Another incident showing why exemptions and immunities need to go away

[ChattanoogaPhil]

- Shooting the driver isn't guaranteed to stop a vehicle and having a vehicle in motion with a dead man behind the wheel isn't improving safety.

- it doesn't sound like he was randomly chasing down cars to hit, but driving through police cars being used to block the road and the missing body and dash cam footage can be assumed to not make the LE look good.

- the surviving audio footage between the deputy and the trooper does made it clear which parties in the incident prioritize their welfare over anyone else in addition to their finding it amusing they shot the hostage.

Justifiable use of deadly force is not predicated on a "guaranteed" outcome but rather the threat and reasonableness of the officers. I agree with the judge's ruling as expressed below.

“Although Plaintiff was a hostage, as the driver of the log truck, he posed not only a threat of serious physical harm to the officers and others, but Plaintiff was also facilitating the escape of an armed and dangerous suspect,” the federal judge ruled. “Thus, Defendants’ use of deadly force when they fired at Plaintiff in the driver’s side of the truck was reasonable to protect themselves and others and prevent Arnold’s escape.”

After being shot by police the driver then chose to stop the truck. While that wasn't a "guaranteed" outcome (few things in life are guaranteed) the fact of the matter is that the driver chose to stop the truck after being shot.

No surprise that the officers appreciated the fact that they were all going home after risking their safety for that of the public.

[eric0311]

Justifiable use of deadly force is not predicated on a "guaranteed" outcome but rather the threat and reasonableness of the officers. I agree with the judge's ruling as expressed below.

“Although Plaintiff was a hostage, as the driver of the log truck, he posed not only a threat of serious physical harm to the officers and others, but Plaintiff was also facilitating the escape of an armed and dangerous suspect,” the federal judge ruled. “Thus, Defendants’ use of deadly force when they fired at Plaintiff in the driver’s side of the truck was reasonable to protect themselves and others and prevent Arnold’s escape.”

After being shot by police the driver then chose to stop the truck. While that wasn't a "guaranteed" outcome (few things in life are guaranteed) the fact of the matter is that the driver chose to stop the truck after being shot.

No surprise that the officers appreciated the fact that they were all going home after risking their safety for that of the public.

Are ****ing insane? What backass-wards hole did you crawl out from in order to side with this absolute disgusting, and appalling spectacle of malfeasance? In no way shape or form is it ever “ok” to willfully and knowingly engage a hostage with lethal force. Period.

That is of course, if you’re one of the “back the blue… no matter the circumstances” idiots that I was hoping would arrive and attempt to articulate their backing of this lunacy.

You want to know what more than likely happened? To a man, all of these cops heard the radio traffic regarding the position of the hostage and hostage taker… somebody shot at the wrong target, and now they’re all covering for each other. The audio at that end, to which the cops are celebratory about shooting a hostage only supports my theory.

This is why the trust and faith in LE is falling further and further aside… and rightfully so, with gross examples of negligence such as this…

[ChattanoogaPhil]

In no way shape or form is it ever “ok” to willfully and knowingly engage a hostage with lethal force. Period.

In addition to the judge's ruling above which is contrary to your assertion, the 11th Circuit US Court of Appeals specifically addressed such assertion and found it to be wanting.

“To the extent Davis suggests that deadly force may never be used against an innocent victim, we can find no case asserting that proposition so categorically,” the 11th Circuit judges opined.


The judges determined, “Davis drove the truck toward seven officers gathered at the scene and showed no signs of stopping,” even though he was forced to do so at gunpoint. “Several of the officers opened fire on the cab of the truck, even though they allegedly knew Davis - an innocent hostage - was being forced to drive,” the appeals court panel added.


Ultimately the appeals court ruled the officers “made the difficult, but altogether reasonable, decision that Arnold and the logging truck had to be stopped - and, tragically, that meant stopping Davis, too.

[eric0311]

In addition to the judge's ruling above which is contrary to your assertion, the 11th Circuit US Court of Appeals specifically addressed such assertion and found it to be wanting.

“To the extent Davis suggests that deadly force may never be used against an innocent victim, we can find no case asserting that proposition so categorically,” the 11th Circuit judges opined.


The judges determined, “Davis drove the truck toward seven officers gathered at the scene and showed no signs of stopping,” even though he was forced to do so at gunpoint. “Several of the officers opened fire on the cab of the truck, even though they allegedly knew Davis - an innocent hostage - was being forced to drive,” the appeals court panel added.


Ultimately the appeals court ruled the officers “made the difficult, but altogether reasonable, decision that Arnold and the logging truck had to be stopped - and, tragically, that meant stopping Davis, too.

Ok- let’s insert some critical thought here… because trying to understand the logic of an appeals court (especially one as asinine as the 11th) is going to cause me to lose my mind.

Let’s talk tactics…. Why did the officers attempt to blockade the road.. knowing that the vehicle in question, completely outclassed their patrol vehicles in size and gross-weight? Can it not be argued that the officers standing behind their vehicles further increased the risk of serious injury collision, and one that would not only potentially injure them… but the hostage as well… and innocent motorists? Stay with me know.. I know this is probably hard for you… but why not continue to follow… gain additional / crisis negotiators /tactical resources/ air assets/ stage medical and other 1st responder vehicles / personnel…. Or, attempt to use spike strip devices to deflate the tires?

