If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS DC)   Remember the crazy dental hygienist who led police in a car chase in front of the Capitol? Her family has reached out to the officers involved ... with a lawsuit for $75 million   (washington.cbslocal.com) divider line 133
    More: Asinine, U.S. Capitol  
•       •       •

6237 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Feb 2014 at 5:30 AM (32 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



133 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-08 09:18:23 AM

Lenny_da_Hog: Publikwerks: Lenny_da_Hog: Publikwerks: Once she hit a USSS officer with her car, she had used lethal force. Game over. Don't use lethal force against the PO PO if you don't want to get shot.

"Had used" is not the same as "can now use." If you shoot a gun, then drop the gun, should the police be able to kill you after you're no longer armed?

Her car was disabled. There was no sign of any other weapons other than the car. Even after they'd initially shot at her, she didn't return fire at them -- she was just running. Her behavior was consistent with flight in panic.

Better Call Saul.

Citation Needed. I haven't seen anything saying that her car was disabled.

The officials said she made a U-turn and became stuck on a median by a Capitol Police guard post, where she was shot dead. Seventeen shots were fired into the car at this point, they said.


So, she temporarily was stuck on the median. Given that she wasn't following commands after she had hit a cop and a car, I highly doubt she was following instructions at that point. Was she also attempting to free the car at that point? Because if she was, the cops acted with 100% authority.
 
2014-02-08 09:23:48 AM

jayphat: So, she temporarily was stuck on the median. Given that she wasn't following commands after she had hit a cop and a car, I highly doubt she was following instructions at that point. Was she also attempting to free the car at that point? Because if she was, the cops acted with 100% authority.


Nice the way you changed the official's statement to "temporarily."

If it was temporary, the option of shooting out the tires was still valid. As for any other questions, they should be answered in a courtroom.

It should be very hard for police departments to kill people. It should not be easy. If they were actually still under threat, which I find questionable, they should still have to be scrutinized under a microscope.
 
2014-02-08 09:25:31 AM

Publikwerks: Headso: Publikwerks: Once she hit a USSS officer with her car, she had used lethal force. Game over. Don't use lethal force against the PO PO if you don't want to get shot.

if anyone outside the US wonders why we have a militarized police force and some of the highest incarercation rates in the world look at comments like this and realize that a large portion of the American public believes things like this.

We have the highest incarceration rate in the world because we treat drug addiction like a crime and not a disease.
However, if someone is threating the life of Police officers, I have no issue with them using deadly force.


does the operating procedure need to be swarm the car and then fire stray bullets all over town if the crazy lady moves the car, if people are fine with even that it isn't hard to see why they'd be fine with every other authoritarian thing to come done the pipe. Not even mentioning when they finally did actually shoot her and not whatever those stray bullets hit she was totally stuck.
 
2014-02-08 09:32:36 AM
Thats Obama's kid. I want a DNA test.
 
2014-02-08 09:34:00 AM

Lenny_da_Hog: Good.

I'd like to see a lot more lawsuits that might just make US police forces re-think their shoot-first policies. Patience and cool-headedness should be part of police policy.

Eluding police should not be a death sentence. People panic. People can be crazy. They had this unarmed woman cornered and gunned her down without any consideration for the baby in the car -- they didn't stop to get any information before they fired.

Let them fight it out in court with an ambulance-chaser, and make it cost them money and hassle to do it.


Didn't she try to run over a cop or SS agent?  Using your car as a weapon doesn't mean you're unarmed and not allowed to be shot. I agree that simply driving away shouldn't be grounds for law enforcement to open fire, but she didn't just drive away.  She rammed a WH barricade then took off toward the capital where she wasn't just suddenly shot.
 
2014-02-08 09:36:05 AM
The problem isn't police SOPs, or guns, or whatever.  It's the fact that we USED to commit dangerously crazy people to mental health facilities--now, we just hand them a bottle of meds and an appointment card and leave them to their own devices in our communities--hoping they're not the next time bomb to go off.
 
2014-02-08 09:38:29 AM

Lenny_da_Hog: Good.

I'd like to see a lot more lawsuits that might just make US police forces re-think their shoot-first policies. Patience and cool-headedness should be part of police policy.

Eluding police should not be a death sentence. People panic. People can be crazy. They had this unarmed woman cornered and gunned her down without any consideration for the baby in the car -- they didn't stop to get any information before they fired.

Let them fight it out in court with an ambulance-chaser, and make it cost them money and hassle to do it.


How much "information" can you possibly expect when a nutcase is trying to run you down with her car?  This is hardly a "shoot-first policy" and she got what she deserved.

I am not a fan of police, DC, the white house or the president, but this case is pretty damn frivilous and insulting.  Shameless golddiggers, every one.
 
