They couldn't shoot out the tires? Did this have to end with a woman's death infront of a child.

[diabeticman]

Yes, I expect to get flamed and yes, the woman was in the wrong BUT if the woman didn't have a gun why did this woman have to die?


Both my wife and I are stunned how deadly forced is used in this post 9/11 world. In the guise of "protecting the American people and way of life."

[JoePhilly]

1. After she crashed into a police car to escape ...

... they have to assume she would do the same to civilians.

If what we've heard is accurate on that point, she became a threat to the public.

[Coyotl]

3. They couldn't shoot her car instead?

[JoePhilly]

13. They probably shot at the thing that controls the car.

Which is the driver.

Let's imagine that they shoot at the tires, but they don't top the car, and she runs over a 1st grade class visiting the capitol. Those cops get crucified. We expect them to STOP such an attacker.

[former9thward]

54. Was there a first grade class in front of her?

Nothing like making up shit as you go along.

[EX500rider]

177. No, downtown DC is a ghost town mid-day....

.......nobody for miles!

[nomorenomore08]

81. Not to be a jerk, but aren't you dealing in hypotheticals just as much as the OP?

[JoePhilly]

142. Well, we know that they did not dive on the ground, roll, and then shoot out the tires.

That's not reality, its a creation of Hollywood.

Can you think of any instance in which the police shot out the tires of a moving vehicle?

It doesn't happen.

[nomorenomore08]

192. Agreed. n/t

[MH1]

16. I thought the same thing at first, but after watching the video ...

I think it's like this: when the officers were close enough to the car to aim at tires, they were also sort of in a circle. She hit one of them as she peeled out, and several of the others were scrambling to get out of the way. The ones who didn't have to get out of the way at that moment, if they'd fired at anything, they could have hit one of the other officers. This all happens in a few seconds, then she's far enough away that they are just shooting at the car, and at that point no handgun is going to be able to hit a tire on a moving vehicle except by accident. (I think. I'm not a firearms expert but I have heard stuff like this.)

I am sure they followed their rules of engagement.

Also keep in mind that this woman had just run one of them down. They may not have known in that split second that the guy wasn't severely injured.

[TheDebbieDee]

88. I'm just amazed that the baby was not injured in the hail of bullets....

He/she is a very lucky baby!

[ripcord]

152. Cars can still travel on flat tires

or even rims

[Cerridwen]

10. Cops firing at an fleeing car isn't threatening the public?

What is that, collateral damage?

When she was fleeing they had to shoot at her fleeing car which could easily have crashed into???

And if they had they struck the child?

I'm still trying to figure out how she missed the barriers that took out one of the guys chasing her.

[JoePhilly]

17. She smashed into a police car ... which means she is willing to risk the ives of others.

Allowing her to "flee" also allows her to intentionally hurt others in her efforts to flee. By crashing into the police car, they know she is willing to take that risk.

[Cerridwen]

27. I'm glad they "knew" that since they apparently

only "know" how to use deadly force and haven't done any scenarios that don't include shoot at fleeing car with public around.

Stray bullets apparently, don't care if you're good guy or bad guy, or a guy or an adult.

How does this happen in front of the White House in the first place?

Too much missing information.

[JoePhilly]

32. Have you ever visited DC?

Do you know how the area around the WH is arranged?

Where people can walk, where they can drive?

Knowing those things would help.

People can actually walk very close to the WH.

They keep cars further away for what should be obvious reasons.

[Cerridwen]

35. So there weren't people in the line of fire and

it was only her car?

There were no other cars?

As I said, not enough information.

[former9thward]

56. I have been there plenty of times.

She was of no danger. Trigger happy police and their defenders. Sad...

[JoePhilly]

145. Right, a person who smashed into a police car is no danger to anyone.

[cali]

157. how on earth were they to know she wasn't a danger?

of course they didn't know. for all they knew she had a carload of explosives.

[former9thward]

165. She got out of the car unarmed.

If they thought she had a carload of explosives it would be pretty stupid to shoot her at that point.

[DragonBorn]

171. I assume you have law enforcement experience?

Since you speak with such authority on these matters. Do you know what lead to police shooting this woman besides the fact she was unarmed. Do you know if she made any threating movements prior to the shooting?

Why would it have been stupid to shoot her if she was armed with a bomb? What's your alternative, let her detonate?

[former9thward]

173. At the point she was at she was not a threat to anyone, bomb or no bomb.

No reason to kill her. The police are militarized beyond any reason and we are seeing the results.

[DragonBorn]

174. How do you know?

What do you mean she wan't a threat bomb or no bomb? A bomb is a pretty damn big threat, epecially to anyone within range to shoot her with a handgun. Did this woman have anything in her hands? Did she reach for something? Its very possible she could have had a bomb with a remote trigger, we know now she didn't but at the time there was no way for the police to know.

Did you see video of the shooting? If so please post it , if not your just speculating. I doubt Capitol police shot this woman for no reason. I would give them the benifit of doubt in this situation and say that when this woman got shot she was still acting agressivly.

I'm a big critic of police shooting but this one appears to be by the book. Hindsight is 20/20.

[dgibby]

176. Link?

This is at least the second time I've seen someone post that she got out of the car. I'm not saying she didn't, but I've seen no evidence or read anything to support this. I'd love to read/see al link if you have one. Thanks!

[former9thward]

189. Sure.

Police then killed the driver after she got out of her vehicle and tried to flee.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/03/uscapitol-lockdown/2916679/

[dgibby]

190. Thanks. Appreciate it. n/t

[EX500rider]

180. Sure, going 80mph+ and running lights...

...in downtown DC in daytime, no danger there at all...........

[former9thward]

188. We gun down speeders now?

Maybe they do in your town. Not in mine. When she was gunned down she was getting out of her car. She was not doing 80mph.

[EX500rider]

194. Yes, she was shot for speeding..

.....not for trying to force entry into heavily guarded government properties or attempted vehicular homicide of officers.

[former9thward]

195. When she was shot she was doing none of that.

The cops decided to do the job of the court and executioner. But keep on defending them.

[EX500rider]

198. Actually she was shot for doing ALL of that. n/t

[former9thward]

199. At least you admitted it.

Thank you. She was doing NOTHING when she was shot. Your are correct. She was shot for her PAST actions. As I said the cops decided to be judge and executioner. If she had got to court she would not have been convicted of any death penalty offense. The cops decided to go around the court and impose their own sentence.

