SAN ANTONIO — A San Antonio police officer fired shots at a suspect who drove a SUV over a curb, nearly pinning the officer between his patrol vehicle and the suspect vehicle.
A statement from San Antonio police says the suspect was taken to a hospital early Saturday with a bullet wound to the left arm. The injury was considered non life-threatening.
The shooting happened after officers responded to another shooting and found a woman shot in the leg.
Officer Jesse Izaguirre approached the suspect's vehicle with his emergency lights on and that's when the suspect allegedly drove over the curb.
The woman was also taken to the hospital with non life-threatening injuries.
Izaguirre will be placed on administrative duty pending the outcome of the investigation.
I really cannot picture these incidents. In this case the policeman said the bad guy was "nearly pinning the officer between his patrol vehicle and the suspect vehicle. "Wouldn't it already be too late to shoot? The officer "approached the suspect's vehicle with his emergency lights on and that's when the suspect allegedly drove over the curb."
Does that make sense to you? Why do so many pro-gun commenters defend the cops in cases like this? Are the gun rights of lawful civilian gun owners somehow tied up with the behaviour of the police with their guns? Or is this another case of the pro-gun guys focusing on the gun again. I keep telling them the gun is neither good nor bad, it's an inanimate object. It always depends upon the person using it, and in this case I have my doubts about Officer Jesse Izaguirre.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Ah, mikeb, I see you have decided to change tactics based on recent posts and comments of yours.
ReplyDeleteOr is this another case of the pro-gun guys focusing on the gun again. I keep telling them the gun is neither good nor bad, it's an inanimate object. It always depends upon the person using it, and in this case I have my doubts about Officer Jesse Izaguirre.
So after how many posts of us telling you that it is the criminals that matter and to stop focusing on the tool, you now accuse "pro-gun guys" of focusing on the gun in these cases.
Does that make sense to you? In that a suspect was using a lethal weapon (SUV), to threaten/assault a police officer who was in the process of doing his duty, yes, it makes perfect sense that the officer would shoot the suspect.
Why do so many pro-gun commenters defend the cops in cases like this? Because many of us think that most cops are good, upstanding citizens, who are performing their duty appropriately. We have no problem pointing out the bad cops. We do so quite frequently (bad cops make the news a lot more often than good cops, sort of like criminals make the news more often than law abiding citizens).
Are the gun rights of lawful civilian gun owners somehow tied up with the behaviour of the police with their guns? Nope. The rights of civilian gun owners are guaranteed (not granted) by the Constitution. If we decided that police didn't need firearms (like the Bobbies in England pre-1995) then it wouldn't affect the civilian's right to own firearms.
Wouldn't it already be too late to shoot? Apparently not. He shot, and the story doesn't mention anything about the officer going to the hospital.
In this case, the officer used the most effective tool at his disposal (his sidearm) to stop the assault (yes mikeb, you can assault someone with a vehicle). His baton would have been ineffective, his handcuffs wouldn't have done anything, his notepad and pen are useless, a flashlight might have been used to temporarily blind the driver, but that is unlikely to stop the assault. He is not in a situation that yelling "Stop!" would have helped much (although he probably did anyway), so that leaves his sidearm. Is it guaranteed to stop the assault? No, but the chances are much better than any of his other tools.
BTW, your opening sentence is worded incorrectly:
The Houston Chronicle reports on another incident of the police shooting at the threatening driver of a vehicle.
A vehicle cannot threaten anyone, a driver of a vehicle can.
Or is this another case of the pro-gun guys focusing on the gun again. I keep telling them the gun is neither good nor bad, it's an inanimate object. It always depends upon the person using it, and in this case I have my doubts about Officer Jesse Izaguirre.
ReplyDeleteYou have GOT to be kidding me Mike! YOU constantly focus on the gun rather than the criminal and WE have to continually tell YOU that a gun is an inanimate object.
Oh, and a 3000+ lb. being driven straight towards you is absolutely a lethal threat and should be treated as such.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteLet's try an experiment.
Round 1) You stand in the road and I'll get in a car 200 yards away and accelerate.
If you don't consider the action of being ran over to be a threat or an assault, you shouldn't have to worry, right?
Round 2) You stand between my car and another car. I'll use my car to pin (or more) you to the car. If you don't consider that action to be a threat, you shouldn't have to worry, right?
What is so hard to flipping understand about criminals using any tool to assault someone? Be it a car, a baseball bat or a butter knife; an assault is an assault.
Cops shouldn't have to wait until there are tire tracks across their face to consider whether or not they are being assaulted.
You do realize that it is against the law to flee, elude or disobey police orders to stop, don't you?
Fleeing or eluding police occurs when a police officer gives you a visual or audible signal to stop, whether by hand, voice, emergency light or siren, and you don't obey.
In most states, it's unlawful for a driver of a vehicle to disobey a police officer's signal to stop if the officer is in uniform and his badge or similar sign of his authority is prominently displayed, or the officer is in a marked police vehicle, regardless of whether he's in uniform.
http://criminal.lawyers.com/Criminal-Law-Crime-Definition-FAQs.html#five
Man MikeB, it's almost as if you are on the side of the criminals.
Why do you give them every consideration, but the cops and people protecting themselves against criminals so few considerations?
Hell, in DE you cannot resist arrest by an LEO EVEN IF the arrest is unlawful....
ReplyDeleteReputo said, "So after how many posts of us telling you that it is the criminals that matter and to stop focusing on the tool, you now accuse "pro-gun guys" of focusing on the gun in these cases."
ReplyDeleteYes, I've done that a few times lately just to show you that it applies to you as much as it applies to me, which is none at all.
We both know what we're talking about. But, you guys keep harping on this issue as if it were the main point, but it's not. The point is violence that people do with guns. That's what we mean by "gun violence," as you well know.
Actually, I bet most of the commenters on here would say the point is violence. Or crime. We would like to see less crime. Which is why when you focus on gun crime and eliminating or reducing the availability of them as a means to decrease gun crime, we oppose it since it does nothing to decrease crime.
ReplyDeleteMost of us don't care whether someone was killed with a baseball bat or a gun. We care that someone was murdered. So to even insinuate that we focus on the gun, is disingenuous. Your the only one here doing that.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteNo willingness to test out how lethal of a threat you perceive a car to be?
If you are unwilling to stand in front of a car, shouldn't an officer perceive it as a threat?
No, my rights are mine, given to me by natural law, and some of them are recognized in the Constitution. They are not dependent on anything.
ReplyDeleteThe crimes others commit, the behavior of law enforcement, the desires of others... all irrelevant to my rights.