2014-02-08 09:50:37 AM

RottenEggs: GungFu: Thanks, electronically-controlling Obama!

I wonder why they are not suing the messiah ?


Because Jesus isn't real, and is unrelated to this case?
 
2014-02-08 09:50:40 AM
While I feel for the family, I hope the lose. There are better ways to assuage their grief.
 
2014-02-08 09:51:28 AM

BobCumbers: Thats Obama's kid. I want a DNA test.


stream1.gifsoup.com
 
2014-02-08 09:52:17 AM
Why don't they sue Obama? He's the one who wouldn't see her.
 
2014-02-08 09:55:27 AM

Mael99: How much "information" can you possibly expect when a nutcase is trying to run you down with her car?  This is hardly a "shoot-first policy" and she got what she deserved.


Semantic Warrior: Didn't she try to run over a cop or SS agent?


Read the thread. At the time they killed her, she was not trying to run over anyone, because her car was high-centered and stuck on the median -- her only weapon was disabled. The chase was over.

The cops had several options at that point. They could have permanently disabled the vehicle with a shot to the radiator and tires. They could have moved in to see there was a baby in the back seat, or to make sure she didn't have a dead-man's switch in her hand to trigger a suicide vest or trunkful of explosives. They never saw any evidence of any weapons. They could have waited patiently -- they're paid by the hour. They instead just fired repeatedly to kill her as their first option.
 
2014-02-08 09:56:54 AM

Lenny_da_Hog: Publikwerks: Once she hit a USSS officer with her car, she had used lethal force. Game over. Don't use lethal force against the PO PO if you don't want to get shot.

"Had used" is not the same as "can now use." If you shoot a gun, then drop the gun, should the police be able to kill you after you're no longer armed?

Her car was disabled. There was no sign of any other weapons other than the car. Even after they'd initially shot at her, she didn't return fire at them -- she was just running. Her behavior was consistent with flight in panic.

Better Call Saul.


They also thought the car may be loaded with explosives, would you rather a bunch of police approach the car and say "hey sorry ma'am, are you okay" and boom? Plus how can you be certain a car is disabled? I've seen chases where cars have gotten out of being stopped and boxed in.
 
2014-02-08 09:59:29 AM
We see lots of law suits posted here, and I think I generally have a fair barometer as to "Good they deserve the money" verses "What they fark?  They shouldn't get shiat!"

This, to me, is certainly one of the latter.

I seldom side with the police, particularly in the use of force, but I just have no problem with them shooting this lady in this situation.

Every dick move we make has consequences.  Every dick move you make near the capital has much larger and more immediate consequences.

I mean, I'm not sure it is even legal to joke about killing the POTUS.
 
2014-02-08 10:04:04 AM

happydude45: ambercat: Mr. Fuzzypaws: Good luck with that. Biatch was crazy.

She was, but crazy doesn't need to be riddled with bullets unless it's trying to harm someone. Police need to spend more time doing things between the 'doing nothing' and 'shooting at whatever stopped me from doing nothing till it's dead' ends of the spectrum. Like...detaining and questioning people, arresting them if necessary. Without unneeded taserings would be great, too.

This. There was  no reason to shoot her.


Last I checked, being in control of a several tons of metal than can accelerate to a hundred miles per hour and plow through buildings constitutes "A deadly weapon." That she had already smashed into the barricades at the whitehouse meant that she literally attacked the whitehouse and then fled.

Under your logic, it's not okay to shoot someone who was just shooting at you if they're reloading, because "they're only holding an empty gun."
 
2014-02-08 10:04:49 AM

OhioUGrad: They also thought the car may be loaded with explosives, would you rather a bunch of police approach the car and say "hey sorry ma'am, are you okay" and boom? Plus how can you be certain a car is disabled? I've seen chases where cars have gotten out of being stopped and boxed in.


How many suicide bombers don't use a dead-man's switch? You're just going to shoot them before knowing anything?

And there's a difference between a high-centered vehicle and cars being stopped. When your frame is on the median and your wheels aren't, you're not going anywhere.
 
2014-02-08 10:06:46 AM

Lenny_da_Hog: OhioUGrad: Lenny_da_Hog: whitman00: 4000 lb car, crazy rambling woman driving erratically, baby trapped in the back, unknowns about car being rigged with explosives and 30 seconds to decide what to do.  Go....

If a suicide bomb was suspected, killing her could have made it go off.

The fact is they didn't stop to find out what was going on. They gunned her down without assessing the situation.

