POLL: Police Brutality?

Remove all ads!

Here's another poll, also a local story.

A man driving a car was involved in a hit-and-run offense, a crime in Maryland, and probably every other state in the U.S.

Two police cars gave chase, and the man failed to stop for police officers until he struck another car. At the point the police officers (four between the two cars) got out of their vehicles to place the man under arrest. However, the man backed up the SUV he was driving, turned it around, and started accelerating towards to police officers. At this point the officers opened fire at the vehicle, firing a total of 21 rounds, many of which struck the man in the SUV. Attempts to revive him failed, and he was pronounced dead at the scene.

Here's the rub: The man driving the SUV was mentally handicapped, and wasn't even a licensed driver. He had the intellect of an 8 year old, and his family is suing the police department for use of excessive force. They felt the police could have shot out the tires, gave warning shots or the like, and that the driver lacked the intellectual wherewithall to understand the severity of his actions, or to realize that by accelerating towards the police officers, he could well get himself killed.

To me, this is complete First of all, the police officers have no way of knowing that this man is mentally handicapped, and may not know what it is he is doing. They are simply giving pursuit to a person involved in a hit-and-run.

Secondly, there are explicit rules governing when police officers are allowed to use deadly force. The basic rule is that they are allowed to shoot if their lives, or the lives of others at the scene are in imminent danger. One of the items that is specifically outlined in the regulation is that if someone is trying to run you over using a motor vehicle, that this vehicle is now considered to be a deadly weapon, and that your life is considered to be in imminent danger. While it can certainly be argued that the driver was not attempting to hit the officers, I can easily see how it could have appeared to the officers that he was making such an attempt. Furthermore, this is in the middle of the city of Baltimore, so even if he didn't hit the officers, speeding through the city is certainly placing other people's lives - like anyone walking along the sidewalks - in imminent danger.

Thirdly, to prove an excessive force court case you have to invoke the "reasonable officer rule" which states how an uninvolved, third-party officer would have reacted in those circumstances with the information the officers had available to them. If a "reasonable officer" would react the same way, excessive force cannot be proven. The fact that the man is mentally handicapped does not enter into the equation, because there was no way for the officers at the scene to know he was mentally handicapped, and therefore not as responsible for his actions as a typical adult. As far as they knew, not opening fire on the vehicle could have resulted in either themselves, or several innocent bystanders getting killed. To me, the only way this could have been avoided is if the officers did not give chase in the first place, and again, then people would have complained if someone got killed and the police did not intervene, and the police department would have been sued for negligence.

Excessive or justified?

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 29 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Police Brutality? (29 votes.)

Police Brutality? (Choose 1)
* Excessive - the officers did not take enough care to resolve the incident without the loss of life. - 3% (1)
* Justified - the officers acted responsibly given the information they had available to them at the time. - 97% (28)

 

Justified. I think its pretty common knowledge that a vehicle is considered a deadly weapon when you're trying to run someone down with it.

Only one question though... 21 rounds? How many officers were there?

 

His state of mind doesn't matter if the cops were, at least in their own justified perception, defending their lives. If a man assaults you with a dangerous object, you strike him down whether he's legally retarded or a certified genius. His intellect only matters if the cops were trying to apprehend him as a criminal. However, the cops had every reason to believe he was one and no reasonable grounds to suppose he was retarded, so it doesn't work against them.

The guy's family is missing one thing: we're talking about the cops' guilt or lack of it, and not their retarded kinsman's. It's completely different. Whether or not he would have been sentenced for what he did doesn't matter in determining the cops' guilt. We can't make a lottery out of the law - your fugitive hit-and-run offender happened to be a retard so tough luck, but you go to jail for it. Committing a crime comes from a choice. It should never be a random thing and people shouldn't be punished for things out of their control.

 

Shoot out the tires...what loons. You can drive with flat tires -- that vehicle is still a deadly weapon. Shooting 21 rounds between 4 officers means they didn't even unload their clips, that's control. A SUV comes flying at me looking to run ME over and I'd unload my clip (AND reload if I had the chance). Fortunately for the citizens of this country, I am not a police officer....

@Chev: I agree, but then I also felt Rodney King shouldn't have been able to sue (those cops that used excessive force should have gone to prison though).

 

@ Art - there were four officers. So they averaged about five shots each. That's what the family is also complaining about. That they could of shot a couple of times, but by unloading 21 rounds into the car, the death of the driver was practically assured.

@ T2B - It's not even close to emptying a clip (I'm not saying you were implying otherwise, but some people may think it was only a 6-round clip). The standard weapon carried by Baltimore police officers has a clip with 12 rounds in it. So most of them didn't even use half of the clip.

 

@T2Bruno: I agree that criminals shouldn't be so able to sue the police as they are. Or like the wannabie rapist who sued a passer-by for hitting him on the face in defence of the woman.

