Police State: Dad Calls Cops To Teach Son A Lesson, Cops Kill The Kid...

[tinydancer]

Dad Calls Cops on Son to Teach Him a Lesson, Cops Shoot Son Dead

A father's attempt to teach his son a lesson for taking his truck without permission ended in tragedy Monday after a local police officer shot the teenager dead.

James Comstock told the Des Moines Register he called the police on his son Tyler after the latter took the former's truck in retaliation for refusing to buy him cigarettes.

Ames Police Officer Adam McPherson reportedly spotted the lawn care company vehicle and pursued it onto the Iowa State University campus, where a brief standoff ensued after Tyler allegedly refused orders to turn off the engine.

McPherson eventually fired six shots into the truck, two of which struck Tyler who was later pronounced dead.

The official report claims the action was necessary in order "to stop the ongoing threat to the public and the officers."

Tyler's dad says he was unarmed at the time.

"So he didn't shut the damn truck off, so let's fire six rounds at him?" exclaimed Gary Shepley, Tyler's step-grandfather. "We're confused, and we don't understand."

.

You got some weird shit going now. I was in another thread on this a couple of nights ago.

The cop went for the kill.

 

[tinydancer]

Can you imagine doing the old shit that our dads used to do? You make the biggie. You tell your kid I'll call the cops on you and I understand what this dad was doing.

But now the fucking pig just goes ballistic and wipes out the kid and the car.

Dead kid. Pity the father didn't get what the "new cops" are all about.

 

[Contumacious]

Can you imagine doing the old shit that our dads used to do? You make the biggie. You tell your kid I'll call the cops on you and I understand what this dad was doing.

But now the fucking pig just goes ballistic and wipes out the kid and the car.

Dead kid. Pity the father didn't get what the "new cops" are all about.

Those acts are made possible because the scumbags who populate SCOTUS have adopted the nazi common law maxim which states that bureaucrats are immune from lawsuits.

.

 

[StevenC]

So the "kid" has no responsibility in this?
He stole a truck and refused to obey a police officer and presented a possible threat to others. Not sure if the cop needed to shoot but I blame the kid more than the police officer.

 

[Contumacious]

So the "kid" has no responsibility in this?
He stole a truck and refused to obey a police officer and presented a possible threat to others. Not sure if the cop needed to shoot but I blame the kid more than the police officer.

So you are saying that Iowa law states that the ALLEGED failure to turn off an automobile engine is punishable by death?

.

 

[StevenC]

So the "kid" has no responsibility in this?
He stole a truck and refused to obey a police officer and presented a possible threat to others. Not sure if the cop needed to shoot but I blame the kid more than the police officer.

So you are saying that Iowa law states that the ALLEGED failure to turn off an automobile engine is punishable by death?

.

No I am saying that the "kid" who stole a truck and endangered others bears some if not all responsiblity for his death. He stole the car, he refused to do what the officer ordered and he is dead.
To many poeple just want to bash the police without knowing all the fact.

 

[Montrovant]

So the "kid" has no responsibility in this?
He stole a truck and refused to obey a police officer and presented a possible threat to others. Not sure if the cop needed to shoot but I blame the kid more than the police officer.

So you are saying that Iowa law states that the ALLEGED failure to turn off an automobile engine is punishable by death?

.

Have you seen the dashcam video of this?

 

[MikeK]

No I am saying that the "kid" who stole a truck and endangered others bears some if not all responsiblity for his death. He stole the car, he refused to do what the officer ordered and he is dead.

To many poeple just want to bash the police without knowing all the fact.

First, to say the young man (I won't call him a "kid" if that's a problem) "stole" the truck is presumptive. He appropriated it without authorization and there is no evidence that he operated it in a hazardous manner before the police initiated pursuit.

The circumstances were such that the police supervisory authority decided the pursuit was not necessary and the officers were told via the dispatcher to desist. They disobeyed that order which removes all responsibility from the supervisors.

If the patrol officers had obeyed orders this shooting would not have happened. The incident probably would have ended as a simple matter of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle.

If the patrolman who did the shooting denies he heard the dispatcher's order to desist from pursuit, unless it can be proved he is lying (driving at high speed with siren blasting will support his denial) there will be no basis to charge him with any offense. In that situation there will not be sufficient grounds to censure him for anything because the circumstances of the shooting conform with "procedure" in that the young man was deliberately using the vehicle in a destructive and menacing manner.

I'm afraid that's the bottom line.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Sweet Jesus! why did they do this?