Didn't stop to find out? If I remember correctly there is video of an officer almost leaning into the car and talking to her and then she backed up, rammed police cars, and sped off......usually ramming a police car is considered use of lethal force against an officer and they responded accordingly. Sure maybe the cop could have reached into the car and snatched the keys, jammed on the parking break, or whatever...but this isn't the movies.

"Responding accordingly" doesn't mean "After the situation changes, and you have her trapped, you can shoot her now for hitting a police car earlier."


"They shot him when his gun was empty, and they knew his gun was empty!"
"Had he surrendered and dropped the gun?" 
"No but they knew it was empty!"
"How did they know it was empty?"
"He was reloading! HE WAS MURDERED!"
 
2014-02-08 10:08:11 AM

Lenny_da_Hog: Publikwerks: Once she hit a USSS officer with her car, she had used lethal force. Game over. Don't use lethal force against the PO PO if you don't want to get shot.

"Had used" is not the same as "can now use." If you shoot a gun, then drop the gun, should the police be able to kill you after you're no longer armed?

Her car was disabled. There was no sign of any other weapons other than the car. Even after they'd initially shot at her, she didn't return fire at them -- she was just running. Her behavior was consistent with flight in panic.

Better Call Saul.


This wasn't a case of "Dropped the gun." This was a case of "Their gun was jammed." A gun, or car, can become unjammed.
 
2014-02-08 10:11:30 AM

Securitywyrm: This wasn't a case of "Dropped the gun." This was a case of "Their gun was jammed." A gun, or car, can become unjammed.


If that was the case, they could have shot the radiator and tires to permanently disable it. They reported the car was stuck. Your imagining all kinds of other scenarios of how it wasn't stuck is all the more reason it should be revisited in a courtroom.
 
2014-02-08 10:13:12 AM

Lenny_da_Hog: Mael99: How much "information" can you possibly expect when a nutcase is trying to run you down with her car?  This is hardly a "shoot-first policy" and she got what she deserved.

Semantic Warrior: Didn't she try to run over a cop or SS agent?

Read the thread. At the time they killed her, she was not trying to run over anyone, because her car was high-centered and stuck on the median -- her only weapon was disabled. The chase was over.

The cops had several options at that point. They could have permanently disabled the vehicle with a shot to the radiator and tires. They could have moved in to see there was a baby in the back seat, or to make sure she didn't have a dead-man's switch in her hand to trigger a suicide vest or trunkful of explosives. They never saw any evidence of any weapons. They could have waited patiently -- they're paid by the hour. They instead just fired repeatedly to kill her as their first option.


Okay, let's try this. Someone is shooting at you, and then you hear the 'click' of their gun being empty. Are you allowed to shoot them when they're reloading, or do you have to wait until they're 'armed' by waiting for them to reload their gun?

Can you tell, with just a glance, the difference between a car that is "Stuck" and "Disabled" from being on a median? "Stuck" is a temporary condition and could change at any moment. I'm willing to bet she wasn't "Just sitting there with a disabled vehicle" and was trying to get it moving again.
 
2014-02-08 10:13:23 AM

flamingboard: HotWingAgenda: If you're gonna be violent and psychotic, it's probably best not to make a beeline towards the first black president in history. And where in the flying fark were all these concerned family when the woman grabbed her baby and dragged it on a road trip to Crazytown?

Probably hoping the cops would take her into custody so she could get help and then bring the baby home. Instead they shot her.


I have a sad and I'm running to get my trombone.
 
2014-02-08 10:15:38 AM

Lenny_da_Hog: Securitywyrm: This wasn't a case of "Dropped the gun." This was a case of "Their gun was jammed." A gun, or car, can become unjammed.

If that was the case, they could have shot the radiator and tires to permanently disable it. They reported the car was stuck. Your imagining all kinds of other scenarios of how it wasn't stuck is all the more reason it should be revisited in a courtroom.


1. Cars can drive on bald tires.
2. A shot to the radiator requires the radiator to lose all its fluid, and then be operated long enough for the engine to overheat.

You're arguing the vehicular equivalent of "Well officers should never shoot someone center mass, they should shoot them in the arm... or better yet just shoot the gun out of their hand!"
 
2014-02-08 10:16:31 AM

Securitywyrm: Okay, let's try this. Someone is shooting at you, and then you hear the 'click' of their gun being empty. Are you allowed to shoot them when they're reloading, or do you have to wait until they're 'armed' by waiting for them to reload their gun?

Can you tell, with just a glance, the difference between a car that is "Stuck" and "Disabled" from being on a median? "Stuck" is a temporary condition and could change at any moment. I'm willing to bet she wasn't "Just sitting there with a disabled vehicle" and was trying to get it moving again.


Hey, if they don't have anything to hide, they shouldn't mind getting scrutinized in civil court.

Hmm. That sounds familiar.
 
