If the officer's car was 5 feet from the truck or 10 feet from the truck is that enough distance to put the officers' lives in danger? If not, what distance is enough?

 

Yes, 5 or 10 feet is enough to put an officers life in danger. With a vehicle at that distance a lot of damage can be caused by a vehicle versus flesh and bone. I have worked injuries caused by a lot less force.

Yes' date=' 5 or 10 feet is enough to put an officers life in danger. With a vehicle at that distance a lot of damage can be caused by a vehicle versus flesh and bone. I have worked injuries caused by a lot less force.[/quote']

 

Even if the officer is inside the vehicle?

I can't even imagine what those officer's are probably feeling right now. Boggles my mind that someone would be as reckless as this dude was with a 6 year old child in the vehicle. Just sickening all around.

 

Loser

If the officer's car was 5 feet from the truck or 10 feet from the truck is that enough distance to put the officers' lives in danger? If not, what distance is enough?

For me the distance isn't the issue as much as his disregard for them and what he may do next with a vehicle he's already shown to use as a weapon.

For me the distance isn't the issue as much as his disregard for them and what he may do next with a vehicle he's already shown to use as a weapon.

 

I'd argue that's too broad. The odds of him using the car as a weapon against innocent bystanders who are not trying to hurt/detain him are MUCH less than the odds of an innocent bystander being killed by officers shooting at someone in this circumstance.

 

If no one is SHOWN to be in danger or potentially in danger then IMO the shooting is not justified. Not worth the risk as we see in this case.

I'd argue that's too broad. The odds of him using the car as a weapon against innocent bystanders who are not trying to hurt/detain him are MUCH less than the odds of an innocent bystander being killed by officers shooting at someone in this circumstance.

 

If no one is SHOWN to be in danger or potentially in danger then IMO the shooting is not justified. Not worth the risk as we see in this case.

I'll disagree that you need some black and white distance before a guy who has already rammed a cruiser to be considered a weapon.

I'll disagree that you need some black and white distance before a guy who has already rammed a cruiser to be considered a weapon.

 

That's cool. I don't think you can make a hard number either.

 

Let's say the officers survived the ramming of the car and now the guy is trying to get away.

 

Is shooting justified?

Edit

This is a bad situation for sure. I don't agree with just get them later. It promotes criminals to just say all we have to do is run from the police and they will let us go.

Even if the officer is inside the vehicle?

 

You're assuming a lot Clyde. Nowhere in the link provided by you does it state what distance the vehicles were from one another.

 

It seems you want to give every benefit of doubt to the criminals in these situations.

This is a bad situation for sure. I don't agree with just get them later. It promotes criminals to just say all we have to do is run from the police and they will let us go.

 

So a guy wanted for , say , lack of child support flees from police and in doing so rams the officer's car. You're saying a high-speed chase and guns firing is acceptable?

You're assuming a lot Clyde. Nowhere in the link provided by you does it state what distance the vehicles were from one another.

 

It seems you want to give every benefit of doubt to the criminals in these situations.

 

I'm not assuming anything. My "distance" question was in response to what seemed to be a blanket statement that "if the guy rammed a cruiser he's fair game to shoot." I asked if that was from any distance. I have no clue what distance the guy was.

 

I'm saying in order to RISK THE LIFE of a child or an innocent bystander EVEN IF the cruiser was rammed SOMEONE had BETTER be in IMMINENT DANGER.

 

If you call that "benefit of the doubt to the criminal" so be it.

Did the officer's know there was a child in the car?

 

I can't imagine they did.

Did the officer's know there was a child in the car?

 

I can't imagine they did.

 

I can't imagine they did either.

I'm not assuming anything. My "distance" question was in response to what seemed to be a blanket statement that "if the guy rammed a cruiser he's fair game to shoot." I asked if that was from any distance. I have no clue what distance the guy was.

 

I'm saying in order to RISK THE LIFE of a child or an innocent bystander EVEN IF the cruiser was rammed SOMEONE had BETTER be in IMMINENT DANGER.

 

If you call that "benefit of the doubt to the criminal" so be it.

 

I'm sure they didn't know there was a child in the car.

 

I'm also sure you haven't the faintest idea if the were in IMMENENT DANGER or not. I don't. I'm also not going to second guess every LEO's decision as it seems you do. It's enough of a tragedy without adding rampant speculation into it.