Shooting someone from the sky--- when that someone is traveling 100 miles per hour----sounds.....

[trumad]

far more dangerous than the live suspect driving 100 miles per hour---I don't care if that person is driving on the wrong side of the road.

Read a piece today about cops in a Helicopter shooting a suspect in that very same scenario.

OK---I know it's very dangerous for a suspect to drive against traffic at that speed---I get it. But there is a tiny semblance of control. If you shoot and kill the suspect while the suspect is driving at 100 miles per hour---there ain't no control. You basically have a unmanned 4000 pound hunk of metal hurtling down the freeway.

thoughts?

[NutmegYankee]

1. I believe the intended target was the engine.

But there are a lot of variables when aiming from a moving object with irregular wind patterns below.

[trumad]

2. Damn right---

I think they're lucky the crash wasn't far worse. If they disabled the engine with the shot---the truck probably would have simply stopped.

[NutmegYankee]

3. The only reason the truck crashed was the driver bailed out.

If he had stayed with it, he probably was have steered it to a stop.

[trumad]

4. He got shot according to Authorities.

[NutmegYankee]

6. Yes, but he also jumped out of the truck and ran for a bit.

So the truck now had no one controlling it and that caused it to plow into another vehicle.

[trumad]

10. Right---I think that's my point.

[tkmorris]

24. Which is why you don't take that shot

Everything which occurred afterward was a completely predictable consequence of doing so. Sure, you can place the blame on the driver, but that serves no purpose. If you know that shooting at the vehicle from a helicopter is highly likely to result in a dangerous high speed crash you find another solution.

[Travis_0004]

7. I highly doubt it

Unless the shooter had no experience, a bullet just will not disable an engine. I'm assuming .223 was likely the ammo used. Perhaps .308.

Either one of those are not going to stop an engine from running. You could get lucky and hit a water pump, or the radiator, but you could still drive the car for quite a while before the engine stopped running from overheating.

[NutmegYankee]

12. All I have is an earlier report that the officer was aiming for the hood.

I don't know what round the officer was using.

[Nay]

5. That was my first thought -- crappy use of a rifle from a helicopter. It's easily

conceivable that it would cause more injuries and damage than just waiting the driver out, or -- gee, whatever happened to roadblocks and spike strips?

[Hortensis]

49. 100 wrong way mph on a freeway? I came within seconds of instant death

when a car going speeding the wrong way in the fast lane of a L.A. freeway intersected the second car ahead of me, which was itself going about 70. I saw nothing of the impact but debris flying everywhere as the 2 cars exploded, bringing 5 lanes of early rush-hour traffic screeching to a 5-hour halt. It's amazing that more people weren't hurt.

It turned out this was the wrong-way driver's way of committing suicide. I've often wondered what the young man ahead of me thought in the split second he may have had to register what was happening as he rounded the curve where he died.

I never automatically trust the police (by a long shot), but no one but the guy who put so many other people's lives on the line died in this incident, so maybe they did something right.

[pintobean]

8. It's always easy to second guess after the fact

The result is a dead bad guy and 3 people injured; two of them minor injuries, and the other is recovering. No telling what would/could have happened if they hadn't shot him at that point.

And, there's this:

Friday's shooting was the seventh from a sheriff's helicopter since the mid-1980s, when deputies began receiving regular training in using weapons from the air, spokeswoman Jodi Miller said.

<snip>

While helicopter shootings are rare, deputies who fly for the department "train from the air every 90 days at a minimum," sheriff's spokeswoman Jodi Miller said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/helicopter-shot-hit-wrong-way-driver-california-officials/

[trumad]

9. Second guess?

So my scenario couldn't happen?

[pintobean]

14. Yeah, second guess

Do you know what the term means?

judge or criticize (someone) with hindsight

[trumad]

18. You didn't answer my question.

[pintobean]

23. Your scenario didn't happen.

The cops did their job without the loss of innocent life.

[840high]

26. ...+1

[Archae]

13. The guy was a menace.

Our armchair police can yell about shooting the guy, but the fact is, he was a potentially lethal time bomb.

From the CBS link:

Friday's chase began in Devore, east of Los Angeles, when deputies tried to pull over a man believed to have committed a home invasion robbery there a day earlier, authorities said.