2014-02-08 10:18:14 AM

whitman00: ambercat: whitman00: ambercat: Mr. Fuzzypaws: Good luck with that. Biatch was crazy.

She was, but crazy doesn't need to be riddled with bullets unless it's trying to harm someone. Police need to spend more time doing things between the 'doing nothing' and 'shooting at whatever stopped me from doing nothing till it's dead' ends of the spectrum. Like...detaining and questioning people, arresting them if necessary. Without unneeded taserings would be great, too.

Why do I think if the police had not used deadly force after they clearly saw there was a baby in the car, and she rammed her car into a building at 100 mph killing the baby, the family would be suing for $100 million because the police didn't stop her and you would be here posting about how the police should have done more.

4000 lb car, crazy rambling woman driving erratically, baby trapped in the back, unknowns about car being rigged with explosives and 30 seconds to decide what to do.  Go....

Was there any reason to believe the car was rigged with explosives? Car chases aren't exactly uncommon, police departments normally have protocols in place to deal with them, and ways to stop the car before it rams into anything, like deploying those spiked strips. If they were so afraid for the baby, escalating the situation might not have been the best way to make sure the baby was safe.

Did you read about or watch any footage of this event?

- Rammed a barrier near the White House.   Surrounded by police with guns drawn.
- Police do not fire at her as she backs away from barrier and speeds down the street.
- She got by a barrier the police set up on Constitution ave.
- During car chase, she rams a police car who tried to stop her.


Also:

- Ran over police officer/guard/Secret Service Agent while escaping from WH checkpoint

- Heading to the Capitol Building at high rate of speed
 
2014-02-08 10:20:27 AM

Coconice: We see lots of law suits posted here, and I think I generally have a fair barometer as to "Good they deserve the money" verses "What they fark?  They shouldn't get shiat!"

This, to me, is certainly one of the latter.

I seldom side with the police, particularly in the use of force, but I just have no problem with them shooting this lady in this situation.

Every dick move we make has consequences.  Every dick move you make near the capital has much larger and more immediate consequences.

I mean, I'm not sure it is even legal to joke about killing the POTUS.


Johnny Carson was booed often for his Lincoln jokes.
 
2014-02-08 10:25:00 AM

Securitywyrm: Lenny_da_Hog: Securitywyrm: This wasn't a case of "Dropped the gun." This was a case of "Their gun was jammed." A gun, or car, can become unjammed.

If that was the case, they could have shot the radiator and tires to permanently disable it. They reported the car was stuck. Your imagining all kinds of other scenarios of how it wasn't stuck is all the more reason it should be revisited in a courtroom.

1. Cars can drive on bald tires.
2. A shot to the radiator requires the radiator to lose all its fluid, and then be operated long enough for the engine to overheat.

You're arguing the vehicular equivalent of "Well officers should never shoot someone center mass, they should shoot them in the arm... or better yet just shoot the gun out of their hand!"


No, I'm arguing that a civil case is merited and that under discovery, all documentation should be scrutinized, that experts should testify to what options the officers had other than killing someone who to that point showed no other pattern of behavior other than panicked flight.

Half of the apologists are saying that there might have been explosives in the car. How did they know it was safe to shoot a car full of explosives? How would they know that killing the driver wouldn't activate a dead-man's switch that would have killed them all?

In the end, if there was something else the officers could have done, that "something else" should become part of policy and training for the departments involved and should be a model for police departments around the country to consider for their own policies. Even if the damages were only a dollar, this incident should be publicly scrutinized.

We know that they killed a mentally ill unarmed woman who they said was stuck. There's nothing wrong with opening it up to see if policy and training changes could keep it from happening again.
 
2014-02-08 10:28:11 AM

Lenny_da_Hog: Half of the apologists are saying that there might have been explosives in the car. How did they know it was safe to shoot a car full of explosives? How would they know that killing the driver wouldn't activate a dead-man's switch that would have killed them all?


Explosives don't work like that.  Stop watching Michael Bay movies for a perspective on reality.

Lenny_da_Hog: We know that they killed a mentally ill unarmed woman who they said was stuck. There's nothing wrong with opening it up to see if policy and training changes could keep it from happening again


NOW we know.  You're using hindsight.
 
2014-02-08 10:32:31 AM
Fark Lawyers (real ones not GEDs):
This will be settled out of court, right?
 
2014-02-08 10:33:38 AM

Lenny_da_Hog: whitman00: 4000 lb car, crazy rambling woman driving erratically, baby trapped in the back, unknowns about car being rigged with explosives and 30 seconds to decide what to do.  Go....

If a suicide bomb was suspected, killing her could have made it go off.

