• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Oh boy, here we go... (BLM)

Joined
Jul 21, 2016
Messages
369
Likes
79
Location
Occupied Territory
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
Chicago police warn violence against law enforcement possible after shooting video released

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/08/0...t-possible-after-shooting-video-released.html

Long story short... on July 28th an 18 year old unarmed black kid was shot by police during a pursuit involving a stolen Jaguar. He was a passenger, the driver rammed several cruisers in an attempt to flee and then the officers opened fire. No weapons were found in the vehicle.

The release of the officer's body cam footage will be today at noon... and apparently Chicago PD official policy is that officers may not fire at a vehicle in motion unless there are people shooting from the vehicle.
 
The release of the officer's body cam footage will be today at noon... and apparently Chicago PD official policy is that officers may not fire at a vehicle in motion unless there are people shooting from the vehicle.

**Puts on flame suit, as I know this is gonna draw out the haters**

If that is a true policy, is is silly IMHO. If the subject is in a moving vehicle and he/she is actively ramming police cruisers, then said subject is also actively trying to harm the police so as not to be caught. Any officer in a cruiser that is being struck by the subjects car would be rightful to believe their life was in imminent danger and would be justified in using force to protect themselves.
 
**Puts on flame suit, as I know this is gonna draw out the haters**

If that is a true policy, is is silly IMHO. If the subject is in a moving vehicle and he/she is actively ramming police cruisers, then said subject is also actively trying to harm the police so as not to be caught. Any officer in a cruiser that is being struck by the subjects car would be rightful to believe their life was in imminent danger and would be justified in using force to protect themselves.

Right? They would get charged with assault with a deadly weapon for that anyway so why not shoot at them if they are obviously trying to harm someone else to save themselves from getting arrested?
 
But they were just turning their lives around. Obligatory statement.

3 point turning their lives around. Hitting everything while doing so. Are we sure the driver wasn't a post-op transgender. ;)

Well he had good taste in rides...

25 years ago, the police woulda been all set. The Jag would have broken down after 2 blocks and all was fine.


What gets me is a guy kills 84 people with a truck in Nice. A month later, 2 d-bags ram people with a Jag and somehow it's BAD to shoot them???? OK. Let's go with that. UGH!
 
Right? They would get charged with assault with a deadly weapon for that anyway so why not shoot at them if they are obviously trying to harm someone else to save themselves from getting arrested?

Ok so I agree with both you guys just like to try and see the other side.

could it be because someone thought it's easier to stop a moving vehicle safely than it is to contain gunfire coming from a car. I don't agree with the logic here BUT it's the only thing I can think of that makes quasi sense for those ROE
 
So the Nice, France truck driver would not have been shot in Chicago if that policy were applied ?

FYI, in case any of you ever want to try to outrun Mississippi troopers- they will let the lead fly once you reach 100 mph.
 
Back
Top Bottom