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

[westwall]

Do you know how the accident happened? Could the car have run a red light?

The speed was in excess of 60 mph to get it buried that far, there are no skid marks so I would say it was an intentional crash.

Intentional on whose part? Certainly not the guy on the bike!

I would say yes. He center punched the car, thus there was zero effort to avoid the car. When I rode I was always looking for the path of LEAST resistance in the event I had to hit something, not the MOST as is this case.

 

[protectionist]

No you haven't, you started a failed thread and are too stupid to know when to give it up. Keep digging, dumbass.

By calling the thread "failed" when you know it isn't only further amplifies your trolling character and INABILITY TO ADDRESS THE QUESTION OF THE OP >> "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 ?"

You're getting too emotional and are losing track of your argument. You didn't make your point clear to noomi, (clearly) and further weakened your argument by not listening to what others are saying.

As I said, in certain conditions lethal force is warranted, however bullets travel a long way and in most chases the act of shooting a weapon will be more dangerous to the civilian population than the speeding vehicle.

Further, just because you have shot someone, doesn't mean they are going to stop anytime soon. You can shred someone's heart and they can continue to operate for up to a minute after that. It's never a simple thing no matter how much you wish it to be.

I made my point clear to Noomi (and everyone else) in the OP. No need for anyone to not get it. Noomi, like SJ is just pissed off at me because of the beatings they've gotten from me > (SJ here; and Noomi in past other threads about Muslim jihad, both in this forum and another forum going back to 2011)

As for the shooting of the motorcyclist, as long as it is in a blank, unpopulated place, it's risk factor (if any) is a lot lower than not shooting, and letting the reckless motorcycle rider proceed at high speed right into traffic. It's basically a cost/benefit analysis, where innocent lives are the stakes.

 

[westwall]

By calling the thread "failed" when you know it isn't only further amplifies your trolling character and INABILITY TO ADDRESS THE QUESTION OF THE OP >> "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 ?"

You're getting too emotional and are losing track of your argument. You didn't make your point clear to noomi, (clearly) and further weakened your argument by not listening to what others are saying.

As I said, in certain conditions lethal force is warranted, however bullets travel a long way and in most chases the act of shooting a weapon will be more dangerous to the civilian population than the speeding vehicle.

Further, just because you have shot someone, doesn't mean they are going to stop anytime soon. You can shred someone's heart and they can continue to operate for up to a minute after that. It's never a simple thing no matter how much you wish it to be.

I made my point clear to Noomi (and everyone else) in the OP. No need for anyone to not get it. Noomi, like SJ is just pissed off at me because of the beatings they've gotten from me > (SJ here; and Noomi in past other threads about Muslim jihad, both in this forum and another forum going back to 2011)

As for the shooting of the motorcyclist, as long as it is in a blank, unpopulated place, it's risk factor (if any) is a lot lower than not shooting, and letting the reckless motorcycle rider proceed at high speed right into traffic. It's basically a cost/benefit analysis, where innocent lives are the stakes.

Good luck finding a "blank unpopulated" area when you are chasing someone. They chase people because they committed a crime. Crimes aren't committed in the places I drive fast now are they?

 

[protectionist]

Do you know how the accident happened? Could the car have run a red light?

The speed was in excess of 60 mph to get it buried that far, there are no skid marks so I would say it was an intentional crash.

Intentional on whose part? Certainly not the guy on the bike!

The important point here is not how THIS particular accident might have happened, but rather how thousands of them can (and already have happened) because of motorcyle jerks riding too fast, and recklessly into traffic.

In some cases, because of the superior agility of the motorcyle over the car, the motorcyclist may weave around the cars that it causes to crash, and may scoot off unharmed, leaving carnage and dead people behind.

 

[S.J.]

The speed was in excess of 60 mph to get it buried that far, there are no skid marks so I would say it was an intentional crash.

Intentional on whose part? Certainly not the guy on the bike!

I would say yes. He center punched the car, thus there was zero effort to avoid the car. When I rode I was always looking for the path of LEAST resistance in the event I had to hit something, not the MOST as is this case.

Why in the world would he deliberately aim his bike into a car, knowing it would kill him? The fact that there were no skid marks tells me the car pulled out if front of him. Your scenario doesn't make sense at all.

