California Fire Expands Definition of Terrorism

Cops couldn't shoot the tires, or the radiator?. Couldn't get out of the way?
Avoid killing the man at all costs.

It's not up to the cops to decide whether this man was guilty or not.

Ramming a police car does not warrant a death sentence.

Let's think about this for a minute.

Put yourself in the cop's shoes. You've set up a barricade, and are stationed in your cruiser. Some nut in a car is closing in on you. Fast. This is not Hollywood; shooting tires and radiators WILL NOT stop a car in this situation. Are you going to ride it out (and pray you aren't hurt or killed), or are you going to use whatever means necessary to stop this guy and protect yourself & others?

That said, there needs to be a non-lethal means of quickly stopping cars; a "taser" for autos. Until there is, any such attack needs to be considered deadly, and officers have every right to respond as they did here.

As for the original topic, how did CA settle on 4 ounces as the magic amount?

reply to post by gb540


In reality California is one of those states that happen to use all means needed to stop cars on the run and killing is not one of them.

I also keep wondering why this suspect was killed so hastily and without trying the many ways that police have to deal with this type of problems.

Originally posted by jsobecky
What in the world is this supposed to mean? Our right to bear arms is part of our Constitution of laws, and I don't see the US falling into a "hole of self war".

Take away that right, and all the other rights fall like so many dominoes.

Yes a constitution that was made during the fight against the British for civilians to bear arms in the event the British would attack. At that time, perfect, protect yourself. Well they didn't come, you can take that law back. Take away that right and maybe you wouldn't have teens shooting up there schools, or so much gun violence in your "peaceful land of the free".

Oh please, I'm not going to bother with this. You probably own a gun and take better care of it then you do yourself.

Plus it's off topic.

[edit on 27-10-2007 by Tomis_Nexis]

reply to post by Tomis_Nexis


Actually the right to arms is one of the most precious rights that patriotic Americans hold more dear than life.

If ever our government even hint to take that right away we will have a revolution.

Yes people get kill by arms in this country but take them away will make the law abiding citizens of this nation more vulnerable.

We are after all the most armed country in the world.

Originally posted by marg6043
Yes people get kill by arms in this country but take them away will make the law abiding citizens of this nation more vulnerable.

Then you have serious problem with your culture. But then again, you are a violent country, well...you're violent outside of your country, probably because of arrogance. But what do I know I'm not American, I must be wrong then, right?

reply to post by Tomis_Nexis


No you are not wrong, we Americans can be very arrogant indeed and most of the time it has nothing to do with patriotism perhaps a misguided one some times.

Even when our government is supposed to be for the people we the people will always be vigilant when our government turns against its people.

That is why the right of arms will never be given away voluntarily by the population of this nation.

Once again, an interesting subject...ATS never fails to keep me intrigued.

I am not, nor ever have been a police officer. I have not been put through any sort of high speed pursuit training, nor have I been involved in any training exercises that included barricades to stop a fleeing suspect.

I am sure that will cause many to disregard my next statement.

If you had your car in a position to stop another, coming at yours much faster - wouldn't you in a very normal and human reaction.....keep yourself out of harms way? Secondly, if this was a suspect, a suspect that was acting suspiciously in a brush zone, and the authorities were concerned with more arson, then the most benificial thing to do in that emergency situation would be to DETAIN him. Ask him questions to see if there are others involved in what is becoming an apparent collective of individuals that were involved.

I was under the impression that no matter what state or county you were in, that was considered "Police Procedure", or "Enforcing the Mandate of Due Process".....to every extent that one can. Quite personally, if my cruiser is going to get hit, I am going to be away from it in a way to take out the tires, and Im sure the act of doing that (shooting at the suspect) would distract the suspect from being able to navigate through the multiple cruisers that would be in place - allowing my fellow officers to effectively neutralize the suspect and DETAIN HIM FOR QUESTIONING AND IF NECESSARY PROSECUTION.

In short, either the officers in this case were negligent, in which case they should be investigated; they were improperly trained, in which case one should investigate academy teachings and their effectiveness; or the officers had no intent of letting this person leave alive.

As to this particular piece of governmental procedure (the linked document), the thing that stands out the most is the fact that during a PRESIDENTIALLY DECLARED DISASTER(of which I have found no clear definition, nor have I found any distinct limitation of what the commander in chief can declare a national disaster), all, or most, of a states(or multiple states) infrastructure can be directed by two authorities - the administration of the president, and homeland security. I find that to be most disconcerting, as it is an infringement of state law. Yes the government should help, but it does not, and was never intended, to take over the local and state infrastructure.

Almost Lastly - this follow up statement by Schwartzenegger is most disturbing. I've heard things about him. I've yet to form a concise conclusion....but this doesn't help matters. Perhaps this is the first step in getting California in line with the rest of the country.

CNN - The Governator Speaks

Video

If I was a wannabe dictator - I'd use a tactic similar....destroy, scare, introduce enemies, and ensure the public that the government is all they can trust.

Lastly - I may not be a cop, but I have been in many extreme situations where my life was in danger in a way not so dissimilar, and the argument of "The person getting ready to shoot you and the choice involved" is old already. In this case there is absolutely no correlation to this barricade ramming incident.

Search your feelings - you will know it to be true.

Originally posted by marg6043

That is why the right of arms will never be given away voluntarily by the population of this nation.

Then something is terribly wrong between/with your populous and governance.

Originally posted by KingKruiser

TERRORISM: Any activity (1) that involves an act (a) that is dangerous to human life...

ANY ACTIVITY?!?!

Just make sure you obey the speed limit when driving...

I used to joke about how a 10yo throwing rocks on a roof will eventually be classified as terrorism. I don't joke about that anymore.

[edit on 28/10/07 by NuclearPaul]

In my town - they called in 7 squad cars, a helicopter, and half of the downtown fire department for.....

Ta ta ta daaaaa!!!! People throwing water balloons off of a building for a film they were making....!!!!

I believe they are being sentenced soon....I'll try to find the article.

Because the deer have learned to use AK47's?

They've got that balloon deal on the local news here. In the same town, IMO, where they release murderers, put potheads in jail and then complain a new jail is needed 'cause it's overcrowded. See "The People vs. Larry Flynt" for a perspective. By the way, I don't agree with Larry's material, but he did prove that the Constitution trumps the Thought Police.

[edit on 28-10-2007 by ibgrimme]

[edit on 28-10-2007 by ibgrimme]

reply to post by Tomis_Nexis

Originally posted by Tomis_Nexis
Oh please, I'm not going to bother with this. You probably own a gun and take better care of it then you do yourself.

Plus it's off topic.

[edit on 27-10-2007 by Tomis_Nexis]

I'm sorry, but it is very difficult to hold this conversation with you. Your thinking is fragmented which makes it hard to follow. Plus, your historical knowledge of the US is practically non-existent.

Finally, you're lapsing into personal attacks, which shows you have no argument.

First when a cop is trying to stop a car they put there car in a position to block the car. This means that the person who is being blocked did hit the cop car but in an act of self protection (escaping persecution).

The fact the the cop murdered him is proof that he was trying to escape persecution

Every soldier is taught that the first requirement of a prisoner of war Under military law you are required to try to escape.

We are brainwashed in this country to believe that if we make a mistake that the government does not like that we should give up our liberties freely.

I'm sorry this is just the opposite of reality the founding father fought for, there liberty and because we believed the crap they taught us we now think we should give up our freedom freely.

I believe the saying is " Give me liberty or give me death"

How many people truthfully believe this or understand it ?

Is it something we were told to memorize but never taught the true meaning?