• Police shot teenager after his father reported stolen truck
    230 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;42800960]They do. Do you think I'm the only one in America or something? [url]http://pursuitsafety.org/[/url][/quote][quote] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristie's_Law[/url][/quote] "Proposed law in California" -- Irrelevant as California has some ass backwards law enforcement [quote][url]http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/march-2010/evidence-based-decisions-on-police-pursuits[/url][/quote] [quote]While more research needs to be conducted on the actions of fleeing suspects after a pursuit has been terminated, it is noteworthy that fleeing suspects and officers have provided similar answers to the questions of suspect behavior. Specifically, the majority of suspects reported that they would slow after two blocks in an urban area, while the officers thought the suspects would do so in just under two blocks. On freeways, the majority of the suspects reported that they would slow after 2.5 miles, whereas most of the officers felt they would after just under four miles. Because the reality may be somewhere in between these estimates, more research is needed to test these findings. While the research reported here or anywhere else cannot predict the actions of a specific suspect, it does suggest that in the aggregate, fleeing suspects will behave within specified parameters.15 Perhaps the most important aspect of this research involved...opinions concerning when a fleeing suspect would slow down after a chase had been terminated.It is important to consider that pursuit policies are based on the belief that fleeing suspects will slow down at some point after a pursuit is terminated. Research findings support that principle and provide empirical data that can guide policies and training. Of course, whether or not police officers should terminate an active attempt to apprehend a suspect is a different question that depends on what they know or have reasonable suspicion to believe that the suspect has done.[/quote] Ok so pretty much that shows that nothing of any value was completed during the research other than police pursuits slow after some distance by the suspect. [quote] but yeah, if you're given all this information and still think chases for speeding or other minor infractions is okay because "only one person is killed every day" I do genuinely believe you are a sociopath and I'm not apologetic about that[/QUOTE] Since when is stealing a car a "minor infraction" its a serious crime and you could go to prison for 20 years for it. Its not sociopathic to think about if I take the life of this one person, am I'm going to save the lives of a 100? Thats call justifying your use of deadly force. If you can justify that if you hadn't shot, and possibly killed, that man that he would've presented clear and present danger of great bodily hard or apparent death to the public or another.... then yes, its totally rational to shoot him. Hell, the laws thats its rational to shoot him in that sense. But I'm a sociopath who obviously doesnt know anything about risk-benefit thinking. So I guess I am crazy because I can look at myself in the mirror ask "Am I ok with killing someone today" and answer without doubt "Yes I am if it protects the life of myself, another, or the public" [editline]8th November 2013[/editline] also, Under100 motive. [editline]8th November 2013[/editline] [quote]Police Pursuits: PursuitSAFETY® advocates limiting vehicular police pursuits to violent felony offenders when there is no other way to apprehend the suspect(s). (We recognize officers and agencies that think "outside the box" through PursuitSAFETY’s annual Safer Way Award®.) Police Response Calls: PursuitSAFETY® advocates adoption of department policies that clearly define speed limits for peace officers as they respond to calls, to assure public safety and the safety of officers.[/quote] Well good thing that they accomplished both these goals because departments have strict "No-Chase" policies in place. Along with the speed thing too. They're already in place.
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;42801254][IMG]http://puu.sh/5crA1.png[/IMG] seriously dude [/QUOTE] Seemed fitting for you considering how you post. [QUOTE] gray on gray isn't backpedaling it's reality. this isn't the movies. I also never once said or implied the police were "at fault" that's just what you guys chose to perceive in bifurcating the situation no victim blaming is obviously another thing entirely. I'm not trying to "blame" at all, I'm trying to argue that responsibility is shared. this is not a crazy revolutionary concept this is a belief the FBI and police share.[/QUOTE] Umm saying shared responsibility rather than saying who is mostly at fault is victim blaming to an extent. "The victim is partially at fault for the incident". Anyone would call that out as victim blaming. Saying shared responsibility is just softening the blow with no meaning change.
