Authorities say helicopter shot hit wrong-way driver

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press

Authorities say helicopter shot hit wrong-way driver

Updated 5:28 pm, Saturday, September 19, 2015

SAN BERNARDINO, Calif. (AP) — A driver who led authorities on a 100-mph freeway chase was struck by gunfire from a San Bernardino County sheriff's helicopter before dying, the agency confirmed Saturday.

However, the official cause of death will await an autopsy, a Sheriff's Department statement said. It didn't indicate how many times the driver was wounded.

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.

The last such incident occurred in 2001 in Apple Valley, she said, but did not immediately have details.


Read more: http://www.chron.com/news/crime/article/California-deputy-shoots-at-wrong-way-driver-from-6515632.php

[secondvariety]

1. Nice shot.

Headlines are a little misleading-the perp was a wee bit more than just a "wrong way driver".

[orpupilofnature57]

2. A rare example of " Deadly Force " being used appropriately .

[Judi Lynn]

3. The deceased was a home invasion suspect. Execution is NOT the appropriate response. n/t

[JI7]

4. he was driving in the wrong direction on the fwy

He Would have killed innocent people if they did not stop him.

[rpannier]

9. The SUV flipped after they shot it and struck another vehicle

Two have been released from the hospital, the third (last I heard) is in a bad way

[cstanleytech]

32. Ya but on the other hand imagine how many more accidents he could have caused

if they had let him continue?
Would I have preferred that they take him alive? Sure but their first priority is the general safety of the public, not the suspect and even in more peaceful countries than the US they will use deadly force if there are people in danger.

[Ed Suspicious]

77. Accidents like flipping over and hitting another vehicle? I for one am happy deadly force was used

causing the vehicle to flip over and strike another vehicle in order to protect people from this idiot flipping his vehicle over and striking another vehicle.

[cstanleytech]

79. Ed, he was heading into oncoming traffic

so there was a far greater chance he would have caused more wrecks had he kept on going.
In a way its like the guy who stole that tank a few years ago, the police could have let him continue destroying cars and potentially killing someone who got in his way or they could take action to stop him, they took action and he was stopped same like this guy.

[One_Life_To_Give]

86. Head on would have been far worse

Unfortunately very tough to prevent a head on collision when someone ends up driving the freeway going the wrong direction. That SUV hitting another vehicle head on could have killed all occupants of both vehicles instantly.

[Spider Jerusalem]

84. ...

Less-lethal ways of doing that than "we're going to shoot you from a helicopter".

[cstanleytech]

85. Those are actually getting banned in some areas due to the risk with deploying them. nt

[Demit]

5. Not to mention the injury caused to innocent bystanders.

"The SUV, meanwhile, kept moving and crashed head-on into a Dodge Durango. A man and a 13-year-old boy were treated at a hospital and released but a woman remains hospitalized, the statement said."

That's just an appallingly reckless use of force. These are considered good decisions???

[orpupilofnature57]

7. Compared to shooting a child ? A person because of their color or the way they're dressed ? How

much remorse do you think could have occurred ?

[Travis_0004]

13. Its tough to know how it would have turned out otherwise

He was driving very fast the wrong way. If he was doing 50 and someody the other direction was going 60, that is very likely to be going fatal. (It said at times he was going 100, he may not have been going 100 when he was driving the wrong way).

After he was shot, he jumped out of the car, and ran a few yards. I would assume one jumps out of a car at a dead stop, or at least under 10 miles an hour(nobody is jumping out of a car at 50, then running a few yards. The car then rolled a bit until the accident occured (likely still in drive. It sounds to me like the criminals SUV was going 5mph. If there was no shooing, if there was an accident, he would likely be going 50 mph.

IMO, the shooting helped the situation. it got the suspect to slow down. Yes there was an accident, but if that same accident occurred when the suspect was driving 50 mph, it is very likely fatal.

[Demit]

41. They could've called off the chase.

Once he wasn't being pursued, he might've slowed down, then driven off the freeway. Or stopped the car then fled on foot. And innocent people wouldn't have been hospitalized because of the cowboy cops who were more focused on getting their man no matter what. But that wouldn't have been as exciting as their good sharpshootin', I guess.