Dash Cam Video Released, Police Cleared in Iowa State University Chase & Shooting | KCRG-TV9 | Cedar Rapids, Iowa News, Sports, and Weather | Local News

Obviously the police had little choice, he rammed two police cars and was driving recklessly on a college campus where easily an innocent kid could have been run over.
It is a miracle someone else wasn't killed.

 

[Montrovant]

No I am saying that the "kid" who stole a truck and endangered others bears some if not all responsiblity for his death. He stole the car, he refused to do what the officer ordered and he is dead.

To many poeple just want to bash the police without knowing all the fact.

First, to say the young man (I won't call him a "kid" if that's a problem) "stole" the truck is presumptive. He appropriated it without authorization and there is no evidence that he operated it in a hazardous manner before the police initiated pursuit.

The circumstances were such that the police supervisory authority decided the pursuit was not necessary and the officers were told via the dispatcher to desist. They disobeyed that order which removes all responsibility from the supervisors.

If the patrol officers had obeyed orders this shooting would not have happened. The incident probably would have ended as a simple matter of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle.

If the patrolman who did the shooting denies he heard the dispatcher's order to desist from pursuit, unless it can be proved he is lying (driving at high speed with siren blasting will support his denial) there will be no basis to charge him with any offense. In that situation there will not be sufficient grounds to censure him for anything because the circumstances of the shooting conform with "procedure" in that the young man was deliberately using the vehicle in a destructive and menacing manner.

I'm afraid that's the bottom line.

Is there a difference between appropriating without authorization and stealing? Especially when the vehicle is reported as stolen?

Do the dispatchers have the authority to order the patrolmen to break pursuit? Did they, in fact, so order them, or did they instead instruct them to back off, which is not the same?

I agree that, if the driver only began driving recklessly once the police became involved, this situation could have been resolved differently. However, the fact that the stole (or took without authorization, if you prefer) the vehicle, refused to comply with police and pull over, repeatedly rammed their vehicles, etc. makes me think the lion's share of responsibility for the incident lies with the now-dead driver.

 

[MikeK]

Is there a difference between appropriating without authorization and stealing? Especially when the vehicle is reported as stolen?

That would depend on whether or not the father said it was his own son who took the truck -- and whether a supervisory officer was aware of those circumstances, in which case this situation would have been a textbook judgment call -- especially where a high-speed pursuit is concerned.

Do the dispatchers have the authority to order the patrolmen to break pursuit? Did they, in fact, so order them, or did they instead instruct them to back off, which is not the same?

Actually I don't know what the rules are in that jurisdiction, so I can only guess. But in New York City a decision to cease a high-speed pursuit would come from a supervisory officer. And in a situation like this there is no question that a high-speed pursuit pursuit would be called off (via Dispatcher). And a Dispatcher would not transmit a cease pursuit order if he/she was not ordered to by a supervisor.

I agree that, if the driver only began driving recklessly once the police became involved, this situation could have been resolved differently. However, the fact that the stole (or took without authorization, if you prefer) the vehicle, refused to comply with police and pull over, repeatedly rammed their vehicles, etc. makes me think the lion's share of responsibility for the incident lies with the now-dead driver.

Neither of us know the finer details of this incident so we can only guess what happened. If the shooter was told to break off the pursuit, and if he is stupid enough to admit he heard the order, he could be charged with reckless endangerment (in addition to being fired). But I can't imagine that happening. I should add I don't know if the shooter was alone in his car or if there were two, in which case everything will depend on what his partner says.

Too many ifs.

 

[idb]

The cops are the trained professionals - paid to carry out just this sort of job.

Here was a driver that they knew who he is, where he came from, where he'll end up, what vehicle he was driving, that he wasn't being apprehended for anything more dangerous than misappropriating a vehicle from his family and at the end of it all was effectively corralled in an open space.

If their best option, using all their training and expertise, is to chase him at high speed through suburban streets and then shoot him dead it might make you wonder why bother having a professional police force at all.
Why not armed civilian militia...they can shoot people just as easily and would be cheaper?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No I am saying that the "kid" who stole a truck and endangered others bears some if not all responsiblity for his death. He stole the car, he refused to do what the officer ordered and he is dead.

To many poeple just want to bash the police without knowing all the fact.

First, to say the young man (I won't call him a "kid" if that's a problem) "stole" the truck is presumptive. He appropriated it without authorization and there is no evidence that he operated it in a hazardous manner before the police initiated pursuit.

