Chelsea police officer hit by, shoots at car

[SA John]

Whitey627: You know what the best thing about this particular forum is? (Northeast) That they let you use some colorful language once in a while as long as you don't over do it. Good swears are like good spice on food: a little lends flavor - too much can be too much. I'm not really worked up over this issue with the guy who wants to kill people, it's just that I can't understand it. I quess we all have different life experiences. But it's 2009, not 1883. Someone steals your horse today? Let 'em have the friggin' thing. Trust me, they'll bring it back in a few days after they have to care for the damn thing in winter.

 

[MagnumAl]

Hmm, Car theft? Thats why I have insurance.

Somebody trying to run my fat ass over on purpose? Thats assault with intent to murder/deadly weapon, and I believe you could rightfully defend yourself with lethal force int hat situation, at least from a moral point of view.

 

[terraformer]

I hope you DO end up behind bars if you do this. We don't execute car thieves and rightfully not. We certainly don't do so without due process.

NWanner: I simply value human life more highly than you. You want to kill someone over a hunk of iron, go right ahead. I'm just glad I don't live anywhere near you.

Hmm, Car theft? Thats why I have insurance.

Somebody trying to run my fat ass over on purpose? Thats assault with intent to murder/deadly weapon, and I believe you could rightfully defend yourself with lethal force int hat situation, at least from a moral point of view.

All above. Folks may want to summarily execute thieves, I will not pretend to speak for anyone on the issue. But I will point out that there is a problem which is far more subtle. If you discover someone stealing your car/stuff/whatever you are limited in what you can do to stop them besides calling barney fife. this does not necessarily include instances where you are threatened to turn over stuff, ie; a mugging, but more a car theft or theft of property that you were not in direct possession of like walking in on a burglar.

As for self help options, you have the option of walking over and asking nicely to have them leave your stuff and leave. If they say f*** off, you can do nothing legally except "thank you, may I have another" and repeat the request. If you use physical force to stop them, it is assault. If the guy pulls a weapon, you have no other course of action, unless you are in your home, other than to run. You started the physical altercation and have lost your right to self defense.

By removing property from what one can defend themselves over, there is a huge swath of crimes one is utterly helpless from defending themselves. I am not advocating a shoot first policy for thieves. But I should be able to draw and cover a thief and compel them to wait until police arrive. Since most theft is a misdemeanor, that is not possible. This scenario apparently keeps our three (well, 2 & 1/2) lawyers here very busy with how many people "brandish" their firearms in order to stop a crime.

Check the federal law on carjacking.

I was waiting for someone to point that one out. Talk about a law written in the heat of the moment...

 

[Trupo]

Mr. Doobie,correct me if I am wrong,but I don't believe it is your job to approach stolen vehicles and attempt to make arrests.Why do some people here keep thinking just because they have carry permits,that they are Quasi Cops?However,maybe I am wrong.

I agree, for some reason, some people here think that the liabilities that we would face as civilians (acting as vigilantes) should apply to sworn officers acting in the course of their duties.

I value human life too. However I don't consider thieves, murderers, etc to share the same human rights that the rest of us do.

While I think thieves and murders are scum, they are at different levels on the scum todem pole. An eye for an eye is fair and right, not a head for an eye...such as executing a thief.

And we also don't execute murderers and rapists. Your point?

Once again, this rises to a much higher level than larceny.

 

[Trupo]

Check the federal law on carjacking.

Yeah, carjacking and larceny of a motor vehicle are two entirely different crimes, and have commensurate penalties. While popping the lock on a car and driving off with it (larceny of a m/v) is a shitbird thing to do, it isn't nearly as heinous of a crime as some hood-rat running up to a car stopped at a light, said hoodsie sticking a gun in the face of the driver (thus puting them in fear) and either ripping them out of the car or keeping them hostage as they drive off with it.

 

[Snapshot]

they'll throw you so far back into a jail cell they'll have to feed you with a slingshot.

I'm gonna have to use that some time

As for the moral debate over shooting thieves: On one hand, there is something to be said for the punishment fitting the crime.

On the other hand, there is something to be said for drawing a line in the sand and showing, with force if necessary, that certain activities will not be tolerated.

What type of force you use... I'll let you all decide that for yourselves. I think we can all agree shooting them would be bad. (even if some only believe this from a legal point of view) Just remember that the crook that gets away with mere theft today, tends to upgrade to armed robbery tomorrow. Who's life do you value more? The crook or the crooks next victim?

 

[clinotus]

You guys can remove the moral ambiguity if you stand in front your car as the guy is stealing it, then when the engine revs you can mag dump through the windshield as it was a furtive movement.

 

[DickWanner]

I find it frighening to think you actually own a firearm. If it were up to me, I'd take away your "human right" to own a steak knife and leave you with a nothing sharper than a soup spoon. Killing people because they steal stuff....inf***ingcredible. You need help.

