Will a Police Officers Gun Stop a Car?

[sailsmen]

I am always curious as to why some Police Officiers fire their guns into cars that are "getaway" or being used as a "weapon".

Is it part of their training that a gun will stop a car or is it part of their training that a dead or wounded driver is less likely to cause injury to others?

http://www.nbc4.tv/news/4175375/detail.html

There have been several recent cases where a vehicle was attempting to cross a crowded area and since the driver did not repsond to request to stop the officer shoots the driver who then loses control running over people.

I am not trying to criticize, I just don't understand the logic.

[CBT]

That little knucklehead should have stole a faster car. Or, you know, not steal any at all, that just might have prevented this whole thing. I guess L.A. will be on fire again, the usual riots will insue, and Officers will be forced to attend more "training" on how to deal with a criminal who, according to friends, family, and people who never met him before the crime, was "such a good boy." Way to go out in a blaze of glory, behind the wheel of a Camry...

[marauder307]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here, not having seen the news report...In the Coast Guard, we're taught that once shots are fired, it's "game on". If the subject has demonstrated use of force such as shooting, or---to extend this to my shorebound fellow LEOs---use of a motor vehicle as weapon, such as trying to run down an officer who is in the line of duty, whatever happens afterwards, the subject comes under the "fleeing felon" rule, and you can use deadly force.

Now, to answer your question directly---No, a standard-issue sidearm won't stop a car. At the onset of a chase, there's an extremely thin window where you might get the driver. (side note: just read the news link---sounds like the chase hadn't fully developed yet, at only 3.5 miles. Some of these things run anywhere from 10-25 miles; the really big ones run much farther.) But not even the much-vaunted Glock .40 (which seems to run about 50-50 with the Beretta 9mm as the service weapon of choice with the LEOs I know) will be enough to significantly punch out the engine block. Shooting the tires is an iffy proposition---in the modern law enforcement climate, you'd better wait until you're on the open interstate, or some lawyer will hit you for endangerment when the dimwit you're chasing loses it and wipes out on the side of the road. (sorry Marty.)

Now...back to the news article. The article, not surprisingly given the quality of today's reporters, leaves out some crucial information. What was the kid doing to attract the attention of the officers? What are the actual particulars of the incident? All I get from this is that there was a shooting, it was a young black kid, in Los Angeles (oh, THERE's a heavenly place :censor: ), and he was shot by police officers. Okay...so what? Where's the real meat of the story, here?

[hdwrench]

about 15 years ago a guy shot his wife in the head outside a local mall. a good samaritan saw this, went to his car and retreived his .44 magnum and shot the fleeing husband twice through the door of his car... he died a short distance down the service road. of course the samaritan was "no billed" by the grand jury. :beer:


better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6

[woaface]

I'm inclined to agree with Marauder307 here...it wasn't the best article in the world, and a lot of police articles I read are written for "the community". To clarify, there are too many people, whether they make $15000 a year or 200,000 a year, who cry and whine too much because they think law enforcement should be infallible.

More often then not, the news outlets extend their sympathys to the victim. They're not supposed to have sympathies in the first place, they're supposed to get all the neat and pertinent details in the first few paragraphs. And a good number of the local reports suck at it. No offense, and I personally know good reporters...but some just want to get their job done too quick. This article blew.

None of us know what the circumstances are (the article doesn't say junky) for the kid being out or near by, but everyone should be focused on this tragic event as the result of a thug and a crime, not a police officer who's intention was to prevent him from doing something he shouldn't, like, uh...killing people.

"With what's going on in this community, we may need a wholesale change in the police department -- from the chief to the commission, everybody," said Danny Bakewell of Brotherhood Crusade.

Oh yeah, because that solves everything. Directly and indirectly, the guys on the force have done more for this character then the lil turd who ran could ever imagine. Yeah if my little sister was shot by an officer I'd be upset, but what am I going to do, ask for police to be "a little more careful" when they're pulling heat on some douche bag. I'd be asking for the felons head and then get all of his little gang friends and toss 'em in the locker if they have some decent violations on their rap sheet.

Again, people rich and poor don't give the police enough credit. You're lucky to have the police. Learn to understand their job. Just because they have a badge and 9 years of experience doesn't mean they're God. Go to China to see how you like the police there and then we'll talk.

