Video of police officer defending him self

imported post

WOW what a chase.

Evidently the BG was assaulting cop3 with a deadly weapon (car?)as cop1 was approachingandcop3 was advising the other officers to take cover.

I used to live in Blue Ash also and would not be surprised to find out that at 3am this BG was on drugs/drunk and carrying drugs.

We still don't know what started the chase as we only see the BG after he has plowed into the barditch.

imported post

I guess I'll have to play the devil's advocate here.I watched the video several times and came up with the same conclusions - Yes, the suspectwas attempting to flee at high speed but I did not note a lot of red lights being ran. In fact, the suspect turned around before entering a red light intersection and took a side road. I did see them going thru some green lights. The police attempted to ram the car and at one point was shooting at the ??driver as opposed to trying to shoot the tires or otherwise stop the vehicle. There were no other vehicles around potentially indangered and at the end - the police officer who left his vehicle very stupidly jumped on the hood of a car with the driver still inside and proceeded to shoot him when the car again attempted to flee. What we have here is another sterling example of no control of a situation with the result being a dead citizen who was endangering no one else in the immediate area until a police officer stupidly jumped on his car as he was attempting to flee. I also noted comments on the site posted in response to the video to the effect of "another rapid dog killed". Guess what LEO's, we're not rapid dogs and if you're stupid enough to jump on the hood of a moving vehicle - maybe you should be run over. :shock:

imported post

Redlegagent - I guess you missed the vehicles that had pulled to the side of the road.

As I remember, in Blue Ash, the street lights 'lock' to green after so long idle.

The citizens in danger were the police officer.

Use of a vehicle to threaten another is use of deadly force. Whether he had a gun or not.

When a vehicle is comming at you, you have two choices, jump up, or jump out of the way, and from what I could see in the video, cop1 might have been limited in his options as to which way to go.

As for the officers referring to the BG as a 'rabid dog,' I will not fault them for that characterization. A rabid dog acts in an unusual and aggressive manner due to a disease. After exposure to mind addled drug addicts, I can see the correlation whether the BG was a drug addict, or simply a drunk operating DUI.

After living in Cincinnati for 10 years, I can tell you that even in Blue Ash, the possibility of the BG having and using a weapon was VERY high!

Could the officers have chosen a different course of action? Maybe, but the BG had already assaulted them several times with a deadly weapon, fled at 100+ mph, and was definitely headed into a more congested area where pedestrians along with vehicles would have been even at that time of night.

I am sure that there are facts that are not available to us, but I believe that if those officers had not stopped the BG and he had crashed into a vehicle with a family of 4, killing them, the city would have been in an uproar. Another situation of damned if you do, damned if you don't.

imported post

You're citing "techinical evidence" which does not reflect the totality of the video. Absolutely, the film was edited and may not show all the facts - but it did show the following: we know that the suspect fled in his car. There is no evidence to support he attempted to hit any other cars other than police while trying to break away from the police who where likewise ramming him. We know for a fact that the police were shooting at him but we don't know if he was shooting back. We know that cop #1 exited his vehicle and proceeded to attempt to stop him by jumping on the hood and firing at him before the rest of the back-up was on scene. Merely stating that he had "assualted them with a deadly weapon" does not reflect that the suspect was, in fact, attempting to flee police officers who were shooting at him and ramming his car. This leads one to question the validity of the police's point given that there is nothing on the tape to indicate the suspect attempted to injure bystanders, shot at the police, or did anything other than fleeing from people shooting at him and ramming his car. I still say this video wafts.

imported post

the way i see it, guy was drunk/on drugs, most likely a banger, fleeing at over 100mph from the police ,endangering officers lives and civlians as well. he got put down. he probably deserved it. people are probably alive beacuse of it.

no need to think to far into the situation, look at the facts that are there.......if i was the officer, i probably would have done the same.



Here in Maine we had a man. He told police once they arrived at his home he had a gun, noone ever saw it, he claimed he was gonna "cap" all the officers on scene...........he reached, he took 15 rounds to the chest. All the officers were cleared of any wrong doing. its not a physical act that can provoke police to open fire. Threats and the danger of innocent bystanders being hurt is more than enough reason to shoot, and find out after. had the police let this man pull out whatever he did or did not have,could have gotten others killed. much like the carchase.......if they had let him keep running, im sure the odds of innocent bystanders dieing would have increased ten fold.

Just my OP

imported post

jay75009 wrote:

"no need to think to far into the situation"


THAT'S what they're counting on. Next time it could be you or someone you know.

imported post

redlegagent wrote:

jay75009 wrote:

"no need to think to far into the situation"


THAT'S what they're counting on. Next time it could be you or someone you know.

Click to expand...

wont be me, im not that stupid, and it has happened to someone i know, the kid who shot someone with an ak-47 then ran from the police and got shot by and shot himself here in saco..........i grew up with him, he was stupid and did something stupid. and paid the ultimate price for it.

there is no excuse for blaitent stupidity, everyone seems to get angry at the police for reacting how most of us would, and defend the moron who caused it to happen, the dip would still be alive if he had just stopped.

imported post

jay75009 wrote:

everyone seems to get angry at the police for reacting how most of us would,

Click to expand...