[JI7]

81. he was driving the wrong way, once you are heading towards oncoming cars it's not so simple to just

stop. he would have needed time to see nobody is following him and it's all based on the assumption he would do the safest thing anyways which i don'tthink he cared for in regards to others.

[Demit]

83. No, called off the chase when they were on city streets.

It was incredibly reckless of the police to continue a high speed chase through city streets.

To catch a suspected burglar, they endangered a lot of citizens.

[orpupilofnature57]

6. Driving a car 100mph, is a Real threat to Public safety, Execution isn't an appropriate use of the

word . I'm a Pacifist and have been hid in gun groups all through out my time on DU ( 11 yrs ) but their are times when " Deadly Force " is appropriate, they were stopping a criminal, not carry out capital punishment which I'm against .

[Demit]

8. They stopped a criminal and caused real injury to people. Was that appropriate?

Oh, gotta be a hero & show off the marksmanship! Never mind the other people around who might get hurt.

[orpupilofnature57]

10. Besides your soliloquy on Apathy and marksmanship, Yep .

[DustyJoe]

40. great shooting

I wish you could ask the husband and father of 3 young daughters in NM. His wife and kids were killed by a wrong way driving criminal if he would approve if this could have happened before his entire family was killed.

[oneshooter]

57. SO, you would have preffered this?

It does NOT MISS, and is guaranteed to stop a fleeing felon.

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

[Bernardo de La Paz]

16. A car is a lethal weapon, esp. 100 mph the wrong way. Appropriate to stop it by force. nt

[marble falls]

18. Exactly right. But a lot of people will think its all peachy. They could hit the driver but couldn't

hit the engine???

Lets face it, the footage from this result was more spectacular than plain old due process.

[Thor_MN]

22. The engine is covered by a hood. The bullets are going to lose energy and shred going through it.

Maybe you get lucky and something vulnerable gets hit disabling the vehicle. Maybe you don't and the bullet just hits the engine block and does nothing. Maybe the driver doesn't even know that you are shooting at the vehicle. There are firearms that will penetrate into an engine block, but that means they will also go through lots of things. Not the type of weapon a LEO is going to want to use.


If one looks at the picture at the link of the windshield, there are a number of holes, on the passenger side. One can't say for certain, but the simplest answer is that they made several warning shots first.

[marble falls]

25. That's pretty lame. If a hood could stop a bullet, why didn't the roof of the truck stop a bullet?..

Hoods are thinner gauge than roofs!!!

[Thor_MN]

30. Yeah, I didn't think so.

Try actually reading the link instead of knee jerking without facts. They didn't shoot through the roof, which would be obvious if you had actually looked at the picture I suggested. They shot through the windshield, possibly 8 times. No way to know the order, but I'd bet that the ones on the passenger side were first.

They made the decision to stop a vehicle moving in a deadly manner, after using other methods, they probably put a bullet through the passenger side of the windshield. The driver is going to notice that. Then several more shots, then started shooting at the driver. He could have stopped at any point along the way.

The result, beyond the driver getting shot, was that the vehicle was reduced to non lethal speeds.

[marble falls]

38. Yeah I read it and shooting out the radiator didn't occur to them either. They have all sorts of....

military grade weapons. They could have shot the block very easily. A .357 will take care of a block. A .30-30 will take out a block, an M-16 will take out a block.

But what the hell, shoot somebody, right? Screw due process and public safety, right?

[Thor_MN]

42. A radiator is two inches thick from above, and you can't see it.

Got any more naïve ideas about how to stop a vehicle? They most likely progressively shot from passenger side to drivers side giving many opportunities for the driver to voluntarily stop.

[A Simple Game]

46. You said they shot through the windshield not the roof. How do you shoot through

a windshield and strike the driver from above? The windshield is only a few inches wide from above and the driver is behind it. Now what was your argument about the radiator? They couldn't see it? Try going out on the street and asking people where the radiator is on a SUV, think they will be smarter than you give the cops credit for being? What about the engine block, probably easier shot was from above? Obviously the helicopter was above but also in front of the vehicle to hit the driver through the windshield. It would be naive to think otherwise.

