Should Fleeing Motorcylists in High-Speed Chases Be Shot By Police ?

Doesn't matter if the chase is on open road, free of traffic. You don't shoot and kill someone unless its in self defence, and shooting a fleeing bike rider is NOT self defence, in any form.

Please DO NOT POST in this thread. It should not even exist. It is a mistaken DUPLICATE of the actual post. If you want to post in this thread, please GO TO THE ACTUAL THREAD and post there >> http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...s-in-high-speed-chases-be-shot-by-police.html

PS - self defense is not just self defense of yourself. It is also self defense of others.. That is the LAW.
 
Last edited:
Certainly not, for reasons posted in the other thread. Cops are not judge, jury and executioner.
 
If they are merged, why are we still able to post in the wrong one ?

That thread should be CLOSED (and it should have been closed a few days ago when I fisrt asked)
 
Last edited:
Because this one was probably posted before the other one. They are merged now, so just deal with it.
 
Certainly not, for reasons posted in the other thread. Cops are not judge, jury and executioner.

Certainly not WHAT ? If you want people to understand you, you need to include the post (quote) that you are referrring to.

As for police being executioners, they absolutely have that right if/whenever it is a case of SELF-DEFENSE, as shooting a speeding/reckless motorcyclist certainly is. And don't you know that self-defense means self-defense of yourself AND/OR OTHERS AS WELL ?

The 2013 Florida Statutes - Title XLVI - CRIMES

Chapter 776 - JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony
 
Last edited:
If they are merged, why are we still able to post in this wrong one ?

This thread should be CLOSED (and it should have been closed a few days ago when I fisrt asked)

There is no longer a "right" one and a "wrong" one.

Both threads have been combined into one.

Thank you, and also thank you for the cool picture of Pete Seeger, may he rest in peace.
 
A lot of "what ifs" from the shoot first, ask questions later morons. Move to another country where you can live comfortably under some repressive dictator's thumb.
 
Well, I guess that should give us all a green light to shoot somebody in a car too if they speed? After all, a car is far more dangerous than a motorcycle. Instead of radar guns, cops could just point their .357 at the cars and open fire on anybody doing say 10 miles over the speed limit? Yeah, that'll stop that shit!

I happen to love driving fast and I speed all the time. Of course I have a good vehicle and know how to drive fast because of the various racing schools I've attended. I also don't speed where it is dangerous....funny me I actually take conditions into account, But anybody who runs from the cops takes not just their lives but the lives of everyone around them into their usually incapable hands. That is not acceptable. Period.

Neither is the speeding you think is OK. You could be going down a seemingly empty road very fast, and see no people or cars anywhere. Suddenly a small child runs out from behind a bush, into the street chasing a ball, and is killed by your speeding car (which could have stopped if you were going slower)







I don't speed down streets where little children can dart out. That's the whole point. I gauge my speed to the conditions.

This is what it looks like where I speed. As you can see your supposition is completely false.

th
 
A lot of "what ifs" from the shoot first, ask questions later morons. Move to another country where you can live comfortably under some repressive dictator's thumb.

So all those cops who shot first and lived to tell about it (BECAUSE THEY SHOT FIRST AND DIDN'T WAIT FOR THE BAD GUY TO SHOOT THEM) are "morons", huh ? Not hard to see who the real "moron" is here.
 
Last edited:
I happen to love driving fast and I speed all the time. Of course I have a good vehicle and know how to drive fast because of the various racing schools I've attended. I also don't speed where it is dangerous....funny me I actually take conditions into account, But anybody who runs from the cops takes not just their lives but the lives of everyone around them into their usually incapable hands. That is not acceptable. Period.

Neither is the speeding you think is OK. You could be going down a seemingly empty road very fast, and see no people or cars anywhere. Suddenly a small child runs out from behind a bush, into the street chasing a ball, and is killed by your speeding car (which could have stopped if you were going slower)

I don't speed down streets where little children can dart out. That's the whole point. I gauge my speed to the conditions.

This is what it looks like where I speed. As you can see your supposition is completely false.

th

I'll grant you that little kids darting out from behind bushes won't be there, and you're OK on that, but how about some of these guys ? >>>

https://www.google.com/search?q=ame...QTY54KIBA&sqi=2&ved=0CCgQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=605

For that matter, how about everyone who's in your car if you get a blowout ?
 