[Marc]

If a car is used as a weapon, as this officer may have concluded when the car was backed into his and towards him, he is trained to use lethal force.

A similar ridiculous incident occured here in Pgh about 4 or 5 years ago when a man that had stole a car tried to run down an officer. The officer drew his gun as the car was coming at him, but didn't end up firing until after jumping out of the way and the driver's side window was right next to him. He hit the driver behind the ear, killing him.

The DA brought the officer in front of a grand jury for using unreasonable force. The reasoning was that because he was already out of the way, and the shot hit the driver towards the back of the head, he was not in danger.

And we wonder why we're losing cops to neighboring communities and states.

[Silver_04]

about 15 years ago a guy shot his wife in the head outside a local mall. a good samaritan saw this, went to his car and retreived his .44 magnum and shot the fleeing husband twice through the door of his car... he died a short distance down the service road. of course the samaritan was "no billed" by the grand jury. :beer:


better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6

I knew I liked Texas for a reason.

[sailsmen]

I think it would help the officers if some guidance was given. The cases I have seen left the officer hanging and me to beleive they are not being given guidance in their training.

Such as the one you sighted wherein the driver was shot after the officer jumped out the way. What about the innocent bystander in the next block that might get hit by the car?

Near where I live a man was attempting to cross a crowded area and the police shot him, he lost control hit some pedestrians, fortunately none seriously hurt. The jury cleared the driver of the most serious charges and based on the facts I think they ruled correctly.

I just find it interesting that if a suspect punches an officer and runs away the officer does not shoot him , but if a suspect drives by an officer in a car the officer can shoot him? If the argument is the car is a deadly weapon then why disable the driver which endangers all?

I am not critizing Law enforcement, meerely pointing out an area that I think needs to be looked into. Generally Law enforcement does what they are trained to do. Based on the cases I have seen there was never any mention of shooting a car or the driver as being sop.

I am an NRA member and ardent supporter of the Second Amendment. I have no problem with people defending themselves. I posted the article because we are seeing more and more cases of officers shooting cars.

[shakes_26]

I think it would help the officers if some guidance was given. The cases I have seen left the officer hanging and me to beleive they are not being given guidance in their training.
.
I agree. In todays age, most P.D.s are playing the corporate intentionally ambiguous card. So the guy on the front line is left to make the call, you cna never second guess these guys unless you walk a mile in their shoes.

And as for poor sweet junior, he never hurt no one, the police they just shot and kilt' him for no reason. Yeah, I guess failure to yield, a kilo of coke, weapon on the front seat, junior is the model parolee.

my .02 worth, sorry this gets my blood boiling :mad2:

[klmore]

I am an NRA member and ardent supporter of the Second Amendment. I have no problem with people defending themselves. I posted the article because we are seeing more and more cases of officers shooting cars.
I would like to see officers shooting a lot more period. I don't buy into this tie the hands of the people who protect us BS.

In Shreveport a cop basically has to be shot at before shooting some piece of crap citizen. Now all of the quality citizens are moving away and everyone wonders where the tax base is going. They are going away from the trouble because the cops can't do their job.

I think the question is fair enough, but I also think the whole story has yet to come out. Only time will tell. Either way the Police always get the S**t end of the stick on these deals.

[BigMerc]

I'm a little harsher on criminals. Its easy, don't break the law and attract police attention and you're chances of being killed are minimized. In every war there are casualties, some innocent some guilty, its all in the mix. I never care about someone who's doing something unlawful and gets killed. screw em!!!
When it happens it's always the mean old cops that did it. liberal media will always make it look bad for law enforcement, but will scream when someone robs their favorite starbucks, or broke into their summer home in Nantucket.

When lawbreakers die its all good!! I don't care what the crime, its an occupational hazard as far as I'm concerned.


Remember "everyone contributes to the Gene pool, some when they enter, some when they leave"

and Sailsman you speak of things you know nothing about, you cannot second guess the guy who was on scene at the time, its unfair and you werent there. He's the guy who made the descision, something made him do it, let a POLICE review determine what happened not a civilian.