[Duckhunter935]

201. And you have seen this or can link to it?

I have not seen this

[former9thward]

205. Link to what?

The poster I was replying to said she was speeding and according to the poster that was enough for execution. She was out of her car and a danger to no one when shot.

edit for link

Police then killed the driver after she got out of her vehicle and tried to flee.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/03/uscapitol-lockdown/2916679/

[Barack_America]

20. How do you know what they were aiming at?

It's entirely possible the shots were aimed at the tires.

Honestly, I was surprised they held their fire when she was trying to hit them with the car. Perhaps they saw the child.

[Cerridwen]

29. They were firing in the direction of the car as it was speeding away.

That was my point. Anyone in the direction of the car was as likely to get hit as was the car or its occupants.

[dixiegrrrrl]

31. According to news I read

she did not miss one set of barriers, she rammed thru the barriers and towards the White House.

Because of gov. shut down, there were not as many people around, according to videos of the incident.

zero Hedge reported this right after the incident:
The situation in DC is fluid, but here is the most coherent narrative so far from NBC Washington DC: "A woman opened fire near the U.S. Capitol after trying to ram her car into the White House gates Thursday afternoon; she was then shot. A U.S. Capitol Police officer was injured in the event, though it is not clear that the officer was shot. The incident began at about 2:30 p.m. at the White House gates at 15th and E streets, NBC News confirmed. The driver tried to ram the gates but failed, and then was pursued by Secret Service.

[Cerridwen]

37. Did ya see the picture of the other car?

It was totalled badly.

Is Infiniti really that much sturdier or did each car collide with different barriers?

Since the report you've posted, they're not so sure she was armed. I may have missed a report that she was.

[Abq_Sarah]

57. The totalled police car

Ran over a delta barrier that was being deployed.

[Cerridwen]

62. "was being deployed."

Please explain. Was not deployed when she drove through? Was being deployed as he drove through?

Not snark. Confused. Uninformed. Ignorance on my part.

[Abq_Sarah]

66. They are large metal poles

That are generally retracted below street level. When roads need to be closed, the rods are raised up to form a barrier that will stop just about anything.

[Cerridwen]

70. Got that part.

Why wasn't one "being deployed" as she drove through?

Sorry. I don't expect you to have all the answers. I'm just trying to piece together the, well, pieces.

[Abq_Sarah]

71. I have no idea

And I imagine that someone is going to be answering a lot of questions about the timing. They might have engaged the barrier after she drove past to prevent her from coming back that way and this wasn't communicated to the police or the officer thought he could clear the area before the barrier engaged.

[Cerridwen]

72. Thanks. I hope we both know more in the weeks to come.

It's sad all around.

[dgibby]

89. She had passed the barriers before they were deployed.

She reached speeds of 80mph between WH and Capitol, rammed at least 2 police cars, injured a secret service officer, refused to stop when told to do so by police at 2 different stops, and had already tried to ram through a gate at the WH before heading for the Capitol. Considering the police had no idea if she was armed with a gun or had a bomb in the car, and that she was using her car as a weapon, I don't think they had any other option than the one they chose.

[loli phabay]

141. they are not instantaneous, probuably she cleared it as it was rising the cop car did not

[William769]

73. She was armed.

She was using her car as a deadly weapon. You may not want to admit that because it does not further your cause but thats a fact.

[dixiegrrrrl]

161. Yeah, the situation was pretty confused

when the first reports came in. Understandably so.
Sometimes I don't know when to take the official reports with a grain or a bucket of salt.

[sabrina 1]

86. She didn't fire at anyone because she didn't have a weapon in the car. She had

an infant, no weapon. The only shots fired came from the police. I would not have wanted to be a passerby with police shooting all over the place. That put a lot of people in danger. In NYC when police did something similar, shot at a thief, they killed passersby.

Why is it that in other civilized countries the police are able to stop an out of control car like this without killing anyone?

We have become so immune, and so used to violence, wars killing thousands of innocents, police killing civilians here, not to mention all the violent games and movies etc that we are okay with this kind of thing.

In other countries we are viewed as insane, unable to find any way to resolve anything slightly unusual without killing people.

I am shocked and am glad to still find it possible to be shocked by the killing of that woman. Who was unarmed, had a baby in the car and has never been known to be violent, but may have been suffering from post-partum depression.

We are such a paranoid, scared, fearful society and shamefully okay with the killing of other human beings.

[me b zola]

96. I share your thoughts on this

Tragic. Just so sad.

[think]

133. Great response.

I find this woman's death as another tragic fail for American law enforcement.

America needs to fucking start respecting life again.

Not to say the woman's action weren't warranting an aggressive response. But for the American people and the law enforcement community to feel they did a great job is a sad commentary on this country's values.

I'm rooting for acts of great humanity not acts of great authoritarian rule.

We've become a paranoid homicidal country willing to justify everything from this killing to tazing children for antisocial behavior.

To me this is reprehensible period.....

[sabrina 1]

170. Thank you. Sadly it seems we are in the minority on this. What a statement

that is about who we are. Hardly a shred of empathy for the mother of a baby who could have been detained if we had the imagination to do something, anything other than administer the instant Death Penalty.

But then we have kill lists, without hardly a whisper of complaint, and drone killings of innocents, with the approval even now, of Democrats.

We are a sad example of what is what is supposed to be 'civilization'.

[dgibby]

191. Probably because

in those other countries, the police have no/very low expectation that the occupants of the car may be armed with semi-automatic weapons, unlike the U.S. when every traffic stop could end up as another gunfight at the OK corral.

[ffr]

2. Watch the video on the sidebar. She could have killed someone and

she could have been carrying explosives. They didn't know. They're there to protect. They protected.

[Coyotl]

5. They also are duty bound to protect people that go crazy. It is not their fault they go crazy.

People go "off" normal for many reasons, often not of their own doing or choice. They can be poisoned, for example.

[JoePhilly]

21. Not if the crazy person is a risk to others.

[MiniMe]

36. The way she was driving the car was use of a deadly weapon

And bullets flying around the public is not safe either.

[theHandpuppet]

69. Of course it's not their fault

And they can maim and kill innocent people just the same.

