Police shoot at mini van
 

Is this right or wrong.... Women gets pulled over for speeding, flees, gets pulled over a second time, driver and her son assault officer, and then she flees a second time... Police shoot at fleeing mini van - full of kids.

Driver leads police on a ten mile chase at 100mph.... Eventually the woman is arrested and is charged with five counts of abuse of a child, aggravated fleeing an officer, resisting an officer, reckless driving and possession of drug paraphernalia. The son is arrested for assaulting a police office.

Were the police wrong or right?

Here's the article:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/minivan-sto...ry?id=20912206

Read the first paragragh you wrote.

There's your answer...

Indeed. 100.00% right.

Well would you expect them to shoot into a crowd of kids if there was someone in there?

yeah saw it they want to go home at the end of the shit. here a car back fired and the cops opened fire lol no one was hit but they sued the police and won.

How about they look up the plate and station a car at her home for when she gets there? Couldn't they just follow her at a safe distance until she pulls over? What's with all the shooting??

The first thought is: "oh my God, the kids!"

The second thought is: "what damage can these people do? Can they get in a high-speed wreck and kill someone else?"

I don't think there is a good answer.

If the officer is not under direct gunfire at that time, then NO, he shouldn't be firing his weapon.

If only life was a Disney movie.


This happened in New Mexico, at least no one's ass was searched.


.

yeah its not a game :2 cents: you get one life game over

how do the police know that the fleeing driver would just keep on running, through a red light and right into a bus load of kindergarten kids? The fault is wholly on the fleeing driver, someone who not only put themselves at risk but also the children in the car and everyone else on the street at the time.
If that driver did have an accident and an innocent person was killed, then the police would also be blamed - it's a no-win situation for them.

You're right
The other day they made some guy have his whole hole searched all down
Said he was clenching his things
They found nothing

If that cop had treated my mom like that I would have beat the fuck out of that asshole.

Those cops should be thrown in prison. If ANYBODY but a cop did any of those things he would be in jail instantly.

The woman was scared, her kids were scared. The police shouldn't be able to command us like we are dogs. And when we "disobey" them, they shouldn't be able to assault a woman like he did.

What a piece of shit. And then to shoot at them like it's some kind of movie or something? Jesus.

If any of us saw a man scream at a woman and pull her out of the car...we would beat that fuckers ass.
Yet, when a cop does it...it's "okay"?

I hear you Robbie but then again how hard is it to ??

* Pull to the side of the road
* Roll your window down
* Put your hands on the steering wheel
* Answer the cops questions (after all you were speeding)
* Give the guy doing his job your license/registration
* Sign the ticket
* Drive away

guess the race....

probably too complicated for some rednecks and similar fauna.

:2 cents:

It is not difficult. Still, such a thing should not cause a policeman to open fire into your vehicle, especially knowing it is full of kids. If the lady pulled a gun on him, sure, shoot her. But she didn't. She did not try to run him over. She simply tried to resist arrest and fled. Hardly worthy of a bullet. Only by luck did innocent children not get killed.

There are valid reasons to use excessive force, and this was not one of them.

which race dumb ass? cops or the victims? ban this asshole already :2 cents:

well that was ...

They had her plate; She was from out of state.

On one hand I'm stunned at that police would fire on a car with kids in it no matter what the circumstances. At the same time, A police officer was assaulted by one of those kids, and once you assault a police officer the gloves come off.

Mother was a dumb ass who didn't deserve to have children.

"As back-up arrives, the woman and her family are locked inside. The officer takes his baton and starts to break the windows of the van as he tries to get the family out of the car."

At this point, why not put the cop car around the van to stop her leaving? They can stay locked in the van until more backup arrives.

The 14 year old left off when the cop pulled a taser. There was no reason to fire bullets at the family. If the cops hadn't given chase, she probably wouldn't have kept speeding. THere are so many other ways to deal with this :(

"Assaulted" LOL!

When I think "assault", I think of somebody beating the fuck out of someone else.

The cops (and Rochard) obviously define it as trying to pull the cop off or your own mother (a perfectly natural response).

