Thread: Ohio Pursuit video
09-22-2007, 05:06 PM #1
Ohio Pursuit video
Does anyone have details on the video that was on the o.com front page?
If you haven't watched it, check it out.
A L L G A V E S O M E, B U T S O M E G A V E A L L
09-22-2007, 05:53 PM #2
- Join Date
- Sep 2006
I listened to the audio a little while back on that, but didn't read any news reports. I had no idea it ended that way with the hood ridin'. That's some crazy stuff.
09-22-2007, 08:01 PM #3
- Join Date
- Aug 2005
link to story.
09-23-2007, 09:44 AM #4
There's a lesson to be learned by all the knuckleheads out there... don't try to run down police, or you will be shot.
There's too many videos out showing police hesitating to use force and being killed / injured in the line of duty... it's nice to see not all of us have lost that edge.
"22's son... 22's... do work!!!" - Christopher "Big Black" Boykin
- In God we trust, everyone else is run through NCIC.
09-23-2007, 10:43 AM #5
Unnecessary Risk"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. The MARINES don't have that problem." ....Ronald Reagan
09-23-2007, 11:16 AM #6
- Join Date
- Mar 2006
09-23-2007, 04:51 PM #7
We have a guy that has already rammed squad cars, been rammed by squads, has already been fired on by officers but continues to target those officers with his primary weapon, the car. This guy showed an utter disregard for human life (both the officers and the general public) that culmanated in him trying to run over an officer who was attempting the "cover and command" you're advocating. Instead of allowing this yahoo to escape and thereby continue to threaten the lives of the officers and general public, this sergeant did exactly what we are trained to do- take the fight to the bad guy.
This guy had already demonstrated that he was willing to do anything, including trying to kill police officers, to escape. The cause and effect of this situation was the bad guy deciding to run from the police, deciding to attempt to kill police officers, and deciding not to surrender.
09-23-2007, 06:38 PM #8
- Join Date
- Dec 2005
- Raleigh N.C.
It looked like just a pursuit until the video was blocked by the hood due to the, what appeared to be, first hit into the drivers side of the Monte Carlo by the cruiser. You couldn't see why the first officer fired his weapon. There just wasn't a good shot with the video.
Sometime during that lack of video is where officers appear to have made the decision to open fire. I think that is where the key is here. After that it appeared to be a free for all. If indeed the driver did try to run the officer(s) over during that period I can see why they opened fire. Once that happened the suspect had demonstrated he would injure or kill to escape. Thus I can see why other officers or the same officer opened fire at the end.
As to the officer that wound up on the hood, I couldn't really see how he got up there. The car was seeming to move forward though.
Last edited by Lt.; 09-23-2007 at 06:43 PM.No good deed goes unpunished.
09-23-2007, 08:01 PM #9
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
I hope all are cleared and I am glad to see they acted the way they did. The car being used as a weapon in such a way with disregard for the safety of officers and the public to me would constitute a "Fleeing Felon" and thus a justifiable shooting situation.
09-23-2007, 08:24 PM #10
I dont see any criminal problems here. the courts have long held that we never need to retreat form attack. we have every right to stand in front of a suspect pointing our guns at them and shooting them if they try to run us over. You drive with a policman on your hood then you die. I don't care how he got on the hood and neither will the courts.
The only issue would be internal, did they use the best officer safety tactics? Thats something they will work out and hopefully keep to themselves.
09-23-2007, 08:40 PM #11
Don't try this at home (in So. California)!
Like it or not, if this occurred in my agency's jurisdiction, the shooting would probably be ruled out of policy. Our policy generally prohibits shooting at or from moving vehicles and specifically prohibits shooting at moving vehicles wanted for assault on police officers, when the weapon used in the assault was the vehicle itself. Placing one's self in front of the vehicle, has (in Southern California) been equated to "enabling" the offender to further his opportunity to escape by driving through or over the officer and is frowned on in the extreme. Many local agencies are even going so far as to require officers to jump out of the way of speeding vehicles, bluntly ruling out firing at the driver as even an option for self defense.