[dgibby]

92. The police had no idea about her mental status,

or even who she was, or why she was trying to breach the WH gate or heading toward the Capitol at 80mph.

[diabeticman]

14. They could have disable the car with there guns. I personally don't feel protected when it seems

the deadly force is used because the what if is now warranting death force ask questions later.

[JoePhilly]

22. How exactly?

I mean on TV, the cop can shoot out a tire while riding on a horse, but, in real life, how does a cop just "disable the car" in this case?

[kestrel91316]

43. You, too, have been watching too much tv.

It's hard to stop a car by shooting at it. Best to aim for the driver, where if you hit them, the car WILL stop.

[sabrina 1]

87. This is America where the only solution to any problem is violence. How come

other countries manage to be more imaginative than we are when it comes to situations like this?

Eg, a few years ago a man managed to get into the Queen of England's bedroom. What do you think would have happened to him here? 'Oh, he could have been armed, he could have killed her etc.' There, they talked to him and escorted unharmed out of the Palace.

America, shoot first ask questions later.

[Ikonoklast]

175. No, they can't, Why do you think they use the spike strips when they can instead of a high-powered

rifle?

Because it is very difficult to shoot out the tires of a moving vehicle, even for an expert marksman.

This wasn't a movie, or some tv show, this was real life.

[ecstatic]

119. Is it a good idea to shoot a car carrying explosives?

Couldn't that set them off?

Look, they surrounded the car at one point and saw clearly that there was an unarmed woman and baby in the car.

[Jeneral2885]

124. right right

protect the perpetrator while you get rammed. Let's all be super pro-life!!!

[loli phabay]

144. not likely, the sop is to kill the the trigger so to speak ie the driver

Even then if there is a backup trigger watching you can at least stop the ied from reaching its target. I have no doubt that the thought of a car bomber was running through minds.

[Live and Learn]

4. I agree. But the majority of people these days

seem to have no compunction about harsh and instantaneous "punishment" of others. I find it very sad.

[pipoman]

47. So this was "punishment" and not protecting the public and, frankly, the child?

Never been in their position..or had their real life, life saving, realistic expectation training, huh?

[Live and Learn]

83. Shooting into the car was protecting the child?

Come on, now.

[pipoman]

131. Letting a crazed person

crash barricades and who knows what or who else go is protecting the child?

Come on now..

[Walk away]

97. What does stopping a highly dangerous person who is already using her car...

as an effective weapon have to do with punishment? Stopping someone from killing isn't punishment and stopping a car with guns is unlikely. Look at the Boston bomber. He drove his car through a hail of bullets, over his own brother and drove away.

[Richardo]

6. no one is in a position to second guess anything at this point.

I'm no expert but my thought is that 'shooting out the tires' is a low-percentage shot.

Perhaps the answers to your questions will be revealed after the matter has been looked into more thoroughly.

[Comrade Grumpy]

79. A tire seems like as big a target as a human head or torso.

[pipoman]

132. Go try it, then get back to us...

[Comrade Grumpy]

183. Okay, but unlike the cops in DC, I think I'll start with the tire.

[pipoman]

193. After about a dozen trys

you will see why nobody but teevee police try to shoot out tires..

[whopis01]

206. If the tires are run-flat then a shot to them won't stop the car.

I'm not sure which model she was driving, but on a car like an Infiniti, that would not be uncommon.

[elleng]

7. Thought of this too, of course,

but things were moving so quickly, they were trying to contain, avoid widespread harm, didn't know what she had, gun, bomb, or what she would do next. They ended up protecting the child from whatever harm might have occurred.

[Logical]

8. Imagine they did and then she still drives off and kills someone! nt

[Rex]

9. Oh well that has been the standing order, shoot to kill.

I once asked why they cannot just shoot a person in the leg, not really possible in a moving car. BTW, it looks like she ran over a cop car.

[pipoman]

42. And barely possible with the person moving 30 feet in front of you..

"why they cannot just shoot a person in the leg, not really possible in a moving car"

[Rex]

44. Yeah with a pistol more than likely.

Guessing where her leg might be, impossible.

[ScreamingMeemie]

11. Started in front of the WH...ended in front of the Capitol...so...um, no.

And I wouldn't want them to do otherwise. Unfortunate, but they had no choice. No need for flames....

I don't buy "post-9/11" media woo.

Deadly force would have been used in August of 2001, if this had happened then.

[Barack_America]

12. You can't know what someone doesn't have until after the fact.

You can't expect to ram the White House gates and survive.

I feel horribly for the child, but bottom line, it was her mother who put her in this awful situation.

[johnd83]

15. She ran over a cop

at that point it was over unless she surrendered.

[nobodyspecial]

18. And if she would have killed someone

people would be complaining that the police did not do enough to stop her.

The police did not know she was mentally ill, her intent or if she had a gun or bomb. They are forced daily to make split-second decisions. And as unpopular as it is here, they are not duty-bound to get killed in the process.

Did you watch the video? It's not like she got lost on a Sunday drive. Her actions were erratic and menacing. She could have run over pedestrians.

[Agnosticsherbet]

19. This isn't a televison show where the police/ sheriff / or the good guy shoots out the tires.

and stop the bad guys (usually leading to a cinematic cataclysmic explosion). You can drive with flat tires. It slows you down, doesn't stop you. She was fleeing the scene with a deadly weapon (a 2000 pound vehicle) that she used to ram a police car (according to the reports I read - that is assault with a deadly weapon.). Allowing her to drive away and possibly engage in another chase through the streets and endanger the lives of citizens wasn't a good option.

In resisting arrest she didn't give them a good choice.

The police here were not "protecting the American People and way of life." They were attempting to capture someone who attempted to crash the white house barrier and then evaded an arrest by engaging in a high speed chase through the city streets.

What happened was an avoidable tragedy. All she needed to do was surrender after they stopped her the first time.

[Nay]

39. Thank you. People watch way too much goddamn TV. nt

[kestrel91316]

45. + 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000

[diabeticman]

64. We haven't had Cable in 4 years! This was secret service, capitol police FBI basically the best

of the best and they couldn't throw down those tire strips I've seen them used in highway chases on local news reports.

[loli phabay]

138. they probuably did not have stingers to deploy, plus they are difficult to deploy

In an urban environment, much more suited to open highways.

[Skeeter Barnes]

75. Shoot the gun out of his hand!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

95. They should have shot

The keys out of the ignition, man.