The fact is they didn't stop to find out what was going on. They gunned her down without assessing the situation.


Please tell me that you will never take a job that requires quick thinking, especially if there are any consequences for making a wrong decision.  Your best role in the future is probably issuing impotent post action assessments that can be easily ignored.
 
2014-02-08 10:35:34 AM

Lenny_da_Hog: Securitywyrm: Lenny_da_Hog: Securitywyrm: This wasn't a case of "Dropped the gun." This was a case of "Their gun was jammed." A gun, or car, can become unjammed.

If that was the case, they could have shot the radiator and tires to permanently disable it. They reported the car was stuck. Your imagining all kinds of other scenarios of how it wasn't stuck is all the more reason it should be revisited in a courtroom.

1. Cars can drive on bald tires.
2. A shot to the radiator requires the radiator to lose all its fluid, and then be operated long enough for the engine to overheat.

You're arguing the vehicular equivalent of "Well officers should never shoot someone center mass, they should shoot them in the arm... or better yet just shoot the gun out of their hand!"

No, I'm arguing that a civil case is merited and that under discovery, all documentation should be scrutinized, that experts should testify to what options the officers had other than killing someone who to that point showed no other pattern of behavior other than panicked flight.

Half of the apologists are saying that there might have been explosives in the car. How did they know it was safe to shoot a car full of explosives? How would they know that killing the driver wouldn't activate a dead-man's switch that would have killed them all?

In the end, if there was something else the officers could have done, that "something else" should become part of policy and training for the departments involved and should be a model for police departments around the country to consider for their own policies. Even if the damages were only a dollar, this incident should be publicly scrutinized.

We know that they killed a mentally ill unarmed woman who they said was stuck. There's nothing wrong with opening it up to see if policy and training changes could keep it from happening again.


Pattern of behavior-rammed a barricade to the White house, injured security with her car, then left in a high speed chase.   Cars get unstuck, and they are deadly weapons.  You really do not have a valid argument.
 
2014-02-08 10:37:35 AM

AngryDragon: NOW we know.  You're using hindsight.


Yes.

And in industry, we use hindsight all the time. It's how we improve things going forward. We don't just say, "Hey, Bob had a bad night and forgot to lock out that motor control center before he stuck his hand into the machinery! Maybe he shouldn't do that!"

We say, "Hey, if we train people better, Bob will remember how important it is to lock out that MCC, and nobody else will get hurt."

AngryDragon: Explosives don't work like that.  Stop watching Michael Bay movies for a perspective on reality.


I have no idea who Michael Bay is, but I do know how a dead-man's switch works, and that by killing someone holding onto one, it will cause what you're trying to avoid.
 
2014-02-08 10:39:50 AM

Lenny_da_Hog: Securitywyrm: This wasn't a case of "Dropped the gun." This was a case of "Their gun was jammed." A gun, or car, can become unjammed.

If that was the case, they could have shot the radiator and tires to permanently disable it. They reported the car was stuck. Your imagining all kinds of other scenarios of how it wasn't stuck is all the more reason it should be revisited in a courtroom.


You are thinking of putting a bullet through the engine block.  Most weapons carried by police and secret service cannot penetrate an engine block.  Rupting the radiator will not immediately disable the vehicle, and hand guns are not guaranteed to always penetrate.

Of course, had they done that, you would be second guessing why they fired into a metal object in an urban enviornment, with the potential for ricochets.

Woman had made a credible attempt to attack the president.  She had assaulted security officers with a deadly weapon.  She was till brandishing that weapon.  Deadly force was entirely appropriate.
 
2014-02-08 10:41:53 AM

MycroftHolmes: Pattern of behavior-rammed a barricade to the White house, injured security with her car, then left in a high speed chase.   Cars get unstuck, and they are deadly weapons.  You really do not have a valid argument.


She didn't ram a barricade to the White House.
 
2014-02-08 10:42:26 AM

Lenny_da_Hog: AngryDragon: NOW we know.  You're using hindsight.

Yes.

And in industry, we use hindsight all the time. It's how we improve things going forward. We don't just say, "Hey, Bob had a bad night and forgot to lock out that motor control center before he stuck his hand into the machinery! Maybe he shouldn't do that!"

We say, "Hey, if we train people better, Bob will remember how important it is to lock out that MCC, and nobody else will get hurt."

AngryDragon: Explosives don't work like that.  Stop watching Michael Bay movies for a perspective on reality.

I have no idea who Michael Bay is, but I do know how a dead-man's switch works, and that by killing someone holding onto one, it will cause what you're trying to avoid.


Got it.  So, first you are saying that the police erred in treating her as too much of a threat.  Now you are saying that they treated her as too little a threat.  Your retrospective anaylsis is basically 'They erred, because i can make up a scenerio that is possible where their response, any response, was the incorrect one'.
 
