SC troopers used cars to ram on foot suspects [Archive]

Cobra

03-20-2008, 12:58 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080320/ap_on_re_us/trooper_aggression_videos;_ylt=Auf8u0kqJuD2RnHR3q2 sXqis0NUE

COLUMBIA, S.C. - Videos have surfaced showing two members of the South Carolina Highway Patrol using their cruisers to ram fleeing suspects, just weeks after two leaders of the agency resigned because of a furor over a trooper's use of a racial slur.

In one of the two new dash-cam videos, which were first reported Wednesday by The Post and Courier of Charleston, Lance Cpl. Steven C. Garren drives after a man on foot, striking him when he crosses in front of Garren's cruiser. The man flips over the car's hood and into high grass on the roadside.

"Yeah, I hit him. I was trying to hit him," Garren, who is white, can be heard telling another trooper.

In the other, Lance Cpl. Alexander Richardson drives between apartment buildings, on sidewalks and past onlookers in an attempt to run down a suspect. After about a minute, Richardson's car bumps the man, who grabs the vehicle in an attempt to steady himself. The man doesn't fall and takes off running again.

PatrickHenry

03-20-2008, 01:13 AM

Assault with an automobile is a problem for me.

It's a bit more than tasering a fleeing suspect.

It has the potential to kill the suspect.

And people shouldn't be assaulted with a deadly weapon unless there is a very specific reason.

That would be if the policeman is threatened with a weapon or if the fleeing suspect is clearly a serious danger to the community.

Simply running from a cop should not be punishable by the threat of instant death.

apdst

03-20-2008, 03:03 AM

If they hadn't been breaking the law, they wouldn't have gotten roughed up.

PatrickHenry

03-20-2008, 03:07 AM

If they hadn't been breaking the law, they wouldn't have gotten roughed up.

Is it your allegation that cops only "rough up" lawbreakers?

nevadamedic

03-20-2008, 03:08 AM

If they hadn't been breaking the law, they wouldn't have gotten roughed up.

Exactly.

AnnEsthesia

03-20-2008, 03:16 AM

So much for innocent until proven guilty in a court of law...

apdst

03-20-2008, 03:43 AM

Is it your allegation that cops only "rough up" lawbreakers?

Yes.

So much for innocent until proven guilty in a court of law...

Oh, they broke a law, alright. If they hadn't broke a law, the cops wouldn't be chasing them, or they wouldn't be running away from the cops.

It's as simple as this, if a cops says, "stop", you stop. To do anything else is resisting arrest, and that's a crime.

Osborn F. Enready

03-20-2008, 11:47 AM

Give me a break.....

Talk about blind obedience to authority figures;

There are a LOT of corrupt cops, probably at least as many as there are corrupt politicians.

Police like these schmucks give all police a bad name, not to mention a black eye on the entire justice system, which it rightly deserves these days.

potter

03-20-2008, 04:48 PM

If they hadn't been breaking the law, they wouldn't have gotten roughed up.

So kill them. Same should happen to all traffic violators too. Put a cap in thier head and put thier car up for auction. Breaking the law is breaking the law so they deserve any punishment they get.....right?

Aren't you the same guy who advocates rape as punishment for women offenders?

Saigio

03-20-2008, 05:02 PM

If they hadn't been breaking the law, they wouldn't have gotten roughed up.

Yeah. They deserved to have their lives endangered because they very obviously were criminals. Hey, did you know that in many areas, people run from the cops to avoid harassment, false accusation of crimes, etc. A lot of people have no faith in the justice system.

But hey, that doesn't matter. We should just let the cops mow down people in the street, because, after all, the motto is guilty until proven innocent, isn't it?

brien

03-20-2008, 06:44 PM

The cop probably knew he couldn't out run the perp because he eats too many donuts, so he figured he would just run him over. I saw the video on this, and the perp seemed to be a black teen, so what the hell, just run'em down and make an excuse later. Can't fire you weapon, use the car.