[Thor_MN]

50. Seriously. Look at the photo (for the third time)

I didn't have to say that they shot though the windshield, you can see it for yourself if you just go look at the photo. I, unlike you, have actual facts to back up what I am saying.

What is naïve is your assertions. I'd bet you could not put your finger accurately on the hood on top of the radiator on most vehicles. The distance between the front grill and the radiator is anywhere from a few inches to a foot or more, and unless you look under the hood there is absolutely no way to know.

You've totally ignored that they probably fired four or more warning shots and instead focused with naïve notions on how to disable a vehicle. You argue equally that a helicopter couldn't hit the windshield because it is in-line with it and that the helicopter is perpendicular to the windshield. A helicopter can't be perpendicular to radiator without being on the ground, and shooting out the radiator will not disable the vehicle until the engine overheats and seizes which could take 10-15 minutes. Hollywood movies and TV shows are not the real world.

You trotted out several rifles that could shoot an engine block with any discernable effect and totally ignored that they are very uncommon weapons for law enforcement. They don't choose high powered rifles for the very fact that they will go through things that you don't intend them to. If your bullet is going to go through your target, several walls or miles and anything in between, it's useless in most situations.

[A Simple Game]

54. As simply as possible, to shoot through the windshield and hit the driver the

helicopter had to be in front of the vehicle. The same spot from which it could have shot the radiator. It's not hard to understand. I don't need to look at the photos for a third time, once was enough. Again, obviously the helicopter was in front of and above the vehicle. They could have shot the radiator from the front, not above. Your own logic about the windshield tells us so. Why do you insist the helicopter was directly above when the shooting occurred? But if they were directly above they could have shot the engine, or don't you think they knew where the engine was?

[Thor_MN]

64. I didn't. If you compare the angles of the windsheild and the radiator,

Even someone bad at spatial relations will see that the radiator is oblique to a shot from above and ahead, while the windshield is perpendicular.

The radiator is a relatively small target from an elevated position and moreover, will not disable the vehicle for quite some time.

The engine block is relatively immune to normal law enforcement weapons.

[A Simple Game]

70. The radiator is too small a target yet you claim they shot starting on the passenger side

of the windshield and progressed towards and then shot the driver. You talk like the shooter was very good at what he did and probably was, but a radiator shot is impossible? Only a perpendicular shot could pierce a radiator? If you lose a radiator your engine will not last very long at all. An engine shot would be an even bigger target than the radiator nor is it immune to normal weapons and could stop the vehicle much sooner than even the radiator shot. Most engines are aluminum and there is no armor plating, armor piercing bullets would not even be necessary.

My last post, you just want to keep moving the bar and don't want to listen to reason.

[Thor_MN]

72. A vehicle could run 15 minutes or longer without coolant

And shooting the radiator, if you can find it under the hood, will not drain the coolant immediately.

Please cite where I said the radiator was too small. I said it was relatively small. It is certainly much smaller than the windshield, unless you are viewing from ground level. Add in the fact that you can not see it, and it is a difficult target that will not disable the vehicle quickly.

The calibers used by most law enforcement will not do much damage to even an aluminum engine. Stop thinking that Hollywood is based in fact.

[Duckhunter935]

53. An M16 take out a block?

That is one of the smallest rounds and would be Lucky to even get through the hood

[snort]

44. There's only one way to stop a vehicle.

Kill the driver. KILL! Better yet, dust off and nuke 'em from orbit, just to be sure.

[Thor_MN]

45. Hell, use the Death Star. Take out the whole planet.

If one is going to make a ridiculous statement, go big or go home.

[oneshooter]

58. I have a half case of 1950's 168gr 30-06 AP that will crater a engine bloc. n/t

Last edited Sun Sep 20, 2015, 07:33 PM - Edit history (1)

[magical thyme]

67. maybe you get very unlucky and the bullet ricochets off the hood

and kills somebody else.

[tabasco]

31. He was an imminent threat to the lives of others.

Get a grip.