2014-02-08 10:45:19 AM

OhioUGrad: She rammed a police car right then and there, not from earlier. The cop backed away from her window when she went in reverse and hit a cop car http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClOx42-JAxw (about 46 seconds in, it's the first video that popped up). Then they drew guns and fired...seems like SOP...not that I necessarily agree with it.


Yeah.  She was using her car as a weapon.  Use a weapon on cops and they're liable to respond with their weapons.

jayphat: So, she temporarily was stuck on the median. Given that she wasn't following commands after she had hit a cop and a car, I highly doubt she was following instructions at that point. Was she also attempting to free the car at that point? Because if she was, the cops acted with 100% authority.


Exactly.  Unless it was apparent that she was totally stuck (say, her wheels aren't on the ground) then she's still armed.

Lenny_da_Hog: If it was temporary, the option of shooting out the tires was still valid. As for any other questions, they should be answered in a courtroom.


Shooting out the tires won't keep her from using the car to run someone down.

BravadoGT: The problem isn't police SOPs, or guns, or whatever. It's the fact that we USED to commit dangerously crazy people to mental health facilities--now, we just hand them a bottle of meds and an appointment card and leave them to their own devices in our communities--hoping they're not the next time bomb to go off.


Agreed.  We don't treat mental health issues adequately, sometimes they blow up on us.

Lenny_da_Hog: If that was the case, they could have shot the radiator and tires to permanently disable it. They reported the car was stuck. Your imagining all kinds of other scenarios of how it wasn't stuck is all the more reason it should be revisited in a courtroom.


Shooting the radiator also won't disable the car sufficiently.  I've driven a car with an inoperative radiator (the idler wheel came off, nothing that was belt driven was working and that included the water pump)--I did no damage to it in the process.  I could go about half a mile before I had to turn the engine off for a while to let it cool and then continue but I limped to the service station faster and cheaper than calling a tow truck.  Half a mile is certainly far enough to hurt someone and note that was merely until the needle approached the red, had I not cared about the engine I could have gotten further.

Securitywyrm: You're arguing the vehicular equivalent of "Well officers should never shoot someone center mass, they should shoot them in the arm... or better yet just shoot the gun out of their hand!"


Yeah, it's amazing how many people don't get it about shoot to disable not working.
 
2014-02-08 10:46:13 AM

Lenny_da_Hog: MycroftHolmes: Pattern of behavior-rammed a barricade to the White house, injured security with her car, then left in a high speed chase.   Cars get unstuck, and they are deadly weapons.  You really do not have a valid argument.

She didn't ram a barricade to the White House.


Citation please

"WASHINGTON - Police found no weapon or evidence of motive while searching the car of a Connecticut woman who was fatally shot by police after trying to ram her vehicle through a White House barrier, according to court documents unsealed Tuesday. "

"The driver in a bizarre and fatal Washington D.C. incident Thursday has been identified as Miriam Carey, a 34-year-old woman who was shot to death after ramming her car into a barricade near the White House, then leading police on a "

"The sister of Miriam Carey, the 34-year-old mother shot dead by police after trying to ram her car through a White House barrier said there was "no need for a gun to be used." "
 
2014-02-08 10:51:58 AM

Lenny_da_Hog: AngryDragon: NOW we know.  You're using hindsight.

Yes.

And in industry, we use hindsight all the time. It's how we improve things going forward. We don't just say, "Hey, Bob had a bad night and forgot to lock out that motor control center before he stuck his hand into the machinery! Maybe he shouldn't do that!"

We say, "Hey, if we train people better, Bob will remember how important it is to lock out that MCC, and nobody else will get hurt."

AngryDragon: Explosives don't work like that.  Stop watching Michael Bay movies for a perspective on reality.

I have no idea who Michael Bay is, but I do know how a dead-man's switch works, and that by killing someone holding onto one, it will cause what you're trying to avoid.


If this was a casual face-to-face conversation, and someone says "I have no idea who Michael Bay is", my first thought would be "this guy is European? I cannot hear an accent." But with the internet and instant access to Google, you are either incredibly lazy or a liar.
 
2014-02-08 10:52:58 AM

MycroftHolmes: Got it.  So, first you are saying that the police erred in treating her as too much of a threat.  Now you are saying that they treated her as too little a threat.  Your retrospective anaylsis is basically 'They erred, because i can make up a scenerio that is possible where their response, any response, was the incorrect one'.


No, I'm saying that it should be reviewed in a courtroom to find out what the situation was, rather than having everyone happy that someone who committed heinous traffic violations was sentenced to death on the spot.

