Shots fired on Capitol Hill

Hold on. There needs to be a bit of clarity here. In most states, a homeowner who shot a fleeing burglar in the back would be eligible for prosecution. That’s item #1. A police officer who shoots an individual who employed deadly force against the officer or any other person in the presence of the officer while the individual was attempting to escape apprehension with the deadly weapon would not be subject to prosecution. The homeowner’s right to self defense is not the same thing as a police officer’s duty to defend others from a maniac with a gun, a knife, or a 3,000 lb. missile. One can argue the homewoner and the P/O ought to be on equal footing but they are not. And as for police criminal or negligent use of force, deadly or otherwise, it happens with enough regularity to concern many people. It just didn’t happen in the DC matter, under the few facts that I have and my observations of the video.

Cav, if the possession of a deadly weapon is sufficient justification for LE to shoot drivers in the back, then they are justified to use deadly force on every driver.

NO, at the point that the deadly weapon was no longer aimed at others, i.e. the police officers that had failed to block it in, the argument that it is a deadly weapon is no longer valid, just as it would not be justifiable for the police to shoot a suspect who was running away. The use of lethal force is only justifiable when the threat of deadly force is present.

And that’s how two TN LE ended up with a $1.75 million judgment against them: The mere possession of a deadly weapon (vehicle), even when failing to follow orders of LE to halt it, is NOT justification for deadly force.

@103. TN: Well, you know you are arguing the absurd now. The police are not authorized to use deadly force against every driver because a vehicle is potentially a deadly weapon.So, we can dispose of that toot sweet. But when a vehicle is used as a weapon against another, it is indeed a deadly weapon. When a deadly weapon is being used criminally and police officers are present, the officers may employ deadly force if no other lesser use of force is either practicable or effective. Thus, “Drop the weapon” is the first step unless the shooter is firing, in which case no verbal command need be given and police may fire on the shooter. If the weapon employed is a motor vehicle, then the vehicle must be brought to a halt, if practicable, and, if not, then–depending upon the circumstances– the operator becomes the target. This ain’t that tough. There was a fluid action involving the DC driver and the officers put an end to her deadly and wanton threat of harm to them and others. I won’t rehash the basic facts as revealed in the video. As for the TN LE case, I am unfamiliar with it but I agree that the use of deadly force by police to stop a vehicle whose operator disregarded police commands or signals to stop is, without more, wholly unjustified. If, however, the driver struck a cruiser intentionally in an attempt to injure an officer, and the officer or another fired on the vehicle, killing the driver, that’s another matter. I don’t know what the issue is here. I enjoy a good go ’round, that’s for sure, but I’m no longer certain what is at issue here. Are you saying that police were unjustified in shooting the DC driver yesterday?

Fire is a nasty way to go if you don’t die right off. One of my jobs required a safety brief/ film by a guy who was badly burned in an industrial accident. There is a reason why people say that hell is eternal fire.

Nothing like the media Glorifying it as “Chaos in the capital”

What OWB pointed out bears repeating, besides the fact that I think it was a justified shoot to begin with, the ROE for the area where this all went down are much harsher than they might be elsewhere.

Don’t sweat it Cav, you just can’t talk sense to some people.

And PH2, your comment “It’s more likely in Chicago that a paramedic on call will get shot at than a cop.” is not exactly a stellar recommendation for the veracity of the LE community in Chicago if you stop and think about it. Just sayin.

Yes, she “could have had a weapon,” and she “could have plowed through a crowd of school kids protesting the govt shutdown” but she didn’t.

Yes, she did have a “deadly weapon,” i.e. a motorized vehicle, and most of us here do, on a regular basis, and she did attain speeds of at least 40mph, possibly 60mph, which most of us here regularly do.

In that 2-3 seconds where she was backing into a police car, and actually endangering their lives and limbs, they would have been justified in use of deadly force, but they didn’t shoot during that period (video evidence). They shot her in the back, when the threat to life and limb was no longer present. That becomes use of deadly force as retribution.

There are MANY techniques to use against a vehicle fleeing LE, some of which may result in fatality, but are NOT deadly force.

