Lol... I can't wait to see the training event where we try dodging moving vehicles...

Pro tip: don't drive your car at law enforcement (or other persons).

Lol... I can't wait to see the training event where we try dodging moving vehicles...

Pro tip: don't drive your car at law enforcement (or other persons).

On the other hand, police shouldn't be able to jump in front of a moving vehicle and then claim murderous intent by the driver, either....

Thanks, even that was a pain in the ass, but it's up now.

Can you post the text of the article for those without a subscription?

Edited:  Sorry can't cut and paste the entire paid subscription article.

HPD officers have found a way to manipulate someone trying to drive away in the minds of the public by calling it "attempted murder"
Every time anyone drives off, some officer claims he was in fear of his life and justifies having to kill the driver.
It's about time an external investigation is being conducted.
Chief. Kealoha has proven that he doesn't care about the facts and will simply back up any HPD officer that murders anyone else in Hawaii.
HPD is in serious need of a major personnel overhaul.
A wise man once said " A fish stinks from the head first"

From the orig. post:

Forum policy ... you can link, but you can't copy and paste copyrighted material.

 

On the other hand, police shouldn't be able to jump in front of a moving vehicle and then claim murderous intent by the driver, either....

Lets analyze that basic statement for a moment but in a basic waythrough a police officers point of view, not in detail of a thousand different ways it could happen.

The officer is in front of a vehicle that needs to be stopped *Standing in front of a moving vehicle is stupid and should not be taught by police academies
 for either enforcement of the law (catch a law breaker) or to protect the public (someone about to drive drunk, etc).
The operator of that vehicle is able to see that the officer is in the way of the stopped vehicle and instructing the driver to stop. *Speculative
The operator begins to drive towards the officer in obvious defiance of the previously mentioned fact thereby placing that officer in danger of death or serious injury *If the aforementioned officer had not jumped out in front of a moving car, he would not be in any danger.

Now play the role of an officer, *OK, since I'm a police officer, let me make a mental note to self not to jump in front of moving cars.
Would you fear a vehicle about to run you or a friend over? *Nope, my friend and I are smart enough to not jump in front of moving cars.
Would you just assume that he is going to accelerate quickly at you but stop inches before hitting you? *An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

To be clear we aren't talking about some little old lady who is hard of hearing, the last few vehicle shootings were not some case of some innocent person with bad driving skills. The most recent Waikiki case we had a drunk person who showed an inability to drive, a refusal to listen to the officer, the continued attempt at driving (in a crowded area), a second crash and a third attempt at driving. In that case not only do you have a situation of the officer fearing his own safety *Lets be honest. That officer was not in fear of his own safety at all.
 but you have a situation where the operator of the vehicle poses a very serious threat to motorists and pedestrians. *And that justifies murder?
That driver had multiple chances to stop his car and comply with the officer's instructions yet he continued to ignore them. *Yup, he deserved a killin for refusing to listen.

Lets analyze that basic statement for a moment but in a basic way, not in detail of a thousand different ways it could happen.

The officer is in front of a vehicle that needs to be stopped for either enforcement of the law (catch a law breaker) or to protect the public (someone about to drive drunk, etc).
The operator of that vehicle is able to see that the officer is in the way of the stopped vehicle and instructing the driver to stop.
The operator begins to drive towards the officer in obvious defiance of the previously mentioned fact thereby placing that officer in danger of death or serious injury

Now play the role of an officer, either the one in front of the vehicle in danger or the partner of the officer in danger. Would you fear a vehicle about to run you or a friend over? Would you just assume that he is going to accelerate quickly at you but stop inches before hitting you?

To be clear we aren't talking about some little old lady who is hard of hearing, the last few vehicle shootings were not some case of some innocent person with bad driving skills. The most recent Waikiki case we had a drunk person who showed an inability to drive, a refusal to listen to the officer, the continued attempt at driving (in a crowded area), a second crash and a third attempt at driving. In that case not only do you have a situation of the officer fearing his own safety but you have a situation where the operator of the vehicle poses a very serious threat to motorists and pedestrians. That driver had multiple chances to stop his car and comply with the officer's instructions yet he continued to ignore them.

OK, let's use that last example, and I'll do it the "old fashioned way".

I observe the car in front of me run into the back of a bus. I turn on my flashers, get out and approach the vehicle. I ask the driver "What happened there buddy?" He responds with an expletive and takes a pull from an open beer he's holding. I lean into the vehicle, and explain that drinking and driving is illegal and ask him to shut off the car and get out for a sobriety test as he's obviously drunk. He responds with another expletive. I then crack him twice, hard, in the side of his head, reach over and shut the car off. I open the door and try to remove his safety belt, he begins to resist, I hit him, hard, again, then I yank his drunk butt out of the vehicle, throw him face first onto the pavement, put a knee in his back and cuff his ass. I then drag his drunk butt over to the curb and deposit him to await the cruiser that I've just called to transport him to the cellblock for booking, I read him his rights and I call a tow truck. Now all that's left is the paperwork.

