Police in Iowa Shoot and Kill 19 yr. old After Father Dialed 911 to Teach him a Lesson

abecedarian
Anyone blaming anyone other than the adult who initiated and instigated the situation- the 19 year old kid, is living in fantasy.

I'm sure you meant as the "adult" the kids stupid non-father - right?

reply to post by IamTheManWithThePlan


And you said,...

"well it's obviously the kid's fault, didn't he know to respect the rules:

To me, this implies you think the kid just "broke some rules".
He did more than that, he attempted to kill people, both passively and aggressively.
And yes, my rights end where yours do.
This kid attempted to murder with a vehicle, in doing such he has shown that he wanted a "street trial".
Problem with a street trial is, you lump judge, jury, and executioner on the same person.

You claim,

From what I saw in that video, the cops' lives were never endangered.

Did you see the part where he rammed several vehicles that were occupied?
If someone attempted to run you over with a vehicle, would that be ok???

And yes, you did miss a decade. This tells me you were not paying attention and just ranting off of the cuff.

At this point, I really can't tell if you are trolling, or you are truly that dense.
I truly hope that I have been trolled.

sheepslayer247
This happened less than 30 mins from where i live and it is causing quite the stir.

There is a LE policy that states they are not supposed to shoot on a person in a vehicle if it is at a complete stop....yet this LEO did just that.

It will be interesting to see what comes of this.

What will come of this? A paid vacation for the officer.

briocheplease
reply to post by XionZap

 

It's already been established that he was armed, with a motor vehicle and had previously attacked the police with it. Have you actually read the reports?

I pay no mind to cop/thug talk. The boy was UNARMED and presented no threat whatsoever - except in the mind of a cowardly kop i.e. This sort of a murderous action on the part of the Gestapo police in the US has intensified considerably just in the past 2 years or so, which implies that they are acting out their aggressions on (most especially) young people because of orders from 'on high.' It seems that the forces of evil have been unleashed 'full force' so as to fulfill their pernicious Zionist agenda on the American people.

Police in America are for the most part - uneducated (GED maybe), truculent, piggish thugs, and I very strongly advise everyone here to NEVER EVER call a kop. Handle the problem(s) as best you can by yourself. To call a kop is to put your very life in danger.

See here for a similar example of thugs gone wild on young unarmed American children - California kid shooting: 13yo with replica assault rifle was shot 7 times in 10 seconds

Definitely a sad situation for all involved.

I see a large rise in unreasonable force used by officers around the nation; however, I don't see this as being one of those cases.

Reviewing the actual dash cam footage, from two cruisers, shows this emotionally disturbed teen was a danger to himself, officers, and innocent pedestrians. He needed to be stopped before anyone else was killed by his own choices and actions.

First, he stole what appears to be his father's work vehicle. Not a wise choice, and the wisdom of his father's choice to get the police involved can certainly be questioned as well.

Second, instead of pulling over when lights and sirens were blazing he chose to endanger the public by initiating a high speed chase on public streets. A bad mistake.

Third, he appeared to attempt the old myth that by backing into a police vehicle it will deploy their airbags and disable the vehicle to allow one the opportunity to "escape". That may have worked in the early days of airbags, but hasn't been a viable tactic for years. Shifting into reverse to ram someone is clear intention that the teen was using the truck as a weapon. Using a weapon against police is a VERY poor decision. He then proceeds on another high speed chase recklessly driving on public streets and further endangering innocent drivers/bystanders.

Fourth, as he leaves the road for a grassy field on the campus he pulls a 180, smashing a posting board, and decides to ram the officer's cruiser head on, again using the truck as a deadly weapon. The officer exits his vehicle, draws his weapon, does NOT fire, and instead of complying the teen hits reverse in another reckless attempt to flee.

Fifth, only seen from the 2nd cruiser's dash cam angle, while in reverse he proceeds to back into, and smash, a booth from which it appears someone on foot is running to escape. In this LARGE grassy field the teen has to reverse quite awhile and "aim" to hit such a target so squarely. At this point he shows that he's not just trying to escape, but also to cause malicious damages and endanger further lives with his weapon of choice.

Sixth, after the booth smashing, the truck and cruisers find themselves among sparse trees where both officers ram the truck in attempts to "spin out" the vehicle and stop it. The truck spins sideways into a tree and the teen again hits the gas after being stopped. The officer with the 1st dash cam exits his vehicle and you see the cruiser shake, hear a collision, and see debris fly. This implies, from the angles shown, that the teen pulled another 180 off cam to ram the cruiser a third time. If not a 180, then he pulled forward, stopped, and shifted into reverse in order to ram the cruiser the third time. Either way, having had numerous chances to end this pursuit, the teen chose to continue his vehicular assault.

At this point it is clearly heard there were seven shots fired (not the claimed "six"). Fortunately this teen didn't end up killing any innocents with his reckless "joyride" smashing property and endangering many lives. Unfortunately, this emotionally disturbed teen seems to have insured his "suicide-by-cop" with his repeated endangering of the general public, and of officers.

reply to post by redmage

He needed to be stopped before anyone else was killed by his own choices and actions.