Let's reverse the tables. What if it was the perp were trying to run down the cop? The cop would likely draw his firearm and shoot to kill.
In either case, it is wrong to run someone down with an automobile.

If the cops can't catch criminals in a legal manner, what is the sense of catching them? They will only get off because the cops used illegal means to apprehend them.

apdst

03-20-2008, 09:24 PM

Saigio

03-20-2008, 10:35 PM

So kill them. Same should happen to all traffic violators too. Put a cap in thier head and put thier car up for auction.

If they speed around town at high rates of speed, endangering the lives of innocent bystanders, yes, they should be shot. I would rather tha person get injured, or killed, for committing such a dangerous and stupid act, than have a kid get run over at a bus stop.

Yeah! Fuck all those laws against cruel and unusual punishment! Le's go out and shoot every law breaker in the head! That'll solve the problems!

Vigilantism for the lose!

apdst

03-20-2008, 10:39 PM

Yeah! f_ck all those laws against cruel and unusual punishment! Le's go out and shoot every law breaker in the head! That'll solve the problems!

Yeah! Fuck all those civil liberties that gauranted law abiding citizens the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness! Hell with the regular folks! Just let'em fall prey to the criminals, then we'll come in to clean up the mess and protect the criminal's rights. Makes alotta sense.

I mean, hey, who the hell do we think we are to expect the police to actually protect us from criminals?

Saigio

03-20-2008, 10:47 PM

Yeah! f_ck all those laws against cruel and unusual punishment! Le's go out and shoot every law breaker in the head! That'll solve the problems!

Yeah! f_ck all those civil liberties that gauranted law abiding citizens the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness! Hell with the regular folks! Just let'em fall prey to the criminals, then we'll come in to clean up the mess and protect the criminal's rights. Makes alotta sense.

I mean, hey, who the hell do we think we are to expect the police to actually protect us from criminals?

I expect the police to protect us. If they use undue force, then they are failing at their job because the person will be back on the street.
I wonder how many people the cops endangered when trying to run down those two people?
The laws preventing cruel and unusual punishment and police brutality are their to protect us from corrupt cops. If you want to be executed for speeding, then continue to push to have such laws in place. Cause that's what'll happen. Cops will start shooting people to "protect the public" even if it was a minor crime, such as speeding or running a red light.

apdst

03-20-2008, 10:54 PM

The laws preventing cruel and unusual punishment and police brutality are their to protect us from corrupt cops. If you want to be executed for speeding, then continue to push to have such laws in place. Cause that's what'll happen. Cops will start shooting people to "protect the public" even if it was a minor crime, such as speeding or running a red light.

So, we're going to have laws protecting us from corrupt cops, but no laws protecting us from criminals? I just LOVE how Liberals view The World!...LMAO!

Saigio

03-20-2008, 10:56 PM

Shintao

03-20-2008, 10:59 PM

I see nothing wrong it. When the criminal decides to avoid capture all bars are off. I would shoot the guy. Bet he would stop running then, but the car was effective in the capture. This laxidaisy attitude in America is partially responsible for the crime rate.

I have wrote several letters to the CA attorney General over the last 20 years to allow our law enforcement to use M79 grenade launchers to stop high speed criminal chases that endanger the public.

About 2-3 of those happy endings might stop these ciminals from running when the bubblegum machine is turned on.:thumbsup:

Shintao

03-20-2008, 11:02 PM

apdst

03-20-2008, 11:04 PM

And tell me what the difference between a coruupt cop and a ccriminal is, 'cause I don't see one.

There is no difference between a corrupt cop and a criminal. At the same time, all criminals committ crime, but not all cops are corrupt. You can't take away what little power the cops have to protect us from criminals. It only encourages criminals to committ crimes.

According to what you're saying, the cops should wait by the phone to be called after the crime has been committed.

