In the News II

Quote: odiousgambit

whatever else you want to say, this woman *was* armed. The vehicle was her weapon of choice. I'll grant she may have thought she could 'get away' but she was using it in a way she knew would cause harm, perhaps carelessly estimating injuries would be minor to the man holding the door and the man she was going to brush aside

you are gambling with your life when you decide to not follow a policeman's orders. Especially if you are armed.

Quote: Gandler

Quote: odiousgambit

whatever else you want to say, this woman *was* armed. The vehicle was her weapon of choice. I'll grant she may have thought she could 'get away' but she was using it in a way she knew would cause harm, perhaps carelessly estimating injuries would be minor to the man holding the door and the man she was going to brush aside

you are gambling with your life when you decide to not follow a policeman's orders. Especially if you are armed.

Being in a vehicle is not considered being armed in any legal sense. Otherwise no felon would be allowed to own or drive a vehicle.

(I'm not going to comment on the actual case yet, because I haven't watched the video.). But, being in a vehicle in no way is considered armed, this is simply false regardless of any other context.

(Yes being armed can apply to more than just guns, but never to vehicles, at least not in the U.S.). I would go even further and say it should (because vehicles can be very dangerous if used as weapons,) but it does not.

Saying somebody is "armed with a vehicle," because they happened to be in a car is a pure stretch.

Quote: googlebot

The consensus among self-defense experts is that the
best use of a vehicle in a threatening situation is for escape. [But] A Vehicle Can Be a "Weapon": Experts acknowledge that a vehicle, if used with the intent to cause harm, can be considered a deadly weapon in the eyes of the law. Using it as such (e.g., intentionally running someone over) constitutes the use of deadly force.

Quote: odiousgambit

whatever else you want to say, this woman *was* armed. The vehicle was her weapon of choice. I'll grant she may have thought she could 'get away' but she was using it in a way she knew would cause harm, perhaps carelessly estimating injuries would be minor to the man holding the door and the man she was going to brush aside

you are gambling with your life when you decide to not follow a policeman's orders. Especially if you are armed.

Quote: rxwine

And here is my proposed speech at the civil suit:

The only trained professional in this tragic scenario is the officer. Are officers trained to stand forward of A moving vehicle when its engine is on, and occupant inside. in a crowd of people upset and many not following orders. NO, ladies and gentlemen (or judge) this is negligence of the HIGHEST ORDER. This officer's action or training was deficient CONTRIBUTING to the death of this poor mother, with 3 children. (Pounds fist)

You must award millions of dollars of damages. And please note, get a handy sum from Odious Gambit who I heard defended this whole thing.

YOWSER!!

Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: fleaswatter

I commend the officer on his excellent shooting.

Basically agree. It is not something I will ever worry about. Pulled over this year. Answered all the cops questions. Asked permission to go into glove compartment. Followed his instructions. I’m alive to tell about it. Had I ignored his command to get out, backed up to then try and escape forward, maybe there would be no one to type this.

But there’s the other side of course. You want your law enforcement officers to know how to avoid the need to use deadly force, not escalate it so deadly force is used.

There’s a child. I’m interested to see if ex husband gets full custody or new ‘wife’ does? The child will likely receive a 7 figure settlement.

Quote: odiousgambit

Quote: Gandler

Quote: odiousgambit

whatever else you want to say, this woman *was* armed. The vehicle was her weapon of choice. I'll grant she may have thought she could 'get away' but she was using it in a way she knew would cause harm, perhaps carelessly estimating injuries would be minor to the man holding the door and the man she was going to brush aside

you are gambling with your life when you decide to not follow a policeman's orders. Especially if you are armed.

Being in a vehicle is not considered being armed in any legal sense. Otherwise no felon would be allowed to own or drive a vehicle.

(I'm not going to comment on the actual case yet, because I haven't watched the video.). But, being in a vehicle in no way is considered armed, this is simply false regardless of any other context.

(Yes being armed can apply to more than just guns, but never to vehicles, at least not in the U.S.). I would go even further and say it should (because vehicles can be very dangerous if used as weapons,) but it does not.

Saying somebody is "armed with a vehicle," because they happened to be in a car is a pure stretch.

Well, you are most definitely armed and can use it as a weapon, and I am not the first to say so. As far as in a 'legal sense' it may require an initiating action to say so in court.

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: fleaswatter

I commend the officer on his excellent shooting.

Basically agree. It is not something I will ever worry about. Pulled over this year. Answered all the cops questions. Asked permission to go into glove compartment. Followed his instructions. I’m alive to tell about it. Had I ignored his command to get out, backed up to then try and escape forward, maybe there would be no one to type this.

But there’s the other side of course. You want your law enforcement officers to know how to avoid the need to use deadly force, not escalate it so deadly force is used.

There’s a child. I’m interested to see if ex husband gets full custody or new ‘wife’ does? The child will likely receive a 7 figure settlement.

Why would the cop need to look into your glove box? I keep my registration clipped to my sun visor. If I ever need to show it to a cop, he doesn't get a peak into my glove box.