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.