Las Vegas chase and shootout

[avvidclif]

It's called"Monday Morning Quarterbacking" Coulda, woulda, shoulda.

 

[Frank59]

Maybe it is just the guys you know? Not every coop is a shooter. We can all agree on that BUT the funny thing is folks are saying this stuff in a thread about a metro guy that DID drop a murderer. That is what is strange. They then want to come up with hypotheticals that did not happen or they question the policy violation as if they were driving the car chasing murderers and exchanging gun fire. I guess it is kinda comical and it makes my down time go quicker.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

That hypothetical part is interesting for sure! If they cant debate the facts they start making $hit up to fit their narrative!!

 

[sharkey]

And that justifies police hypocrisy? Serve and protect by putting the public in danger? We all know how difficult aimed one-handed fire is, mag-dumping one-handed through a windshield while driving is the definition of spray and pray, and he saw fit to do it in the middle of a suburban street.

Spare me your "rough men stand ready" nonsense, that only works for gullible children. Subconsciously you must know this, hence your use of "son".

I waited to reply to this so I could have an actual keyboard. The post drips with indignation. I don't even understand your first two questions? The murderers put the public in danger. I think it would be hypocrisy to the serve and protect mantra if he did nothing, you know like Peterson. I normally would agree that firing from the interior of a car is not the best tactic BUT justified deviation from policy is an actual term big people use and this seems like this would most certainly qualify. Had he killed an innocent person he would have to answer for that BUT he did not. If only you worked for Metro and were shagging calls that day. There WILL be times when the public will be at risk when police use deadly force. It is the nature of the beast in a world filled with fallible people hence the term -exigent circumstances - which you also seemed to mock earlier.

Now I can't recall if it was you or some else that said just hang back let the copter follow and wait until they stop or wreck. You'll seem to like hypotheticals so how about this one - they intentionally run someone over to call off the pursuit and after stopping, they take two hostages and hold up. SWAT responds to a BP and the standoff lasts for 8 hours. They off the hostages but then surrender because they figure prison is better than death. Yeah, that would have been a lot better.

 

[dmancornell]

SMDH

I could break the thing down for you--action by action--but you would remain unmoved, unsatisfied, and whatever. So I won't bother.

The officer's actions were praise-worthy, legal, and appropriate.

But you didn't, so your final statement can be discarded without consideration.

Simple litmus test: if a civilian engaged in this behavior he would be thrown in a government cage and no amount of "good guy with a gun" preaching will save him.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

 

[Texasgordo]

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[dmancornell]

I waited to reply to this so I could have an actual keyboard. The post drips with indignation.

Good, the least this kind of keystone cop behavior deserves is indignation.

I don't even understand your first two questions? The murderers put the public in danger. I think it would be hypocrisy to the serve and protect mantra if he did nothing, you know like Peterson.

That would be a false equivalence between Peterson (an active shooter in a school) and this guy (fleeing suspects fire on police forcing a close pursuit). Someone else in this thread actually claimed these guys were firing at random bystanders, the video does not show this, nor does any news report on the incident. That is a straight up lie.

I normally would agree that firing from the interior of a car is not the best tactic BUT justified deviation from policy is an actual term big people use and this seems like this would most certainly qualify.

As I mentioned, exigent circumstance is a pliant term to be abused at will. Let me break this down for you in logical chain:

Cops hang back and chase with helicopter -> No spray and pray gunfire in a suburban street -> The public is safer

The cops literally created their own exigent circumstance in this case.

Had he killed an innocent person he would have to answer for that BUT he did not. If only you worked for Metro and were shagging calls that day. There WILL be times when the public will be at risk when police use deadly force. It is the nature of the beast in a world filled with fallible people hence the term -exigent circumstances - which you also seemed to mock earlier.

No he wouldn't, the charges would be pinned on the suspects. As for putting the public at risk, police actions here demonstrably *increased* the risk to the public. But hey, the cops can never be the fallible ones, amirite?

Now I can't recall if it was you or some else that said just hang back let the copter follow and wait until they stop or wreck. You'll seem to like hypotheticals so how about this one - they intentionally run someone over to call off the pursuit and after stopping, they take two hostages and hold up. SWAT responds to a BP and the standoff lasts for 8 hours. They off the hostages but then surrender because they figure prison is better than death. Yeah, that would have been a lot better.