[QUOTE=areolop;42801312]"Proposed law in California" -- Irrelevant as California has some ass backwards law enforcement[/QUOTE] how is a show of public support irrelevant to you asking for a show of public support [QUOTE=areolop;42801312]Ok so pretty much that shows that nothing of any value was completed during the research other than police pursuits slow after some distance by the suspect.[/QUOTE] yeah? that's pretty important, that's the entire thought process behind the police chase. They've summed up my point entirely, certain crimes aren't worth a chase. [QUOTE=areolop;42801312]Since when is stealing a car a "minor infraction" its a serious crime and you could go to prison for 20 years for it. Its not sociopathic to think about if I take the life of this one person, am I'm going to save the lives of a 100? Thats call justifying your use of deadly force. If you can justify that if you hadn't shot, and possibly killed, that man that he would've presented clear and present danger of great bodily hard or apparent death to the public or another.... then yes, its totally rational to shoot him. Hell, the laws thats its rational to shoot him in that sense.[/QUOTE] Since when will catching a car thief save 100 lives? Since when is property more important that human lives? [QUOTE=areolop;42801312]But I'm a sociopath who obviously doesnt know anything about risk-benefit thinking. So I guess I am crazy because I can look at myself in the mirror ask "Am I ok with killing someone today" and answer without doubt "Yes I am if it protects the life of myself, another, or the public"[/QUOTE] strawmanning like fuck [QUOTE=areolop;42801312]Well good thing that they accomplished both these goals because departments have strict "No-Chase" policies in place. Along with the speed thing too. They're already in place.[/QUOTE] well the argument is that they aren't strict enough nor followed enough
I already made my argument. I'm not going to discuss this further. Label me as a sociopath and move on.
[QUOTE=deadoon;42801376]Seemed fitting for you considering how you post. [/QUOTE] thanks for proving my point that you guys are biased and not being objective
[QUOTE=kidwithsword;42790357]After what the kid did, the truck could be considered a weapon that he came close to killing people with. Even if it was stopped, the truck was still on and he revved the engine like a dumbass. That's pretty clear intent to continue doing what he was doing before. The lesson here is that if the police are telling you to do something, you'll in all likelihood be much better off not ignoring them. Especially if the act that prompts them to give you orders is reckless and stupid.[/QUOTE] pretty much that its pretty easy to kill a [del]person[/del] crowd with a car. They are seriously dangerous death tools when used with bad intent.
[QUOTE=areolop;42801441]Label me as a sociopath and move on.[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://principal.jenksms.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/strawman2.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;42801394]how is a show of public support irrelevant to you asking for a show of public support [/QUOTE] Umm yeah, something that hasn't been brought up legally since 2005 here and was shot down twice shows so much support. [QUOTE] yeah? that's pretty important, that's the entire thought process behind the police chase. They've summed up my point entirely, certain crimes aren't worth a chase. [/QUOTE] [URL="http://coolice.legis.iowa.gov/cool-ice/default.asp?category=billinfo&service=iowacode&ga=83&input=714#714.2"]So we shouldn't pursue felony offences? Like of say, theft of a vehicle?[/URL] [QUOTE] Since when will catching a car thief save 100 lives? Since when is property more important that human lives? [/QUOTE] Ok, when has there been an incident where 100 people die in a car chase? [QUOTE] strawmanning like fuck [/QUOTE] You fail to see the irony. [QUOTE] well the argument is that they aren't strict enough nor followed enough[/QUOTE] Violent felony suspects, even if the chase caused it he was a felony suspect to begin with, the police even if following it may have been paying more attention to that part than the violent part.
