Tucker6900
Regular Member
This was posted on Iowacarry.org.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Lucky LEO!!!
- Thread starter Tucker6900
- Start date
frommycolddeadhands
Regular Member
The link is no good. I get a 'page doesn't exist' error.
kdt1970
Regular Member
manicdevery
Regular Member
lucky and well trained cop
glad he is safe
glad he is safe
eye95
Well-known member
When I was trained as a USAF SP, we were taught to stand by the door frame between the front and back seats, not directly in front of the driver's window. It is much harder for a driver to aim a gun at you if you are not directly in front of the driver's side window. This officer stood where the driver could easily and suddenly aim the firearm at him.
I hope he adjusts how he handles stops in the future.
since9
Campaign Veteran
The LEO fired 14 times, and people ask why we need more than a 10-round magazine?
Sheesh... I'm going to keep this for play at any trial whereby I, with my 16-round magazine would ever be accused of using "excessive force."
Good on the cop for ducking away instead of standing right next to the door while he draws!
I'm glad he wasn't hurt. He sure was level-headed as he called it in.
The guy certainly got what was coming to him.
Sheesh... I'm going to keep this for play at any trial whereby I, with my 16-round magazine would ever be accused of using "excessive force."
Good on the cop for ducking away instead of standing right next to the door while he draws!
I'm glad he wasn't hurt. He sure was level-headed as he called it in.
The guy certainly got what was coming to him.
OldCurlyWolf
Regular Member
Not Quite. He would be dead without the misfire(empty case). He was badly out of position for a safe traffic stop.:cuss:
I am glad he was lucky. I hate LEO funerals for LOD deaths.
Last edited:
FedwyCC
Regular Member
i have never seen someone openly admit that they've had "plenty" to drink...so i knew something was gonna go bad after that because no one just wants to go to jail. he probably figured he'd tell the truth and lay another LEO down in a rain of bullets and get off scotch free....
palerider116
Regular Member
Why didn't the LEO use a Taser on the gun owner?
/sarcasm off
/sarcasm off
palerider116
Regular Member
You are one of the few on this forum OCW. A true gentleman.
OldCurlyWolf
Regular Member
In 1994 I had to help bury a friend and an acquaintance, both of them were Pasadena, TX, PD. In 1979, I came real close to burying an academy mate. But he had DR. Red Duke as his surgeon and he "got'r done".
I hate having to do that.:banghead::cuss:
tx-skydiver
Regular Member
Wow. He was very lucky. Glad he is safe and one more BG is off the streets for good.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Not true, most of hate funerals for "any" person, we just don't hold funerals for officer at a higher standard than the rest of humanity.
sultan62
Regular Member
I'll agree, except LOD funerals, which would be on par with other murders IMO.
Article states: "The suspect was shot in the back while driving away and died on scene after crashing." (emphasis mine)
This LEO made the decision to shoot back "after" the man started to drive away. The immediate threat was over. You have to admit, from what we can see from the video, the LEO was no longer in immediate danger, yet he kept firing until his pistol was empty during the time the man was obviously fleeing. Now, if the man in the vehicle had started backing up toward the LEO, then the LEO had every right to fire his weapon until the immediate threat ended.
Before you argue the LEO had every right to fire his weapon at a "fleeing" suspect who had just fired a weapon at him . . . I agree. I am actually supporting the right of the LEO ending this man's life. It was the suspect's intention to kill this officer. Consequently, the suspect had just forfeited his right to life. The LEO was professional, calm, and polite to the suspect. He did nothing to elicit the reaction of the suspect.
So, having said that, why cannot law-abiding citizens use the same discretion when they are attacked by someone intending to do them great, bodily harm or killing them? Why are law-abiding citizens charged with a felony when they commit a commensurate action toward their assailants?
In conclusion, police officers should have no more right to protect themselves than ordinary law-abiding citizens should have in protecting themselves. LEOs should be limited by the same laws that limit us or we should have the same options that they have when protecting ourselves. This is my point and the end of my diatribe (criticism).
This LEO made the decision to shoot back "after" the man started to drive away. The immediate threat was over. You have to admit, from what we can see from the video, the LEO was no longer in immediate danger, yet he kept firing until his pistol was empty during the time the man was obviously fleeing. Now, if the man in the vehicle had started backing up toward the LEO, then the LEO had every right to fire his weapon until the immediate threat ended.
Before you argue the LEO had every right to fire his weapon at a "fleeing" suspect who had just fired a weapon at him . . . I agree. I am actually supporting the right of the LEO ending this man's life. It was the suspect's intention to kill this officer. Consequently, the suspect had just forfeited his right to life. The LEO was professional, calm, and polite to the suspect. He did nothing to elicit the reaction of the suspect.
So, having said that, why cannot law-abiding citizens use the same discretion when they are attacked by someone intending to do them great, bodily harm or killing them? Why are law-abiding citizens charged with a felony when they commit a commensurate action toward their assailants?
In conclusion, police officers should have no more right to protect themselves than ordinary law-abiding citizens should have in protecting themselves. LEOs should be limited by the same laws that limit us or we should have the same options that they have when protecting ourselves. This is my point and the end of my diatribe (criticism).
You know, I gotta agree. I have no problem with that POS being sent to the devil. There is no doubt that evil was inside of that SUV that night. The same should apply to me as a citizen. If some jackarse shoots at me or tries to rob me, steal from me I must have the right to end that threat at all times. I don't care if he is running out my front door and all I can see is his back.
eye95
Well-known member
You know, I gotta disagree.
Laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. You may feel that you have the "right" to shoot a fleeing felon, but nowhere does the law consider this a right. It would be a crime anywhere that the authority to do so has not been provided as a defense to a murder charge. In some jurisdictions, police may have been given the authority to use deadly force on a fleeing felon, but I know of no jurisdiction that specifically allows non-LEOs to do so.
Disclaimer: I am not saying there isn't one. You'd just better be darn sure you are in one before shooting that guy running out the front door after a failed assault.
Laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. You may feel that you have the "right" to shoot a fleeing felon, but nowhere does the law consider this a right. It would be a crime anywhere that the authority to do so has not been provided as a defense to a murder charge. In some jurisdictions, police may have been given the authority to use deadly force on a fleeing felon, but I know of no jurisdiction that specifically allows non-LEOs to do so.
Disclaimer: I am not saying there isn't one. You'd just better be darn sure you are in one before shooting that guy running out the front door after a failed assault.
Mirge
Regular Member
Not related to the actual incident, but I wonder if it would be legally "OK" to shoot & kill an intruder, if he was leaving.. while trying to do harm to you? IE: He's bolting for the front door, but also firing rounds in your direction?
eye95
Well-known member
Not only would it be "OK," in almost every jurisdiction (except where running and hiding is required by law), it would be justifiable self-defense. Here in Alabama, if I reasonably believe that I am in grave danger, I can (and will) shoot.