Nice fantasy. Unfortunately for your argument, cops shooting bystanders is not a fantasy, it has happened many times in real life, and police spray and pray fire is documented reality. If you believe otherwise, LAPD might have a shot up newspaper delivery truck to sell you.

 

[TheMailMan]

The officer following has to maintain contact with the vehicle until the air unit arrives. He requested it but it would appear it had not yet arrived.

 

[dmancornell]

The officer following has to maintain contact with the vehicle until the air unit arrives. He requested it but it would appear it had not yet arrived.

And yet the cop decided to close in and mag-dump when the chase slowed down on the suburban street. Funny that. Did the dispatcher tell him the helicopter wasn't coming after all?

 

[diesel1959]

But you didn't, so your final statement can be discarded without consideration.

Simple litmus test: if a civilian engaged in this behavior he would be thrown in a government cage and no amount of "good guy with a gun" preaching will save him.

Your simple litmus test ain't so simple, nor the legal standard.

 

[diesel1959]

Good, the least this kind of keystone cop behavior deserves is indignation.



That would be a false equivalence between Peterson (an active shooter in a school) and this guy (fleeing suspects fire on police forcing a close pursuit). Someone else in this thread actually claimed these guys were firing at random bystanders, the video does not show this, nor does any news report on the incident. That is a straight up lie.



As I mentioned, exigent circumstance is a pliant term to be abused at will. Let me break this down for you in logical chain:

Cops hang back and chase with helicopter -> No spray and pray gunfire in a suburban street -> The public is safer

The cops literally created their own exigent circumstance in this case.



No he wouldn't, the charges would be pinned on the suspects. As for putting the public at risk, police actions here demonstrably *increased* the risk to the public. But hey, the cops can never be the fallible ones, amirite?



Nice fantasy. Unfortunately for your argument, cops shooting bystanders is not a fantasy, it has happened many times in real life, and police spray and pray fire is documented reality. If you believe otherwise, LAPD might have a shot up newspaper delivery truck to sell you.

The "close pursuit" was as a result of the fact that the two persons being pursued had just murdered someone. During the course of that "close pursuit", the fleeing felons shot numerous rounds at the officer. Again, this was not a pursuit based upon a violation of the traffic code. They were in "close pursuit" of murders in the continuing act of committing even more felonies. Those guys had to be stopped ASAP. The officer's actions were lawful, praise-worthy, and appropriate to the circumstances.

 

[dmancornell]

Your simple litmus test ain't so simple, nor the legal standard.

Nowhere did I claim his actions were illegal. I am well aware of the modern judiciary's deference to police and the privileged legal double standard that police operate under, hence the statement that a civilian would be thrown in a dark hole for the same behavior. The law recognizes recklessness on the part of civilians but give cops a pass.

 

[diesel1959]

Nowhere did I claim his actions were illegal. I am well aware of the modern judiciary's deference to police and the privileged legal double standard that police operate under, hence the statement that a civilian would be thrown in a dark hole for the same behavior. The law recognizes recklessness on the part of civilians but give cops a pass.

It's not a matter of mere deference . . . it's a matter that the actions were--listen close--within the legal standard for the use of deadly force. They weren't contrary to the department's policy either, and that's the part that actually gets most officers in trouble--violations of department policy.

 

[dmancornell]

The "close pursuit" was as a result of the fact that the two persons being pursued had just murdered someone. During the course of that "close pursuit", the fleeing felons shot numerous rounds at the officer. Again, this was not a pursuit based upon a violation of the traffic code. They were in "close pursuit" of murders in the continuing act of committing even more felonies. Those guys had to be stopped ASAP. The officer's actions were lawful, praise-worthy, and appropriate to the circumstances.

It was a pursuit. Police can choose their method of pursuit. When they chose to pursue closely and aggressively, they were fired upon, which in turn caused the cops to engage in reckless mag-dumping and increasing danger to the public.

For you to believe this is praise-worthy, you have to consider immediate punishment for contempt of cop as a higher priority than public safety.

 

[dmancornell]

It's not a matter of mere deference . . . it's a matter that the actions were--listen close--within the legal standard for the use of deadly force. They weren't contrary to the department's policy either, and that's the part that actually gets most officers in trouble--violations of department policy.