[Comrade Grumpy]

80. Okay, I give. Why is a human head or torso an easier target than a tire?

[Agnosticsherbet]

158. Because shooting a trie doesn't stop the deadly weapon the person is driveing

Just slows them down. Most people, unless they are wearing body armor, stop when shot in the torso.

The police did not know if she had a weapon other than the car she was using as a weapon.

According to reports I've seen, this woman was stopped, she then used her vehicle to hit another car and drove away. She could have avoided what happened simply by surrendering to the police.

[Live and Learn]

84. Ha, those kind of cop shows went out with 1-Adam-12.

Today cop shows (and their viewers) seem to glorify violence.

[oneshooter]

200. It was not a deadly weapon.

According to DU members a car/vehicle is not a deadly weapon because it was not designed to kill. And because of that people killed by cars/vehicles do not count.

[gopiscrap]

23. that was my thought also

[geek tragedy]

24. putting bullets in tires will not stop a car, especially with puncture resistant tires. nt

[Lil Missy]

25. How could they know she didn't have a gun?? Or a bomb? She was

behaving in an EXTREMELY threatening and dangerous manner and they did what they had to do.

And while we're at it, how could they possibly know there was a baby in the car??

[Humanist_Activist]

26. We don't live in a hollywood fantasy...

you shoot at tires, and a bullet ricochets into the passenger compartment and hits the kid or driver. You shoot out the tires and she roars away with a car on just its wheels, which is more dangerous, by the way, because she loses some traction, and this can go for a few more miles, and that's assuming they aren't run flat tires.

She was a clear and present danger to everyone around at that moment, and while you mention the child, she put that child in direct danger by using her car as a battering ram with a child in the car.

[kestrel91316]

46. + 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000

[Humanist_Activist]

60. I remember, a year or so ago, in my area, a high speed chase...

that luckily ended with no deaths, but the thing is that it was a chase that went through two counties, a couple hours of driving, was caught, live, on video feeds from newscopters, and for much of the chase, the van the cops were chasing had at least 2 flat tires, it lasted a long time that way, the suspects eventually drove into a parking garage and gave up.

[sabrina 1]

172. No we don't live in a Hollywood Fantasy. We live in an extremely violent

culture where there is no solution for anything other than violence. No imagination as to how to handle someone who is mentally ill, no respect for human life. We are a sad example to the rest of the world that we have the gall to lecture on human rights issues. No wonder we have lost our moral authority.

[Humanist_Activist]

187. I don't see how your post is relevant...

She was the one who was violent, how would you have made her harmless? How would you have stopped her, with an EMP cannon the police just happen to have? Tranquilizer darts that can penetrate cars, but not people? I know, how about knock out gas, that always works! In movies and comic books.

[oneshooter]

204. Did you know she was mentally ill?

If you did then what did you do to inform the PD?

They had no idea what her mental state was. No more than you did at the time.

She acted like a terrorist and was treated as such.

[think]

207. "She acted like a terrorist" Holy fuck!

[sabrina 1]

210. How sad!

We truly are lost as a society. Maybe it's a phase and some day we will experience an enlightenment of some sort. But for now, this is such a sad, tragic society.

As for her mental health, I assumed she was mentally ill. Mentall healthy people do not do things like this. Did you need a confirmation?

[Warren Stupidity]

28. They had no idea what they were dealing with.

Yes hindsight is 20-20. At the time they had a large car trying to get through barricades. Shooting out the tires doesn't stop the car. Shooting the driver does.

[Abq_Sarah]

61. She wasn't shot

Until the car was stopped and she exited the vehicle. At that point, she and her vehicle were no longer a threat. She came out unarmed and they gunned her down.

[dgibby]

94. Link please.

There was nothing on the video to suggest she was ever out of the car. If you know this for a fact, please post a link. Thanks.

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. Not a flame but...

Not a Hollywood production.

That is a nice trick shot.

[Humanist_Activist]

38. Exactly, just like people who say you can shoot people in legs or arms...

this isn't Hollywood where people just walk off those type of wounds, and cars can't be easily disabled without disabling the person who is driving them.

[NightWatcher]

33. People watch too much tv. You don't shoot tires or engines

When a driver is using a vehicle as a weapon, you disable the driver.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

34. What was she trying to do?

If she was metally ill why was she driving with a 1 year old child?

[pipoman]

40. I had the opportunity to try this Hollywood

stunt at a shooting school I attended. Master pistol shooters were maybe 1 in 15 or 20 tries..most of those were through the rim, not the tire. No, it would be negligent and stupid to try to shoot the tires out. Police training emphasizes over and over..if you are shooting at someone you shoot at center of mass..not their leg, arm, head, bicycle, or car..

[kestrel91316]

41. You've watching way too many bad tv shows and movies.

When deadly force is used, as she did, deadly force is returned, AS IS APPROPRIATE under these circumstances.

Real police don't shoot tires out. They have enough trouble hitting a suspect who isn't even moving.

[HipChick]

48. She was black...

I'm just glad they didn't kill the baby in the car...but I suspect no matter what race she was, in that area, the end result would have been the same..I know I got yelled at by SS, cut off by FBI and generally told to move my butt by DC police -sometimes all in one day..

[Supersedeas]

126. your experience is enough to make us wonder whether race wasn't a factor here

when will they identify the race of the shooter?

[loli phabay]

148. i think the shooter was blue, not that it matters.

[Marrah_G]

49. This ended this way because she tried to drive her car through the WH gates

What if she had a bomb?

She gave them no choice.

[damnedifIknow]

50. From what I've read around the net, not just about this tragedy

but other incidents as well it seems as if paranoia has taken over and our first instinct is to eliminate the threat. Eliminate by deadly force.

[robinlynne]

53. I think this is not instinct, but training.

[robinlynne]

51. Shooting her car might have killed several people, inlcuyidng the baby. I see your point,

but a car is a deadly weapon. really.

[xfundy]

52. They could have tased her

while they were leaning into the open windows. Or fired tranquilizing darts, which, of course, wouldn't have kicked in for a few minutes.

Of course this is maximum security, but it would sure be nice to be able to talk with her and analyze why she did what she did. I'd suspect major paranoia, probably colored or created by Fox Noise or other crazy-assed media. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that they could have captured her car in a net and lifted it by helicopter to a place where she could have spoken on why she did it.