Your red light runnin comparison is assinine. Obviously shooting someone who runs a red light, or goes five miles over the speed limit is crazy. However, shooting at someone that has endangered untold hundreds of lives while they are going 90 mph in a stolen car shouldn't be a problem. Don't wanna get shot at? Don't drive 90 mph in a stolen car. It's just common sense.

This laxidaisy attitude in America is partially responsible for the crime rate.

Very well said, Shintao. [golf clap]

Saigio

03-20-2008, 11:05 PM

[
Yeah! f_ck all those laws against cruel and unusual punishment! Le's go out and shoot every law breaker in the head! That'll solve the problems!

Vigilantism for the lose!

That only refers to imprisonment. Pretty hard to run him down inside a prison cell, but could prolly boil him in oil.

From what I've learned it extends to capture as well. I may be mistaken, however.
Regardless, police brutality is a good way to keep criminals on the street, not off them.

apdst

03-20-2008, 11:07 PM

Regardless, police brutality is a good way to keep criminals on the street, not off them.

Only because some dumb bastard decided it was a good idea to allow criminals to walk, just because they got smacked around a little. Anyone who believes that that is ok has no business being a part of the justice system.

December

03-20-2008, 11:07 PM

This crime will be added to the Text of Human Rights Record of United States in 2008

Here's a report for 2007 - http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=12271

Elrathin

03-20-2008, 11:08 PM

Maybe one day when apdst meets a corrupt cop, he will finally understand what some of us already understand. Hope the beating won't be too hard when it happens.

Saigio

03-20-2008, 11:09 PM

And tell me what the difference between a coruupt cop and a ccriminal is, 'cause I don't see one.

There is no difference between a corrupt cop and a criminal. At the same time, all criminals committ crime, but not all cops are corrupt. You can't take away what little power the cops have to protect us from criminals. It only encourages criminals to committ crimes.

According to what you're saying, the cops should wait by the phone to be called after the crime has been committed.

Your red light runnin comparison is assinine. Obviously shooting someone who runs a red light, or goes five miles over the speed limit is crazy. However, shooting at someone that has endangered untold hundreds of lives while they are going 90 mph in a stolen car shouldn't be a problem. Don't wanna get shot at? Don't drive 90 mph in a stolen car. It's just common sense.

However, if a more lax stance on excessive force is taken, cops will start shooting at people for minor offences. Hence why I say to use exactly what force is needed. The cop could have gotten out of his car and pursued the man on foot just as easily, but he choose to endanger others and try and run the man down.

apdst

03-20-2008, 11:10 PM

Maybe one day when apdst meets a corrupt cop, he will finally understand what some of us already understand.

What makes you think I haven't?

It's completely self defeating to enforce more laws against the cops because of a few bad ones, than to enforce the law against ALL the criminals that cause harm in our country.

apdst

03-20-2008, 11:11 PM

However, if a more lax stance on excessive force is taken, cops will start shooting at people for minor offences.

It's never happened before. That's just paranoia talking.

Saigio

03-20-2008, 11:13 PM

However, if a more lax stance on excessive force is taken, cops will start shooting at people for minor offences.

It's never happened before.

Because there are laws protecting us from cops that would shot us for running a stop sign. But there are obviously those that would have said laws abolished to "protect the public from reckless behavior".

apdst

03-20-2008, 11:19 PM

But there are obviously those that would have said laws abolished to "protect the public from reckless behavior".

Whatever that means.

suedanim

03-20-2008, 11:25 PM

Why would a black man run from cops? In SC? Think about it.

Most cops abuses are never revealed and because they do have the authority to harass and make citizens lives pure hell, many blacks and whites have little trust of them at all. I know of many blacks who will not call the law when trouble goes down. They go into a real panic and even outrage at the thought of cops coming into the picture.

After what many blacks go through and have ALWAYS gone through at the hands of law enforcement, I'm not surprised many run like hell, EVEN when all they are guilty of is being black.

apdst

03-20-2008, 11:31 PM

Why would a black man run from cops? In SC? Think about it.