So? Legal approval does not equate to moral justification or professional competence, and many laws have nothing but contempt for public safety. Just look at what prohibition did.

Furthermore, police unions tirelessly lobby for legal leeway in order to loosen their own departmental policies... so let's not pretend "legal standard" means anything more than an easily moved line for legal culpability.

 

[V-Tach]

 

[Byrd666]

Well $hit.......sorry I asked.

 

[diesel1959]

It was a pursuit. Police can choose their method of pursuit. When they chose to pursue closely and aggressively, they were fired upon, which in turn caused the cops to engage in reckless mag-dumping and increasing danger to the public.

For you to believe this is praise-worthy, you have to consider immediate punishment for contempt of cop as a higher priority than public safety.

A person who will fire on police will skull-fûck your grandmother, piss on your daisies, and generally not obey the rules of polite society. Even further than that, someone who has just murdered someone and knows the police are on to him . . . that person has nothing to lose by continuing the felonious spree. You blame the shooting on the pursuit. I choose to lay the blame for the shooting directly on the shoulders of the choices of the two felons. Fortunately, society agrees with me and not you.

Furthermore, for you to equate ANY of this incident to a matter of "contempt of cop" indicates more about you than about the incident's facts. I'm sorry that you've been "hurt" at some point in your life and that your feelings have been wounded; however, you're dead wrong on this situation.

 

[dmancornell]

A person who will fire on police will skull-fûck your grandmother, piss on your daisies, and generally not obey the rules of polite society. Even further than that, someone who has just murdered someone and knows the police are on to him . . . that person has nothing to lose by continuing the felonious spree. You blame the shooting on the pursuit. I choose to lay the blame for the shooting directly on the shoulders of the choices of the two felons. Fortunately, society agrees with me and not you.

Furthermore, for you to equate ANY of this incident to a matter of "contempt of cop" indicates more about you than about the incident's facts. I'm sorry that you've been "hurt" at some point in your life and that your feelings have been wounded; however, you're dead wrong on this situation.

Heh, you keep dragging out this "society" word has if moral consideration or assessment of competence is a majoritarian pursuit. It isn't.

Punishment for contempt of cop is clearly the motivating factor for this cop, i.e. HOW DARE THEY SHOOT AT US. Dishing out vengeance at the cost of increased danger to the public is the result. You talk about people who disagree with this being "hurt" and "wounded", that is textbook projection on your part. You are emotionally attached to the sheepdog mentality and vicariously enjoy this reckless incompetence.

In any case, everything you say is contradicted by the video, which shows the shooting start only when cops engaged in aggressive pursuit, and stops when they back off. Some police departments have a back-off policy on shots fired pursuits exactly for the reason of public safety... no doubt you will call those cops wounded cowards for considering the safety of civilian bystanders.

 

[Frank59]

A person who will fire on police will skull-**** your grandmother, piss on your daisies, and generally not obey the rules of polite society. Even further than that, someone who has just murdered someone and knows the police are on to him . . . that person has nothing to lose by continuing the felonious spree. You blame the shooting on the pursuit. I choose to lay the blame for the shooting directly on the shoulders of the choices of the two felons. Fortunately, society agrees with me and not you.

Furthermore, for you to equate ANY of this incident to a matter of "contempt of cop" indicates more about you than about the incident's facts. I'm sorry that you've been "hurt" at some point in your life and that your feelings have been wounded; however, you're dead wrong on this situation.

Further to your observations, the Las Vegas Journal is reporting that Nunez and Miranda were gang members who had hours earlier killed a 25 year old man at a car wash in what is being described as a gangland hit. The vehicle the killers were driving was stolen as were the multiple firearms used in the gun battle. What the link provided in this thread doesn't say is that two Las Vegas police cruisers were disabled by heavy gunfire from the suspects. This was the garbage this officer was dealing with. A split second decision to aggressively engage the filth or back off and take the chance of losing them. This cop is a hero and should and will be praised and rewarded for a job well done. These are the facts as we know them to be. If it makes you feel better to belittle the only guy who was brave enough to take these thugs on go right ahead. And please save me all your hypothetical bull$hit and candy ass political correctness! I for one am glad we have cops like this young man protecting our community's!