[hitchhiker]

I am always curious as to why some Police Officiers fire their guns into cars that are "getaway" or being used as a "weapon".

Is it part of their training that a gun will stop a car or is it part of their training that a dead or wounded driver is less likely to cause injury to others?

http://www.nbc4.tv/news/4175375/detail.html

There have been several recent cases where a vehicle was attempting to cross a crowded area and since the driver did not repsond to request to stop the officer shoots the driver who then loses control running over people.

I am not trying to criticize, I just don't understand the logic.

IMHO: The notion of the kindly old irish cop trying to reason with a gun holding suspect or one operating a 'deadly weapon' is one for the movies. In the past, many LEO's were killed trying to 'talk down' armed suspects. Today's LEO's are not going to entertain risk to their lives, or others (so they say) just to salvage the situation for the armed suspect. They are going to shoot the suspect, write their report, and go home. Most police jurisdictions have detailed use of force policies these days and they support this position. They will rule the outcome to be a 'good shoot' and be done with it. Don't pull a gun on a cop, try to use a vehicle to inflict injury, or make agressive gestures of any kind, or you will be shot.

Regards,

David

[hitchhiker]

I knew I liked Texas for a reason.
Texas, the shoot me state!

:P

[King Fubar]

I don't have a problem with it what so ever but then again I maybe the next one to have his car purposely hit by some knucklehead. I chased 3 kids into an apartment who were using baseball bats to smash different things exit signs, car mirrors etc. Did I know it was thier apartment?? Nope. When I entered the apartment did I have a bead on them?? Damn skippy. I'm just glad that someone didn't come after me with a bat just for the simple fact someone would've lost thier life that evening and I make it a point to come home every night. If someone is coming at me with a car and I can squeeze off a shot that driver better give his/her heart to God cause his/her A$$ is mine. Sometime innocent people get hurt or killed due to police performing thier civil duties. It's not the fault of the training or the department it's a chance we take, do we take the chance and risk a couple bystanders or do we chase them and risk a large number of innocent people. Here in FL if Bad Guy robs a 7-11 and he happens to shoot at me I would shoot back, God forbid I hit anyone but him, but if it happens and the bad guy lives he gets murder 1 if the bystander should die. If bystander is just winged he still gets charged for shooting the bystander.

[jjaguda]

I spent two years as a prosecutor, in a rather violent city, and have seen "both sides of the story."

I am grateful for my time as a prosecutor. While I was not on the front line, having worked the number of cases I did, I quickly learned the "no win" situation LFOs frequently face. To all the LFOs who make hard split second decisions regularly - Bravo Zulu.

BTW, the standard recognized by the International Chiefs of Police Association states that judgment of an Officer's decision to use deadly force is the "reasonable officer" standard. (Please note that this is not intended as, nor should it be taken as, legal advise.):cool4:

[hdwrench]

Texas, the shoot me state!

:P
nothin wrong with that

[klmore]

(Please note that this is not intended as, nor should it be taken as, legal advise.):cool4:

My wife uses that line after every legal conversation. Even lawyers are afraid of being sued.:)

[hdwrench]

lawyers... dont get me started

:censor:

[Bigdogjim]

In a word..............no.

[hitchhiker]

nothin wrong with that
Just Enron, Ken Lay et. al. and bankrupt school districts.



:P

[hdwrench]

Just Enron, Ken Lay et. al. and bankrupt school districts.



:P
ok so i guess i can start bashing canada now since i got bent over by nortel networks?

[hdwrench]

also notice u can talk smack but not post ur location

must be under hillarys skirt

[hitchhiker]

ok so i guess i can start bashing canada now since i got bent over by nortel networks?
Why not?

Bashing Canada is almost as much fun as bashing Texas...ahem, I mean northern Mexico!

Lighten up.

We are still laughing at the prospect of cowboy boots at the inagural.

We've not had such a bunch in Washington since the Andrew Jackson inagural!

A sense of humor is a terrible thing to waste!

:P

[hitchhiker]

also notice u can talk smack but not post ur location

must be under hillarys skirt
I don't suppose they teach about using capitalization of names and use of apostrophes in personal possessives in Texas...?