The beige Chevrolet Tahoe instead led deputies on an afternoon chase through neighboring cities at 100 mph or more. The SUV blew through stop signs and red lights, narrowly missed pedestrians and then began heading the wrong way on northbound Interstate 215, according to the sheriff's statement.

In Muscoy, a deputy opened fire from a helicopter, hitting the SUV several times and wounding the driver, who jumped out of the moving car and ran a few yards before collapsing and dying on the side of the roadway, authorities said.

[pintobean]

15. Exactly. It was a good shoot

I guess the armchair police would prefer waiting to see how many innocent people would have been killed before the Tahoe ran out of fuel.

[trumad]

20. As usual ..the point whooshes right over your head.

[pintobean]

22. You seem to think the shot-up bad guy

stepped out of a vehicle traveling at 100 mph and started running. I'm going to side with the professionals on this one.

[trumad]

19. That's not the fucking point of the fucking thread...

I swear this place is insane.

[Archae]

21. Then what is the point?

[trumad]

36. Seriously?

[Archae]

38. Yes.

[trumad]

39. Funny how about 99.9 percent get the point

Must be lonely out there...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

25. Are you arguing that killling the driver would create a dangerous situation for nearby civilians?

Because the basis of the incident is a home invasion -- a violent felony -- resulting in a 100 mph pursuit into on-coming traffic. The suspect had already created a dangerous situation for every civilian around him including, presumably, the ones whose home he invaded.

I'm no fan of the police but I can't help but think killing him, even as he was driving, was pretty much cutting our losses at that point.

[Demit]

27. I understand your point & I agree.

People here seem to be so admiring of the sharpshooting that they're forgetting innocent people were hurt & hospitalized. I think the cops were cowboys and didn't care about the ramifications. I'm appalled that people here are so dismissive of the bystanders' injuries.

[pintobean]

29. Pffft. You're blaming the cops for the injuries?

Who would you have blamed if the perp had killed the home occupants and mowed down a few pedestrians on his way to the freeway?

[Demit]

32. That didn't happen, did it? If if if. If my aunt had wheels she'd be a teacart.

[pintobean]

33. We're done here.

[Demit]

40. Good. Nobody invited you to comment.

[trumad]

34. The gun crowd

[yeoman6987]

30. Your point didn't happen

What did happen was brilliant and I hope awards are given out. Great job by all involved.

[Stinky The Clown]

11. Since shooting a rifle at a car from a helicopter is a bad idea . . . . .

. . . . . and since some others discussing this incident think the shooting was justified because the crook was driving the wrong way at 100 mph, how about we just uparmor the cops and blackhawks to shoot these guys deader faster better.

(This comment wasn't actually aimed at you, trumad, but at others who have entered into this debate in other threads.)

[oneshooter]

17. You mean like this?

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Stinky The Clown]

31. I have absolutely no doubt some cops would love to have that.

And would want to use it as implied by the picture.

[Downwinder]

16. Just wait for the armed drones.

[cherokeeprogressive]

28. Anyone who's ever ridden in a helicopter can describe the turbulence...

I can't imagine what it might be like shooting an unmounted rifle out the door. I'm guessing that at 600 feet in a place known for being breezy if not downright windy, a rifle barrel might waver a foot or so in turbulence. How far off might the shot be if the barrel wavers 12" at the moment of trigger pull and the target is 600' away?

Fucking idiocy and any state official worth his or her salt would immediately propose and submit legislation outlawing shooting at suspects from helicopters in flight.

ETA: The fact it's only happened seven times since the 1980's shows it's obviously not the action of choice when trying to stop a criminal in flight (no pun intended).

[trumad]

35. Good post

But as you can see..the gun gang loves it.

[cherokeeprogressive]

37. I'm trippin' out on some of the replies...

I support the Second Amendment and I believe the law must be enforced; but this is idiocy in action.

[former9thward]

41. Never ending second guessing.

The suspect was NOT going 100 mph relative to the cop. The cop is going 100 mph in a helicopter so the relative speed difference is practically zero. In that situation take the shot. If the suspect had smashed into a vehicle and killed a bunch of people there would be threads condemning him for not taking the shot.