I must say I'm torn on this one - should we throw such cases out of the court in our righteous anger, or should we investigate any claim, regardlessly how improper in our eyes, for the sake of full nad equal justice?

Tough question. What I know is he shouldn't get anything, of course. He or those thieves who hurt themselves on someone's protections. Or poor suckers who assault unrecognised martial artists etc.

 

The sad part is that they probably will get some money for this, at least if history is any indicator. Trials like this typically cost the county about $20,000 to bring to conclusion. Therefore, if they can settle out of court for $20,000 or less, they typically do so. Instead of going for justice, they make a decision simply based on business. If you can pay them $20,000 up front, or spend $20,000 on court costs and forcing the officers to stand trial, it is considered easier to pay them off. (Of course I'm not saying a human life is only worth $20,000 - I'm just saying that they probably will receive some type of settlement.)

 

How did the man driving the SUV get his hands on the car? Did he steal it? Someone should have been watching over the guy so that something like this could not have happened. Anyway I don't think I have enough information about the case to judge it, but if the police officers had no reasonable ways to get out of the way of that SUV then yes I think it would be acceptable to shoot at it but I do think that allways when shots are fired and someone dies or is seriously injured the case should be investigated throughly.

 

Following up on Morgoroth's comment, this looks like another case of family members trying to shift blame to someone else for their own failure to keep the man from getting behind the wheel in the first place. (Although it's hard to make a final decision without all the facts in the case surrounding his personal life.)

 

Totally justified in my books. Shoot out the tires? And what if the SUV flipped and crushed the officers? Chances are the family would still sue the PD. He struck two cars, failed to exit the vehicle and then accelerated towards the apprehending officers? They were totally within their rights to defend their lives and the lives of their fellow officers.

5 shots per cop is not much, In a situation like that you can't count eveyrone else's rounds. There's no, " 5 shots guys, that's the limit!" How many actually hit the driver and how many did not?

When you're in that situation you're not thinking bullet quotas, you're doing everything you can to stop the person who is trying to kill you.

I hope the family gets nothing and in turn gets charged with criminal negligence causing death themselves. It fits the bill, if he had the intellect of an 8 year old, what was he doing alone, unsupervised, and driving an SUV?

The blame is on his guardians and not the police.

 

Shoot out the tires on an SUV? Yeah, like thats gonna work If the cops closed in to apprehend the idiot (which is what a hit-and-run driver is regardless of his mental capability) they were probably within 5-10 meters of the vehical. Has anyone ever seen a heavy vehical like an SUV stop within this range if the driver made no attempt to brake and instead accelerated. Plus I would think must vehicles now have tubeless tyres which wont deflate so soon.
They saw a guy hit two cars and then try to run over them. I would say they acted in self defence.

 

Which, if I may be permitted to engage in some pop-psychology, is probably why their suing: blame someone, anyone else.

 

If he was so unstable, maybe he should have been in professional care? The story did not specify as to what degree.

In this case, I don't think it was police brutality. It would appear that the parents are just interested in money over grieving for their sons death. What a sick world we live in.

 

Justified. The police didnt know that he was mentaly handicapped, and even if they did that shouldnt stop them from shooting at a guy who is trying to run them over. If the guy is mentaly handicapped he should be in an asylum with surveilance instead of out on the streets by him self.

What realy made me angry is the family suing him. Why does it seem like americans always want to sue for money for everything that goes bad for them? (ok, a bit of a generalisation)
And why does the jurys mostly give the "suer" right? (like in the case of the hot coffee)
Evil thoughts: actualy, the police most likely saved the family alot of money, taking care of a handicapped person is not cheap. So there definetly shouldnt be a lawsuit.

 

I wish I was kidding about this, but according to the news report, the guy got a car by taking it for a test drive. It was being sold by a private citizen, not a dealership, so the citizen did not ask to see the guy's license. The driver gave the person selling his SUV his wallet (which contained an ID, but not a driver's license), to ensure he would return with the SUV. The first car he struck inadvertently, he panicked, and then attempted to flee from the police.

 

And he would know to stop if the police shot out his tires or fired warning shots? I am sorry, but being the brother of an autistic person, I am enraged at this. What the HELL were they doing? Where were they? How could they leave him alone or leave keys where he could get them? I think those people should be jailed at the least for negligence or endangerment or something. Growing up with an autistic brother, or son, or sister or daughter, you tend to learn a few things about how to take care of them. You don't leave them unsupervised, you don't leave potentially dangerous things where they can find them, and you don't look for other people to blame for you being a moron.

 

Let me give another story, if that'a okay. I may be horning in on the thread, but the story has similarities and is also true.

Ravynn may have heard this depending on where in North Carolina he is. The criminal plea bargain has already happened and included testimony from the relevant parties (for sentencing purposes)and I've been made aware of them by a friend who I trust.