That would be [Hillary's]

:P

[vegasmarauder]

From what I gather from the various news reports, the car ran a stop sign or red light when the officer first saw him. The car came back as stolen, then there was the pursuit. When the car stopped the passenger jumped out and fled. The driver put the car in reverse when the officer had exited his vehicle. The officer fired when the suspect was moving back toward him. In that case it would be proper to use any force neccessary to stop the acts of the suspect. The fact he turned out to be 13 years old is of no consequence. Most cars in southern California have tinted windows, making it hard to see who is inside. Almost all major departments have conditions about shooting at or from vehicles. It has to be a situation where deadly force would be justified. You must also consider there is a tactic used by some bad guys in pursuits to stop, throw the car in reverse and hit the police car, blowing the air bag. This stuns the officer, disables the police car and allows the suspect to either drive off, or get out and shoot the officer. The other tactic is to put the car in reverse and then try to swing to the side and pin the officer between the open car door and door frame. These things go through your mind when you have a vehicle (or suspect) that suddenly goes from flight mode to fight mode, he is trying to attack YOU. In any police shooting the officer has to consider, and it will be reviewed, the backdrop behind the suspect, the seriousness of the offense, and the need for immediate aprehension versus delayed. You have less than a second to decide all of this, and there will be days for others to review your actions. I know, I have been on both sides of this issue.

[djmcnary]

You only shoot in defense of your life or other's lifes....period. If the LAPD officer reasonably believed that his or another's life was in danger when the kid started backing up the car (and apparently hit a squad) then he was justified in using deadly force.

Also remember, he would have been shooting at the driver, to stop him, not the car to disable it. I know that in some states LEOs can shoot to disable a car, but I dunno about it in California.

If you read the older news article, it said that family members said that they knew something bad like this was going to happen when the suspect started hanging around with gangs, and that his mother had tried to have other people talk to him to "get him back on track." Yeah but he was still a good kid :bs: .

I will be very interested to see how the shooting review board rules. I do know that in other similar cases, the LEO's shooting has been justified.

Douglas

[metroplex]

Someone on CVN fired 44 Magnum into the side of a Fox body Stang and the bullets wouldn't penetrate.

Short of using .50 AE, 500 S&W, and other wildcat rounds... anything under 44 Mag (non-AP) would most likely do less damage.

All this talk about the 5.7mm cartridge and penetrating vests is BS. Almost any rifle round will easily penetrate vests and crack the ceramic plate. Ballistic helmets like the PAGST are also useless against rifle rounds.

[King Fubar]

I don't suppose they teach about using capitalization of names and use of apostrophes in personal possessives in Texas...?

That would be [Hillary's]

:P
Thats why I love this site. Not only do we talk about cars but we can get an english lesson too...

[seans]

Its really great to have the support of your department after being involved in such a traumatic experience.


The Commissioner apologized for the death of the "CHILD", before any type of investigation is completed. The "CHILD" being a gang banging car thief.

A couple of years ago we had a shooting in Hartford, CT. A car load of kids in a stolen car ran from the police and one of them was shot after the officer saw a gun which turned out to be fake. The "Children" had just spent the night driving around robbing people with the fake gun. The kid that was killed was basically living on the street because his mother didn't want to have anything to do with him. Two days before the shooting she gave him twenty dollars so he would leave her alone. Now she makes money travelling around New England with a photo of him in a football uniform talking about what a great kid he was and how the brutal police gunned him down because of his race.

No matter what happens, the officers in LA are going to be on the short end of the stick. Justified shooting or not.

Sorry, but I felt like venting.

[Krytin]

I would like to see officers shooting a lot more period. I don't buy into this tie the hands of the people who protect us BS.

In Shreveport a cop basically has to be shot at before shooting some piece of crap citizen. Now all of the quality citizens are moving away and everyone wonders where the tax base is going. They are going away from the trouble because the cops can't do their job.

I think the question is fair enough, but I also think the whole story has yet to come out. Only time will tell. Either way the Police always get the S**t end of the stick on these deals.
Well put! My brother used to live in Lake Charles, now in Huston. I may have to move down to your neck of the woods to be w/some like minded people!

[hitchhiker]

Someone on CVN fired 44 Magnum into the side of a Fox body Stang and the bullets wouldn't penetrate.

