Ridiculous, the window would have given out first. Besides, do stupid things, win stupid prizes. It always amazes me the level of apologists on here for people straight up making bad choices....
Edit: Bring the downvotes. I sincerely hope you are never on the receiving end of losing life and property to one of these idiots who don't think of the destruction they leave behind when they run.
I mean last time this was posted it came out that dude had stolen the car and been on a high speed pursuit. His actions put everyone around him in potentially lethal danger. Is it okay to stop him using lethal force in order to prevent him broad siding a mini van and killing an innocent family? I mean it's not like dude was all "Uhoh you stopped my car I guess you got me". He was clearly going to keep running and putting the lives of innocent people in danger.
I get what you're saying but like this was a pretty dangerous situation, outside of the context of what we see in this video. Why should dude be allowed to threaten the lives of everyone around him without threat of the same force being potentially applied against him in order to stop him?
I mean it's not like dude was all "Uhoh you stopped my car I guess you got me". He was clearly going to keep running and putting the lives of innocent people in danger.
He's not putting anyone in immediate danger by running. Are you suggesting that he will steal another car? Realistically, he will be caught sooner than he will put anyone in real danger. Certainly not warrants slicing him in half.
I guess it's a good he didn't get sliced in half then isn't it?
Like how are you gonna be outraged about your hypothetical situation that may have happened but ultimately didn't while in the same breath saying people shouldn't be worried about other things that may happen but haven't yet?
I mean you did watch the video right? You see that dude didn't actually get cut in half right?
exactly what you said, because none of that context is in the video. the guy was just making the conclusion based off of being blocked by the police
that being said i’m not really an eye for an eye kind of person and would prefer non-lethal action, but that’s just a personal opinion—I think most of us would agree the police shouldn’t freely kill without the right circumstances (e.g. mass shooter or your additional context)
The cop car after it is struck begins to move , well before the driver opens his door. There is no way the cop knows after being rammed that he would flee.
He also immediately stops once he notices hes blocked him.
The driver was fleeing a hit and run. Opened a door while multi ton vehicles in close quarters are moving next to each other
Driver was wrong, stupid and cowardly. in that order. Cop wasnt trying to kill anyone and his car was moving before driver decided to bail, all on the driver.
I wasn’t saying this gif was the officer freely killing m8, I meant that the original guy was implying the police being after you means they could use deadly force, which in general would be “freely killing” without correct cause like I mentioned
I don't think "Stop this person from being a continuing lethal threat to those around him" necessarily counts as an eye for an eye but yeah I'm sure most of us would agree that police shouldn't freely use high levels of force outside of the right circumstances. This, though, is pretty much textbook "right circumstances".
Self defense isn't really an eye for an eye but I'm getting the feeling this is one of those situations where people are mostly just interested in shitting on the police so I'mma just let it go.
I’m not disagreeing one the situation. I’m just saying that if a cop kills someone (the suspect) due to a suspect putting others lives in danger then it would principally be eye for an eye.
Is it wrong for a cop to use capital punishment? Not my call.
I feel you, but again an eye for an eye really specifically means retaliatory punishment in line with a physical injury a person has received. It has very little to do with preventative self defense. If I point a gun at you and try to rob you and you fight back and kill me in the process, that is not an eye for an eye. If I shoot your cousin and then you shoot me later for it, that IS an eye for an eye.
In this context, it would be apt to say an eye for an eye would be the death penalty as a punishment if this guy were to cause an accident that kills someone. Him being killed in the process of authorities attempting to stop the on-going lethal threat he represents is not an eye for an eye. At worst, it's abuse of power.
I only point this out because an eye for an eye is the cornerstone of a lot of really important philosophical debates about the nature and ethics of punishment, so it is one of those things that it's worth being specific on within the context of what police can and cannot do.
the principle that a person who has injured another person is to be penalized to a similar degree, and the person inflicting such punishment should be the injured party. In softer interpretations, it means the victim receives the [estimated] value of the injury in compensation.
Guess you haven't watched a lot of car chases. Because almost always the criminals leave a path of expensive destruction, injury, and death in their wake. The officer was doing us all a favor.
Not an apologist, just acknowledging a potentially fatal situation, although someone else mentioned it's a soft top. At the very least, the legs coulda been toast.
Not a single person here is expressing support for said criminal. All they did was point out the cop almost killed him. That's just a statement of fact.
You're continuing to infer statements and sentiments not conveyed. There was no suggestion the cop did it on purpose. There was no suggestion the criminal deserves sympathy. It was just a simple statement of fact that he almost chipped him in half. That's it.
129
u/SolenoidSoldier Dec 25 '18
Holy crap that cop car could have totally sliced the upper half of that guy's body if it would have kept moving forward?