Neither is the speeding you think is OK. You could be going down a seemingly empty road very fast, and see no people or cars anywhere. Suddenly a small child runs out from behind a bush, into the street chasing a ball, and is killed by your speeding car (which could have stopped if you were going slower)

I don't speed down streets where little children can dart out. That's the whole point. I gauge my speed to the conditions.

This is what it looks like where I speed. As you can see your supposition is completely false.

th

I'll grant you that little kids darting out from behind bushes won't be there, and you're OK on that, but how about some of these guys ? >>>

https://www.google.com/search?q=ame...QTY54KIBA&sqi=2&ved=0CCgQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=605

For that matter, how about everyone who's in your car if you get a blowout ?





I don't get blowouts. I use Z rated tires and they are retired after 20,000 miles. I have a friend who uses them for racing after I've used them up on the street. I am not your average speeder, I used to hold a Super License (I could race anything up to a F1 race car) I am used to living at high speed, but, I am a responsible speeder.

If it's not safe I don't do it. There are roads that I have sped on many, many times before, but if I come up to them and there is gravel or other crap on them, I don't speed there, the conditions have changed which makes it unsafe.

My car is maintained to perfection. It doesn't break, ever. If I am a little under the weather (like I am today) I don't speed, my reflexes are off. Hell today I didn't even drive, my wife did because I am taking a medication that I know impairs my ability to drive properly. Most would drive and I certainly could drive, but I chose not to.

Do you get the idea yet? I'm not you average speeder.
 
To answer the question of the OP title, perhaps we should evaluate the cost/benefit analysis of it. If cops don't shoot the jerk, rampaging through traffic at 100 MPH (or even at much lesser speeds), then a number of motorists might get killed, or badly injured. At some points in a high speed chase, the motorcylist may have full control of his vehicle (as on straightaways where traffic is absent). But as soon as he gets into traffic, everyone there is at huge risk.

Question is why ? Why should law abiding drivers have their lives jeopardized, when they could be protected just by having the cops blast this loon right off his vehicle, when the chase encounters an open road, free of traffic ? Shouldn't we take action to protect the public, and if the motorcycle criminal fool dies, from being shot, wouldn't that cop who shot him have done us all a favor ? (other than the guy who has to come along and clean up the mess)

I say blast him. :drillsergeant: :Boom2: :evil: :blowup:

High speed pursuit is always dangerous and is always under the supervision of a trained Sgt. or higher. Decisions on go, no go are made to protect the public. Shooting someone off a high speed bike is the stuff of video games and not something most agencies would consider except under very extraordinary situations. Today, in most urban areas, aircraft is used to follow in pursuit and vehicles on the ground follow at a safe distance and speed.

Area agencies know the bike or car will eventually run out of gas, crash or be picked up by next jurisdiction; trying to out run LE usually ends badly for the fools who attempt it.

I never seen video of a bike going 100 MPH after it hit a spike strip, though I know I wouldn't want to be on the bike when that happened.
 
I don't speed down streets where little children can dart out. That's the whole point. I gauge my speed to the conditions.

This is what it looks like where I speed. As you can see your supposition is completely false.

th

I'll grant you that little kids darting out from behind bushes won't be there, and you're OK on that, but how about some of these guys ? >>>

https://www.google.com/search?q=ame...QTY54KIBA&sqi=2&ved=0CCgQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=605

For that matter, how about everyone who's in your car if you get a blowout ?





I don't get blowouts. I use Z rated tires and they are retired after 20,000 miles. I have a friend who uses them for racing after I've used them up on the street. I am not your average speeder, I used to hold a Super License (I could race anything up to a F1 race car) I am used to living at high speed, but, I am a responsible speeder.

If it's not safe I don't do it. There are roads that I have sped on many, many times before, but if I come up to them and there is gravel or other crap on them, I don't speed there, the conditions have changed which makes it unsafe.

My car is maintained to perfection. It doesn't break, ever. If I am a little under the weather (like I am today) I don't speed, my reflexes are off. Hell today I didn't even drive, my wife did because I am taking a medication that I know impairs my ability to drive properly. Most would drive and I certainly could drive, but I chose not to.

Do you get the idea yet? I'm not you average speeder.