Short of using .50 AE, 500 S&W, and other wildcat rounds... anything under 44 Mag (non-AP) would most likely do less damage.

All this talk about the 5.7mm cartridge and penetrating vests is BS. Almost any rifle round will easily penetrate vests and crack the ceramic plate. Ballistic helmets like the PAGST are also useless against rifle rounds.
They must have been using low grain match loads...?

I find it hard to believe that a 44 mag round would not penetrate the sheet metal of a newer car. I am sure that a 357 Mag would penetrate a modern car body and most definately a 44 mag. This assumes the use of an at least partially jacketed round.

I have seen pictures of death cars out here in CA where people were killed by 9M and 380 (punk calibre) rounds.

Maybe we should go out to the junk yard and do a test!

:D

[ParkRanger]

I am always curious as to why some Police Officiers fire their guns into cars that are "getaway" or being used as a "weapon".

Is it part of their training that a gun will stop a car or is it part of their training that a dead or wounded driver is less likely to cause injury to others?

http://www.nbc4.tv/news/4175375/detail.html

There have been several recent cases where a vehicle was attempting to cross a crowded area and since the driver did not repsond to request to stop the officer shoots the driver who then loses control running over people.

I am not trying to criticize, I just don't understand the logic.

I believe this incident sends out a very good message to felony wannabes:
If you steal a car and ram a police car with it and endangering the officer's life - the chances of you being killed by the police are VERY high! :mad:

Case closed!

PR :burnout:

[Go Mifuni]

Maybe LA just needs a few of these....
http://www.robocoparchive.com/info/ed209-3s.JPG
:D

[2003 MIB]

about 15 years ago a guy shot his wife in the head outside a local mall. a good samaritan saw this, went to his car and retreived his .44 magnum and shot the fleeing husband twice through the door of his car... he died a short distance down the service road. of course the samaritan was "no billed" by the grand jury. better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6
The samaritan is an aquaintance of mine, Chris. Remind me to tell you "the rest of the story" the next time I see you.

[2003 MIB]

I knew I liked Texas for a reason.
As the official spokesperson for The Lone Star State- We like you too.

[Alan]

Please tell me you are joking....


I just find it interesting that if a suspect punches an officer and runs away the officer does not shoot him , but if a suspect drives by an officer in a car the officer can shoot him?

I understand and appreciate the fact that you want to have an open and honest discussion about use of force. So far, the posts have been tasteful and informative. I've seen these types of threads degrade quickly.

It would take me quite some time to prepare and write a response to your original question, and I don't think Logan wants this thread to become a personal soliloquy, so I'll keep it short and sweet:

Put aside the story from your original post and/or your thoughts and feelings on the incident, but do you honestly not see a distinction between a suspect punching an officer, running away, and the officer not shooting him and a suspect using a vehicle as a weapon against an officer?

I'm not aware of any case where an officer used deadly force against an individual in a vehicle just "driving by" an officer. However, if a suspect is using deadly force with a vehicle AGAINST an officer...then the use of deadly force is authorized when and if the officer is using deadly force to prevent the use of deadly force against himself, a fellow officer, or an innocent bystander.

Am I playing a game of symantics from your post? Maybe...but you implied a suspect was just "driving by". Big difference when the suspect uses a vehicle as a deadly weapon and purposefully tries to inflict serious bodily injury or death against a LEO. The use of deadly force is justified and in many states...there is no duty to retreat when/if deadly force is directed at an officer IF there are no other avenues of escape.

As a LEO, you can bet that if someone is using a vehicle as a deadly weapon against me, I have no other avenues of escape, and the suspect has already demonstrated his lack of appreciation for law enforcement (or to the general public to whom I owe my service to) I would use deadly force. Would I want to find another avenue of escape? You bet! I don't want to take another human life and did not get into law enforcement for that reason. I'm here to help. However, if push came to shove....

Monday-morning quarterback me all you want to...but if I only have a few split seconds to make a choice about either possibly being killed or going home to my family....I'm going to go home to my family. I'm sure people would talk, make judgements, and examine my actions for months (if not years) to come. That's the beauty of sitting in a comfortable chair in a comfortable house under non-stressful conditions and passing judgement on a decision I had to make in nano-seconds.