Pretty neat huh? The really cool thing is, nobody dies. My hand is a little sore, but other than that, I'm feeling pretty good about the outcome.

You can't tell me he couldn't have done it that way because I saw the video of the incident and I've seen similar incidents play out in the same fashion over the years.

He'll sober up, call Leavitt, Yamane & Soldner or Hawaii's version of Johnny Cochran - Michael Green, and sue you for police brutality.
Then Hawaii News Now and the Star Advertiser will "investigate" and paint the suspect as a product of a broken home or victim of alcohol usage (aka drunk ass). Then they will have relatives say "He was a good boy, he just made wrong decision"

OK, let's use that last example, and I'll do it the "old fashioned way".

I observe the car in front of me run into the back of a bus. I turn on my flashers, get out and approach the vehicle. I ask the driver "What happened there buddy?" He responds with an expletive and takes a pull from an open beer he's holding. I lean into the vehicle, and explain that drinking and driving is illegal and ask him to shut off the car and get out for a sobriety test as he's obviously drunk. He responds with another expletive. I then crack him twice, hard, in the side of his head, reach over and shut the car off. I open the door and try to remove his safety belt, he begins to resist, I hit him, hard, again, then I yank his drunk butt out of the vehicle, throw him face first onto the pavement, put a knee in his back and cuff his ass. I then drag his drunk butt over to the curb and deposit him to await the cruiser that I've just called to transport him to the cellblock for booking, I read him his rights and I call a tow truck. Now all that's left is the paperwork.

Pretty neat huh? The really cool thing is, nobody dies. My hand is a little sore, but other than that, I'm feeling pretty good about the outcome.

You can't tell me he couldn't have done it that way because I saw the video of the incident and I've seen similar incidents play out in the same fashion over the years.

Lets analyze that basic statement for a moment but in a basic way, not in detail of a thousand different ways it could happen.

The officer is in front of a vehicle that needs to be stopped for either enforcement of the law (catch a law breaker) or to protect the public (someone about to drive drunk, etc).
The operator of that vehicle is able to see that the officer is in the way of the stopped vehicle and instructing the driver to stop.
The operator begins to drive towards the officer in obvious defiance of the previously mentioned fact thereby placing that officer in danger of death or serious injury

Now play the role of an officer, either the one in front of the vehicle in danger or the partner of the officer in danger. Would you fear a vehicle about to run you or a friend over? Would you just assume that he is going to accelerate quickly at you but stop inches before hitting you?

To be clear we aren't talking about some little old lady who is hard of hearing, the last few vehicle shootings were not some case of some innocent person with bad driving skills. The most recent Waikiki case we had a drunk person who showed an inability to drive, a refusal to listen to the officer, the continued attempt at driving (in a crowded area), a second crash and a third attempt at driving. In that case not only do you have a situation of the officer fearing his own safety but you have a situation where the operator of the vehicle poses a very serious threat to motorists and pedestrians. That driver had multiple chances to stop his car and comply with the officer's instructions yet he continued to ignore them.

Let's look at this situation considering two salient legal facts: First, the police have no legal duty to protect any one, unless they are already under arrest. So, any argument that tries to justify an officer purposefully stepping in front of a vehicle because they had to stop the driver for public safety is moot. Since there is no legal duty to remain in a dangerous situation, prudence and common sense would seem to dictate that getting out of the way is the better choice than shooting to stop the driver. Additionally, even if the officer were to successfully incapacitate the driver, that wouldn't necessarily eliminate the risk to the officer or the public as errant rounds could impact bystanders or the momentum of the now driverless vehicle could well propel it into the officer or any member of the public in the immediate vicinity.

Second, let's look at the situation from the perspective of the non-LEO (who similarly, has no duty to protect others) who would have to argue why he felt his life was in jeopardy in a similar situation. Have you ever heard of a non-LEO shooting at a driver to stop them? If so, did they successfully argue a self-defense claim? I have read stories of individuals shooting a fleeing vehicles, but never at one that was going to hit them. In those accounts the shooters were prosecuted because there was no justification to use deadly force. Do you really think a trier of fact would find someone claiming self-defense justified after stepping in front of a moving vehicle then claiming he felt threatened enough to shoot? I'm thinking that most judges/juries would ask the obvious question: "why didn't you get out of the way?" Granted there may be situations where moving out of the way may not be possible, such as when trapped in a dead end alley, but I think those would be rare. The other question I'm sure they'd ask, is why you jumped in front of the car to begin with.

Bottom line: IMHO, police should be able to to use deadly force on the driver of a vehicle, but should not be allowed to purposefully place themselves in front of a vehicle and then use that as the sole justification of deadly force.