Again. What about these guys ?

https://www.google.com/search?q=ame...QTY54KIBA&sqi=2&ved=0CCgQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=605
 
To answer the question of the OP title, perhaps we should evaluate the cost/benefit analysis of it. If cops don't shoot the jerk, rampaging through traffic at 100 MPH (or even at much lesser speeds), then a number of motorists might get killed, or badly injured. At some points in a high speed chase, the motorcylist may have full control of his vehicle (as on straightaways where traffic is absent). But as soon as he gets into traffic, everyone there is at huge risk.

Question is why ? Why should law abiding drivers have their lives jeopardized, when they could be protected just by having the cops blast this loon right off his vehicle, when the chase encounters an open road, free of traffic ? Shouldn't we take action to protect the public, and if the motorcycle criminal fool dies, from being shot, wouldn't that cop who shot him have done us all a favor ? (other than the guy who has to come along and clean up the mess)

I say blast him. :drillsergeant: :Boom2: :evil: :blowup:

High speed pursuit is always dangerous and is always under the supervision of a trained Sgt. or higher. Decisions on go, no go are made to protect the public. Shooting someone off a high speed bike is the stuff of video games and not something most agencies would consider except under very extraordinary situations. Today, in most urban areas, aircraft is used to follow in pursuit and vehicles on the ground follow at a safe distance and speed.

Area agencies know the bike or car will eventually run out of gas, crash or be picked up by next jurisdiction; trying to out run LE usually ends badly for the fools who attempt it.

I never seen video of a bike going 100 MPH after it hit a spike strip, though I know I wouldn't want to be on the bike when that happened.

OK. 10-4. But my OP question remains >> "Why should law abiding drivers have their lives jeopardized, when they could be protected just by having the cops blast this loon right off his vehicle, when the chase encounters an open road, free of traffic ?"
 
A lot of "what ifs" from the shoot first, ask questions later morons. Move to another country where you can live comfortably under some repressive dictator's thumb.

So all those cops who shot first and lived to tell about it (BECAUSE THEY SHOT FIRST AND DIDN'T WAIT FOR THE BAD GUY TO SHOOT THEM) are "morons", huh ? Not hard to see who the real "moron" is here.
You ARE stupid, aren't you. I wasn't calling the cops morons, I was calling YOU a moron. The cops aren't morons for wanting more power to use deadly force, they're the ones with the guns and the badges! YOU, on the other hand, have no power and are at their mercy, so if you want to give them even more power to kill citizens, that makes YOU a moron because you might be their next victim. But if it's true that God watches out for stupid people, you're probably safe.
 
A lot of "what ifs" from the shoot first, ask questions later morons. Move to another country where you can live comfortably under some repressive dictator's thumb.

So all those cops who shot first and lived to tell about it (BECAUSE THEY SHOT FIRST AND DIDN'T WAIT FOR THE BAD GUY TO SHOOT THEM) are "morons", huh ? Not hard to see who the real "moron" is here.
You ARE stupid, aren't you. I wasn't calling the cops morons, I was calling YOU a moron. The cops aren't morons for wanting more power to use deadly force, they're the ones with the guns and the badges! YOU, on the other hand, have no power and are at their mercy, so if you want to give them even more power to kill citizens, that makes YOU a moron because you might be their next victim. But if it's true that God watches out for stupid people, you're probably safe.

You think I'm stupid. HA HA. You're not only stupid, you're DERANGED. Interesting how you look upon the cops. You see them as someone you should fear. Someone who is likely to shoot you without reason. You see yourself "at their mercy". You think they go around murdering people >> You said >> "you want to give them even more power to kill citizens", as if they were just going around killing citizens.

Dude. You are sick. You are bent. I'm going to be a cop's "next victim". Wow. Whose anti-cop propaganda have you been listening to ?

And it looks like what I said about the cops shooting first and living to tell about it (BECAUSE THEY SHOT FIRST AND DIDN'T WAIT FOR THE BAD GUY TO SHOOT THEM) went right over your wacked-out head.

To inject sanity back into this, cops shooting a speeding, reckless motorcyclist on an empty road (which is headed toward traffic) is an act of SELF-DEFENSE, defending the lives of motorists on the road up ahead. GET IT ? Or are you too anti-cop to think about anything other than being shot by cops for no good reason ?

BTW. Have you checked in with a psychiatrist about your cop fear paranoia ? You want to do that, before you go totally nuts. Or am I talkimg to some kind of criminal here ? You're not typing from a prison cell by any chance are you ?
 

Forum List

Back
Top