[TheMightyFavog]

63. Trank darts are very iffy

You get the drug dosage wrong, hit the person in the wrong place, or later find out the person has a certian medical condition, or is on drugs which interact with the tranks they can be FATAL.

[Humanist_Activist]

68. Tranquilizing darts are lethal in a lot of cases, and unreliable in others...

and as you said, it takes several minutes to take affect, the tazer idea is just too ridiculous to contemplate, especially shooting from one moving vehicle to another.

This woman, given her actions and refusal to surrender, would have been shot for being a danger to others, period.

Also, what net? You are talking about applying technologies that aren't appropriate(or possible) in this situation, how the fuck would you deploy a net that would stop her vehicle, where would it be mounted? How do you guarantee that she would drive into it, or over it, or something? Is it strong enough to stop the car?

This isn't science fiction, we don't have practical EMP cannons, and there's one set of laws we all have to obey, the laws of physics.

[dgibby]

93. Did you see the video? The windows were up (and tinted),

and she was using the car as a battering ram.

BTWI hope you forgot the sarcasm thingy, because otherwise......net a car running 80mph through DC traffic? Really?

[ecstatic]

121. Just want to point out that the car

was leased--so even if there was a tint, it was at or beneath the legally allowed amount. The cops knew who was inside that car because they had completely surrounded her at one point.

[handmade34]

208. can't say that with surety

she may have had the windows tinted?? the cops may not have seen well enough into the car to identify... they had no idea there was a child in the car until it was over...

[brooklynite]

55. You knew when it was happening that she didn't have a gun? Why didn't you tell the police?

...because I suspect that they didn't know that either. What they did know was that a person in a car apparently tried to break into the White House perimeter, and then drove off recklessly, endangering both police and the public.

[Abq_Sarah]

65. Did you see the pictures of the front end of her car?

It was by no means caved in. She obviously didn't try to break through the barriers because she sure as hell wasn't going fast enough to cause anything other than superficial damage to the front end of her Infiniti. No hood buckling, no busted front end and no air bag deployment.

[DebJ]

58. Yes it was a tragedy. But do you know what the accuracy rate is for local police?

About 20% is what I heard from a Federal Police Officer. Shooting tires on a speeding vehicle
doesn't sound like a remote possibility.

My son suffers from bipolar disorder and so I always cringe and cry a bit inside when I hear that
someone with mental disabilities has been shot.

But I also think about protection of the rest of the public.

[Th1onein]

59. Where's the link to the story you're talking about?

[damnedifIknow]

67. This is a good read by the DOJ in PDF format on conerns over the use of deadly force

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/132789NCJRS.pdf

[DevonRex]

74. She wasn't shot when they had her surrounded. She should have gotten out and given up

right then. She'd be alive and that child wouldn't have seen her shot dead.

Never forget: until she began ramming WH barriers and speeding over to the Capitol and trying the same thing there, it was a peaceful day in Washington D.C. I don't know why the lady did what she did. But the Capitol and WH Police gave her an opportunity to give herself up. Their professionalism is second to none. Once she took off speeding for the second time, her fate was sealed, as soon as an officer had a clear shot and she wasn't in the process of surrendering.

She had run down an officer, wrecked a police car, tried to breach WH and Capitol security, was endangering civilians and lawmakers alike, not to mention a baby in her own vehicle. And no one knew what she might have in the car that might be detonated at any time.

You can feel free to second guess their professional judgment. The Capitol Police aren't tasked with ensuring attackers are safe; they're tasked with ensuring the safety of the people who work there and visit there.

[FSogol]

98. +1000 n/t

[raccoon]

117. Amen--great post. nt

[mnhtnbb]

99. Exactly.

[HappyMe]

102. That's it exactly.

[damnedifIknow]

108. Since when is fleeing from police a death sentence?

This sure isn't the only case.

[ScreamingMeemie]

109. Since it happened in front of the WH and the Capitol... since they

had her stopped. Since she "fled" after she had been stopped.

[damnedifIknow]

111. Oh I see

SMH....I'll be at the bar.

[ScreamingMeemie]

112. Act like that in the nation's Capitol, in front of the residence of a man

who's quite possibly received more death threats than any other President... expect this to happen.

I'd rather not revisit November, 1963.

Have fun at the bar. I don't "do" SMH-ing. I'm a grownup.

[DevonRex]

186. The answer to that was in my post above.

I see no reason to repeat it.

[oldhippie]

146. Just a nit pick, but .....

.. if the child was properly secured in a car seat, I believe it would be in the back seat and facing backwards, so the child probably saw nothing. Probably still scared, though. Hopefully, at that age she won't remember any of it.

[lostincalifornia]

203. It was an unknown, and if the car was wired to explode what would have been the results if they did

Not do what they did

Everything involves risk evaluation

[krispos42]

76. A car is a weapon.

A weapon, arm, or armament is any device used in order to inflict damage or harm to living beings, structures, or systems.

From Wikipedia.

Cars are tough. Flesh is soft and tender. Watch "World's Wildest Police Chases" some time to see how tough a car is to stop in the hands of a determined driver. Four flats, blown out radiator, missing tires, and massive structural damage does not stop the determined driver. And handguns do not do a good job of damaging engines; the bullets are not powerful enough.

Of course, determined people are pretty hard to stop with bullets, too, but a good hit can incapacitate in as few as a dozen seconds. And a head shot or spine shot is usually instantly fatal.

I guess if you could shoot the engine control management computer a modern car (last 20 years) would shut down immediately, but how do you do that? Where is it, and how much metal is between the cop and the motherboard?

[Sivafae]

77. The lesson to be learned here is that it was too late to help her.

She should have gotten the help she needed BEFORE it got this far. My heart breaks for her and her child. However, if she received the help she needed before this happened, it wouldn't have happened.

I also question any medications she might have been taking. I know from experience that SSRI's are dangerous and cause hostility. When I started showing signs of hostility, I should have been taken off the meds immediately. I wasn't. A clinical pharmacist, the one who prescribed me my meds, has no excuse, hostility is a black box warning. The manufacturers say it only affects .02 per cent of those who take it. I am not so sure. If a diabetic shows signs of the negative affects of their disease, they get treated completely different.

My main point is that she needed help before this.
So sad.