Having been in a similar situation myself, I have nothing but sympathy for the officer involved. Even so, had this occurred in California generally and Southern California in particular, the shooting (as depicted) would very probably ended the (shooting) officers' careers, resulted in a substantial civil loss and very likely would have also resulted in criminal charges being filed against the those who fired. I don't believe criminal convictions would have been obtained, but with the other difficulties the officers faced from their own agency and plaintiffs' lawsuits, the experience after the shooting would nearly be as traumatic as the shooting itself."I'm not fluent in the language of violence, but I know enough to get around in places where it's spoken."
09-23-2007, 09:05 PM #12
- Join Date
- Nov 2006
- Dallas, TX
We cant even chase unless the suspect is a violent felony offender. I commend that officer for what he did however crazy it looks like. It might look bad him putting bullets into a suspect like that, but that monte carlo was a 4000 pound bullet that had been aimed multiple officers already. I hope they clear that officer and the others involved of any wrong doing. The deceased was a turd anyway. The world is a better place without that guy here.
09-24-2007, 12:10 AM #13
Please stop painting us all with the your ACLU issued paint brush, there are at least 5 other counties in So cal you know
Last edited by Garbage Man; 09-24-2007 at 12:14 AM.
09-24-2007, 12:51 AM #14
09-24-2007, 01:20 AM #15
Every department has variations and similarities between their policies and other agencies'. Although my department's might be different in some respects than your's, the ACLU didn't write it, nor did they provide me with a "paint brush" to address other agencies' policies. Case law (civil and criminal), recent legislation and "community input" have all resulted in policy changes and always will.
A large number of officers have been filed on criminally by the DA's offices in Los Angeles, San Bernardino and Riverside (to name just a few) for use of force incidents that looked "good" to me and many fellow officers. If you really believe you're safe there in Orange County because, "the OC DA has never filed charges against an officer for shooting someone." you're failing to recognize threats beyond those immediately obvious when dealing dangerous suspects. Also, please don't try to paint me as one of those "L.A. guys" you have a problem with. Like yours', my experiences and opinions are my own and not dictated by the jurisdiction I work in or for.
Last edited by pulicords; 09-24-2007 at 01:22 AM. Reason: grammar"I'm not fluent in the language of violence, but I know enough to get around in places where it's spoken."
09-24-2007, 01:24 AM #16
09-24-2007, 01:34 AM #17
09-24-2007, 01:44 AM #18"I'm not fluent in the language of violence, but I know enough to get around in places where it's spoken."
09-24-2007, 05:16 AM #19
09-24-2007, 06:03 AM #20
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
09-24-2007, 02:06 PM #21
I watched this video about 5 times. This can go either way. I don't know about the chase policy of this dept., but the review board will dissect this incident from the beginning, from when he said (this guy tried to ram me). It looks like he was just trying to get away.
I don't recommend that any of my fellow officers jump on the hood of a fleeing felon's vehicle. It will never end better than it did in this incident. The cop was lucky the BG didn't floor it.
A man should never be ashamed to own that he has been in the wrong, which is but saying... that he is wiser today than yesterday. Jonathan Swift 1667-1745
It's only a conspiracy when your party is not in power.
09-24-2007, 06:15 PM #22
1. You seem to be saying that these officers did something criminal.
2. You seem to be saying those officers would be toast here in So Cal.
It's wrong to state that in So Cal we are not allowed to shoot at vehicles. Off the top of my head I know of three instances where this has happened and have been found to be perfectly justifiable. I was present at one such incident where the suspect started driving at me and I leapt out of the way, but another officer got trapped and had to shoot and kill the driver. No one in either my department or the DA's office ever thought that the shooter did anything wrong. In another incident, just a few weeks ago, one of our officers tried to extract a driver out of a vehicle and got his hand stuck in the drivers door latch as the car started to drive away. He shot at the driver and he should have.
I am not suggesting that getting in the path of a suspects vehicle is something we should do whenever we want. I think it should be avoided at all costs but not as a matter of law. Common sense dictates avoiding, whenever possible, putting yourself in harms way.
The reason I knew you were from LA is that I too have attended training with officers from LA agencies and I have spoken to many of our laterals. I strongly believe that LA cops are told that restrictions exist in law that simply don't by administrators that are affected by groups such as the ACLU. An example of this is the ridiculous Miranda warning you guys use where you have the suspect say "yes" to every step of the warning. Often times you will even have him sign the form. There has never been a case that said this was required and I have attended classes where LA cop instructors have said there was. The problem is that your administrators lie to you in a lame effort to reduce civil exposure, then you guys think that the way you do things is the way everyone does them and that those who don’t, like these Ohio cops, are doing something wrong.