No matter what you think, the use of force and use of deadly force are always complicated issues in and of themselves from moral, ethical, law-enforcement, and local department policy points-of-view.

[hitchhiker]

Please tell me you are joking....



I understand and appreciate the fact that you want to have an open and honest discussion about use of force. So far, the posts have been tasteful and informative. I've seen these types of threads degrade quickly.

It would take me quite some time to prepare and write a response to your original question, and I don't think Logan wants this thread to become a personal soliloquy, so I'll keep it short and sweet:

Put aside the story from your original post and/or your thoughts and feelings on the incident, but do you honestly not see a distinction between a suspect punching an officer, running away, and the officer not shooting him and a suspect using a vehicle as a weapon against an officer?

I'm not aware of any case where an officer used deadly force against an individual in a vehicle just "driving by" an officer. However, if a suspect is using deadly force with a vehicle AGAINST an officer...then the use of deadly force is authorized when and if the officer is using deadly force to prevent the use of deadly force against himself, a fellow officer, or an innocent bystander.

Am I playing a game of symantics from your post? Maybe...but you implied a suspect was just "driving by". Big difference when the suspect uses a vehicle as a deadly weapon and purposefully tries to inflict serious bodily injury or death against a LEO. The use of deadly force is justified and in many states...there is no duty to retreat when/if deadly force is directed at an officer IF there are no other avenues of escape.

As a LEO, you can bet that if someone is using a vehicle as a deadly weapon against me, I have no other avenues of escape, and the suspect has already demonstrated his lack of appreciation for law enforcement (or to the general public to whom I owe my service to) I would use deadly force. Would I want to find another avenue of escape? You bet! I don't want to take another human life and did not get into law enforcement for that reason. I'm here to help. However, if push came to shove....

Monday-morning quarterback me all you want to...but if I only have a few split seconds to make a choice about either possibly being killed or going home to my family....I'm going to go home to my family. I'm sure people would talk, make judgements, and examine my actions for months (if not years) to come. That's the beauty of sitting in a comfortable chair in a comfortable house under non-stressful conditions and passing judgement on a decision I had to make in nano-seconds.

No matter what you think, the use of force and use of deadly force are always complicated issues in and of themselves from moral, ethical, law-enforcement, and local department policy points-of-view.
No doubt this will be ruled a 'good shoot' by the reviewing authorities.

Regards,

David

[sailsmen]

My question is does it make sense ( regardless of the justification ) to try to stop an automobile or stop a criminal by shooting at the auto or the driver?

Have there been field studies that indicate yes it is good practise for police officers to shoot at autos or the drivers?

"Is it part of their training that a gun will stop a car or is it part of their training that a dead or wounded driver is less likely to cause injury to others?"

"Originally Posted by sailsmen
I just find it interesting that if a suspect punches an officer and runs away the officer does not shoot him , but if a suspect drives by an officer in a car the officer can shoot him?"

The suspect punching is clearly trying to injure kill the officer. The suspect driving by or away (as has been seen on police videos and in the case I sighted with the vehicle going thru a crowded area) is probably not trying to injure kill the officer.

[Alan]

I don't think you can separate sense and justification. I think I explained justification in the example in my earlier post about the use of deadly force...so I won't dwell on that.

Does it make sense? I don't know exactly how to answer that for you. Does it make sense to buy Car A instead of Car B? Let's say they both get the job done, they both go insanely fast, both will get you in trouble, but the only difference is that Car B costs more than the Car A. Bad analogy...I know...but my point is this: if I had the money (and all things being equal) would buying Car B, which is more expensive, make sense if the vehicles are equal in every way except price? What would a millionaire think? He'd probably WOULD buy Car B just because he could. Would that make sense to me if I could spend less on Car A and get the same performance? It's subjective....

Does it make sense for me to use a shotgun to kill a fly swooshing around me or just use a flyswatter? They will both get the job done...but one is certainly overkill. (No pun intended and yet another bad example...but I think you get my drift.)

