19846 replies to this topic

[Holden West]

^Exactly. When cops start thinking like Dylan and Phil, that's time to start worrying.

[D.L.]

The cop should be satisfied that he is successfull in his work. He used his well trained skills to control and end a dangerous situation with no physical injury to people other than the intended target.

[Caramia]

No one should be unshaken by killing someone. I could see room to criticise if the police had either been too shaken at the idea of killing someone to fire, or if they had walked around afterwards acting like they were proud of the new notch on their gun belt. A cop who does his job and then is affected emotionally by having taken a life is a good cop.

(I can't believe I am defending the Victoria police, now I need to go clean my brain out with soap)

[Willa]

I think the bigger issue is why the cops went after this guy in the first place. He was driving a stolen car -- that's it. So they chase him through narrow residential streets, crossing big streets, and then end up shooting at him 12 times -- with bullets hitting other cars and a bus stop. Of course the cops want to get their man, I understand that, but I don't know if it was warranted in this situation.

[Rorschach]

I think that forcing the cops to let more bad guys escape will encourage more criminals to try and evade the police endangering more people more frequently. There is already almost no punishment at all in our justice system even when the bad guy is convicted and sentenced in court.

My solution is to increase the punishment for trying to evade police. The severity of any crime is reflected in the severity of punishment the law prescribes. What if you got ten years for recklessly evading police? If it's so serious and putting so many people in so much danger, why not severely punish the real bad guys instead of telling the police to let the bad guys escape?

I'm having a hard time believing that "most" and/or "forward-thinking" police departments are adopting such policies as the T/C news article claimed.

[G-Man]

I think that we can safely say that the killing of this person was not some sort of way to warn criminals and I do not think we have a big enough criminal set here in Victoria that would warrant it.

[VicHockeyFan]

I think the bigger issue is why the cops went after this guy in the first place. He was driving a stolen car -- that's it. So they chase him through narrow residential streets, crossing big streets, and then end up shooting at him 12 times -- with bullets hitting other cars and a bus stop. Of course the cops want to get their man, I understand that, but I don't know if it was warranted in this situation.

It wasn't. What hasn't been fully explained is that the cops backed off when they found the stolen car, in order to surveil it and catch the thief. If they had simply called in a tow-truck, taken the car away, they would have: A) prevented a high-speed chase through residential streets, B) saved themselves the trouble of firing shots in a residential neighbourhood (they hit a bus shelter, a parked car and another MOVING car with their bullets, and C) would have saved an awful lot of police resources that'll now be taken up on this investigation, and even all the resources that were used during the event, D) the owner of the stolen vehicle would have he car back in reasonable shape, and E) they would not have killed a guy, and yes, F) they may NOT have caught a car-thief red-handed, but with proper forensics, they likely could have found fingerprints in the car that would have eventually led to the right guy (as he had a lengthy criminal record, with fingerprints on file).

[VicHockeyFan]

What if bystanders had been shot?
Article Tools
Printer friendly
E-mail
Font: * * * * Times Colonist
Published: Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Police officials suggest a stolen vehicle "hurtling" down Hillside Avenue might pose a greater risk to the public than police shooting 12 times, striking a parked car, a moving car and a bus shelter. I suggest the possibility of a car no longer under control because the police have shot the driver presents more of a risk.

James Strickland,

Victoria.

© Times Colonist (Victoria) 2007

[D.L.]

The bad guy was well know to police.

[Willa]

I think that forcing the cops to let more bad guys escape will encourage more criminals to try and evade the police endangering more people more frequently. There is already almost no punishment at all in our justice system even when the bad guy is convicted and sentenced in court.

I appreciate that we don't want criminal walking. However, at the time they started this chase, all the guy was known to have done was drive a stolen car. They don't even know if he stole it. That was it. In my mind, not enough reason to put that many people's lives in danger. I think the risk to the public (high speed chase through narrow residential streets, bullets flying around) was greater than the benefit (nabbing some guy in a stolen car).

VicHockeyfan is right -- they had other options.

[Mike K.]

The forensics option as mentioned previously is a non-option. Police have neither the time nor the resources to check for fingerprints in stolen vehicles anymore.

They would have towed that car, and our friend would have presumably gone out to steal another or acquire a stolen vehicle by some other means. Catching these guys in the act gives the police some means of tagging the guy and cross checking him for other crimes. The wishful thinking television shows like CSI have us believing in are a non-reality in a cash-strapped Canadian system that only reacts when a serious crime has occured (say, if a body had been found in the stolen car, then they'd check for prints).

[homebrewer]

F) they may NOT have caught a car-thief red-handed, but with proper forensics, they likely could have found fingerprints in the car that would have eventually led to the right guy (as he had a lengthy criminal record, with fingerprints on file).