Yes - he needed to be STOPPED, but not murdered. And how do you get "before ANYONE ELSE was killed" out of those events? No one was killed until the kops did the killing of a young unarmed boy.

redmage..........Unfortunately, this emotionally disturbed teen seems to have insured his "suicide-by-cop" with his repeated endangering of the general public, and of officers.

edit on 11/8/13 by redmage because: (no reason given)

Now you've morphed the child's errant teenage behavior into "suicide-by-cop?" Classic example of blame the victim - What gives with you people?

Wow quite a few replies since I last posted last night. I've had some time to think about this and I have to say that I think everyone has fault in what happened. Nobody is completely innocent. The father was really, really stupid for calling the police to "teach a lesson". He should have never called them in the first place, and started the ball rolling. The police are at fault at the very beginning of the video before the chase even begins, at the first stop light where he did stop and was not driving recklessly yet. If they would have just hung back and waited for him to get where he was going and get out he could have been apprehended without the eventual bloodshed. I don't feel they should have chased him to begin with. Another mistake was in the failure to setup a situation when it did escalate that would lead to the disabling of the vehicle rather than the death of the moron driver. They should have backed off, they knew who he was and did not need to chase the vehicle right to the end, it would have made more sense to arrest him when he got to where he was going and got out of the vehicle. Also they should not have exited their vehicles until the truck was hopelessly pinned. Maybe this was an impossibility due to not having enough officers on duty....it seemed odd that only 2 vehicles were involved in the chase. At least 3-4 would have made pinning the suspect in a lot easier. It's just tragic, it never should have been escalated by all involved to begin with. The "kid" has a lot of blame in what happened as well. He made a series of seriously stupid mistakes when the chase started which eventually led to the outcome being fatal. First off, he sped up and then started driving recklessly before stopping and then making the doubly stupid mistake of trying to disable the officers vehicle by backing into it with the trailer. After this he started driving really recklessly blowing through red lights and driving onto the campus of ISU, and at the end it was hard to tell but it looked like something slammed into the cruiser before the cop opened fire. This caused the officer to panic and he emptied his service pistol into the vehicle. He fired 7 shots and if he only hit with two he either panicked or was a really lousy shot. Was it justified, in the end yes it was, but I am certain there were plenty of opportunities for all involved to avoid the ending outcome that came to be.

reply to post by g146541


READ my post AGAIN!
Then you might figure out what I was saying.

reply to post by XionZap


In case you missed it... the teen was killed. Thankfully only one life was lost in this incident, and no one else.

Furthermore, claiming that endangering the lives of hundreds of innocents, and assaulting officers with a deadly weapon is simply "errant teenage behavior" is absurd. He smashed a booth with a bystander running for his/her life to escape, and rammed a police vehicle not once, not twice, but no less than three times.

"Errant teenage behavior" is cutting class, making inappropriate jokes, etc.. This disturbed individual took his weapon of choice, a large truck, and went on a spree smashing up property and endangering hundreds of innocent lives.

What we have here are three grown men with a lack of any anger management skills: the father, the son, and the police officer.

An inevitable recipe for disaster.

Period.

redmagereply to post by XionZap

 

In case you missed it... the teen was killed. Thankfully only one life was lost in this incident, and no one else.

Should I repeat it for you ? "Yes - he needed to be STOPPED, but not murdered. And how do you get "before ANYONE ELSE was killed" out of those events? No one was killed until the kops did the killing of a young unarmed boy."

... and what we have here in this thread is yet more examples of several people displaying their lack of anger management skills.

[insert slap forehead here]

reply to post by XionZap


Nice edit. It's always good to quote/reply to the proper post.

I think I explained my use of the word "else" sufficiently. Interesting that you choose to play grammar-nazi on that one possibly-misused word instead of addressing the six rational points I laid out in my post. Quite telling of your position on the issue.

XionZap
Yes - he needed to be STOPPED, but not murdered.

The problem with this is... he was stopped, and decided to use deadly force by taking his stolen vehicle and intentionally ramming it into another. He was stopped again... and decided to use deadly force by taking his stolen vehicle and intentionally ramming another. He also decided to use deadly force by smashing the stolen truck through a "booth" as someone fled for his/her life on foot. He was even stopped a third time... and decided to use deadly force by taking his stolen vehicle and intentionally ramming another. This isn't even taking into account the numerous lives he endangered while recklessly driving in his high speed chase. This young man may not have had a firearm, but he certainly had a deadly weapon that he was using actively and repeatedly without any care for his life, or for the lives of anyone else.

Have you actually watched the dash cam footage? After the young man's second use of deadly force, ramming the squad car, the officer exits his vehicle, draws his weapon, and does NOT fire. Only after the young man smashes a booth, where someone flees on foot, and ramming the squad car a third time does the officer actually open fire.

In your opinion, how much deadly force is a civilian allowed to use before an officer uses deadly force as well?

redmage
reply to post by XionZap

 

Nice edit. It's always good to quote/reply to the proper post.