[Demeter]

11. THIS is considered acceptable law enforcement?

I was ever so glad to shake the California "gold" dust from my feet decades ago....

[7962]

12. The more they use this tactic, word will spread & these chases may drop.

If you know you'll be taken out from the air, you may thing twice and try running on foot

[L. Coyote]

15. They could prevent jaywalking this way too.

But that wouldn't make it constitutionally appropriate.

[oasis]

21. In some cases motor vehicles have been considered deadly weapons. <nt>

[L. Coyote]

23. "In some cases" is no justification for violation of due process and summary executions.

Of what use is the constitutional protection of human rights if the police are immune?

[christx30]

71. Driver could have stopped and given himself up.

He wasn't looking for due process. He wanted to get away at any cost, even the lives of other motorists. He chose what happened to him.

[L. Coyote]

73. So you are saying this driver choose to be executed. Not that perhaps

he had a bad reaction to a medication, or something beyond his control had acted upon him, or any other of thousands of possible scenarios.

You who knows everything by saying that should be sitting in judgement instead of us having judicial process then. We could save so much money by having someone who knows everything so clearly. .

[christx30]

78. I"m saying that anyone knows that cops

will not stop chasing you. Chases of criminals always end in the arrest or death of the pursued. So keep running if you are ready to die, or give yourself up if you want due process, but you are not going to get away.

[branford]

74. What the heck are you talking about?

An entirely lawful high-speed chase of an individual connected to a home invasion is not even remotely equivalent, legally or morally, to a criminal trial, and the "due process" considerations quite different.

The decedent was not denied due process, nor was this a "summary execution" by any reasonable definition of the terms, and such hyperbole does nothing to improve the safety of criminal defendants, police officers or the general public.

However, if you still stand by your statement that this situation was indeed a "violation of due process and summary execution," please feel free to offer appropriate legal citations, since as an attorney, I'd love to review the cases.

[Thor_MN]

27. Well, if we are going to extend to ridiculous examples..

They could also shoot people that wear clothes in bad taste from a helicopter, but that doesn't make any more sense than your example and neither has absolutely anything to do with the story.

[L. Coyote]

29. Where is there an ordinance prohibiting clothes in bad taste?

You missed the point of the enforcing rules analogy.

noun: analogy; plural noun: analogies

* a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
* a correspondence or partial similarity.

[Thor_MN]

33. When one is citing ridiculous examples, the sky is the limit.

No matter what dumbass example is made, one can come up with something more stupid.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141206116

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023219468

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002616246

You missed the point. Your example was ridiculous and had nothing to do with the OP.

[L. Coyote]

34. I agree, "one can come up with something more stupid."

[Thor_MN]

36. Good to know that you can admit when you are wrong. Thank you.

That's a rare trait that one can admit failure, even when presented with the facts that they asked for.

[L. Coyote]

37. You missed my point again.

[Thor_MN]

51. Your point appears to be extrapolating into ridiculous situations.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

If you are right, then they could shoot redheads, on sight, from helicopters. They could use Hellfire missiles from drones to shoot Lutherans. They could nuke a daycare, if they thought there was a special needs child there.

Once you deviate from reality, there's no end to "the sky is falling!!!"

[7962]

47. Yes, if he jaywalker was threatening people with a deadly weapon.

I'd have no problem with that either. And it WOULD be constitutionally appropriate. Its called "eliminating the threat", whihc is not mentioned in the constitution.

[marble falls]

19. I know, look how effective the death penalty is in reducing the murder rate!!!!

[7962]

48. Start using it a couple times a week, and yes, it would likely do just that.

3-4 times a YEAR gets zero publicity.

And as I always do regarding posts on the DP, let me clarify my position. I believe the DP law should be changed. It should ONLY be imposed on those who are guilty. Not "beyond a reasonable doubt", but NO DOUBT. There are PLENTY of cases that fit this criteria. Living in GA, my favorite example is the Atl Courthouse killer. There is NO DOUBT as to his guilt.
This would do away with the chance of ever executing innocent people.