We weren't "trained" to "shoot at autos or the drivers" in my academy, nor are we trained to do that through my department. A projectile (or a full magazine for that matter) from my duty weapon is not going to stop a moving vehicle. If given no other options, and I mean NO other options, COULD the use of deadly force by an officer with a firearm prevent him (or someone else) from being killed by a suspect using a vehicle in such a deadly manner? Maybe. If that's my absolute last option, you can bet I'm going to try it. I'm not going to give up. If I'm going to go down and I have been trained in the use of, and am justified in using, deadly force to save my life with the tools of my trade...I'm going to use them until I don't have any more choices left.

Are officers accountable for their choices, and ultimately, their actions? Yes!
Should we be? Absolutely! Do officers have to weigh risks in split seconds? Yes.

Obviously, I'm not of the mind that "Well...just a few innocent bystanders were killed by my actions, but I got the bad guy." That's not acceptable to me. Every encounter we have with the public is dynamic...ever-flowing and changing. We can't say "Wait...I call a time-out" and freeze time. Things change in the blink of an eye and adjustments are made accordingly, which will later be judged as "right" or "wrong".

If I decided to use deadly force against a suspect who used a vehicle as a deadly weapon against me and my actions caused someone to be killed or injured....would I be judged for that? You bet. I'm sure I'd be ripped apart by the media and others.

The reverse would also have to be true in the above example. What if my lack of action caused an innocent bystander to be killed or injured? What if I had the opportunity to PIT a suspect's vehicle before he reached the children playing in the playground but I didn't seize upon the moment and kids were killed as a result of my failing to take action? It would be a lose-lose situation for me. People would judge me if I took action and someone else got hurt and they'd judge me if I didn't take action and someone got hurt.


My question is does it make sense ( regardless of the justification ) to try to stop an automobile or stop a criminal by shooting at the auto or the driver?

Have there been field studies that indicate yes it is good practise for police officers to shoot at autos or the drivers?

"Is it part of their training that a gun will stop a car or is it part of their training that a dead or wounded driver is less likely to cause injury to others?"

"Originally Posted by sailsmen
I just find it interesting that if a suspect punches an officer and runs away the officer does not shoot him , but if a suspect drives by an officer in a car the officer can shoot him?"

The suspect punching is clearly trying to injure kill the officer. The suspect driving by or away (as has been seen on police videos and in the case I sighted with the vehicle going thru a crowded area) is probably not trying to injure kill the officer.

[BigMerc]

Without trying to be dismissive Sailsman, you need to stay away from things you don't understand, you do not have the mindset needed to look at these situations and make intelligent decisions. I rail against civilians who think they know what Law enforcement is, but really just understand it from what they watch on TV.
You do not have the ability to grasp the job and therefore should not make judgements because you simply are NOT qualified.

That sounds harsh but it is not intended to be just frank.

[sailsmen]

"I am not critizing Law enforcement, meerely pointing out an area that I think needs to be looked into. Generally Law enforcement does what they are trained to do. Based on the cases I have seen there was never any mention of shooting a car or the driver as being sop.

I am an NRA member and ardent supporter of the Second Amendment. I have no problem with people defending themselves. I posted the article because we are seeing more and more cases of officers shooting cars."

Alan, thanks for answering my question.

Several years ago after several well publized auto chases ended in severe injuries a number of Police Departments studied it and issued policies for their officers to follow which protect the officer and the public. This is the point I am trying to make.

BigMerc I am merely asking a question, that is how people learn and society advances.

[Alan]

Not really sure that I helped...but I appreciate your candor.


Alan, thanks for answering my question.


I think departments would be remiss if they didn't scrutinize some situations, learn from, and/or adjust policy based on findings...as long as a department improves policy without jeopardizing or compromising officer/public safety.
I'm sure many great new techniques were learned or improved using this method.


Several years ago after several well publized auto chases ended in severe injuries a number of Police Departments studied it and issued policies for their officers to follow which protect the officer and the public.

[hitchhiker]

Without trying to be dismissive Sailsman, you need to stay away from things you don't understand, you do not have the mindset needed to look at these situations and make intelligent decisions. I rail against civilians who think they know what Law enforcement is, but really just understand it from what they watch on TV.
You do not have the ability to grasp the job and therefore should not make judgements because you simply are NOT qualified.