[QUOTE=deadoon;42801542]Umm yeah, something that hasn't been brought up legally since 2005 here and was shot down twice shows so much support.[/quote] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristie's_Law#Senate_Bill_719[/url] read the whole thing please ;) [QUOTE=deadoon;42801542][URL="http://coolice.legis.iowa.gov/cool-ice/default.asp?category=billinfo&service=iowacode&ga=83&input=714#714.2"]So we shouldn't pursue felony offences? Like of say, theft of a vehicle?[/URL][/quote] yeah basically. If it's nonviolent. [QUOTE=deadoon;42801542]Ok, when has there been an incident where 100 people die in a car chase?[/quote] nothing to do with anything [QUOTE=deadoon;42801542]Violent felony suspects, even if the chase caused it he was a felony suspect to begin with, the police even if following it may have been paying more attention to that part than the violent part.[/QUOTE] they shouldn't have. why should they. [editline]8th November 2013[/editline] Facepunch: where catching terrorists isn't worth reading my emails but catching speeders is worth risking my life. [editline]8th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=deadoon;42801542] You fail to see the irony.[/QUOTE] what strawman did I make
Heres the actual bill [url]ftp://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/sen/sb_0701-0750/sb_719_cfa_20050627_111359_asm_comm.html[/url] Pretty much only proves our point, not yours. The only thing I adds to your point is standard reporting and pursuit training by POST
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;42801627][URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristie's_Law#Senate_Bill_719[/URL] read the whole thing please ;) [/QUOTE] Read the next suggestion please. [QUOTE] yeah basically. If it's nonviolent. [/QUOTE] This is the same country where there are areas where if you break into a house the owner has the ability to shoot you without consequence. [QUOTE] nothing to do with anything [/QUOTE] And You seemed to make a big deal out of people dying as a result of car chases, get this people die as a result of everything. [QUOTE] they shouldn't have. why should they. [/QUOTE] Isn't it the polices job to catch criminals? [QUOTE] Facepunch: where catching terrorists isn't worth reading my emails but catching speeders is worth risking my life.[/QUOTE] Yes because having all of your personal information available to be read without a warrant directed at you is completely comparable to somebody driving a multi ton metal brick that can kill people in moments illegally. [QUOTE] what strawman did I make[/QUOTE] Not so much strawmen, but rather ad hominems by calling a sociopath and constantly berating him while not even reading your own sources.
lmfao i can't believe you guys will defend police action to the point that you will ignore scientific data and actual reports/information from LAW ENFORCEMENT to defend your claim. [editline]8th November 2013[/editline] there is no way you can really defend the police action. this chase would inevitably lead to someone dying but the police chose to do it anyways even though their own policy says that they shouldn't have.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42801872]lmfao i can't believe you guys will defend police action to the point that you will ignore scientific data and actual reports/information from LAW ENFORCEMENT to defend your claim.[/QUOTE] Yes, your Fbi post is irrevocably true information from a payed source that has no ability to verify and is likely out of context. Such a great source that has been parroted the entire thread. [QUOTE] there is no way you can really defend the police action. this chase would inevitably lead to someone dying but the police chose to do it anyways even though their own policy says that they shouldn't have.[/QUOTE] People die every day, not everyone is deserving of it though, this is just a person who thought it was such a great idea to attempt to attack police with a fucking truck like an idiot. He did cause the situation to get worse by running away, and his actions has a reaction. Not surprised by the results but I do not think he deserved them.
[QUOTE=deadoon;42802044]Yes, your Fbi post is irrevocably true information from a payed source that has no ability to verify and is likely out of context. Such a great source that has been parroted the entire thread. [/QUOTE] when law enforcement is saying that information shows that police chases should not be pursued every single time i think it's a pretty safe assumption to make.
[QUOTE=deadoon;42802044]Yes, your Fbi post is irrevocably true information from a payed source that has no ability to verify and is likely out of context. Such a great source that has been parroted the entire thread.[/QUOTE] I'd handwave the credibility of all the sources you've posted but you literally don't have any
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42802114]when law enforcement is saying that information shows that police chases should not be pursued every single time i think it's a pretty safe assumption to make.[/QUOTE] And the quoted info is spread across 11 pages of a college level textbook and is condensed into 1 sentence. Without access to how they came to the conclusion it is pretty hard to determine what the original source is saying. [QUOTE=Venezuelan;42802120]I'd handwave the credibility of all the sources you've posted but you literally don't have any[/QUOTE] When have I quoted a verifiable fact? I'm pointing out the flaws in your information and providing a secondary perspective.