I do not have a problem with any individual LA copper in fact I respect the fact that they show up to work every day. I'd be happy to buy any of you guys a beer any day, just don’t be offended if I try to deprogram you.
09-24-2007, 09:31 PM #23
First, in none of my posts did I say I believed the actions of the officers in this shooting was (IMO) a criminal violation. I said that their actions (specifically those of the officer firing from the hood of the suspect's vehicle) would probably have been in violation of my department's policy. Although many agencies in Los Angeles County and other areas have policies similar to those at my department, I recognize that many departments' policies differ.
Second, "toast" (your description) is cooked when extreme heat is applied. In my jurisdiction and many others, this incident would generate a lot of heat. Sometimes this is avoidable and sometimes it isn't. My agency (Not LAPD) has extremely restrictive policies regarding pursuits and shooting at moving vehicles. As a supervisor, I'm required to not only know them, but to ensure that my officers know them. Following those policies is in their best interest.
Regardless of what I personally think of those policies, I strongly believe that they were put in place for the primary reason of protecting our personnel from physical threats, unnecessary civil actions and possible criminal liability. For whatever reason those policies were enacted, it's in our best interest to know them and work within them. I'm certainly not brainwashed or lied to about these policies by my department's administrators. I've known and worked with each and every one of them since they were officers and although I might (and frequently do) disagree with some of their points of view, I have a pretty good understanding of where they're coming from. Believe it or not, most care about their officers and are trying to protect them in every manner possible and still let them do their jobs.
I've had the pleasure of receiving training from throughout the country on a variety of issues. My agency is fortunate enough to have the resources (money) to send it's officers (throughout the ranks) wherever good training opportunities exist, through a variety of agencies. With the training and experiences I've received over the years, I keep an open mind, look at the options and use what seems to work best. Institutionally, our department tries to do the same. We have these (training) resources in large part because we've been able to avoid having to pay out huge sums of money in civil settlements or awards. Strangely enough, we haven't been sued or paid out a single settlement over the last calendar year. Isn't this a good thing?
Finally, you don't have to believe me, but I'm not in need of "deprograming" and certainly have the ability to think for myself. Neither I, nor my organization operates with a closed mind, regardless of what you might think and for you to continue refering to me or my coworkers as "you guys" is not only insulting but demonstrates extreme ignorance on your part. Your belief of our "Miranda" warning requirements shows this clearly. In my department, the common practice is to advise the suspect regarding his/her constitutional rights, confirm they understand them ("Yes" or "No" answered orally is sufficient) and then to continue with the interview. An implied waiver is most often acceptable and an expressed waiver is necessary only if the interrogator feels more comfortable with it. We have no policy requiring the written waivers you referred to.
I'm not sure where you've gained your "knowledge" about all agencies within Los Angeles County, but you need to return to class. Every department, like every officer/deputy is different and needs to be evaluated on it's own merit. If you really respect others in this field, you need to more open minded. By the way, one of my shootings occurred when a suspect was trying to run me down and just getting out of her way didn't work. I did what I had to do, survived, remained within policy, wasn't sued, nor faced criminal prosecution for my actions.
09-24-2007, 09:49 PM #24
pulicords- did you attend the 24 hr one (OCSD) or the 16hr supervisory course (fullerton city college-Police Academy)? been to both-both worthwhile.Both pushed the Tenn V.Garner and Graham V. Connor issues.I'm in L.A. and the city of L.A.s policies are very strict on UOF and shooting issues such as this-my dept had a recent OIS when a stolen veh.driven byt a parolee tried to ram officers still in the car,then he rushed officers holding a piece of a steering wheel locking device in his hand-officers instinctively thought it was a firearm and shot the felon.No matter how strict a depts policy is,it cannot be one which takes away the officers right to defend himself,nor negate what an officer feels or BELIEVEs is a threat tohis/her life or safety-that why you usually will see such catch words as "reasonable,generally ,shall,prudent,"etc in alot of the UOF policies ,instead of WILL ,must, shall not.,cannot............
09-24-2007, 10:23 PM #25