It couldn't possibly be because he broke the law. No way that could be the case. Right?

Didn't take long to turn it to a race thing. Gimme a break. If there were fewer black cimmitting crimes, they might not have so many problems with the cops. I bet no one's ever thought of that.

Go Fish

03-21-2008, 03:24 AM

Yeah! f_ck all those laws against cruel and unusual punishment! Le's go out and shoot every law breaker in the head! That'll solve the problems!

Yeah! f_ck all those civil liberties that gauranted law abiding citizens the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness! Hell with the regular folks! Just let'em fall prey to the criminals, then we'll come in to clean up the mess and protect the criminal's rights. Makes alotta sense.

I mean, hey, who the hell do we think we are to expect the police to actually protect us from criminals?

Hate to break it to you, but cops aren't in the business of preventing crime. They are in the business of managing the aftermath of crimes. Just had a multiple shooting about a mile from here last night. 3 dead, 4 wounded last I heard. http://www.wvec.com/news/topstories/stories/wvec_local_031908_vb_shooting.79dfc43.html

Osborn F. Enready

03-21-2008, 03:53 PM

Elraithin said:
Maybe one day when apdst meets a corrupt cop, he will finally understand what some of us already understand.

I doubt it, he will probably be so blindly obedient he will be the officers "ride along" for the day, and just take part in the corruption.

From what I have seen, he values obedience to authority over analyzing whats behind the authority, and thats never good.

This may be viewed as a personal insult, which I guess it kind of is, but I fail to see how its inaccurate from APDST's actions in the threads I have seen him post in.

I'll risk it. :grrrr:

brien

03-21-2008, 07:14 PM

Shintao wrote;

I see nothing wrong it. When the criminal decides to avoid capture all bars are off.

I don''t quite understand what you mean here. "All bars are off"? Are you talking about an escapee or merely a suspect? Escapees are convicted criminals and law enforcement should use all reasonable means to recapture them. For instance, if a convicted murderer who was incarcerated is an escapee, and is positively identified, and is fleeing from the law, it is probably reasonable for him to be shot in the back as he is running away, providing the officer warns the escapee he must stop or be shot. This does not apply to a suspect.

For instance. Let's assume there is a rape on the 1st floor of a seedy hotel. The desk clerk hears the commotion and calls the law. The police show up just as a guy is running down the alley behind the hotel. They shout for him to stop but he just keeps running anyway. They shoot him dead only to immediately see coming around the corner is a very large viscious dog that was chasing him while the rapist fled through the front door as the cop was killing the innocent suspect.

This is why we don't shoot first and ask questions later with regard to suspects.

Suspect are just that; suspects. They haven't been convicted of any crime, and therefore must be presumed innocent, something a few people around here seem to convienently forget. Anyone ever hear of the 4th, 5th,6th, and 8th amendments?

apdst

03-22-2008, 01:54 AM

cops aren't in the business of preventing crime. They are in the business of managing the aftermath of crimes.

I already know that. They show up to sweep up the guts and draw an outline with that chalk they got.

Quote:
Elraithin said:
Maybe one day when apdst meets a corrupt cop, he will finally understand what some of us already understand.

I doubt it, he will probably be so blindly obedient he will be the officers "ride along" for the day, and just take part in the corruption.

From what I have seen, he values obedience to authority over analyzing whats behind the authority, and thats never good.

I hope ya'lls kid, or grand kid gets runned over in a school zone by a car thief doing ninety miles per hour in a stolen car.

Elrathin

03-22-2008, 02:39 PM

suedanim

03-22-2008, 05:15 PM

I hope ya'lls kid, or grand kid gets runned over in a school zone by a car thief doing ninety miles per hour in a stolen car.