Patience is a weapon the police use too infrequently these days. They said she was stuck. Stuck means stuck, to me, I don't know what it means to you. If she's stuck, they have a lot of options before killing someone. Let the experts talk about it in civil court, and if the documentation and experts agree the procedures were sound and followed correctly, then so be it. If not, force the agencies to change policies and train to them. Then there's no need for all this interwebz speculation. You can put the people who know things and the witnesses who were there into a courtroom and bring it all out in the open.

Every time the public lets another police shooting go by unquestioned, they endanger themselves, especially when we're now handing military weapons and tactics to so many police departments around the country.
 
2014-02-08 10:54:05 AM
 
2014-02-08 10:54:42 AM

Loren: Yeah, it's amazing how many people don't get it about shoot to disable not working.



Also, a 9mm loaded with JHP rounds is rather ineffective against metal. Let me speak as a former training manager in the United States Army: "The M16 is ineffective at disabling vehicles."
 
2014-02-08 10:57:30 AM

Lenny_da_Hog: MycroftHolmes: Got it.  So, first you are saying that the police erred in treating her as too much of a threat.  Now you are saying that they treated her as too little a threat.  Your retrospective anaylsis is basically 'They erred, because i can make up a scenerio that is possible where their response, any response, was the incorrect one'.

No, I'm saying that it should be reviewed in a courtroom to find out what the situation was, rather than having everyone happy that someone who committed heinous traffic violations was sentenced to death on the spot.

Patience is a weapon the police use too infrequently these days. They said she was stuck. Stuck means stuck, to me, I don't know what it means to you. If she's stuck, they have a lot of options before killing someone. Let the experts talk about it in civil court, and if the documentation and experts agree the procedures were sound and followed correctly, then so be it. If not, force the agencies to change policies and train to them. Then there's no need for all this interwebz speculation. You can put the people who know things and the witnesses who were there into a courtroom and bring it all out in the open.

Every time the public lets another police shooting go by unquestioned, they endanger themselves, especially when we're now handing military weapons and tactics to so many police departments around the country.


Stuck is a temporary condition. A shift of the vehicle and a change of gear can get it un-stuck. Your statement indicates an atmosphere where the lady was just sitting in her stuck car and the police had time to get out the folding tables, sit down, have some hot cocoa, use binoculars, call in some vehicle expert, and have a power point presentation to determine that yes, the vehicle is no longer a threat.

OR... it could be that the car was still running and she was trying to get the car unstuck at the time. You're arguing that if someone is shooting at the police, and their gun jams, the police aren't allowed to shoot until the individual un-jams their gun.
 
2014-02-08 11:03:57 AM

Lenny_da_Hog: MycroftHolmes: Got it.  So, first you are saying that the police erred in treating her as too much of a threat.  Now you are saying that they treated her as too little a threat.  Your retrospective anaylsis is basically 'They erred, because i can make up a scenerio that is possible where their response, any response, was the incorrect one'.

No, I'm saying that it should be reviewed in a courtroom to find out what the situation was, rather than having everyone happy that someone who committed heinous traffic violations was sentenced to death on the spot.

Patience is a weapon the police use too infrequently these days. They said she was stuck. Stuck means stuck, to me, I don't know what it means to you. If she's stuck, they have a lot of options before killing someone. Let the experts talk about it in civil court, and if the documentation and experts agree the procedures were sound and followed correctly, then so be it. If not, force the agencies to change policies and train to them. Then there's no need for all this interwebz speculation. You can put the people who know things and the witnesses who were there into a courtroom and bring it all out in the open.

Every time the public lets another police shooting go by unquestioned, they endanger themselves, especially when we're now handing military weapons and tactics to so many police departments around the country.


I agree that the incident should be investigated.  but from the available information, it looks like an appropriate response.  Your comments are just plain dumb.  A car, under power, even if stuck, can become unstuck and very dangerous very quickly.  She had already tried to approach a secured area (the white house for criminy's sake), disregarded officers order to stop, hit a barricade and an officer in her attempt to flee, and was not getting out of the car.  You can second guess all you want, but your logic is very flawed.

People like you always like to ask the question 'Was the decision made the best decision?' which you translate as 'Is the decision made in a split second the same decision I would make after hours of sitting in front of my computer, reading various accounts, and making up possible scenarios involving deadman switches and magic car disabling bullets?'  the question you should be asking is 'Is the decision made reasonable given the information known at the time.
 
2014-02-08 11:06:38 AM

Securitywyrm: OR... it could be that the car was still running and she was trying to get the car unstuck at the time. You're arguing that if someone is shooting at the police, and their gun jams, the police aren't allowed to shoot until the individual un-jams their gun.