Well it's good thing my right to own a firearm is not up to you. Please excuse me while I refuse to standby and contribute to the overall pussification of America

 

[Bill Nance]

I'm gonna have to use that some time

As for the moral debate over shooting thieves: On one hand, there is something to be said for the punishment fitting the crime.

On the other hand, there is something to be said for drawing a line in the sand and showing, with force if necessary, that certain activities will not be tolerated.

What type of force you use... I'll let you all decide that for yourselves. I think we can all agree shooting them would be bad. (even if some only believe this from a legal point of view) Just remember that the crook that gets away with mere theft today, tends to upgrade to armed robbery tomorrow. Who's life do you value more? The crook or the crooks next victim?

If you caught a guy prowling your car and beat his ass, I'd applaud you (though it's still illegal most everywhere)

If you intentionally kill someone trying to rip off your car they should throw your ass in jail and I'd applaud THEM.

Every time some dipshit uses a gun to kill someone over STUFF when no physical threat is present, we all lose. I remember when I was a teenager some kid I knew, who was a creep admittedly, broke a window of a liquor store and took a gallon jug of wine. The store owner came out and put two rounds coolly through his back, killing him. the kids was 13.

That guy went to jail and rightfully so. If it's ok to kill someone over a car when no threat is present, there's no real distinction between that and a $5 jug of wine. If we allow street executions for that, we've become a pretty crappy place to live.

 

[weekendracer]

Seriously,I would move the hell out of the way.

Have you ever had someone try and run you down? It's a coin toss, guess lucky and you walk away, guess wrong and have a family reunion.

I've had vehicles come at me before, thankfully I was still near my ride and it was quicker to jump behind my 2 ton ride than try to clear leather before he hit me. I thank my training, but at some point you have to approach the vehicle, then things can get dicey.

Google Luis Aguiliar + Border Patrol, we deal with that all the time and still lose on occasion.

 

[cricco]

boo hoo another leo over stepping there bounds.just like last year ypd shoot and killed someone driving away were they in danger i think not .a jar head most likely.

What a tool. You should really work on your piss poor attitude.

 

[SA John]

NWanner-be tough guy: You are one bad hombre. Think I'm done with you.

 

[DickWanner]

NWanner-be tough guy: You are one bad hombre. Think I'm done with you.

Wow, never heard that one before. You're a clever one

 

[cekim]

Odd to see so many distracted by the "stolen car"...

Absolutely immaterial to me... As someone mentioned - as soon as the car was aimed toward the officer or any pedestrian and it was clear he intended to hit him, it's just like firing a gun... Assault with a deadly weapon...

What is different here between the officer and a civilian in this circumstance is:

a. The information that the car was stolen gives more "reason" to assume hostile intent of the driver when he heads in your direction at speed.

b. The uniform further increases the "reasonableness" of the person about to be run over in assuming the threat of deadly force...

A pedestrian in plain clothes simply would have less (I am not saying "NO", but 'less") justification in reasonably assuming the same level of threat...

My $787B thoughts on the topic are summed up as:
The crime and punishment of car theft here is totally moot (is that redundant?), the only issue is reasonableness of the assumption of threat and the corresponding response to it...

So, no doobie - you or I would very likely not be "as justified" in shooting in such a scenario. That's not to say that there isn't a scenario where "you or I" would be justified, but IMO, it is easy to draw a distinction between ours and a police officer's justification in such a situation...

As for the "Jar Head" BS, well, I think that that about covers it...

 

[Half Cocked]

Odd to see so many distracted by the "stolen car"...

Absolutely immaterial to me... As someone mentioned - as soon as the car was aimed toward the officer or any pedestrian and it was clear he intended to hit him, it's just like firing a gun... Assault with a deadly weapon...

What is different here between the officer and a civilian in this circumstance is:

a. The information that the car was stolen gives more "reason" to assume hostile intent of the driver when he heads in your direction at speed.

b. The uniform further increases the "reasonableness" of the person about to be run over in assuming the threat of deadly force...

A pedestrian in plain clothes simply would have less (I am not saying "NO", but 'less") justification in reasonably assuming the same level of threat...

My $787B thoughts on the topic are summed up as:
The crime and punishment of car theft here is totally moot (is that redundant?), the only issue is reasonableness of the assumption of threat and the corresponding response to it...

So, no doobie - you or I would very likely not be "as justified" in shooting in such a scenario. That's not to say that there isn't a scenario where "you or I" would be justified, but IMO, it is easy to draw a distinction between ours and a police officer's justification in such a situation...

As for the "Jar Head" BS, well, I think that that about covers it...

+2 Cekim

 

[Admin]

All done.