Your argument is very close to the existing laws on self-defense against another person.  If you instigate the confrontation (i.e. you were the aggressor), you can not then claim self defense as a justification for using deadly force against the other person.  Otherwise, in order to justify killing someone you just can't stand, you only have to start a fight, let them throw a few punches, then claim self defense.

Same holds true if you leave the place where someone was threatening you, get a gun from your car or from your home next door, then return to confront the threat.  Once you were no longer in the same house, you had every opportunity to not return, thereby avoiding any threat without use of deadly force.

Let's look at this situation considering two salient legal facts: First, the police have no legal duty to protect any one, unless they are already under arrest. So, any argument that tries to justify an officer purposefully stepping in front of a vehicle because they had to stop the driver for public safety is moot. Since there is no legal duty to remain in a dangerous situation, prudence and common sense would seem to dictate that getting out of the way is the better choice than shooting to stop the driver. Additionally, even if the officer were to successfully incapacitate the driver, that wouldn't necessarily eliminate the risk to the officer or the public as errant rounds could impact bystanders or the momentum of the now driverless vehicle could well propel it into the officer or any member of the public in the immediate vicinity.

Second, let's look at the situation from the perspective of the non-LEO (who similarly, has no duty to protect others) who would have to argue why he felt his life was in jeopardy in a similar situation. Have you ever heard of a non-LEO shooting at a driver to stop them? If so, did they successfully argue a self-defense claim? I have read stories of individuals shooting a fleeing vehicles, but never at one that was going to hit them. In those accounts the shooters were prosecuted because there was no justification to use deadly force. Do you really think a trier of fact would find someone claiming self-defense justified after stepping in front of a moving vehicle then claiming he felt threatened enough to shoot? I'm thinking that most judges/juries would ask the obvious question: "why didn't you get out of the way?" Granted there may be situations where moving out of the way may not be possible, such as when trapped in a dead end alley, but I think those would be rare. The other question I'm sure they'd ask, is why you jumped in front of the car to begin with.

Bottom line: IMHO, police should be able to to use deadly force on the driver of a vehicle, but should not be allowed to purposefully place themselves in front of a vehicle and then use that as the sole justification of deadly force.

Lets analyze that basic statement for a moment but in a basic waythrough a police officers point of view, not in detail of a thousand different ways it could happen.

The officer is in front of a vehicle that needs to be stopped *Standing in front of a moving vehicle is stupid and should not be taught by police academies
 for either enforcement of the law (catch a law breaker) or to protect the public (someone about to drive drunk, etc).
The operator of that vehicle is able to see that the officer is in the way of the stopped vehicle and instructing the driver to stop. *Speculative
The operator begins to drive towards the officer in obvious defiance of the previously mentioned fact thereby placing that officer in danger of death or serious injury *If the aforementioned officer had not jumped out in front of a moving car, he would not be in any danger.

Now play the role of an officer, *OK, since I'm a police officer, let me make a mental note to self not to jump in front of moving cars.
Would you fear a vehicle about to run you or a friend over? *Nope, my friend and I are smart enough to not jump in front of moving cars.
Would you just assume that he is going to accelerate quickly at you but stop inches before hitting you? *An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

To be clear we aren't talking about some little old lady who is hard of hearing, the last few vehicle shootings were not some case of some innocent person with bad driving skills. The most recent Waikiki case we had a drunk person who showed an inability to drive, a refusal to listen to the officer, the continued attempt at driving (in a crowded area), a second crash and a third attempt at driving. In that case not only do you have a situation of the officer fearing his own safety *Lets be honest. That officer was not in fear of his own safety at all.
 but you have a situation where the operator of the vehicle poses a very serious threat to motorists and pedestrians. *And that justifies murder?
That driver had multiple chances to stop his car and comply with the officer's instructions yet he continued to ignore them. *Yup, he deserved a killin for refusing to listen.

OK, let's use that last example, and I'll do it the "old fashioned way".

I observe the car in front of me run into the back of a bus. I turn on my flashers, get out and approach the vehicle. I ask the driver "What happened there buddy?" He responds with an expletive and takes a pull from an open beer he's holding. I lean into the vehicle, and explain that drinking and driving is illegal and ask him to shut off the car and get out for a sobriety test as he's obviously drunk. He responds with another expletive. I then crack him twice, hard, in the side of his head, reach over and shut the car off. I open the door and try to remove his safety belt, he begins to resist, I hit him, hard, again, then I yank his drunk butt out of the vehicle, throw him face first onto the pavement, put a knee in his back and cuff his ass. I then drag his drunk butt over to the curb and deposit him to await the cruiser that I've just called to transport him to the cellblock for booking, I read him his rights and I call a tow truck. Now all that's left is the paperwork.

Pretty neat huh? The really cool thing is, nobody dies. My hand is a little sore, but other than that, I'm feeling pretty good about the outcome.

You can't tell me he couldn't have done it that way because I saw the video of the incident and I've seen similar incidents play out in the same fashion over the years.