You would have reacted the way the policeman in this video did?!

imported post

I knew by posting that I would turn on the "PA System" of this forum - i.e. Police Apologists. Never the less, the fact remains that ALL explanations thus offered are nothing more than heresay and anecdotal evidence. By reading the postsI have learned that this individual must be a drunk or crackhead because he came from the wrong side of town, or that area is a drug haven at night, and he was putting people's lives in danger, or you know this person or that person from similar circumstances - but guess what?? - it means exact squat. This video was obviously edited. Don't you think if he almost ran an old lady over or plowed thru someone's front yard etc. - they would have left that in to reinforce the police's contention that he must be stopped??? No,I guess not because most of you only see what you want hence your irrelevent posts on the matter. Police are a necessary evil in society. With interpretation of law comes a very real potential of abuse of the law. Police should be aggressively monitored and regulated accordingly. Anyone stupid enough to feel that the police would never turn on them because they are police or are friends of police are not just naive, you're stupid because history shows again and again when abuse of power situations occur - they eat their own and those close to them as well as bystanders. The police chief in the movie Blade Runner was a prophet when he told Harrison Ford - "you know the score dekker - if you're not cop...you're little people."

imported post

So now we get to both demand that the LEO's follow the letter of the law in regards to our desire to OC while chastising the LEO's when they attempt to apprehend someone who is actively breaking the law? About 30 seconds into the encounter, before it's actually a chase, the car attempts to run into the cop to evade the encounter. IMO the cop should have rammed the car earlier into the chase.

The only thing that might change my mind is if the entire reason for hitting the blue lights were bogus. Would be nice to know that. Regardless, a high speed chase and ramming officers cars is not the best way to handle a wrongful stop. Sometimes stupidity is painful, sometimes it's deadly.

I honestly appreciate a lot of the info on this site. But some of the attitudes on here really make me wonder what's up with some folks.

BTW, I'm going to teach my kids to actually stop for blue lights. I'd rather figure out the problems with someones actions in a civil trial than a mortuary. But hey, that's just me trying to teach my kids to function in the society we live in, not outside of it.

imported post

"Sometimes stupidity is painful, sometimes it's deadly"

Absolutely. The only thing these threads reveal is the divide between those "conditioned" to accept whatever law enforcement states at face value, and those who look at the facts for what they are. I'm not arguing that the guy was a saint, I doubt it, but the fact that he tried to get away so diligently from the police bears out in that they killed him at the end so all we'll ever have is their version - which is plenty for a lot here who feel you shouldn't "think too much on these things". My father (RIP) was a LEO for 27 years and I can tell you before he passed, he wasn't happy with the evolving attitude of modern law enforcement. Not all, but many of the LEO out there today are very adversarial towards the public citizen and maintain an "us" or "them" attitude. Many urban departments today are little more than paramilitary forces. Yes, it's a dangerous job - but no one put a gun to their head and forced them to do it. Many are lured in the idea of "power" - a gun and a badge, as evidenced by the never ending brutality videos cropping up on the internet. The fact that police now have dash-cams is a testament to the fact that there is a problem. For those who blindly support law enforcementI would just point this out - when it gets down to "brass tacks", the police are there to represent the interests of the state - not to protect the public. With that in mind, I repeat that they are necessary evil but we should always be aware and vocal in the defense of our civil rights and not just take things at face value.

imported post

They HAVE to get better mounting setups for those dash cams...one collision and they go out???

:quirky

imported post

eric55 wrote:

the cop was probably right with what i saw but it must suck to kill someone like that, i'm sure it bothers him everyday and it will for a long time, something i hope to god i never have to do

Click to expand...

I cant agree with you more! but it makes me feel good to know that there are officers out there willing to do whatever it takes to bring an ugly situation to an end.

imported post

My proverbial socks are blown off as well. I'm glad the cops did what was necessary, as we won't know all the details because of the ongoing investigation at that time. The only real way to know is to ask the Officer(s) involved, and even then, they probably won't want to speak of it beyond what you already know. It's considered bad form in some circles. One less BG is where our praise should lie. Ooh Rah.

imported post

Pretty nuts. No ordinary citizen would ever be able to get away with that though.

imported post

I tell you what redlegagent if this guy had hit and killed someone would you be ok with that? That is why the cop did what he had to do to stop this situation and a big thumbs up for it.

imported post

eric55 wrote:

the cop was probably right with what i saw but it must suck to kill someone like that, i'm sure it bothers him everyday and it will for a long time, something i hope to god i never have to do

Click to expand...

It changes you, I know from experience. It is an emotional ride and can take a while to recover from. I went through just about every emotion in extremes for about a week each. Except for guilt. I thought I'd have some temporary false guilt when I came to accept my attacker as a sad person with a sad upbringing and a sad life that left him few choices in life. It didn't happen. I came to accept his humanity and even feel sorry for him. I think its necessary to heal. doesn't mean I won't do it again.
MANY PEOPLE NEVER MENTION, OR THINK ABOUT IT, BUT IF YOU DO HAVE TO KILL SOMEONE IN SELF DEFENSE YOU ARE STILL A VICTIM.