[stevenleser]

115. + infinity. That is the answer. nt

[NotThisTime]

78. We had a case such as this in our city.... with the same result. I'm sorry she was killed but for

whatever reason she did this she put people's lives at risk, a lot of people's, for all the Capitol Police knew the woman was a terrorist, a madman or any number of things. I'm extraordinarily sad for her family but it was a warranted use of force.

[Riftaxe]

82. Perhaps they lacked your super powers....

Face it, in the real world if NASA can piss away $120M on an orbiter because no one at the agency can convert from English to metric units, perhaps it is a bit much to expect your average DC officer to fantastically and instantly judge the angle and trajectory of a magical ballistic shot.

If you are worried about being shot during a psychotic rampage, the best advice I can give you is to avoid going on one.

[nomorenomore08]

85. I'm as sensitive to the notion, and reality, of excessive force by police as anybody is

but this is not one of those cases. This woman was a clear danger to others, manifestly prepared to use deadly force - ramming the WH gates and then leading a high-speed chase, both potentially lethal (to innocent bystanders) actions - so what happened to her, while tragic, wasn't unjustified.

[dgibby]

90. You do realize the police had no way of knowing if she had a gun or a bomb in the car, right? n/t

[Niceguy1]

91. you have only

Seconds to react in these situations. Tjere is no time for what if or lets try this or lets jump out of they way. You have to stop the threat decisively before the threat stops you.

[B Calm]

100. Because of the shut down, I heard the cops were not on the payroll.

Is this true?

[HappyMe]

118. Yes it is.

They were all working without pay.

[ileus]

101. She shouldn't have been shooting at the police and giving chase.

[maddezmom]

104. She wasn't shooting as she had no gun

[FlaGranny]

103. The car

is a weapon. Not only did she use it as a weapon, she drove it through the city at 80 miles an hour, blowing through traffic lights. It's a miracle she didn't kill some people, and shooting her could well have prevented her from killing some people. I'm not a "cowboy," but it is obvious to me that she was a very real danger to everyone in her vicinity.

[Dorian Gray]

105. not flamed

I understand your sentiment.

BUT... there really was no choice. A potential attack on the White House has to be met with a strong reaction. I'm glad her child was safe. I don't know how they'd know there was a child in the car when the were pursuing her, though.

[ellenrr]

106. I agree. you pose the exact question I've been asking myself all morning. nt

[randome]

107. You're thinking of Superman and Batman, not cops.

It's not so easy to think through every possible scenario when someone is threatening you and endangering others.

I'm surprised they let her pull away from the first crash. They gave her more than enough opportunity to stop endangering people.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[LaydeeBug]

110. For the police cruiser to be as mangled as it is, the car didn't seem that damaged

and that she was unarmed is disconcerting.

[ScreamingMeemie]

113. The police cruiser was not hit by her car. It hit a barrier after losing control.

While it is sad, people are expecting the police to have some sort of ESP here.

What happened is sad, but it was the right thing... given the location and the videotaped events.

[LaydeeBug]

114. Oh, I see. I didn't know that, so thank you

I actually don't have the stomach to watch these sorts of things, so I readily admit I haven't watched anything

[Jeneral2885]

125. wow

blame the police. What next, petition to ban police ?

[ScreamingMeemie]

128. Wha--?

Huh?

Need some coffee?

That's not exactly my stance on this situation...

[seabeyond]

116. did they know if she had a bomb in the car and was gonna ram a building of senators? did they know

she had a baby in the car?

i would have liked to see it calm enough that they were able to get her out of the car and arrest her. i also clearly understand where the issues were that resulted in what happened.

[Jeneral2885]

127. would they know so much?

watch the video. They pointed guns at her first. They didn't shoot. She executed the mad 180 turn and drove off fast.

[seabeyond]

130. ya. what does that have to do with it. she tried going into the white house.

of course they pointed guns at her. then she ran. and ended up at the hart building. again, more politicians. what does your post have to do with what i said? i do not get the connection.

[HappyMe]

135. I wish it had ended better too.

They had no way of knowing what sort of explosives or what was in the car. You just can't threaten the WH or the Capital like that. She was given the chance to surrender, but she sped off.

To me, she was the one who put her child's life in jeopardy when she put the baby into the car in CT.

[seabeyond]

137. that is how i see it. as sad as it is. as much as i would like it to be different. nt

[RedCappedBandit]

120. No, she didn't *have* to die. nt

[apnu]

122. She injured a cop. That sends them into a tizzy.

I've known many cops on a personal level. I'm not trying to dis them. But if you touch a cop for any reason the whole force goes bonkers on you. Its how they're trained and more about the high levels of paranoia they operate under. When your job is to hunt down the suspicious, that messes with your psyche.

[Jeneral2885]

123. So you care for the child?

How about think of being driven in a maniac speed across the capital? Or must we all be all pro-lifers to the extent that police should not shoot at all. Perhaps then you should move to the UK where most police officers are unarmed and cannot shot to kill.

[GoCubsGo]

129. Easier said than done.

I recently heard a statistic that said that cops at target practice only hit the target something like 37% of the time. That's a non-moving target at the shooting range. This woman was going as fast as 80 mph. Those tires are only a couple of feet in diameter. Good luck hitting them.

Not trying to justify law enforcement's actions or the outcome of this situation. Just saying that shooting out the tires of a speeding vehicle in traffic is not as easy as one might think.

[loli phabay]

153. i think that stat is low, to qualify you have to get eighty percent and above

What makes it harder is you have to draw from your holster on a timed target at different ranges, ie two rounds in three seconds at ten yards etc, what drops the shooters percentage is shots that end on paper but not in the bottle. Also the longer range shots tend to be the ones missed.

[GoCubsGo]

159. Regardless...

It's still pretty damn difficult to hit a tire at 80 mph on a city street.

[loli phabay]

160. hell i am an expert shot with all my weapons and i would be lucky with a whole

Mag to do it.

[GoCubsGo]

163. Exactly. n/t

[Democat]

134. This was a no win situation for the police

If they hadn't stopped her and she killed people, people would have asked why they didn't shoot her to stop her.

She died before killing anyone, so people are asking why they had to stop her so quickly.

[cbdo2007]

136. LOL

[loli phabay]

139. problem with shooting tires is that a lot of the time the round bouces off

You pretty much have to be square on plus you may hit the rim as well.

