When you wrestle a gun away from a guy at the driver's side window of the car, and then you fall down and hurt yourself, you are not in a position to be run over by the car. You might shoot at the guy out of rage and indignation, but it wouldn't be in self-defense.Los Angeles police are searching for a motorist who an officer shot at after the suspect grabbed the officer's gun, ran over a pedestrian and crashed into a squad car.
A police statement released Sunday said it was unknown whether the motorist was injured.
The shooting occurred Saturday around 3:30 a.m. in North Hollywood after officers arrived at thke parking lot where a fight was underway. The motorist abruptly accelerated his car in reverse, running over a pedestrian and hitting the police car.
When an officer approached him, the driver reached out the window and grabbed the officer's gun, which the officer wrestled away and fell. Fearing he was about to be run over, the officer fired at the driver.
The officer sustained minor injuries.
Don't you think? Please leave a comment.
"When you wrestle a gun away from a guy at the driver's side window of the car, and then you fall down and hurt yourself, you are not in a position to be run over by the car."
ReplyDeleteI don't think you thought that through very well. Go lay down next to a car and try to figure out what you got wrong.
Mike - you are really off on this one. The driver had already run over one person, and hit a police car. I don't think I would want to be anywhere near his car and on the ground. Why the police even approached his car is what is amazing to me. I would have shot out all of his tires from a safe distance and ordered him out of the car before approaching it.
ReplyDeletePrecious little Mikey everything rainbows and unicorn farts unless a gun is involved then it's all ohenoes, bad guns!!!!!eleventy!!111!!one111111!!!
ReplyDeleteThat evil cop, couldn't he have held up his, "crossing guard stop sign" (trademarked patent pending) and ended the altercation, why oh why did he have to shoot the poor misunderstood motorist!!!!!!
Don't be simplistic, Anonumbass. We should question every shooting including those by people acting in authority.
ReplyDeleteIt does happen that there are shootings which are avoidable, or in which stories told by the cops who we tend to think of as the good guys are not accurate.
We should not assume to much about EITHER side.
You have as great or greater a willingness to believe anything which you think might promote your point of view without any critical anaylsis.
So dog gone - what is your opinion? Is the cop laying on the ground next to the car in danger of being run over as he claims he felt? Was he justified in shooting to stop the driver of the car?
ReplyDeleteDog gone: “We should not assume to much about EITHER side.”
ReplyDeleteMike’s assumption is that the cop is a liar. Or did he say that because he was lying down next to a dangerous car?
"TS said...
ReplyDeleteDog gone: “We should not assume to much about EITHER side.”
Mike’s assumption is that the cop is a liar. Or did he say that because he was lying down next to a dangerous car?"
NO, TS...if you look at the circumstances, there are reasons from the description to question this police version.
This struck me as having some odd aspects to the story that call into question the cops version of events.
Someone runs over a pedestrian and hits a police car.....and a cop walks up to the window of the car with his gun out, close enough for the gun to be grabbed, and for the police man to end up on the ground?
Really?
Because that strikes me as not typical of police procedure. I question how likely it is that events happened this way, absent credible witnesses to the events, preferably video tape.
What would seem far more likely, would be for the cop to order the suspect out of the car with his gun drawn from a distance four or five feet away from the car. Given multiple officers, I'd expect there to be possibly more than one officer addressing the apprehension of this supsect.
That raises the reasonable question of the veracity of the police version of events. You aren't going to try to argue that the police NEVER EVER lie, are you?
Because we know they sometimes do lie, as much as we wish to support law enforcement for the difficult and dangerous job that they do.
That takes care of 'lying'; as to 'trigger happy'......if a cop is on the ground and is in fear of being run over, the appropriate action is to remove himself from the immediate vicinity of the car, not to start firing his weapon.
This is in an urban area, it's dark, it is a parking lot in turmoil with multiple people present......so, does it make a lot of sense to YOU that this was an appropriate area in which to fire a gun at this car? Although it doesn't SAY specifically that the officer was still prone where he had fallen, it is at least suggested by the account.
I question the decision to shoot under these circumstances; it was nuts to do so. The chances of hitting the wrong person are very high, particularly if you factor in the surroundings and the distances that a bullet can travel while still being a danger.
Bullets do travel through walls injuring people. You are aware of that, right?
The chances of stopping the suspect, in comparison, would seem relatively low. It is not even clear if the officer managed to hit the CAR he was aiming at, a large and relatively close object.
The other thought which occurred to me was ...this is LA. They have quite good coverage with traffic cameras. I'd expect that they would either have the license number of the vehicle, and some manner of description of the probable driver from the parking lot, or be able to get it from traffic cameras. The logical, more customary police procedure for everyone's safety would be to find and stop this car without shooting, even if it left the parking lot where the incident occurred. Particularly given the scuffle with the police officer, crashing into a police car, and having run over someone, wouldn't you agree TS?
ReplyDeleteThanks Dog Gone for doing what I find so tedious. These defenders of every gun use no matter how unlikely want us to fight for every single thing. To me the version we read in the report raises serious doubts about whether things really happened that way. If they did, I say it was a bad shoot.
