Off duty officer shoots at car who runs over his feet

[Brett]

Officer shoots at man who runs drives over his feet - 13 WTHR Indianapolis

Does this seem like a proper response from the off duty officer? I don't think so.

 

[in625shooter]

A lot of it will depend on what really transpired. Also what could be we talked about officers acting outside of policy some departments have Use of Force policy that restricts firing at vehicles unless you are being fired at from an occupant etc. And as far as the Officer being off duty, department policy usually still applies.

We will see how it plays out.

 

[churchmouse]

Run over me and I would "Want" to shoot you.
Probably would not if it were accidental....on purpose, yes, I would shoot you. A car is a lethal weapon after all.

 

[Brett]

Run over me and I would "Want" to shoot you.
Probably would not if it were accidental....on purpose, yes, I would shoot you. A car is a lethal weapon after all.

But it was his feet. Not really a life threatening injury.

 

[ScouT6a]

Sounds like excessive force to me but.... the officer did say he feared for his life and he was concerned about the safety of the public, so there you go.
They are already pulling out their CYA card by saying the suspect "struck" the officer with his vehicle as he pulled away with his loud music.

 

[ScouT6a]

Gives new meaning to the term "flat foot" I guess.

 

[jmemmert]

If my home was broken in to, and I shot the suspect in the back as he was running out the door, I don't think it would go too well in court for me. In my opinion, the same applies here. The car was driving away when the officer shot at it.

 

[guns and groceries]

This is my neighbor hood Kroger and I will not go in unless I am armed. I have other shopping options but this is my usual choice based on location. I also shop there because I can multi-task ... I can get my dinner and work on my situational awareness skills.

 

[ScouT6a]

Thank goodness the cop shot like a cop and only hit the back window of the car, and not the driver OR any passengers who might have been in it!

Something tells me if this was a hardened thug, hell bent on running down a cop, he wouldn't have went home and called the police.

 

[CitiusFortius]

But it was his feet. Not really a life threatening injury.

I'm less concerned about the injury and more concerned about where the car was going. I may sound like a broken record, but a gun is the LAST line of defense.

There's rarely a reason to shoot AT THE BACK OF somebody who is fleeing.

If he's writing a ticket, then he should have the license plate. Let him go, pick him up later.

This sounds like a macho cop playing rambo to me.

- based on the limited info of the article.

 

[rw496]

But it was his feet. Not really a life threatening injury.

His feet are awfully close to the rest of him. Sounds like it was a close call, for both of them.

 

[Trigger Time]

Sounds like the driver knew he was a police officer (probably uniformed) and he had given the driver instructions and the driver didn't comply so then he was issuing an official ticket so it was an official detainment or stop and the driver flees and in the process strikes the officer and the officer fires on a driver he believes just tried to kill him but for certain is fleeing the scene of a traffic stop, or maybe could swing back around and kill him. The officer said he was in fear of his life. Sounds like a good shoot to me. I'm surprised people are defending this driver.

The only way this guy is getting out of this one is if the driver can prove the cop didn't properly identify himself as an officer (officers aren't ever REALY off duty when they make a stop). I think the guy deserves what he gets. I have more faith in the cop than some here I guess based on the info so far. Still until all the facts are out we won't know 100%.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I see a bushel basket full of fail:

1. We apparently have a situation initiated by an individual severely lacking in civility (i.e., the driver) without whose antics there would have been no situation.

2. The authority of the government should not be available for hire by anyone, hence government authority should not be made available for private use furthering private motives.

3. Fearing for his life is a bunch of crap. Only the most obtuse of individuals or dedicated of cop/.gov worshipers could buy into that.

4. Why was the officer writing a ticket rather than instructing the offending individual to leave as is the standard initial resolution to disputes regarding private property?

5. My conclusion based in the information available is that we are seeing the result of the meeting to two asshats.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Only ran over one foot. Why didn't the officer move his foot? Why would you start writing a ticket before asking for DL? What did the man tell police when he called them about being shot at?

Lot of missing info in this article


Edit- as Dave just mentioned about fearing for his life, he was standing next to the car at a window, why the hell did he stick his foot under the car?

 

[Pinchaser]

Not enough info and the liberal media story is written to sensationalize. The cop gets the benefit of the doubt.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Sounds like the driver knew he was a police officer (probably uniformed) and he had given the driver instructions and the driver didn't comply so then he was issuing an official ticket so it was an official detainment or stop and the driver flees and in the process strikes the officer and the officer fires on a driver he believes just tried to kill him but for certain is fleeing the scene of a traffic stop, or maybe could swing back around and kill him. The officer said he was in fear of his life. Sounds like a good shoot to me. I'm surprised people are defending this driver.

How is that more reasonable than fearing that I might get up from my computer, come over to your house, and shoot you?

If he were in genuine fear, he is too much a coward for the job.

It isn't a matter of defending the driver so far as I am concerned. I fail to see how this could be construed as a good shoot. It gives every impression of being retaliatory and vengeful and signally lacks any reasonable argument for ongoing fear. Had the driver made an effort to reverse direction for a second strike, it would have been entirely different. I am not aware of any form of rule of law this side of fascism in which this type of response is tolerable.

 

[Trigger Time]

I see a bushel basket full of fail:

1. We apparently have a situation initiated by an individual severely lacking in civility without whose antics there would have been no situation.

2. The authority of the government should not be available for hire by anyone, hence government authority should not be made available for private use furthering private motives.
.

On number 1. If your referring to the driver ten I agree with you. But some kids mommys and daddy's didn't spank them growing up so now they are menaces to society and thankfully we have cops to arrest them an judges to spank them.

On number 2. I couldn't agree with you more. I believe it is a conflict of intrest and should be legally banned in Indiana.
Wanna work part time fine, just not as a cop ( because that's what they really still are) for a private company. I think this is a real issue that should be taken up by the state legislature.

 

[Trigger Time]

How is that more reasonable than fearing that I might get up from my computer, come over to your house, and shoot you?

If he were in genuine fear, he is too much a coward for the job.

It isn't a matter of defending the driver so far as I am concerned. I fail to see how this could be construed as a good shoot. It gives every impression of being retaliatory and vengeful and signally lacks any reasonable argument for ongoing fear. Had the driver made an effort to reverse direction for a second strike, it would have been entirely different. I am not aware of any form of rule of law this side of fascism in which this type of response is tolerable.

Too much of a coward to do the job? I don't know how you can say this about this officer based only on the info released?
The facts will be weighed and the officer I'm sure will be put to the fire to justify his actions especially since IMPD is working real hard to change their public perception, so as a citizen of Marion county I am confident in the decision the department makes.
We do not know all the facts and I think it's unfair to call a trained professional a coward and irresponsible at this time.

Maybe it will be determined the discharging of his weapon was too much, A big maybe. But it certainly wasn't a cowards move I don't think.

Your illustration of coming over to my house to me makes no sense in comparison here.

 

[Expat]

I think we should all be allowed to shoot at someone that intentionally runs over us.

 

[Trigger Time]

I think we should all be allowed to shoot at someone that intentionally runs over us.

I think the law does cover us on this but most of us don't have cameras in our cars or on our person so we had better have a reliable witness if it ever happens. But I've said before I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6 or have any of my family killed because I hessitated when in fear of my life to mentally review Indiana code that I could never as a regular guy understand all of it anyways. I'm not a show off hot shot and I know the dire reaponsibility carrying a gun comes with, so I know myself well enough that if I ever sadly have to be inthe position to pull my weapon it will be justified.