A police officer in Virginia sees a man in a old beat up pick-up truck roll through a stop sign. The man who ran the stop sign, we'll call him Bob, is well known by the Virginia police for various small run-ins and the police officer testified he got his license plate number and recognized Bob. The police know where the guy lives and they know that he had an accident years ago that caused brain damage leaving the man with a low IQ -mentally retarded.

The police officer turns on his lights and starts following Bob and Bob won't stop and starts slowly speeding up. Cop speeds up. Bob speeds up etc. This part of Virginia is on the state line of North Carolina, where Bob lives with his mother. The road is a winding narrow road and they cross over a bridge into North Carolina. 100 yards into North Carolina, along in the opposite direction, minding his own business and breaking no laws is driving another man, we'll call him Victim.

Bob is driving dangerously and his car clips the side of Victim. Victim loses control and his card turns to the side across the road. The police officer hits and kills Victim.

Under oath, police officer testified he was probably doing 65 in a 55. Later, a techie guy testifies that the "black box" shows the police officer was doing over 100 miles per hour moments prior to the collision. The DA puts officer back on the stand realizing he's been called out and the police officer explains he meant he was doing 65 when he crossed the state line and then he accelerated. So, the police officer would have had to accelerate 40 miles in ~ 100 yards in order to reach the speed on his black box. The police officer also testified that at the time just before the collision, Bob was pulling away from him in his beat up old pick up.

After the accident, Bob drove home where the police drove up and arrested him in his room.

This is a civil question. The family of Victim are bringing a lawsuit against the police. They allege that the police knew where Bob lived and so when they started driving at extremely high speeds, they should've just slowed down and gone to Bob's home to arrest him like they eventually ended up doing.

Were the police negligent?

 

@ Laches:

I find that strange that the police was blamed for overspeeding. Afterall they are allowed to go as fast as is needed when someone is trying to speed away from them. This, I understand, is the same in every country. I mean it doesn't strike me as logical that whenever someone drives faster than the speed-limit allows, the police would just go "oh well" and call for their buddy on the radio to stop them somewhere further along the road.

It's a difficult situation though. I guess it would depend on how far away Bob's home really was. Basically both normal citizens and police alike must always avoid dangerous situations when they can. In a case such as this, the police would have to make a decision: Is the house close enough for them to just tail him and see if he stops there, only to take direct action if he doesn't? Or is the trip too long, and will Bob endanger too many people along the way? In which case they'd have to drive past him and try to stop him as soon as possible.

The thing that I found disturbing there, were the implications of that the police was lying. Other than that, the story sounds like the police did one of the two things he was supposed to. Whether bad judgement or not bad at all, I can't say. Whatever the case, it's Bob who is to blame. And due to his situation, the blame falls to those who had responsibility over him in the first place. As for the police and the Victim, brown happens.

@ Aldeth:

It was justified. Everyone else has already said what needs to be said about the police not knowing that the driver was retarded. Mainly about how it doesn't matter which state the person is in. The fact that he is still able to endanger others, does. In this case the driver had behaved dangerously before he was shot (refusing to stop, then crashing into another car, and even then just refusing to get out and what seemed like trying to drive over the police... hardly sounds like a person to be peacefully arrested).

As pointed out here, a vehicle is a weapon when used offensively like that. And when someone turns a weapon towards the police, they will no longer ask nicely or attempt to shoot in the arm once to stop that. There is no time for shooting once, see what happens, shoot again, see what happens now, etc. It has to be stopped, instantly. And a dangerous human who is potentially drugged or suchlike will not be stopped from one shot alone. He might die, yes, but only after he's shot you back first. So in reality, 5-6 bullets, through a car (and the front glass), into a dangerous person, really isn't that much at all. In fact, I would call it a minimum. And since the police really don't have the time to say "hold on Mac, I think I got this one" to their partner, or just count the shots their friends fire in that life-threatening situation, it's only logical that they should all put those same minimum amount of bullets into the car and the driver.

As for the shooting the tyres comment, that's movie stuff. Not only are the tyres a surprisingly small target to hit from the *front* of a car, but there's also the matter of not guaranteeing that the car would stop, and the fact that the situation wasn't your usual calm shooting range target-practice. Hitting the tyres of a car speeding towards you is roughly the equivalent of hitting the gun of a man turning towards you with what seems like an intention to kill (not the word "turning", the gun and the hand holding it are in constant motion... not an easy spot to hit). It just doesn't happen.

And then there was the comment about the police shooting the car to prevent the driver from escaping. That wouldn't strike me as acceptable at all. While the police should and would stop the driver by shooting the tyres of the car as it would pass by, it's certainly no reason for all of the police officers to actually shoot the driver inside like that. What I'm saying is that if the car really was accelerating directly towards the police, and all of the officers agreed on that he was trying to drive over them, then the police did the right thing. If not, then they overreacted to say the least.

[ April 16, 2005, 08:53: Message edited by: Foradasthar ]