[branford]

42. Everyone's a Monday morning quarterback.

These types of law enforcement situations, pursuit of a clearly dangerous individual attempting to escape under very poor conditions, are generally no win situations for police, and they have to make very quick, high pressure decisions that consist of nothing but bad choices.

I agree with you, and have no doubt if the decedent killed or injured anyone during his escape, the same people now complaining would still be criticizing the police of their inaction.

Further, to a minority of people here on DU, the police are always wrong, and no action that results in the death of a criminal suspect is ever justified, no matter how clear the circumstances and threat or liberal and constitutional the law enforcement policy.

[trumad]

44. Show me a post where a DU member says the police are always wrong

You can't and you won't.

[former9thward]

47. Look in this thread

Full of law enforcement "experts" second guessing.

[trumad]

53. show me the fucking post.

You can't.

[trumad]

43. Never ending second guessing

And then you second guessed.

[branford]

45. No, the poster is stating your conclusion is not as obvious as you seem to believe.

For instance, in your OP, why didn't you mention that the individual killed was a suspect in a home invasion robbery, explicitly state, rather than imply, he was going 100 mph in the wrong direction on a freeway, and that his SUV already blew through stop signs and red lights, narrowly missing pedestrians.

The driver was clearly an immediate and extremely dangerous threat, and despite your contention, there was no "semblance of control" prior to the shot.

The shooting of the SUV was indeed dangerous, but given the circumstances at the time, and the need to take quick and decisive action, there apparently were no "good" options, and attempting to disable the SUV from the helicopter might very well have been the least worst option (and probably why such actions have only occurred a handful of times over a period of decades).

There are certainty more facts we need to know before it can be conclusively determined whether firing on the SUV was the best option, including, the relevant police policies and procedures, whether the officer received prior approval before taking the shot, did the police have knowledge about the suspects violent history or other pertinent facts, were other means readily available that could have stopped the assailant without danger to innocents or police, etc.

Simply, you implication that shooting the SUV was unquestioningly inappropriate is not supported by known facts and law, and your failure to understand why many here don't agree with your conclusions is, quite frankly, astounding.

[pintobean]

46. I'm not astounded.

Not at all.

[Bonobo]

48. Thoughts?

Not only do I agree 100%, I think it is nauseating that anyone thinks it is okay for this Rambo shit to go on.

Police are not tasked with the role of judge, jury and executioner.

Too much fucking "Fast and Furious" movies.

It makes me want to puke that this is considered okay.

[branford]

50. The only "Fast and Furious" conduct in this unfortunate event,

were the actions of the SUV driver. He was the one blowing through stop signs and red lights, narrowly missing pedestrians, and going 100mph in the wrong direction on the freeway in an attempt to escape from a lawful arrest for a violent robbery home invasion.

Based on the known facts, the police appear to have been properly doing their jobs, faced with nothing but very bad choices in an attempt to protect the public.

The decedent had ample opportunities to peacefully surrender and air his conduct before a duly appointed judge and jury. He most certainly did not have the right to engage in a exceedingly dangerous high speed chase to escape arrest, and once he choose to do so, putting so many innocents at risk, his death or serious was entirely unsurprising.

Stopping a clear, immediate and unmitigated public danger is not an "execution" under any reasonable definition of the term.

[Bonobo]

51. Indeed, what could possibly go wrong when shooting dead a person driving at 100 mph. nt

[branford]

52. A lot could go wrong, and no one is denying that fact, as my other posts readily admit.

The issue is whether, under the circumstances of this particular case, if practical and realistic options existed that were demonstrably less risky.

The decedent was obviously personally dangerous and he presented an immediate, pervasive and extreme risk to large numbers of people. Time was also of the essence.

Complaining about "Rambo shit" and "Fast and Furious" is meaningless unless you actually offer means of more safety apprehending a very dangerous individual trying to escape a lawful arrest for a serious and violent felony under the dangerous circumstances in question, and how such a suggestion could be implemented in a timely manner without further risk to the public.

Based on the facts we know, it appears that shooting the SUV was quite likely the "least worst" of a limited selection of horrible choices. In no event is there any indication that the police were acting in "the role of judge, jury and executioner."

[trumad]

54. It's the gun gang...

Need I say more.

[Bonobo]

55. Nope, that says all I need to know.

Body-mass, etc, blargle gargle...