[randome]

151. That's what I'm thinking. Too much action movie comparisons going on here.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers. It's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[loli phabay]

155. yup, from experience tires are not something you want to shoot at with a handgun

Now a fifty cal is a different matter but with that you shoot the engine.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

140. a person fires shots into a crowd...

then, same person takes their gun and begins to try to get away... do you shoot them? if you have a decent shot? or do you let them run off with their gun after having shown that they will use it to harm innocents?

sP

[Savannahmann]

143. I'm going to answer your querstion honestly.

I'm going to tell you the truth, and many here will like my answer less than your question. The truth is that the focus of the police has changed, from protecting the public to protecting themselves and other cops first.

The focus of the police used to be to protect and serve the public, this was a long time ago. Thirty years ago, the police had to see a reason to shoot, in other words. They had to see a gun, and most departments had rules about shooting back, instead of shooting first. That led to the prevalence of bad cops, of which all are, dropping guns on suspects. Many of us are old enough to remember the cops who shot children holding toy guns. They saw a gun in that instance, they saw a gun and even I who am no fan of law enforcement would agree in that instance, the shooting was justified. Because in that officers place, I would believe that my life was in danger and I had to shoot.

Then the paradigm shifted. It went from protecting the public, to the first rule of law enforcement being going home at the end of the shift. So we started to see shootings where people holding wallets were shot down, because the cop saw something in his hand, and assumed it was a gun. We accepted that, because we had accepted the shootings of children with toy guns. Then it was a motion, they were reaching inside their jacket, purse, bag, car, pocket. They might have a gun, and we couldn't risk it.

Now, it's shoot first, and then swear up and down that the individual was crazy. Think about it, the shooting happened at what, three or so? Before an hour had gone by, the first results of the investigation were that the suspect was a lunatic. She was just crazy.

That goes back to the Old Yeller school of thought. We might not like it, but we do have to put down a mad dog mentality. So the police are like that boy, bravely doing something they don't want to, doing the manly/adult/responsible thing and putting the mad dog down.

The truth is that the Police have long abused our support. Even when we catch them in egregious wrongdoing, we are told to try and understand that they have a difficult dangerous job. The truth is that we the citizens are in far more danger from the police, than they are from us. Reckless and irresponsible is what I would categorize most police activity as. Yes, I put my money where my mouth is by donating to the ACLU.

Statistically speaking Police are more likely to die from auto related incidents than they are any other cause. But we still see them driving about without a seatbelt, on the remote chance they might have to get out of the car quickly. So we taxpayers are stuck paying for their survivor benefits, or huge medical costs, because they won't wear a seatbelt. Then they point out that so many cops died last year, we have to understand that they must take action. So we don't look at the numbers, we nod our heads and agree. We have to give them the benefit of the doubt even while they aren't giving anyone else the same consideration.

So it's shoot first and swear they were crazy later. They could have taken her into custody. They had her surrounded. They had her contained. There was no threat to the populace, but the adrenaline junkies that wear badges now have to unleash that fury onto whomever has so disrespected them by failing to bow and scrape.

[randome]

149. 'Shoot first'? Did you see the video?

They had her surrounded. She refused to stop endangering people. They went out of their way to give her a chance to stop.

And I think shooting out tires is too much of an action movie theme that does not work well in real life. I would think ricochets would be a dangerous consequence.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers. It's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[Savannahmann]

162. Yes I did.

The path was blocked. The car was trapped. It had no where to go. The threat to the public was contained. At that point, there was no reason to assume that the threat would escape. She was surrounded. The only thing that could have happened theoretically was that there could have been an explosive in the car. But it was not a heavy truck, but a small sedan. So figure a couple hundred pounds. But if that was the case, why didn't she detonate the explosive at the White House. Ten seconds of rapid thought would have led a reasonably intelligent person through this process.

So why did they HAVE to shoot? She was contained, the threat was contained. Every one of those officers had a collapsible metal pipe called an ASP, which would have broken the window quite nicely. Just as well as the bullets managed to I might add. Then a TASER would have made it more than easy to put the cuffs on. But the officers in question started shooting, and then others shouted shots fired and the reports went out that the suspect had a gun.

Protect and serve? PFUI. I don't believe it. And either do many others.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/04/why-did-capitol-hill-police-open-fire/

An internal investigation. The kind the public has no say in, and the kind the public will be informed that all was perfect and the awesome law enforcement heros had no choice.

Remember the 1970's? When Civilian Oversight was first started? When a panel of civic leaders would sit and listen to the use of force reports? They used to conduct their own investigations. What ever happened to those? You never hear about them anymore. Why not? Why was it a good idea in big cities of the 1970's, but now we can't afford to have civilian oversight of law enforcement?

[randome]

164. My point was that they clearly did not 'shoot first' the first time they had her surrounded.

When she plowed through an officer by speeding away. Hindsight is always easier. They clearly went out of their way to give her a chance to stop. They may have even violated procedures to do so.

They may have acted rashly the last time they had her cornered but I don't see the point of denigrating them after they went out of their way the first few times to stop her peacefully.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers. It's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[Savannahmann]

167. Denigrating?

Asking questions is denigrating? The original post was why did they have to shoot. The answer I gave was the change in attitude towards police, and the history of "acceptable" police shootings from the 1970's to today. Was any of my history inaccurate? It was the 1980's that we saw the first of the darkened apartment shootings of children playing with toy guns. Also the era when the police went from the .38 special revolver to the 9mm pistols, called at the time the "Wondernines" starting with the Beretta 9mm. Then in the 1990's we saw the evolution of the he had a gun and we had to shoot to the we thought he had a gun and we had to shoot. Even this decade we've seen several shootings where the suspect gunned down had a wallet or other innocuous item in his hand and was gunned down.

My answer revolved around the idea that we had to question where we are with the use of force by the Police. Your answer to my response was that they had no choice but to protect the public. I pointed out that was not true, that the threat was contained, and then I posted a link where others in the media are now asking the questions.

I also pointed out that an hour after the shooting, we had reports that the driver was crazy. Now, how did they identify the suspect positively, access medical records through her Doctor/Hospital/clinics, and conduct the interviews to determine the mental state of the suspect in that short of a time period? They could not have, unless the NSA had it all cross referenced now, which you and others will say is CT nonsense. So we're left with a prepared response, an automatic response if you will.