We don't even know they have caught the car-thief. He was driving it at the time. It was stolen a week before, who knows if the dead driver was the original thief.
As for forensics, you're watching too much CSI if you think they take fingerprints for anything short of murder, and even then...

Cheers.

[G-Man]

Police finger printed my house when it was broken into a couple of years ago...

[VicHockeyFan]

The forensics option as mentioned previously is a non-option. Police have neither the time nor the resources to check for fingerprints in stolen vehicles anymore.

They would have towed that car, and our friend would have presumably gone out to steal another or acquire a stolen vehicle by some other means. Catching these guys in the act gives the police some means of tagging the guy and cross checking him for other crimes. The wishful thinking television shows like CSI have us believing in are a non-reality in a cash-strapped Canadian system that only reacts when a serious crime has occured (say, if a body had been found in the stolen car, then they'd check for prints).

I agree that they don't do it (dust for prints). But in the end, what has wasted more resources? The chase and all the fallout that'll follow plus a dead guy, or the effort to have one guy dust for prints then throw them up on a computer, and issue an arrest warrant.

I walked by the police station a few months ago and they were dusting for prints a car someone had brought in. Now, maybe they already had a suspect caught or in mind and needed the prints for the trial/charge, I don't know. But they were dusting it right infront of who I presume was the owner.

BTW, I don't watch CSI.

[Mike K.]

Police finger printed my house when it was broken into a couple of years ago...

That's incredible. My mom's business was broken into and one of the thieves left behind a lot of blood after cutting himself on something. The cops showed up, looked around and told her to call them if she came across any news. They even joked about the blood but neither bothered to check for prints or took a sample of the blood. There were also shoe prints after these geniuses walked through their own blood.

As for the cost to society I would assume a life-long stint by a petty thief or criminal is costlier than a shooting investigation.

[G-Man]

Perhpa in my case there was a rash of break-ins, not sure, but they had a dog there too.

[VicHockeyFan]

Police finger printed my house when it was broken into a couple of years ago...

That's incredible. My mom's business was broken into and one of the thieves left behind a lot of blood after cutting himself on something. The cops showed up, looked around and told her to call them if she came across any news. They even joked about the blood but neither bothered to check for prints or took a sample of the blood. There were also shoe prints after these geniuses walked through their own blood.

As for the cost to society I would assume a life-long stint by a petty thief or criminal is costlier than a shooting investigation.

OK, I guess then we should just shoot and kill all petty thieves - save a bunch of money.

[Mike K.]

No, let's not be silly. You mentioned that society must now carry the burden of paying for the investigation, and I made the point that society would pay more for an individual's continued life of crime.

The argument that we must now pay for the investigation and thus should have resolved our cops from their sworn duty, on the basis of cost to society, is not something I would agree with.

[Rorschach]

I appreciate that we don't want criminal walking. However, at the time they started this chase, all the guy was known to have done was drive a stolen car. They don't even know if he stole it. That was it. In my mind, not enough reason to put that many people's lives in danger. I think the risk to the public (high speed chase through narrow residential streets, bullets flying around) was greater than the benefit (nabbing some guy in a stolen car).

But the point is, the BAD GUY is the one causing the risk to the public and the BAD GUY should be punished severely when he does so. The police need to use their own judgment when deciding on the propriety of pursuing someone. A blanket policy not to pursue criminals will encourage crime and encourage the police to do nothing. It's just poor reasoning.

The guy who got killed was a danger to the public. His long history documents only what he was caught for. You can be absolutely certain that for each time he was caught, he got away with it 20 times or more. What about the actual victims of this guy? There are probably a hundred people who still have that fear and apprehension in their gut every time they come home or return to their car wondering if they've been broken into. That feeling lasts for years and years. What about those people who don't even go anywhere anymore because of a fear of crime caused by criminal victimization?

The police should diligently and religiously and zealously go after the bad guys and arrest them and get them off the streets and in jail for as long as possible. You think the bad guy turns into a safe driver when the police abandon pursuits? A policy as suggested will, with absolute certainty, result in more criminals fleeing the police and in more victims and in more danger - real danger - not just the potential danger you're afraid of.

I'd be in favor of changing the laws so that the officers and city governments are immune from lawsuit too so that they can do their job without being Monday morning quarterbacked every time **** happens.

[G-Man]

I'd be in favor of changing the laws so that the officers and city governments are immune from lawsuit too so that they can do their job without being Monday morning quarterbacked every time **** happens.

While the rest of your post had some good points. I could not disagree more with this point. No matter what position you hold in life you are still a human and liable to make mistakes or break laws and should be held accountable. Life should not be a Bad Boys Movie.