[QUOTE=deadoon;42802185]And the quoted info is spread across 11 pages of a college level textbook and is condensed into 1 sentence. Without access to how they came to the conclusion it is pretty hard to determine what the original source is saying. [/QUOTE] "siens is tuff i dnt wnna reed lol"
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42802198]"siens is tuff i dnt wnna reed lol"[/QUOTE] [QUOTE] In addition, research has shown that if the police refrain from chasing all offenders or terminate their pursuits, no significant increase in the number of suspects who flee would occur.[B]8[/B][/QUOTE] [QUOTE=8] 8 For a discussion of the experiences of the Orlando, Florida, Police Department, see G. Alpert, R. Dunham, and M. Stroshine, Policing: Continuity and Change (Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, 2006), 194-205.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.amazon.com/Policing-Continuity-Geoffrey-P-Alpert/dp/1577664094[/url] Seriously? It is sourced to a college textbook, with the source length of 11 pages. If you condense 11 pages worth of info from even an elementary school textbook into a single sentence you lose a whole lot of info and context.
[QUOTE=areolop;42801692]Heres the actual bill [url]ftp://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/sen/sb_0701-0750/sb_719_cfa_20050627_111359_asm_comm.html[/url] Pretty much only proves our point, not yours. The only thing I adds to your point is standard reporting and pursuit training by POST[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]1)Makes legislative findings regarding the risks of high-speed motor vehicle pursuits by peace officers and states legislative intent to decrease such pursuits and eliminate unnecessary risks from such pursuits.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]3)Amends current law to require that courses for instruction of peace officers in the handling of high-speed vehicle pursuits currently required to be implemented by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) shall be for regular and periodic training.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]4)Amends existing law that requires POST to develop uniform, minimum guidelines for adoption by law enforcement agencies for response to high-speed vehicle pursuits. These guidelines also are for promulgation by those agencies and that shall be a resource for law enforcement agency executives in the creation of specific pursuit policies by each agency.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]10)Requires that all safety programs that receive state funds and that include public awareness campaigns involving emergency vehicle operations shall include information on the risks and penalties associated with peace officer motor vehicle pursuits.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]13)Requires that each law enforcement agency shall adopt, promulgate and require regular and periodic training consistent with an agency's specific pursuit policy that, at a minimum, complies with the guidelines developed by POST.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]15)Specifies minimum standards for motor vehicle pursuit policies.[/QUOTE] all of these support my point
[QUOTE=deadoon;42802235][url]http://www.amazon.com/Policing-Continuity-Geoffrey-P-Alpert/dp/1577664094[/url] Seriously? It is sourced to a college textbook, with the source length of 11 pages. If you condense 11 pages worth of info from even an elementary school textbook into a single sentence you lose a whole lot of info and context.[/QUOTE] so what? if ur interested in the info and context go read the fucking source don't bitch about it here.
[QUOTE=deadoon;42802235][url]http://www.amazon.com/Policing-Continuity-Geoffrey-P-Alpert/dp/1577664094[/url] Seriously? It is sourced to a college textbook, with the source length of 11 pages. If you condense 11 pages worth of info from even an elementary school textbook into a single sentence you lose a whole lot of info and context.[/QUOTE] the burden's on you to prove the context changes anything so
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42802258]so what? if ur interested in the info and context go read the fucking source don't bitch about it here.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Venezuelan;42802268]the burden's on you to prove the context changes anything so[/QUOTE] [url]https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof[/url] Your the one's making the claim of it being true.
[QUOTE=deadoon;42802293][url]https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof[/url] Your the one's making the claim of it being true.[/QUOTE] uh no, we HAVE proof now you're the one with the claim that it's not valid back it up
[QUOTE=deadoon;42802293][url]https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof[/url] Your the one's making the claim of it being true.[/QUOTE] yea and i provided evidence you are ignoring the evidence saying it's too hard. [editline]8th November 2013[/editline] this is like me saying "the evidence is too hard therefore evolution doesn't exist" stop being a baby and accept that you are wrong.