I think I explained my use of the word "else" sufficiently. Interesting that you choose to play grammar-nazi on that one possibly-misused word instead of addressing the six rational points I laid out in my post. Quite telling of your position on the issue.

Whose edit are you talking about ?- NOT FROM ME that's for sure!!!

Here is your original remark, which has been EDITED BY YOU...........> "He needed to be stopped before anyone else was killed by his own choices and actions. "

blackangel13
reply to post by Kaifan

 

i think you need to watch the video again. the squad car clearly stops behind the truck, without hitting it, and the truck proceeds to backup ramming itself into the squad car.

and to all the people saying cops are too trigger happy, that may be true around the country, and i'm sure there are a few around here, but i know enough cops to know that the majority of them will only fire if they feel their lives are in danger, that is how they are trained. my brother has had to pull his gun on people before but has never fired at anyone, and he has been a cop for over 8 years now.

in this specific situation the cops gave the suspect plenty of opportunities to pull over and get out of the car, which he continued to refuse to do, and then he proceeded to make moves like he was going to take off, or worse, run them over, so they opened fire.

and the coroner report said he died from 2 gunshot wounds, out of 6 bullets fired. with 4 of 6 shots missing that doesn't sound like someone firing on someone with intent to kill, that sounds like someone firing because they are afraid for their life.

Yeah you're right, i can't believe i missed that the first time, agree that doing that wasn't very smart, but that last part about shooting him because the cop felt threatened i don't agree, he is not supposed to feel afraid of his life like that, because he has training and his job is not to kill anyone who posses a threat to himself, his job is to detain people who breaks the law, otherwise we start seeing people killed all over the place, once you get to "if i feel threatened by you i can kill you because its the law" then you will get cops killing people because someone looked at them in an ugly way and they felt threatened, don't underestimate human stupidity, it is present all the time, it just needs a trigger to force itself to the front and mess things up.

What should have happened is, they disable the truck, just like they used to do a long while ago, they can shoot the tires, hit it with their cars, and maybe some warning shots, only then, if they don't get any response, then they can think of something like this, but why do they always have to jump to the extreme? "you hit my car, you're dead buddy!", at that speed and in the way he was hitting those cars is difficult to believe someone could die, and he didn't start shooting at them also, they just said he doesn't stop, he hit our cars, lets kill him without questioning, or without stepping next to the truck and point my gun at him and order him to step out".

boymonkey74
reply to post by FraternitasSaturni

 

So its right to shoot someone who doesn't turn off the gas? heck sorry but in the uk the cops would box him in and drag the guy out.

We have new generation of cops these days with upgraded lethal force rules. Brave new world. Nicotine madness.

Regardless of what preceded the execution of the young boy, and of the incredibly stupid decision by the boys father to "teach him a lesson" - here is the crux of the entire matter - a rogue cop decided to empty his clip into the young boys vehicle because he didn't shut the engine off. Anybody here in defense of this horrendous crime is part of the problem, and is, in fact, guilty by association:

Unarmed teen shot dead by US police [executed]

Eventually surrounded by cops, Comstock finally came to a stop on the school's Central Campus, but the young man reportedly ignored orders to turn his engine off.

It was then that a police officer named Adam McPherson is said to have fired six shots into the truck. The teen, believed to have been unarmed, died from two gunshot wounds, per the AP.

Comstock's family is flabbergasted as to how a minor family dispute turned into an unspeakable tragedy.

“So he didn’t shut the damn truck off, so let’s fire six rounds at him? We’re confused, and we don’t understand,” Comstock’s step-grandfather, Gary Shepley, told the Register.

BTW......... I say this as the father of two, a boy and a girl - even if this tragedy had not taken place the way that it did it still holds that the father would have made an incredibly stupid decision by reporting his son to the police in order to "teach him a lesson." He actually lied to the police as well inasmuch as he made a FRAUDULENT report of a stolen vehicle. The father should be charged with a crime IMO - that is if he doesn't end up shooting himself in the head first.

reply to post by XionZap

Wrong on both counts.

XionZap
Whose edit are you talking about ?- NOT FROM ME that's for sure!!!

Yes, from you. Initially, your post here quoted and replied to IamTheManWithThePlan's post here, which you later edited to quote/reply to my post instead. Thus my reply of "Nice edit. It's always good to quote/reply to the proper post.". Did you think you caught your mistake fast enough that it wasn't seen?

XionZap
Here is your original remark, which has been EDITED BY YOU...........> "He needed to be stopped before anyone else was killed by his own choices and actions.

Wrong again. That remark still appears in its original form. It's the 4th sentence in my post right here.

I still find it interesting you still seem so hung up on playing grammar-nazi over the use of the word "else" instead of addressing the 6 rational points I laid out in the original post post. I think I sufficiently explained my use of the word "else" in the first sentence of this post, but I get it. You disagree with the use of that word.

Quite telling that you still seem so hung up on that one sentence rather than addressing the 6 rational points I laid out, or addressing the question posed to you here. It shows a clear lack of foundation in your stance on the issue when you have nothing to say for an answer, and no rational discourse to discuss the 6 points I laid out.