even the lowly Private in the military is held accountable for following illegal orders, law enforcement professionals should have the same standard for policies that are an affront to citizen's natural rights.

But for the record, it is clear I have an ingrained distrust of authority that colors my perception and responses here.

When we talk about rights, the criminals in this case do not have the right to resist arrest nor evade arrest. The officers do have the right to use force to apprehend them and they are tasked with protecting the public. Was it safer to try and shoot out the tires vs chase them?I can't answer that w/o seeing all the facts and hearing their statements. I have also stated I do not have an opinion other then if they were firing at the driver I have issue with that. What did that officer see and hear when he arrived to cover the other officer? We don't know. Would I have shoot at the tire driving away, no. That is not to say I wouldn't given the correct set circumstances based on a situation (not referring to this case) and that is why policy exists that does allow an officer to fire at a moving vehicle given the correct set of circumstances.

For the record I have a disdain dislike for people that fight the police and then flee .

[texanjoker]

Let's remember this is real life and not a TV show. I haven't formed an opinion one way or another because there are too many unknown factors. One being I don't know that departments specific policy, but he may be within their policy.

It doesn't matter to me what the department's policy is...because "policy" doesn't make bad decisions right. The woman and her son were clearly wrong in their actions, but there is no justification for shooting at a van with children inside over a speeding ticket. I understand it had escalated beyond just the speeding ticket, but at the time shots were fired, none of the officer's lives were in danger. The kid that attacked the original officer had already been chased back into the vehicle by threat of "tasering" and was no longer threatening anyone. At the time they drove away they were guilty of evading/resisting arrest, but I just can't see that as sufficient justification to start shooting. I can also see how the woman could panic and attempt to flee when they started smashing the glass out and screaming at them. Given some of the examples of marksmanship seen in officer involved shootings, even if he was trying to hit the tires, he could easily miss and hit the van or the gas tank.

Policy does not make bad decisions right and just because there is a policy doesn't give one free reign to do whatever the policy may authorize.

As far as the arrest I wasn't there so we shall see what happens. Without knowing if he was shooting at the driver vs the tires I can't form an opinion. I can say that regardless if this women was in "panic" she created the situation by breaking the law and that doesn't get her out of this mess. Her actions escalated this situation to the point one officer fired his weapon.

[cb1000rider]

Entirely reasonable. Not reasonable to shoot at a car with kids in it.

Is it reasonable to shoot at a car with anyone in it other than the driver? If so, at what passenger age does it become not reasonable? It looked like one "kid" was capable of assaulting a police officer.

I don't condone firing on this vehicle, I'm just curious where you'd draw the line. APD has shot at cars with passengers in them and in at least one case managed to hit the passenger. I don't see how you draw the line unless it's by the presence of car seats...

Two conclusions for me:
1) Often it's better to just pay the ticket.
2) Run and you may get shot, regardless of the originating offense.

[SewTexas]

Judge Napolitano's take on this.

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/11/19/na ... -full-kids" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Napolitano is wrong.

"The law is that the police can't use deadly force unless deadly force has been used on them," said Napolitano,

Police can use deadly force at the threat of deadly force, not only after it's been used on them. That would be crazy.

Watching the video, it appears to me that the officer was trying to shoot out the tires, not shoot into the minivan.

you can't even see the tires from the dash cam, much less from a standing position...the kid's acting like Walker Texas Ranger shooting at that mini-van, except he wouldn't have...

Let's remember this is real life and not a TV show. I haven't formed an opinion one way or another because there are too many unknown factors. One being I don't know that departments specific policy, but he may be within their policy. I would be curious to hear the radio traffic as well. He appeared to be a responding officer and we don't know what was being communicated via the radio. He many not have known there were additional kids in the car when he possibly shot at the tires. We also don't know what he stated his intentions were. Many agencies shoot tires to stop a threat to the public and this lady is clearly a threat. High speed pursuits can be very dangerous, and the officer was also assaulted by her son so they are no saints. Of course they were just about to turn their life around . Now if he was trying to use deadly force on the driver I say no bueno.

I realize it's not a TV show, but, does the cop who is shooting at the tires? that's the question? because "oh, I didn't know about the kids in the car" isn't going to look good on the report. and "I was trying to shoot out the tires" when he obviously couldn't even see them from a standing position, is going to look even worse.

The mother did wrong....I agree, she blew it up big time, she did the first wrong in a long line of wrongs. but in that long line of wrongs were the cops.

[03Lightningrocks]

I question the wisdom of a cop shooting at a vehicle for any reason other than the driver of the vehicle is an immediate deadly threat to innocents. What happens when his round bounces off the ground or misses clean and kills my son... or daughter... or one of your loved ones, who just happen to be driving by at the time? I bet most of us would want blood. I can tell you that the cop, or chl batman, would need to take on an assumed name and move to another country if it were one of my loved ones.

[mojo84]

Some things that stand out to me are:

+ The woman was an idiot for driving away and then not obeying the cop once he got her stopped again.

+ The teenager should not have exited the vehicle and approached the officer.

+ I'm surprised the cop couldn't get better control of the lady and cuff her when he got her out if the car. Would have thought he would be a little better at securing a person, especially a female.

+ Not sure the cop going after the window like that was necessary. Seems like that was escalation beyond necessity. He came across as an enraged lunatic.

+ The cop did a poor job dealing with the teenager when he got out of the car.

+ Seems like the backup cop should have stopped his car in front of the van so they could not leave again. It was known they had fled once.

+ Shooting at the tires of a fleeing vehicle from that vantage point seems like a very high risk low success rate proposition.

It doesn't appear the cops acted in a professional safe manner when confronted by an idiot woman and her teenage son. I expect highly trained professionals to be able to handle such situations better than what I saw on this video.

[jmra]

Some things that stand out to me are:

+ The woman was an idiot for driving away and then not obeying the cop once he got her stopped again.

+ The teenager should not have exited the vehicle and approached the officer.

+ I'm surprised the cop couldn't get better control of the lady and cuff her when he got her out if the car. Would have thought he would be a little better at securing a person, especially a female.

+ Not sure the cop going after the window like that was necessary. Seems like that was escalation beyond necessity. He came across as an enraged lunatic.

+ The cop did a poor job dealing with the teenager when he got out of the car.

+ Seems like the backup cop should have stopped his car in front of the van so they could not leave again. It was known they had fled once.

+ Shooting at the tires of a fleeing vehicle from that vantage point seems like a very high risk low success rate proposition.

It doesn't appear the cops acted in a professional safe manner when confronted by an idiot woman and her teenage son. I expect highly trained professionals to be able to handle such situations better than what I saw on this video.

Highly trained professionals make six figure salaries. No offense to police officers but I haven't met many that would come anywhere close to meeting the standards of a "highly trained professional".