This cop needs to be put in a room with another man. And the other man should be about 6 foot tall, 210 pounds, muscular, and pissed off.

i don't know about england or the US but in canada its policy for police to abandon any high speed chase that would put others in danger.

That is pretty weak, smashing windows in the car, shooting at it? What kind of dumb asses are being employed as cops these days?

Are some of you seriously defending the cop?? Are you for fucking real? Shooting in a van full of kids? Jesus only on gfy.

a speeding ticket should always end in gun fire. I don't see the problem.

Assault should not lead to bullets flying, especially when the officer knows kids are in the car. His life was not in danger, and that is the bottom line. Deadly assault / assault with a deadly weapon... sure. But just normal physical assault, no way. These guys should be trained better than that. If you can't take a lump or two without having to pull your gun, you shouldn't wear a badge.

Here we go.... I understand it's a "perfectly natural response", but hitting a police officer is never acceptable. In this case, the 14 year old knew exactly what was going down - his mother was in trouble for breaking the law. The kid had zero justification to take any action.

The fact that it is a fourteen year old kid attacking a fully grown police office is irreverent here - If the police officer is struggling to subdue a 130 lbs woman and the kid grabs his gun it doesn't matter how big the kid is.

I was all for shooting the van until I read "full of kids."

yes, its the policy in the UK too but we've all seen those police chase videos where people fleeing overestimate their driving skills and plough into an innocent car.
Personally I'd be quite happy if the British police get given the authority to go heavy handed on a fleeing car rather than letting it fly off in the distance only to recover the burnt out empty car a couple of week later from an abandoned gypsy camp.

I can see you being first in line to receive the bar code and behavioral implant...

I honestly question whether you've ever even been in the military at this point because no one I know who's been in the military - especially marines - has ever been as big of a sheep as you are.

People like you are what's wrong with America...

Almost every time I've ever heard of a cop shooting someone its been on examination a over reaction from a coward, just look Donair and Travis, yes what they did was sick but that was way beyond excessive, not to mention the Boston PD . What's next, RPGs ? UAV shootings ?

In no way am I condoning the actions of the police, but damn she could write a bestseller on what not to do during a routine traffic stop.

.

It's mostly because I am much better trained at this than you.

A fully grown police officer will be able to whip a fourteen year old's ass in hand to hand combat any day of the week no matter how many doughnuts he eats. However, a fully grown police officer trying to force a woman into submission without physically hurting her while trying to prevent a teenager from grabbing his firearm is a very dangerous situation.

I'm not saying that the cop should be shooting at the mini van full of kids. It's not like mini van was going to get far. But a fourteen year old kid rushing a police officer in the middle of a scuffle is a bad tactical situation that could end up with a fourteen year old kid pointing a firearm at a police officer.

You are calling me a sheep because I have an issue with a fourteen year old attacking a police officer because he was arresting his mother after she broke the law. What world do you live in where a teenager can attack a police officer for arresting his mother after she obviously broke the law?

Much better trained at being a 'yes man' and a sheep? Yes, you most certainly are.

So, if he was trying so hard to NOT hurt anyone, why did he open fire into a vehicle with children in it? I don't care how you try to twist it, his life was not in danger, nor is his life worth more than the lives of innocent children.

Yet you are completely defending his actions.

You are a sheep. You are a 'yes man'. You are the epitome of what is wrong with America today.

Plain and simple.

Dei waz not guilty :2 cents:

arm 6 year olds....problem solved.

:2 cents::2 cents:

The officer was arresting (or restraining) someone who fled a traffic stop. The officer - at that point - was acting according to the law. The fourteen year kid decided to attack him only because his mother was being handcuffed. At what point did it become acceptable for fourteen year old kids to attack police officers for doing their job?

:thumbsup

What the 14 year old CHILD did is irrelevant. The use of deadly force was not justified, period. Especially considering he was firing at/into a vehicle with other innocent lives in it.

I find your position on this matter quite ironic though. You defend a cop for shooting at a van full of innocent children supposedly because a 14 year old child was trying to defend his mother, yet you demonize someone like Zimmerman for shooting a hoodlum who attacked and beat the shit out of him.