If we are to be truly fair and objective, we MUST NOT temper our judgments based on the subject’s politics or perceived politics, or even on whether or not she had mental defect, but rather the facts. The LE agents on the ground did not know of any report that she thought Obama was stalking her, and apparently neither did her own family. Neither did they know that she was a dental hygienist. “What if” she had done this or “what if” she had had a gun is impertinent. What is pertinent is the “deadly weapon” she had presenting a threat or not, when deadly force was used against her? What is pertinent is that she did not have a gun, and hence never shot at police, as was originally reported.

Why would I criticize LE in the use of deadly force, when I would likely have supported her prosecution on a number of charges? Because the next time, like a previous time (Marine NCO armed with a Bible shot dead) could be an upstanding Veteran, or other Citizen. The line is not Veteran status, but rather the then current threat to life and limb, which was no longer present.

OWB: As much as I dislike the bulk of politicians, I will not besmirch them the need for special protections. In fact, I would say that the Gifford’s case demonstrates they, the individual elected officials, are not afforded a proper level of personal protection. Assassinations, even of those I find most deplorable, would be detrimental to Our Nation. Nor, will I disagree that Federal landmarks and buildings need a great deal of protection. OKC proved that. Rarely, will you ever see me decry the costs of the Secret Service, or PSD’s of other leaders of this Nation. And in those rare occasions you do, my issue is not that they have expensive protection details, but rather that they are misusing their office in other ways (Panetta) causing excessive and unnecessary costs to the taxpayer, particularly if they are simultaneously calling for decreased protection of the American Citizen (Cuts to Troops). I believe the Nation should be able to expect that the best trained cops, uniformed and plain clothes, be found in the Capital, which I do not believe to be the case. The best trained are least likely to pull their weapon out of fear, and most likely to pull the trigger out of necessity. They fire without emotion, and with the greatest accuracy. Where I will disagree is in minor offenses (failure to comply, reckless driving, fleeing the scene) resulting in deadly force, just because a politician should be within a few blocks. The importance of safeguarding govt officials, incl politicians, does not lessen the value of life of American Civilians. Putting on a badge does not shield one from compliance with the same laws one is charged with enforcing. NO, it means one must be MORE diligent in complying with those laws. As to the fortifications of DC, those decrease the risks to the officials, decreasing the need to shoot a woman in the back for reckless driving. Had her car been packed full of explosives, it would have not caused any serious damage to the WH, nor Treasury, nor Capital Bldg., from the distance it attained. It… Read more »

OWB: While I have stated the basis for my positions in different manners, in no way should my words here be considered a “rant,” even if there are points in the conversation where disappointment in my failure to illustrate why this case is problematic is obvious.

Are there avenues to attempt change in policy? Yes.
Is there any likelihood that my words would be effective in DC, if they are ineffective with those here, with whom I agree 98% of the time? Not much.

I am not a newcomer to TAH, nor do I feel a need to comment on every post. If there is a positive to the discourse above, it is that even in disagreement, we Veterans, have generally engaged in adult discussion, and have not digressed into petty mudslinging.

Yes, it IS the way it IS. And this particular case is minor in comparison to other examples of things that are, that shouldn’t be. But to change what IS back to what SHOULD be, will take a majority of the people/voters, in a majority of the districts and States. That will take discussion and reason, and full information getting to a receptive electorate. And the American Electorate is FAR from being ready for that discourse. They are still more interested in VMA’s than DC realities.

So, no, I am not ranting AT anyone here.

TN: Just so you know, I consider ranting often times to be a legitimate form of discourse! At least when it is done to let off steam while among friends.

We do generally seem to agree, though I frequently fail to tell that to other posters. Then again, there is no one else on Earth with whom any of us agree all the time, so this place being a safe but not necessarily soft place to land works well for most of us.

Yes, DC is quite different from the city I visited as a kid and would spend days just wandering around with almost unfettered access to anything and everything. There were still lots of temporary buildings and parking lots on the Mall in those days. No vendors.

Those days are long gone. Yes, we must adjust to changing times, but there are some things which some of us will ever accept – like spending more money to close things than it costs to leave them open. Silly tantrums are not acceptable from 5-yr olds, and certainly not from those elected to serve us. Neither is the human carnage resulting from those same people failing to do relatively simple things like securing our borders.