The shoot in this video was justifiable from what we can see, however I do have
concerns. firstly at the beginning of the video, the officer states "I just had a vehicle try to ram me" - the vehicle went around him but didn't attempt to hit him. Falsely claiming so could cause other officers to escalate things rapidly. (not applicable this time I know)
secondly was how he could, even for 2 seconds, confuse a Monte Carlo with a Mustang!:lol:

Plus shooting through the windshield while riding on the hood of a car on your knees while its evading the police is some crazy Hollywood stuff. +2 points for being a bad@ss -3 points for getting yourself in that situation

imported post

I'm gonna have to say I need more information before I call this a righteous shoot.

Wish I could see the whole un-edited footage.

I never saw the guy try to ram the officer. I thought his initial claim was an embellishment. Clearly the officer was closer to running into/blocking him than the other way around. It all looked like evasion to me. They'll just call it offensive because that gives them legitimacy in escalting the use of force. It happens every day. Touch an officer and you may be accused of assault, if he has a mind to.

Why didn't the officer ram him in the first turn around? It came across, to me, that the officer did not want to hurt him at that point - because he could have rammed the driver directly at that moment and you can see he hit the brakes. What happened in between then and when he fired on him? Only the chase or did he try to ram people or anything else? I saw no footage of the driver hurting anyone physically.

The only ramming I could discern was by the police. The Monte Carlo's front end had no ram grille and it wasn't damaged like it would be if he was ramming cop cars. I'm afraid it looks like "Stop or I'll kill you" with how it's edited. Please point out where he aimed his car at an officer or any car.

I repeat - I wish I could see the whole un-edited footage and have more info!

In no way do I see a reason for him to die in that footage - I saw absolutely no attempt by the driver trying to harm the officer - just trying to get away. We have to assume some things to go there. Even the moments the last car footage showed driving up to the scene you could hear some shots popping off before you could see him on the hood- WHAT HAPPENED the 10 seconds prior to that on the scene?Wasn't there two squad cars at the shoot before the footage we saw? Where's that stuff? Why do we only see the cop shoot earlier and we didn't get to see the target or the moments of him getting out of the car?

I reserve final judgement until I can know more. Too much missing for me to agree totally either way. But I don't see the evidence for calling it a good shoot so far.

imported post

CommonMan101 wrote:

I'm gonna have to say I need more information before I call this a righteous shoot.

Wish I could see the whole un-edited footage.

I never saw the guy try to ram the officer. I thought his initial claim was an embellishment. Clearly the officer was closer to running into/blocking him than the other way around. It all looked like evasion to me. They'll just call it offensive because that gives them legitimacy in escalting the use of force. It happens every day. Touch an officer and you may be accused of assault, if he has a mind to.

Why didn't the officer ram him in the first turn around? It came across, to me, that the officer did not want to hurt him at that point - because he could have rammed the driver directly at that moment and you can see he hit the brakes. What happened in between then and when he fired on him? Only the chase or did he try to ram people or anything else? I saw no footage of the driver hurting anyone physically.

The only ramming I could discern was by the police. The Monte Carlo's front end had no ram grille and it wasn't damaged like it would be if he was ramming cop cars. I'm afraid it looks like "Stop or I'll kill you" with how it's edited. Please point out where he aimed his car at an officer or any car.

I repeat - I wish I could see the whole un-edited footage and have more info!

In no way do I see a reason for him to die in that footage - I saw absolutely no attempt by the driver trying to harm the officer - just trying to get away. We have to assume some things to go there. Even the moments the last car footage showed driving up to the scene you could hear some shots popping off before you could see him on the hood- WHAT HAPPENED the 10 seconds prior to that on the scene?Wasn't there two squad cars at the shoot before the footage we saw? Where's that stuff? Why do we only see the cop shoot earlier and we didn't get to see the target or the moments of him getting out of the car?

I reserve final judgement until I can know more. Too much missing for me to agree totally either way. But I don't see the evidence for calling it a good shoot so far.

Click to expand...

My uneducated guess is because he was alone? Felony stops are super dangerous right? Better to wait till you have backup to have contact. I almost commented the same thing until I thought about it for a bit.

imported post

simmonsjoe wrote:

My uneducated guess is because he was alone? Felony stops are super dangerous right? Better to wait till you have backup to have contact. I almost commented the same thing until I thought about it for a bit.

Click to expand...

One couldassume with equal sureness he wouldn't be ramming him because it was just a traffic stop that wouldn't stop.

Too bad we don't get to see any evidence pointing to why we should call this afelonious stop. It's a complete assumption to jump to that conclusion and call it that. So farall of theevidence says this is a "stop and obey me or I'll kill you" thing rather than a righteous shoot.

The fact thatthe officer described the first part as an attempt at ramming shows what cops do to justify escalating use ofviolence. He did not try to ram the squad car or an officerat any point in the video.

If I were on a jury about this and this video was all I had to go on theshooter(s) would be in deep doodoo. I've had harder things to call than this one in a jury room.