ReplyDeleteGeez dog gone, you made a comment about assumptions and all I did was point out how you and Mike are making all the assumptions you want to crucify this cop. I say leave it up to his superiors to decide if the shooting was justified, they have a lot more information than you do.
ReplyDeleteTS, neither Mike nor I have convicted anyone of anything, but it was a reasonable challenge to the shooting as bad that MikeB made.
ReplyDeleteYou made far more assumptions than I did about what you thought the cop had done, without so far as I can tell, considering seriously that there were some pretty big problems with the cop's story.
I have a serious problem with that basis for shooting in a densely urban area, and so should you as someone who advocates safe gun handling.
I don't think YOU, TS, would be so remiss in not considering where those bullets might go other than their intended target. I wouldn't, from my training.
Sadly, too often superiors DON'T look as carefully at what their subordinates do as they should, without the kind of scrutiny that MikeB gave the account.
That kind of challenge is part of transparency and accountability, and we need more of it, not less.
Dog gone: “You made far more assumptions than I did about what you thought the cop had done”
ReplyDeleteLike what? I haven’t even said if I think the officer was justified in firing. Now you have gone on to assuming that I have taken the opposite position as you.
These are the only three statements I have made about the case: 1) Mike is calling the cop a liar. 2) The officer was on the ground next to the car. 3) The police department knows more about the case than you do.
I suppose item 3, is considered an assumption.
AzRed apparently accepted the police account without question, based on his response to MikeB.
ReplyDeleteJim tended to side with the police justification, but he also picked up on what I did - and MikeB did about the police claim of approaching the car.
Anonumbass was his usual numb ass self.
Jim asked me a direct question, and in responding to it, I referenced the comment after it, when I more correctly should have directed most of my comment to Jim - sorry TS. I commented while undercaffeinated!
But I do think that those who support the shooting by the police should rethink what the police are reported to have done.
I don't know that the police have or had the most complete information, TS, but they do have the best chance of getting it. I think that would be more likely with critical skepticism like that expressed by Mike.
My comment had nothing to do with the police account and everything to do with mikeb's ignorance of how automobiles operate.
ReplyDeleteA person laying on the ground next to an automobile is in a position to be run over. Mikeb thinks otherwise. I challenge him to lay on the ground next to a car and think about his theory. If he still doesn't get it, I doubt there is a short supply of people willing to hop in the automobile and help convince him that he's wrong.
RedAz, I would challenge you that lying next to a moving automobile is a bad location and position from which to be shooting.
ReplyDeleteIf you find the whole story from the police questionable, why should MikeB or anyone else accept these details, rather than be skeptical.
You seem to have completely ignored this lapse in police procedure, the danger of firing in that location (hitting the wrong target, including nearby buildings) in order to make the specious and dubious argument about lying down next to a car.
If I were in danger of being run over, I would expect more use from moving myself from that location than from shooting the car.
Think about it; if necessary, repeat.
"RedAz, I would challenge you that lying next to a moving automobile is a bad location and position from which to be shooting."
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to potentially saving your life, there is no bad location or position to shoot from.
That's why many handgun training programs include shooting from unorthodox positions, including around, underneath, into, and out of cars.
"If I were in danger of being run over, I would expect more use from moving myself from that location than from shooting the car."
That's assuming you're uninjured and able to move quick enough.
RedAz wrote:
ReplyDelete"When it comes to potentially saving your life, there is no bad location or position to shoot from. "
That's garbage. There are bad locations and bad positions from which to shoot, which is why you don't shoot unless you have a sufficiently good chance of hitting what you aim at. When it comes to a person in a car being a risk, you expend your energy getting out of the way of the car, because unlike a clear shot at a person, you have less chance of stopping a car by shooting IT. It doesn't feel pain, it doesn't bleed, it doesn't die (in the sense a human does). Further, a car out of control because of an officer shooting the driver is a GREATER, not LESSER risk to the person next to the car, or anywhere else near that car.
RedAz then went on to write:
"That's why many handgun training programs include shooting from unorthodox positions, including around, underneath, into, and out of cars."
Shooting at PEOPLE yes, where you have a clear unobstructed shot that will not endanger someone else. Wildly shooting at a vehicle in the hopes you might stop a car? HELL NO. NO reputable gun class would teach that, nor would any police training. It is an UTTERLY irresponsible and inappropriate use of a weapon, particularly when there are other resources to assist a police officer that are demonstrably safer and more likely to stop and capture a suspect, and less likely to injure other police officers or civilians.
This is one of the dumbest things you've ever written.
AztecRed my tedious friend, If a guy is on the ground next to a car how is he going to shoot the driver? Wouldn't he be better off rolling over in the direction away from the car? If the driver takes off and cuts the wheel towards the guy on the ground, wouldn't rolling away from the vehicle be a better defense than shooting a gun at the driver? Your way, even if you hit the guy in the head, the back wheel of the car's gonna still get you.
ReplyDeleteYou know why I hate these nit-picking arguments? Because, you and your like-minded gun defenders never ever give in to anything. If it has to do with a gun, you defend it regardless of anything and everything.
When's the last time you said I had a good point about something? Did you ever?