JSO involved shooting in Springfield

[camarocane]

Do stupid things, get stupid results.  And that doesn't mean that I'm justifying the shooting, but I'm definitely not going to ignore the fact that his fleeing led to the outcome.

I agree.  I'm a bleeding heart liberal, but here's what I read:

• JSO wanted to stop the vehicle, as it was identified as being involved in a shooting last month.  Officer is now operating under the assumption that the person in the vehicle is armed.
• In attempting to stop the vehicle, the driver intentionally rammed the police vehicle.  Officer now knows the driver has intent to harm the officer.
• Driver got out, was injured and dazed or otherwise.  Driver flees, doing who knows with his hands.

Anyone who has reasonable suspicion of being armed and has already shown intent to harm the officer, the minute they make a gesture looking like they're reaching for anything other than the sky, is probably going to be shot.  Ultimately, don't run from police, don't assault police, don't get shot.  It's that simple.

Winner winner, chicken dinner.

don't you celebrate every time one of your poorer neighbors is killed though?

Are you saying this young man was poor? If so, how was that conclusion reached?

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Well, I have to consider the cops point of view on this one...

You have to consider both sides in nearly every single one of these events which is why I posed the question.

The majority of stops go without incident.  You get blue-lighted, the cop does his thing, and everyone goes about their day afterwards. 

The majority of these shootings occur AFTER a suspect flees the scene and is caught. 

Would someone be less inclined to go rabbit if they knew for a fact that they'd be chased with bullets?

Just an alternative way to look at it. 

[camarocane]

Do stupid things, get stupid results.  And that doesn't mean that I'm justifying the shooting, but I'm definitely not going to ignore the fact that his fleeing led to the outcome.

I agree.  I'm a bleeding heart liberal, but here's what I read:

• JSO wanted to stop the vehicle, as it was identified as being involved in a shooting last month.  Officer is now operating under the assumption that the person in the vehicle is armed.
• In attempting to stop the vehicle, the driver intentionally rammed the police vehicle.  Officer now knows the driver has intent to harm the officer.
• Driver got out, was injured and dazed or otherwise.  Driver flees, doing who knows with his hands.

Anyone who has reasonable suspicion of being armed and has already shown intent to harm the officer, the minute they make a gesture looking like they're reaching for anything other than the sky, is probably going to be shot.  Ultimately, don't run from police, don't assault police, don't get shot.  It's that simple.

Winner winner, chicken dinner.

don't you celebrate every time one of your poorer neighbors is killed though?

Are you saying this young man was poor? If so, how was that conclusion reached?

"Bing has a previous history with police, having been arrested for car theft, resisting arrest, burglary, trespassing, falsifying his identity and driving without a license."

So you're postulating that a history of crime would equate to being poor? Maybe being poor would lead to a history of crime, correct?

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Well, I have to consider the cops point of view on this one...

You have to consider both sides in nearly every single one of these events which is why I posed the question.

The majority of stops go without incident.  You get blue-lighted, the cop does his thing, and everyone goes about their day afterwards. 

The majority of these shootings occur AFTER a suspect flees the scene and is caught. 

Would someone be less inclined to go rabbit if they knew for a fact that they'd be chased with bullets?

Just an alternative way to look at it.

I think thats the way that most kidnappers look at it as well.

Diluting the conversation?  You can do better than that. 

[Bill Hoff]

Do stupid things, get stupid results.  And that doesn't mean that I'm justifying the shooting, but I'm definitely not going to ignore the fact that his fleeing led to the outcome.

I agree.  I'm a bleeding heart liberal, but here's what I read:

• JSO wanted to stop the vehicle, as it was identified as being involved in a shooting last month.  Officer is now operating under the assumption that the person in the vehicle is armed.
• In attempting to stop the vehicle, the driver intentionally rammed the police vehicle.  Officer now knows the driver has intent to harm the officer.
• Driver got out, was injured and dazed or otherwise.  Driver flees, doing who knows with his hands.

Anyone who has reasonable suspicion of being armed and has already shown intent to harm the officer, the minute they make a gesture looking like they're reaching for anything other than the sky, is probably going to be shot.  Ultimately, don't run from police, don't assault police, don't get shot.  It's that simple.