That sounds harsh but it is not intended to be just frank.
The opinions of civilians DO count. The very notion that civilians do not have the mindset to appreciate the challenge and difficulties encountered in police work is wrong. While many civilians do not have sufficient understanding to be good 'critics' of police, some do. We all have an investment is quality policing and we all suffer when things go wrong. The very authority of the police is granted by the people they serve.

As I said before, I believe that the LA situation will be ruled a 'good shoot'. It is unfortunate that at 13 years old, this youth was apparently already a hardened criminal taking actions requiring the use of deadly force to intervene.

It might also be noted that not all situations can be resolved to the satisfaction of everyone. A large segment of our society are literally raised to not trust police.

I support the actions of and appreciate the challenges facing our police. They have a very tough job in a world which has grown more violent and continues to place new challenges in the path of law abiding citizens and the police who prortect them.

This situation will clearly grow worse as our current leaders continue to send jobs overseas and many our people become more desperate as their government (corporate bought politicians) fail to protect their standard of living. The widening chasm between the corporate / wealthy and the working people (us) will continue to erode respect for the law in the minds of larger and larger amounts of people.

When people see the unjust application of the law they lose respect for it.

We must strengthen our society at the same time as we support our police.

The police are just as much about trust as they are about force.

Regards,

David

[hitchhiker]

As the official spokesperson for The Lone Star State- We like you too.

Gee, I should have shot somebody while I was in Texas.

I didn't realize it was allowed there.

:P

[Krytin]

They must have been using low grain match loads...?

I find it hard to believe that a 44 mag round would not penetrate the sheet metal of a newer car. I am sure that a 357 Mag would penetrate a modern car body and most definately a 44 mag. This assumes the use of an at least partially jacketed round.

I have seen pictures of death cars out here in CA where people were killed by 9M and 380 (punk calibre) rounds.

Maybe we should go out to the junk yard and do a test!

:D
Yep! I have personally put store bought .44 mag 300gr. FMJ's through 1/2" AR-400 steel plate @ 30 yds.

[hitchhiker]

Yep! I have personally put store bought .44 mag 300gr. FMJ's through 1/2" AR-400 steel plate @ 30 yds.

I never got to play with a 44 Mag, but my 357 Mag has enough power for me.

Regards,

David

[BigMerc]

hitchhiker, you're in the same boat, you might have an inkling but civilians are never able to judge LEO actions, you might have an interest, but you have no qualifications. I hate civilians who think they know the job, you dont, you never will. so go on about your business and let LEO's take care of LEO business. again its abrupt, but accurate.

I get into trouble when I speak of these things because I have a pet peeve about you thinking you know what is best for us. Its not up for debate, I don't care how you infere what I do, just stay out of my way. Stay at home and know we are out there getting the job done, second guess the Super Bowl, not my business.

[sailsmen]

Interesting to think that before our free society decides punishment it is the judgement of a jury ("civilians") that judges the actions of law enforcement.

[rayjay]

In my agency we are forbidden by policy to shoot at a vehicle, regardless of circumstances. When in doubt, I'll be judged by twelve rather than carried by six, and let the Union deal with the rest...

[metroplex]

If a cop had a 44 Magnum service pistol (hypothetical scenario) Would he use 300 gr FMJ for stopping bad guys?

I'm talking about realistic defensive cartridges for use by LEOs. IIRC most 45 Auto, 357 Sig, 9mm, and 40 S&W defensive/service cartridges are JHP or some other non-ball design. We're not talking military ball ammo here or military service cartridges. Overpenetration would be a problem, and LEOs face liability on a daily basis... I seriously DOUBT they would be using FMJ in their duty pistols or home defense pistols. XM193 is a different story altogether because the 55gr FMJ bullet was designed to fragment above a certain velocity.

I've never done junkyard ballistics testing myself. I just read about someone on CVN in a junkyard with a 44 Mag who noted none of the rounds penetrated a Fox body door. Those old Fox body Fords had thicker steel/alloy doors than your Marauders and late model Panthers. I know because I have a Fox body Ford and a 00 Crown Vic.

[Logan]

Yeah, uh... Truncated, CLOSED, etc, blah blah blah. Take it offline.