The circumstances were such that the police supervisory authority decided the pursuit was not necessary and the officers were told via the dispatcher to desist. They disobeyed that order which removes all responsibility from the supervisors.

If the patrol officers had obeyed orders this shooting would not have happened. The incident probably would have ended as a simple matter of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle.

If the patrolman who did the shooting denies he heard the dispatcher's order to desist from pursuit, unless it can be proved he is lying (driving at high speed with siren blasting will support his denial) there will be no basis to charge him with any offense. In that situation there will not be sufficient grounds to censure him for anything because the circumstances of the shooting conform with "procedure" in that the young man was deliberately using the vehicle in a destructive and menacing manner.

I'm afraid that's the bottom line.

Mike you got it mostly wrong. NO ONE knew who was behind the wheel of the truck when the chase began . Clear and simple it's the kids fault and he paid for it.

 

[Montrovant]

The cops are the trained professionals - paid to carry out just this sort of job.

Here was a driver that they knew who he is, where he came from, where he'll end up, what vehicle he was driving, that he wasn't being apprehended for anything more dangerous than misappropriating a vehicle from his family and at the end of it all was effectively corralled in an open space.

If their best option, using all their training and expertise, is to chase him at high speed through suburban streets and then shoot him dead it might make you wonder why bother having a professional police force at all.
Why not armed civilian militia...they can shoot people just as easily and would be cheaper?

Did they know all of that? How do you know that's the case?

There seems to be a lot of assumption about what the police involved did or did not know. Is there evidence that they knew all of this before pursuit began?
Why were the police called at all if the expectation is they should not do their jobs and should simply let the guy go his merry way?

 

[MikeK]

Mike you got it mostly wrong. NO ONE knew who was behind the wheel of the truck when the chase began . Clear and simple it's the kids fault and he paid for it.

If you call 911 and report your car has been stolen you will be asked quite a few questions, such as where was the car? And if it was in your driveway, is it possible a family member took it? Etc. So that standard procedure, combined with the fact that we are told the dispatcher called off the pursuit, is reasonable ground for assuming the police knew the car was driven by the reporting citizens' own son.

 

[paulitician]

They were instructed to end the pursuit. But their roided-up mongoloid savagery took over. They went into Kill-Mode. No pursuit, no unnecessary murder. Case closed.

 

[MikeK]

They were instructed to end the pursuit. But their roided-up mongoloid savagery took over. They went into Kill-Mode. No pursuit, no unnecessary murder. Case closed.

What you've said will be challenged by those with a pro-police disposition. But there have been studies that deal with the effects of the adrenaline rush that unavoidably results from high speed pursuits. The following is taken from an FBI report that also mentions the effect of adrenaline consequent to high-speed pursuits.

(Excerpt)

Police pursuit records provide some frightening statistics. First, the majority of police pursuits involve a stop for a traffic violation. Second, one person dies every day as a result of a police pursuit. On average, from 1994 through 1998, one law enforcement officer was killed every 11 weeks in a pursuit, and 1 percent of all U.S. law enforcement officers who died in the line of duty lost their lives in vehicle pursuits. Innocent third parties who just happened to be in the way constitute 42 percent of persons killed or injured in police pursuits. Further, 1 out of every 100 high-speed pursuits results in a fatality.

FBI ? Evidence-Based Decisions on Police Pursuits

(Close)

As mentioned in a previous message, I was told by a police officer I know personally that high-speed pursuits can be "fun," which is something to think about. While it might not seem so to some here, there are others (adrenaline junkies) for whom such experiences have the equivalent of sexual appeal.

Consider the popularity of NASCAR and what that implies. I personally find it boring and have absolutely no interest in it, but there are millions of Americans who eagerly pay top dollar for tickets to watch these modern-day chariot races.

 

[Montrovant]

And again.....were they instructed to end pursuit, or just to back off? Those are not necessarily the same thing.

Were those instructions an order or a suggestion?

 

[manifold]

Seems like a justified killing to me.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Mike you got it mostly wrong. NO ONE knew who was behind the wheel of the truck when the chase began . Clear and simple it's the kids fault and he paid for it.

If you call 911 and report your car has been stolen you will be asked quite a few questions, such as where was the car? And if it was in your driveway, is it possible a family member took it? Etc. So that standard procedure, combined with the fact that we are told the dispatcher called off the pursuit, is reasonable ground for assuming the police knew the car was driven by the reporting citizens' own son.

The father said it was his son but they couldn't see who was driving especially when it first backed up into the patrol car. The police didn't know and it was justified when he attacked the police with that weapon.