3 ms·
Vehicles are considered "deadly weapons" as far as application of force goes. As soon as he backed into the cruiser on dashcam, I really don't see any way that
by plttn 10y ago
Vehicles are considered "deadly weapons" as far as application of force goes.
As soon as he backed into the cruiser on dashcam, I really don't see any way that ending well.
I saw at least two moving violations in the span of 15 seconds. Backing that trailer into the cruiser would generally be counted as assault with a deadly weapon, so application of force is "end the situation" at that point.
- nitrogen 10y agoThat sounds utterly ridiculous, and adds to the list of reasons not to call the police except in dire situations.
- DanBC 10y ago"That guy's getting shot." "Yeah, he's getting shot." Scots Police Teach US Cops How to Avoid Gun Use: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8qa5Wk_f7U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8qa5Wk_f7U
- sammydavis 10y agoPolice shouldn't be able to shoot someone merely because they "felt threatened" (as shooting someone in the back who wasn't armed who was running away), or if someone backs their car into a police car. The problem with these cases is the police have attempted to carve out large categories where they can do anything ("they feel threatened") and that's unacceptable. They are licensed to carry guns, they need to use discretion. Driving your car at high speed into a police car in an attempt to hit them is different than a fender bender at 5 miles an hour in the real world. When I have a fender bender and the car in front of me stops too suddenly and I hit them (happens 1000s of times per day), you don't get to shoot the person who hit you because it was "textbook vehicular assault". And it shouldn't be different if the other car was driven by a policeman.