It isn't as simple as a study showing that people who aren't chased won't flee erratically. When you're dealing with a stolen vehicle, you have a window. If you were to just let them go, that vehicle disappears. You'll never see it again. You'll never find the suspect. You're also basically saying that the grown adult isn't responsible for ramming police cars and threatening police with a deadly weapon.
[QUOTE=Grimhound;42802620]It isn't as simple as a study showing that people who aren't chased won't flee erratically. When you're dealing with a stolen vehicle, you have a window. If you were to just let them go, that vehicle disappears. You'll never see it again. You'll never find the suspect.[/QUOTE] 1)not really 2)are cars more important than people, no one will address this but they certainly seem to be implying it [QUOTE=Grimhound;42802620]You're also basically saying that the grown adult isn't responsible for ramming police cars and threatening police with a deadly weapon.[/QUOTE] no I'm not learn to read
[QUOTE=Grimhound;42802620]It isn't as simple as a study showing that people who aren't chased won't flee erratically. When you're dealing with a stolen vehicle, you have a window. If you were to just let them go, that vehicle disappears. You'll never see it again. You'll never find the suspect. You're also basically saying that the grown adult isn't responsible for ramming police cars and threatening police with a deadly weapon.[/QUOTE] it's preferable to let a car thief go rather than take the option that will inevitably end with people dying.
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;42802308]uh no, we HAVE proof now you're the one with the claim that it's not valid back it up[/QUOTE] Yes, proof that you are unwilling or unable to defend beyond claiming that it is true without claiming why it is so other than being an appeal to authority. You are saying the burdon of proof is on the one attempting to disprove, which it isn't. I am saying your evidence is out of context at best, completely misrepresented at worst. [QUOTE=yawmwen;42802329]yea and i provided evidence you are ignoring the evidence saying it's too hard. [editline]8th November 2013[/editline] this is like me saying "the evidence is too hard therefore evolution doesn't exist" stop being a baby and accept that you are wrong.[/QUOTE] Evolution has publicly available studies and are freely distributed, you are using evidence that is behind a pay wall, thus anyone who purchases it is supporting it whether or not it is truly accurate. It is also pretty hard to paraphrase 11 pages of a college textbook without losing context or meaning. I mean really, compress just this thread alone into one sentence. What would you get? People are debating over whether or not the police officer in question was in the right to pursue the subject in question. Ok, what are they saying, where was he wrong, was he within the law or was it because of a misinterpretation of procedure, or any number of unanswered questions. You are making a claim and your evidence is hidden from view, that evidence may as well not exist if nobody can see it. For example; "We have evidence that proves this man's guilt." "Permission to display granted." "We won't display it unless you pay $20" What. The court would ignore that to hell and back. [QUOTE=Venezuelan;42802722]1)not really 2)are cars more important than people, no one will address this but they certainly seem to be implying it[/QUOTE] If cars were more valuable than people, why would the theft of one be a class D felony and police are so willing to ram one and damage their own car in the process. [QUOTE] no I'm not learn to read[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=yawmwen;42802867]it's preferable to let a car thief go rather than take the option that will inevitably end with people dying.[/QUOTE] "Inevitably" As in every time they pursue people die? What option are you talking about, the option to shoot? Just because that is an option, doesn't mean they take it every time.
[QUOTE=deadoon;42802934]Yes, proof that you are unwilling or unable to defend beyond claiming that it is true without claiming why it is so other than being an appeal to authority. You are saying the burdon of proof is on the one attempting to disprove, which it isn't. I am saying your evidence is out of context at best, completely misrepresented at worst.[/QUOTE] you're saying that based on literally nothing is any evidence valid if I don't personally conduct the study right in front of you? You're not doing this right. [editline]8th November 2013[/editline] Also why do you guys keep falling back on car theft? because you need a more serious crime for your emotional appeal argument to work. In your argument really stood to scrutiny you'd be using minor crimes like speeding. Considering most chases stem from traffic violation this would be more accurate as well.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42802867]it's preferable to let a car thief go rather than take the option that will inevitably end with people dying.[/QUOTE] What if the car thief was fleeing so vehemently because he also dabbled in murder? You also can't let these people get away, because it sort of sets a precedent.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.