No, I'm arguing that if the vehicle is high-centered on a median, it's not going anywhere, and that experts and witnesses should have no problem with coming into a civil courtroom where they won't have to speculate. That easy.

You can make up all the scenarios you want to, but there's still enough reason to question -- and that's all the court will do, is look for answers to questions. If nobody was at fault, good for them. If they could have taken other actions and killed unnecessarily, it will lead to better policies, procedures, and training, and increase safety for the public.
 
2014-02-08 11:09:42 AM

Lenny_da_Hog: You can make up all the scenarios you want to


This is coming from the guy who was arguing that they shouldn't have shot because of a potential deadman's switch?

And yes, even a car that is high centered can come unstuck.  If the car's weight shifts, or if one of the tires has any traction, it can happen.
 
2014-02-08 11:11:59 AM

MycroftHolmes: You can second guess all you want, but your logic is very flawed.


I'm not second-guessing. I'm saying that there's reason for the civil courts to review it so there's no second-guessing.

Do you understand the difference?

The cops didn't do anything criminal, I'm sure. This will not be heard in a criminal court, and it shouldn't.

As an agency, they may have committed a civil violation that can be avoided in the future. That's not going to happen unless a civil finding comes out of a court procedure. If they followed what experts think are best practices, followed their own procedures and policies, then they won't have any liability. If they didn't, then we can use that information to train and avoid future liabilities.
 
2014-02-08 11:15:09 AM

MycroftHolmes: Lenny_da_Hog: You can make up all the scenarios you want to


This is coming from the guy who was arguing that they shouldn't have shot because of a potential deadman's switch?


You're late to the thread. That's in response to people who said shooting and killing the driver was justified because she might have had explosives in the car. If that was the case, killing her immediately could have caused them to go off. Try to keep up.
 
2014-02-08 11:15:56 AM
$75 million?
So that' $5 million for the family and $70 million for the lawyers?

/the legal system is broken. The justice system disappeared long ago.
 
2014-02-08 11:19:38 AM

Lenny_da_Hog: Securitywyrm: OR... it could be that the car was still running and she was trying to get the car unstuck at the time. You're arguing that if someone is shooting at the police, and their gun jams, the police aren't allowed to shoot until the individual un-jams their gun.

No, I'm arguing that if the vehicle is high-centered on a median, it's not going anywhere, and that experts and witnesses should have no problem with coming into a civil courtroom where they won't have to speculate. That easy.

You can make up all the scenarios you want to, but there's still enough reason to question -- and that's all the court will do, is look for answers to questions. If nobody was at fault, good for them. If they could have taken other actions and killed unnecessarily, it will lead to better policies, procedures, and training, and increase safety for the public.


Was the car still on? Then it's still a danger.
 
2014-02-08 11:19:59 AM

Lenny_da_Hog: MycroftHolmes: You can second guess all you want, but your logic is very flawed.

I'm not second-guessing. I'm saying that there's reason for the civil courts to review it so there's no second-guessing.

Do you understand the difference?

The cops didn't do anything criminal, I'm sure. This will not be heard in a criminal court, and it shouldn't.

As an agency, they may have committed a civil violation that can be avoided in the future. That's not going to happen unless a civil finding comes out of a court procedure. If they followed what experts think are best practices, followed their own procedures and policies, then they won't have any liability. If they didn't, then we can use that information to train and avoid future liabilities.


From your original post

"
Good.
I'd like to see a lot more lawsuits that might just make US police forces re-think their shoot-first policies. Patience and cool-headedness should be part of police policy.
Eluding police should not be a death sentence. People panic. People can be crazy. They had this unarmed woman cornered and gunned her down without any consideration for the baby in the car -- they didn't stop to get any information before they fired.
Let them fight it out in court with an ambulance-chaser, and make it cost them money and hassle to do it.
 "

No where in here is a desire to see the truth.  Implicit in all this is that the police acted without cool headedness and patience, that a shoot first policy is incorrect (and that this was a case of shoot first), and that her only crime was eluding police.  Your very last statement was that you wish for the police to be punished financially.

All this makes the implicit assumption that you believe the ploice acted inappropriately.  If this is not the very definition of second guessing, I don't know what is.
 
2014-02-08 11:22:29 AM

Lenny_da_Hog: MycroftHolmes: Lenny_da_Hog: You can make up all the scenarios you want to


This is coming from the guy who was arguing that they shouldn't have shot because of a potential deadman's switch?

You're late to the thread. That's in response to people who said shooting and killing the driver was justified because she might have had explosives in the car. If that was the case, killing her immediately could have caused them to go off. Try to keep up.


So, you weren't proposing that an imagined possibility was possible?
 
Displayed 50 of 133 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report