 

[protectionist]

You're getting too emotional and are losing track of your argument. You didn't make your point clear to noomi, (clearly) and further weakened your argument by not listening to what others are saying.

As I said, in certain conditions lethal force is warranted, however bullets travel a long way and in most chases the act of shooting a weapon will be more dangerous to the civilian population than the speeding vehicle.

Further, just because you have shot someone, doesn't mean they are going to stop anytime soon. You can shred someone's heart and they can continue to operate for up to a minute after that. It's never a simple thing no matter how much you wish it to be.

I made my point clear to Noomi (and everyone else) in the OP. No need for anyone to not get it. Noomi, like SJ is just pissed off at me because of the beatings they've gotten from me > (SJ here; and Noomi in past other threads about Muslim jihad, both in this forum and another forum going back to 2011)

As for the shooting of the motorcyclist, as long as it is in a blank, unpopulated place, it's risk factor (if any) is a lot lower than not shooting, and letting the reckless motorcycle rider proceed at high speed right into traffic. It's basically a cost/benefit analysis, where innocent lives are the stakes.

Good luck finding a "blank unpopulated" area when you are chasing someone. They chase people because they committed a crime. Crimes aren't committed in the places I drive fast now are they?

1. No need for good luck. Watch the OP video. There's miles and miles of it.

2. Initially, there doesn't need to have been a crime OR a chase. There could simply be a cop parked by a roadside (as they so often do), and a motorcylist comes speeding by at 90 mph. THEN, when the chase occurs it (as in the video)passes by large areas of unpopulated land. Nothing unusual about that. I drove from California to Florida, most of the way on Interstate 10. Hardly any of it was NOT unpopulated. Most boring ride I ever took.

 

[protectionist]

Intentional on whose part? Certainly not the guy on the bike!

I would say yes. He center punched the car, thus there was zero effort to avoid the car. When I rode I was always looking for the path of LEAST resistance in the event I had to hit something, not the MOST as is this case.

Why in the world would he deliberately aim his bike into a car, knowing it would kill him? The fact that there were no skid marks tells me the car pulled out if front of him. Your scenario doesn't make sense at all.

See Post # 104. It makes sense.

 

[westwall]

Intentional on whose part? Certainly not the guy on the bike!

I would say yes. He center punched the car, thus there was zero effort to avoid the car. When I rode I was always looking for the path of LEAST resistance in the event I had to hit something, not the MOST as is this case.

Why in the world would he deliberately aim his bike into a car, knowing it would kill him? The fact that there were no skid marks tells me the car pulled out if front of him. Your scenario doesn't make sense at all.

My guess would be suicide. If the car pulled out in front of him, the biker would have laid the bike down, there was no attempt to do anything other than hit the car right in the middle. There is no situation on any planet where a rider is going to hit a car like that, unless he intended to...

 

[S.J.]

I would say yes. He center punched the car, thus there was zero effort to avoid the car. When I rode I was always looking for the path of LEAST resistance in the event I had to hit something, not the MOST as is this case.

Why in the world would he deliberately aim his bike into a car, knowing it would kill him? The fact that there were no skid marks tells me the car pulled out if front of him. Your scenario doesn't make sense at all.

My guess would be suicide. If the car pulled out in front of him, the biker would have laid the bike down, there was no attempt to do anything other than hit the car right in the middle. There is no situation on any planet where a rider is going to hit a car like that, unless he intended to...

Ok, well I have an appointment back on Earth. Goodnight.

 

[westwall]

Why in the world would he deliberately aim his bike into a car, knowing it would kill him? The fact that there were no skid marks tells me the car pulled out if front of him. Your scenario doesn't make sense at all.

My guess would be suicide. If the car pulled out in front of him, the biker would have laid the bike down, there was no attempt to do anything other than hit the car right in the middle. There is no situation on any planet where a rider is going to hit a car like that, unless he intended to...

Ok, well I have an appointment back on Earth. Goodnight.

This is what it looks like when a rider lays the bike down. It ain't pretty but you can see there was an attempt to avoid.

 

[Ernie S.]

HA HA HA. I've been presenting substance arguments all along, and YOU HAVEN'T......and YOU KNOW IT, bullshit artist.

No you haven't, you started a failed thread and are too stupid to know when to give it up. Keep digging, dumbass.