Winner winner, chicken dinner.

don't you celebrate every time one of your poorer neighbors is killed though?

Are you saying this young man was poor? If so, how was that conclusion reached?

He's also not a neighbor. He happened to crash in SPR.

[contrivance]

But from the looks of it, the cop car hit him from behind, which I think would be less of a reason to believe that the cop was acting reasonably.  And Im not sure if I can figure out how the car being chased was able to crash 'head on' into the front of the police car.

The man reach Ionia Street when another officer, T.I. Landerville, was traveling on Liberty Street. The man turned west on 9th Street and the officer turned east onto 9th. The man hit the officer head on, disabling the cruiser.

[02roadking]

Many of the "facts" expressed here are not very sound. I feel it is just plain wrong to spread untruths as fact.
This is devastating to all the families involved and our neighborhood.

[fsquid]

Play in the dirt, you get dirty

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

No, just illustrating that while Jeremy Bentham was considered one of the great philosophers of all times, there is a reason we moved on from Utilitarianism.

OK, we'll roll with this, but I have to bring you back to the topic. 

Remember, we're taking the gray out of the equation - black and white:  If you run, you will be shot.

So we're taking Bentham out of the equation, he should have never been there to begin with.  There is no longer a balancing act of pain and happiness between the mourning community and the ones rejoicing because a 'criminal' has been removed from the streets.  (Utilitarianism right?  It's been a while)

If you would like to use a set of laws, I think Newton's third would be more appropriate.

This evade/elude mentality IMO is a causation for many of these unnecessary shootings, while I think many believe the opposite:  they believe they might get shot, so they run.

So with that thought in mind, I strongly believe that by strongly (mortally) discouraging the behavior, it would result in less of the situations we continue to read about.

[Adam White]

No, just illustrating that while Jeremy Bentham was considered one of the great philosophers of all times, there is a reason we moved on from Utilitarianism.

OK, we'll roll with this, but I have to bring you back to the topic. 

Remember, we're taking the gray out of the equation - black and white:  If you run, you will be shot.

That's basically imposing a death sentence without a trial.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

No, just illustrating that while Jeremy Bentham was considered one of the great philosophers of all times, there is a reason we moved on from Utilitarianism.

OK, we'll roll with this, but I have to bring you back to the topic. 

Remember, we're taking the gray out of the equation - black and white:  If you run, you will be shot.

That's basically imposing a death sentence without a trial.

I understand that.  Read back to the beginning to get some context of where this is coming from.

[Adam White]

No, just illustrating that while Jeremy Bentham was considered one of the great philosophers of all times, there is a reason we moved on from Utilitarianism.

OK, we'll roll with this, but I have to bring you back to the topic. 

Remember, we're taking the gray out of the equation - black and white:  If you run, you will be shot.

That's basically imposing a death sentence without a trial.

I understand that.  Read back to the beginning to get some context of where this is coming from.

I've  been reading the thread from the beginning.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

So for all intents and purposes in this conversation, fleeing from the police is now treated as a capital offense. 

The questions still remains:  Overall, would there be less shootings?

[Adam White]

So for all intents and purposes in this conversation, fleeing from the police is now treated as a capital offense. 

The questions still remains:  Overall, would there be less shootings?

I don't think it would make a substantive difference. Capital punishment has not been shown to work as a deterrent (as far as I am aware) and I reckon people will always flee.

That said - if you somehow were able to do an end run around the Constitution and allow cops to consider fleeing a capital offence, the people would revolt.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

So for all intents and purposes in this conversation, fleeing from the police is now treated as a capital offense. 

The questions still remains:  Overall, would there be less shootings?

judging from the past three years of cops shooting people, would you say that there has been a slowdown in people fleeing the cops?

Or would you say that a more lethal police force is itself a driving reason why people might flee?

That's exactly the conundrum that I mentioned a few posts ago.  Personally, I see the fleeing as a cause, but I also understand how many see it as an effect.  It's also why I posited the scenario that I did.