[marble falls]

52. You jest,of course.

[7962]

66. Not at all. I have no problem with that at all.

Getting rid of people like the one I referred to or the John Wayne Gacys of the world is perfectly fine with me. Just get it right every time. My idea would make that possible.
If you dont support the DP in any instance, thats fine, everyone has their opinion. But NOT executing them certainly doesnt cut down on murder either.

[Lochloosa]

14. May I point out that this was only the seventh time

This has been used since the 1980's [\b]

Obviously not a common tactic.

[marble falls]

20. Once was too many.

[Darb]

17. Oh for chrissakes, this reveals a great deal about DU.

How anyone on this site thinks this is reasonable is way beyond my ability to comprehend.

Goddamn this place has changed over the years. No doubt by design.

[L. Coyote]

24. Whose ready to start an alternate domain that is meaningful and relevant?

Not to mention, on a server that responds at normal speed.

[Darb]

26. I hope someone does. I cannot.

But then it would fall prey to the same problems. Public opinion in the age of social media is easily manipulated and has become even more divided than before it began. Unfortunately, some don't see it that way. They see it as just a natural extension of society's divisions, when in reality it is anything but.

[bigworld]

28. To anyone who thinks the police overreacted... how should they have responded?

Genuinely curious.

[L. Coyote]

35. We should just wait until the police have so much power they can shoot leftists at roadblocks.

Or maybe not!

[cstanleytech]

39. I suspect some of them think they should have shot the tires out. Bad idea really

considering the risk of a shoot ricocheting and hitting an innocent person.

[Sunlei]

43. crazy to let police shoot when other cars are close, what if others were IN that car?

They caused a crash by killing the driver. Back off and arrest him later, follow the car from the air. They know his name, they know the car, they know where he lives. Pick him up later.

[7962]

49. I'm sure ground units chasing were able to tell if there were passengers. nt

[Sunlei]

55. does this mean police should execute all speeding wrong way drivers? or just punish the 'runners'?

"runners"- anyone who runs away from the police.

[7962]

65. Wrong way home invader at 100mph is good enough for me.

He had 7 shots to stop and didnt. 8th one did

[Sunlei]

68. It was an 'ask to stop' and he drove off. At that point he was only another runner.

[7962]

69. No, "ask to stop" would be a speeder or the like

"deputies tried to pull over a man believed to have committed a home invasion robbery there a day earlier"
They were hardly going to "ask" nicely.

[leveymg]

56. Welcome to the new normal in Judge Dred policing.

[TeeYiYi]

59. "Citizens of Peach Trees...

...This is the law. Disperse immediately, or we will use lethal force to clear the area. You have been warned. You now have 20 seconds to comply..."

TYY

[leveymg]

61. "Death from Above" - hired right out of the Baghdad or Kabul Academies of Community Policing

Fully trained, lots of experience with strafing runs from the air.

[TeeYiYi]

62. Yep. Pretty disturbing...

They're not even trying to hide it anymore.

TYY

[felix_numinous]

60. They have the tech to knock out car electronics

why don't they use the million dollar hi tech they get from the Pentagon? Which SHOULD give them multiple options besides deadly force?!?

[youceyec]

63. what is a

way driver?

[Gothmog]

75. Why would you shoot someone in a chance from a helicopter

The police officer made a major mistake

[Dont call me Shirley]

76. They couldn't have closed off the highway and shot his tires out?! WTF!

[Liberty Belle]

80. Why not lay down tack strips or shoot out the tires?

While I have no real sympathy for someone speeding 100 mph the wrong direction, I also want to see non-lethal force used if possible. Sometimes freeways can be sealed off and barricades put up, if there is time, too.

[branford]

82. How do you very quickly safely lay down tack strips in the middle of freeway

during a chase when the SUV when going 100mph in the wrong direction, particularly without endangering the people laying down the strips or other drivers on the road, and of course, assuming such tack strips were even readily available at the time?

This event didn't occur during a slow speed chase where there was ample time and little risk to safely implement your suggestion without endangering other drivers, police and safety officers far worse than the risk of shooting out the car.

In this instance, absent new facts, there doesn't appear to have been any "good" or entirely safe options available to law enforcement, no matter how much we may wish otherwise.