You're not talking about motorcylists or endangered motorists now. You're just attacking me. Over and over. That's trolling. which you could be banned for doing. It's also stalking. Which you can be arrested for. And if those cops come and get you, (IN YOUR DERANGED MIND), they might shoot you. Right ? Isn't that what you think, SJ ? Right ? Right ?

Next troll from you gets reported.

Put on your big boy pants if you're going to hang out here.

 

[Ernie S.]

I would say yes. He center punched the car, thus there was zero effort to avoid the car. When I rode I was always looking for the path of LEAST resistance in the event I had to hit something, not the MOST as is this case.

Why in the world would he deliberately aim his bike into a car, knowing it would kill him? The fact that there were no skid marks tells me the car pulled out if front of him. Your scenario doesn't make sense at all.

My guess would be suicide. If the car pulled out in front of him, the biker would have laid the bike down, there was no attempt to do anything other than hit the car right in the middle. There is no situation on any planet where a rider is going to hit a car like that, unless he intended to...

I tee-boned a car on my Harley one time. Believe me, there was no time to lay the bike down and I was only doing 30 when I saw her. There were no skid marks, nor should there be if you hope to maintain control of a motorcycle in a panic stop situation.
In my case, I rode my bike away from the scene and the car was towed due to the front fender being pushed in and taking out the tire.

I did have to readjust my headlight, but other than that, no damage.

 

[S.J.]

No you haven't, you started a failed thread and are too stupid to know when to give it up. Keep digging, dumbass.

You're not talking about motorcylists or endangered motorists now. You're just attacking me. Over and over. That's trolling. which you could be banned for doing. It's also stalking. Which you can be arrested for. And if those cops come and get you, (IN YOUR DERANGED MIND), they might shoot you. Right ? Isn't that what you think, SJ ? Right ? Right ?

Next troll from you gets reported.

Put on your big boy pants if you're going to hang out here.

Hey, be careful what you say, he's liable to call the cops on you for upsetting him. I put him on ignore where he belongs.

 

[Ernie S.]

I'll just put him in negative rep territory.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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.

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.

Actually, a smart rider on a sportbike will usually get away in this area. By the time the first cop calls for and gets any help, the dude has stashed the bike someplace.

 

[Jarlaxle]

This is what he's referring to Noomi, the motorcycle IS the gun.....

Do you know how the accident happened? Could the car have run a red light?

The speed was in excess of 60 mph to get it buried that far, there are no skid marks so I would say it was an intentional crash.

Plenty of roads with 60MPH speeds have cross streets. No skid marks could mean the rider didn't react in time, or simply that the bike had ABS. (It's common enough now.)

 

[westwall]

Do you know how the accident happened? Could the car have run a red light?

The speed was in excess of 60 mph to get it buried that far, there are no skid marks so I would say it was an intentional crash.

Plenty of roads with 60MPH speeds have cross streets. No skid marks could mean the rider didn't react in time, or simply that the bike had ABS. (It's common enough now.)

Yes, I know. I used to ride as well. I can't think of too many instances where bikes ended up like this. I could very well be wrong in my assumption, all I have is the picture to go one, but there appears to be no effort at all to avoid a crash.

 

[percysunshine]

Death penalty for speeding?

Seams a bit excessive.Road spikes were invented for a reason.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

Does a motorcycle impacting a car do that much damage? I've been hit by an idiot on a crotch-rocket running a red light. It did damage to my vehicle, but I was never in danger.

And if you think shooting from a moving car at a motorcycle is easy, you have been watching too many bad movies. The shots fired are FAR more dangerous than the biker.

 

[protectionist]

No you haven't, you started a failed thread and are too stupid to know when to give it up. Keep digging, dumbass.

You're not talking about motorcylists or endangered motorists now. You're just attacking me. Over and over. That's trolling. which you could be banned for doing. It's also stalking. Which you can be arrested for. And if those cops come and get you, (IN YOUR DERANGED MIND), they might shoot you. Right ? Isn't that what you think, SJ ? Right ? Right ?

Next troll from you gets reported.

Put on your big boy pants if you're going to hang out here.

When I started getting reported, that's when the ballfield got bigger. They play hard ball, I play hard ball, ever since. And if you can't handle the forum rules, don't do the forum. Can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.