Dude- they put themselves and the hostage/public in a dangerous/precarious position by blockading the road against a freaking semi - truck…and shot the hostage.

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Ok- let’s insert some critical thought here… because trying to understand the logic of an appeals court (especially one as asinine as the 11th) is going to cause me to lose my mind.

Well.. if you didn't like the federal judge's ruling and the subsequent ruling of the 11th, then I suppose you aren't too happy with the US Supreme Court letting stand the lower court ruling, eh?

I understand the need to believe things are the way you want them to be. They aren't.

Have a good evening.

[jsbhike]

Well.. if you didn't like the federal judge's ruling and the subsequent ruling of the 11th, then I suppose you aren't too happy with the US Supreme Court letting stand the lower court ruling, eh?

I understand the need to believe things are the way you want them to be. They aren't.

Have a good evening.

I wasn't just referring to cops needing to have their exemptions and immunities taken away.

I think it's more of a way that things are advertised versus how things are actually operated issue.

[eric0311]

Well.. if you didn't like the federal judge's ruling and the subsequent ruling of the 11th, then I suppose you aren't too happy with the US Supreme Court letting stand the lower court ruling, eh?

I understand the need to believe things are the way you want them to be. They aren't.

Have a good evening.

See my sig-line…

This applies to you and those like you… in no way shape or form should the actions of these cowards (yep, I said it) be allowed or celebrated as heroic. I wonder if you’d have the same stance if it was one of your loved ones who was forced at gun point to drive a semi-truck towards an insanely asinine and dangerous police blockade (which, arguably, has ZERO place in any CONUS LE setting, for reasons I previously explained). Resting on the laurels of fallible judge and court decisions is a fitting way to retreat from this debate.

[sidewaysil80]

See my sig-line…

This applies to you and those like you… in no way shape or form should the actions of these cowards (yep, I said it) be allowed or celebrated as heroic. I wonder if you’d have the same stance if it was one of your loved ones who was forced at gun point to drive a semi-truck towards an insanely asinine and dangerous police blockade (which, arguably, has ZERO place in any CONUS LE setting, for reasons I previously explained). Resting on the laurels of fallible judge and court decisions is a fitting way to retreat from this debate.

Do you know why I prefer this site to ar15.com? There is an expected level of decorum and tact here that is usually pretty well enforced. Someone laid out an articulate response, refrained from insults and ultimately your response was to tell him to “eatadik”. Lets not turn this place into the other site.

[Rifleman_04]

If an officer truly believes the most important thing is “making memories” and going home at the end of their shift they are cowards and need to quit. They took a job that requires more of them and need to be at terms with that.

[SomeOtherGuy]

Ok- let’s insert some critical thought here… because trying to understand the logic of an appeals court (especially one as asinine as the 11th) is going to cause me to lose my mind.

The 11th Circuit is usually quite reasonable. While I don't like this decision, it may reflect the state of the law. Changing the law is generally a legislative matter, not a judicial matter. Most of us complain when judges try to change the law on any other issue.

Let’s talk tactics…. Why did the officers attempt to blockade the road.. knowing that the vehicle in question, completely outclassed their patrol vehicles in size and gross-weight? Can it not be argued that the officers standing behind their vehicles further increased the risk of serious injury collision, and one that would not only potentially injure them… but the hostage as well… and innocent motorists? Stay with me know.. I know this is probably hard for you… but why not continue to follow… gain additional / crisis negotiators /tactical resources/ air assets/ stage medical and other 1st responder vehicles / personnel…. Or, attempt to use spike strip devices to deflate the tires?
Dude- they put themselves and the hostage/public in a dangerous/precarious position by blockading the road against a freaking semi - truck…and shot the hostage.

Agree on criticism of tactics. Not sure that many departments can promptly obtain the whole laundry list you posted. But does it matter? There's a long list of chases that ended with the suspect temporarily getting away, then being arrested 1-3 days later when he wasn't driving and could be caught by surprise. In this age of cell phones, drones, cell phone spying and all other kinds of electronic surveillance, it's hard for anyone but some of the Amish (who aren't generally running high-speed chases) to avoid being found quickly.

See my sig-line…

Let's not.

If an officer truly believes the most important thing is “making memories” and going home at the end of their shift they are cowards and need to quit. They took a job that requires more of them and need to be at terms with that.

There's a balance between reasonable safety precautions and the insanity that some police trainers have been pushing over the last 3-4 decades. The fact remains that most LE work is nowhere near as dangerous as many other jobs, including firefighting, mining, and logging.

How much respect would you have for a firefighter who talked endlessly about how the single most important thing is that he goes home at the end of each shift? I mean, literally EVERYONE wants firefighters to go home safe and uninjured, but choosing that profession means choosing to take a major risk for the benefit of others.

Somewhere in between the mob-ruled leftist urban hellscapes, and this dystopian incident and legal ruling, there should be a balance between officer safety and public safety.