So because we don't wish a cop to use their car to ram someone on foot, and don't think you understand corrupt cops, you wish that our kids and granchildren get run over and killed by a car thief? Nice. I guess this is what compassionate conservatism means right?

wow... nice guy and I have both teenagers and grandkids we adopted.

apdst doesn't consider that some blacks... all around the country.. might have good cause to run like hell when a cop says "hey you, stop".

I'm not advocating disobediance. But, otoh, I do understand why some might disobey and run.

btw.. I live in a city, predominantly white...and guess what...whites run too...and often, even when they haven't done anything wrong. Contact with cops in some places can produce deadly consequences... even when the so-called suspect is completely innocent of any wrongdoing.

Osborn F. Enready

03-22-2008, 05:48 PM

This has NOTHING to do with race, and EVERYTHING to do with the CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID use of force, by government agents against U.S. Citizens.

This entire argument is based on the misuse of force by police.

apdst

03-22-2008, 11:01 PM

So because we don't wish a cop to use their car to ram someone on foot, and don't think you understand corrupt cops, you wish that our kids and granchildren get run over and killed by a car thief?

You said that you hope I meet a corrupt cop, one day. Meaning that you hope I get injured, or killed by a corrupt cop. You mad that statement the same way Libbos say, "What if it were your kid that killed in Iraq?"

I was only using the same logic that you folks use, all the time.

Pookie

03-22-2008, 11:19 PM

People run all the time. However, there is a thing called "deadly force," and a vehicle is actually a deadly weapon, and unless the person running is wielding a deadly weapon like a gun and presenting an IMMINENT danger to innocent bystanders and the cop himself the runner is not a danger to anyone but himself for the most part.
An unarmed person running is not deadly force. Using a vehicle to hit them is. The cop was wrong.
Apdst, watch the Libbos crap. I have a daughter and a grandson, and to say you hope one of them gets run over by a car thief is a little extreme.
I used to be a cop, and you know it. Watch it...I know what I'm talking about when it comes to law enforcement, so you really don't want to get into it with me, okay?
Now, the cop was wrong. Look up the law enforcement statutes in your state, and especially take a look at "deadly force." Understand where it can and cannot be applied.
Pookie

Elrathin

03-23-2008, 04:10 AM

You said that you hope I meet a corrupt cop, one day. Meaning that you hope I get injured, or killed by a corrupt cop.

I said I hope you meet a corrupt cop and I hope it doesn't hurt too bad. I never said your family, nor did I wish you or members of your family KILLED. You wished other people's kids and grandchildren KILLED.

apdst

03-23-2008, 04:21 AM

I said I hope you meet a corrupt cop and I hope it doesn't hurt too bad.

I hope your kid isn't hurt too bad when he/she gets runned over by a car thief. There, we're even. Should I have said, instead, "I hope your kid's life hangs in the balance and the only people you have to depend on are cops that might blow a perp's head off to save your kid's life"? Would that be better? Don't dish it out, if you can't take it.

Apdst, watch the Libbos crap. I have a daughter and a grandson, and to say you hope one of them gets run over by a car thief is a little extreme.

You didn't wish for me to get my ass kicked by a corrupt cop, either. Therein lies the difference.

Elrathin

03-23-2008, 05:28 AM

I hope your kid isn't hurt too bad when he/she gets runned over by a car thief. There, we're even. Should I have said, instead, "I hope your kid's life hangs in the balance and the only people you have to depend on are cops that might blow a perp's head off to save your kid's life"? Would that be better? Don't dish it out, if you can't take it.

It's sad that you don't see the difference between me saying something about YOU (because you are supportive of cops using excessive force) and you saying something about my FAMILY (Who have nothing to do with this board).

Matt W

03-23-2008, 11:58 AM

I think the cop was an idiot. Not only can he be done for attempted murder - on record - but he has left himself and his department open to a host of lawsuits. And has thus pretty much invalidated any case they had against the suspect.

And why don't we drop the personal BS? If you can't debate without resorting to it, then don't bother. I'd rather avoid every topic turning into a flame-fest, thanks.