In 1988 I was working as a Security Guard. I wanted more money, and took a course to get more certification. I went for the "baton" course, which would allow me to carry and use a nightstick. During that course, a sworn police officer teaching the course told the class that if we ever had to use the nightstick, to tell any witnesses that the suspect was a child molester. The idea being that we could turn the witnesses more friendly by making them think we were beating a person that everyone hated and should hate. I never said that.

So if the cops were in 1988 offering suggestions to use prepared lies to change the view of witnesses what makes you think that prepared lies are not a part of their normal procedure today?

[JonLP24]

154. Excellent post nt

[ecstatic]

166. Good points.nt

[Live and Learn]

181. +1 nt

[onenote]

196. I thought you said below that the cops were making a risky move by shooting her

because it could have triggered a deadman switch. If that was the case, or at least a possibility, then it seems like the police were not putting themselves above anyone else. They were putting themselves (and, yes, possibly others) by shooting her. Of course, if she had a bomb -- and, no they didn't know she didn't have one -- they would have been preventing possible harm not just to themselves but others.

Interesting that when law enforcement went to Ms. Carey's residence in CT, they evacuated the building before using a robot device to check the premises. Even after they knew that she didn't have a bomb in the car. Over reaction? Maybe. But they weren't just protecting themselves -- they made sure everyone else in the building was safe as well.

[Savannahmann]

211. You need to read the entire respone

I said that if she had a bomb, on a dead man switch then shooting her could have triggered it. However I also said that was not the case obviously since she did not detonate it at the White House. Because let's be honest for a moment, just a moment. If you were going to attack your enemy, and you see the Government as your enemy, President Obama is a much more visible, and identifiable target than Congress. Even a lunatic would know that, ask James Brady.

So the idea that she had a bomb should have lasted about ten seconds. I give them ten seconds from the time she left the White House to rule that out. Ditto with the weapons, if she had one, the perfect time to use it was when she was surrounded by police on foot. Then at least you have a chance of shooting one of them and only having body armor instead of two tons of metal to shoot around or through.

Also below, I pointed out that the police have the insane story on the tips of their tongues. I'm glad you agree with me that they are very quick to use that.

[LanternWaste]

147. So I'm, wondering... how precisely would you have accomplished the same outcome

So I'm, wondering... how precisely would you have accomplished the same outcome sans her death with zero risk to you, your co-workers and anyone in the immediate vicinity?

[Savannahmann]

182. Interesting demand. Zero risk.

Frankly, the use of force, by shooting, was far riskier than not shooting. If the woman had a bomb in the car, say four hundred pounds of explosives in the trunk of that sedan, then shooting her could have set off the deadman switch. So the risk in shooting could have reasonably been far higher than not shooting. But they knew she didn't have a bomb, because if she had, she would have detonated it at the White House instead of the Capital. So there was no reason to suspect a bomb.

Perhaps she might have had a gun, but then wouldn't she have used it outside the White House when she was surrounded by cops on foot? So that was highly improbable under the circumstances.

So what risk is left? She was contained, blocked by other cars, and barricades. The threat was isolated. What risk existed now? She might start to ram the other cars, but she was contained. Breaking the window with their metal clubs would have taken a second, or two. Reaching in and opening the door four seconds, or perhaps three. In fifteen seconds flat they could have had her out of the car, with the risk being one of them might have been hit, or bitten. If she'd had a weapon, a proper weapon, probability is she would have come out with it at the White House.

Zero risk is asinine. It is a lie, and you know it even as you type it. If they want a career where there is zero risk involved, then they should not put a badge on their chest, but should have taken up accounting where the risk factor is carpel tunnel and eyestrain. They wanted to have the power that went with being a cop, they wanted the authority and the benefits, and now you suggest that they shouldn't have any risk? Pfui. If that is the standard, they aren't protecting and serving anything but themselves, and I want to stop paying for them in that case.

[LanternWaste]

184. we are left only with our powers of prophecy.

I imagine it is rather convenient to conflate "question" and "demand". Despite being two wholly separate concepts, it certainly does allow one to pretend the high moral ground predicated on melodramatic petulance.




So, I guess no one actually knows how to prevent yesterday's occurrence with zero risk, and we are left only with our powers of prophecy... also known as "second guessing."

Pretty much what I imagined, though-- pretense, guessing, presumptions and hind-sight.

[Seeking Serenity]

150. They shoulda just used the Force!

Or used a tractor beam to control the car.

Or maybe blow with their super-cold breath to freeze it.

[aikoaiko]

156. I'm fine with the way the police handled the situation.

[MNBrewer]

168. OMGZZZ In front of a ChilD!!!!11!

Oh the HUGE MANATEE!

[Nye Bevan]

169. "Shoot out the tires" is about as realistic as "Set Phasers to Stun".

Real life is quite a bit different from TV and movies.

[ann---]

178. I agree up to the point where

she was using the car as a weapon. She could have killed someone with that car. I still don't see why they couldn't shoot out her tires since the were SO close to the car! Didn't they see the little child in there? Horrible. America is a violent nation.

[appleannie1]

179. She had already hit someone with her car and backed into a police car then narrowly missed hitting

another officer when they had surrounded her and tried to apprehend her. It had reached a point where they did what they had to do to keep others from being hurt or killed.

[sagat]

185. Why didn't the CIA hack into the car and turn off the engine?

Curse this shutdown!

[damnedifIknow]

197. The thing is a spike strip solves the problem

[underthematrix]

202. Sorry Emoprogs - in case you didn't know

the Secret Service uses DEADLY FORCE whenever necessary. Based on the situation, it was necessary. It's very sad for the woman and the child. They guard the president, the vice president and their families, their space and the surrounding perimeter. At all times, I want the Secret Service to make the President and his Family and the Vice President and his family, their ABSOLUTE FIRST PRIORITY - ALWAYS!!

[handmade34]

209. after reading a number of reports

it was certain that the driver of the car was erratic and had no regards for human life... rolling a SS officer off her hood, driving at speeds up to 80 mph through DC, ramming a police car and fleeing, barely missing running into/over officers...

knowing what seems to be true from various reports, I would not fault the officers for their actions... the officers did not know who was driving, if the driver had weapons, the officers did not know there was a child in the car...

I do not always support police action but in this case, I do (with what I know to be true)...