Violent Carjacker in Stolen Car Thinks He Can Get Away
Please thank The Wilderness Tactical Products for bringing us todays video of Violent Carjacker in Stolen Car Thinks He Can Get Away! To get the ankle IFAK for only $35, sign up here: https://get-asp.com/ankleIFAK and check out their belts here: https://get-asp.com/wildernessbelts. The Wilderness is a fantastic small business and I buy their products myself.
News Stories:
https://get-asp.com/ix3u
Raw Videos:
ASP Sponsors and Recommended Products: https://activeselfprotection.com/recommended-products-and-sponsors/
If you value what we do at ASP, would you consider becoming an ASP Patron Member to support making videos like Violent Carjacker in Stolen Car Thinks He Can Get Away? https://get-asp.com/patron or https://get-asp.com/patron-annual gives the details and benefits.
Copyright Disclaimer. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
Attitude. Skills. Plan.
I support police officers 100% but it is the norm that if you shoot a man in the back that is considered cowardice and is not justified in the slightest 🤡🤡
However frustrating this hideous criminal was, it is incredibly hard to say that he posed an immediate threat to anyone – he was running away. I get that ordinary people hate the fact these types of people are just roaming around causing mayhem. However, we cannot just shoot people because they have committed a criminal offence. This one is not a justified shooting for me – despite feeling and enormous sympathy for the police officers. In the US they may get away with it, but here in Europe the officers would be facing criminal charges. Different cultures with different views about the use of deadly force.
Personally I don't care at all. However if it was my family I would be upset. The scope I look through police shootings is as follows. Did the officer need to fire.. no. He did not need to defend himself right then. Did he fire to save someone immediately. No. No he didn't. Lastly Did he fire because he felt the person would have hurt someone if he continued on. Yes. This appears to be the case. . The first and second are always OK with me. The third is usually wishy washy with me and my opinion is usually entirely based on what led to the situation. Sometimes I approve and sometimes I don't. I'm conflicted here but I don't think the officer who shit did it out of emotion or lack or training. Made a clear decision and with knowing everything about the guy it seems to have been the right call. An eradic driver experiencing a mental episode with no history of violence or crime could have done exactly what the guy did and I wouldn't have approved the shooting. That's why it's so tricky sometimes. A hit long winded but this is how I comment. Try and express myself thoroughly
To the host that said pursuits are stupid, you are ignorant to say that. Read the US Supreme Court case Scott vs Harris for a discussion that directly criticizes your ignorant statement. There cannot be a reward for dangerous driving and an immunity from capture or intervention by police. That ignorant logic you used in the video requires the presumption that what the suspect chooses to do rather than surrender is actually the fault of police and not the suspect, that the police should be civilly and criminally liable and not the suspect, and that police actually must run away from any suspect causing danger to others. As the Supreme Court has said, that is contrary to the duty of police. The police cannot operate like that and the logic is repeatedly rejected in courts across the US. Most police agencies allow vehicle pursuits, the ones that don't are cesspools of criminal activity, victimization, and rampat brazen lawlessness and escapes by people who often then cannot be identified because they were allowed to escape and victimize someone else without consequence (Chicago can't even pursue on foot in most circumstances, Detroit, Atlanta, etc).
I'm a supervisor at my agency, the only one that went to law school, and our pursuit policy resembles the actual state of the law in my state (and almost every other state minus Washington) – everyone fleeing police can be pursued regardless of what crime they're suspected of committing. If they increase the danger to the public, then we increase the use of force to protect the public. That includes ramming their vehicle even if it kills them if their driving is reckless enough or possibly what the officer in this case did.
People that think police should just be historians and write reports should not be involved in law enforcement. People can be dangerous in any circumstance and police have to be able to intervene and stop it in any circumstance. This host would probably let a school shooter escape just because he got into a car.
Shot an unarmed man that did not point a gun at the officers. Justified? In my opinion, NO. Did he pose a threat to the public in the vehicle he was driving? Yes but he was a threat to the public long before the car chase anyway. Does that justify an automatic death sentence by police? NO. Should have ended the pursuit long ago, shame on that department risking the general publics lives like that. What if he was running away on foot? Would that justify him being shot in the back?
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
seems like a happy ending.
"Cornoplethora" isn't a word…
You look like Greatful Deads logo up there in the corner lol
He was a public threat when he started ramming people in their cars.
Yep totally justified
Good police work all round.
I agree, but the officer up ahead of him to the right appeared surprised he fired. I’m glad he did!
Wait… did jack black stray from music and acting? 😂😂😂
No question in my mind that was justified that guy had 0 regard for public safty and was definitely a threat to that public safty
I don't have any qualms even if they hit him with a bazooka!
Definitely not right for shooting only because it’s houses around unless he had clear shot
Sucks for insurance for them guys that got hit
I support police officers 100% but it is the norm that if you shoot a man in the back that is considered cowardice and is not justified in the slightest 🤡🤡
Seems first cop put himself at an insane risk of being shot through the window.
However frustrating this hideous criminal was, it is incredibly hard to say that he posed an immediate threat to anyone – he was running away. I get that ordinary people hate the fact these types of people are just roaming around causing mayhem. However, we cannot just shoot people because they have committed a criminal offence. This one is not a justified shooting for me – despite feeling and enormous sympathy for the police officers. In the US they may get away with it, but here in Europe the officers would be facing criminal charges. Different cultures with different views about the use of deadly force.
قص لحيتك وشعرك كنت اجمل من قبل 🙋♂️👍
Why didn’t he shoot the tires????!!!
Piece of human garbage robbing people at gunpoint? I think he's 100% a danger to society if he were to get away… Totally justified all day.
American cops have really good accuracy
He showed a propensity to hurt/kill people. Justified. If these guys knew they would be shot they might not do this.
Personally I don't care at all. However if it was my family I would be upset. The scope I look through police shootings is as follows. Did the officer need to fire.. no. He did not need to defend himself right then. Did he fire to save someone immediately. No. No he didn't. Lastly Did he fire because he felt the person would have hurt someone if he continued on. Yes. This appears to be the case. . The first and second are always OK with me. The third is usually wishy washy with me and my opinion is usually entirely based on what led to the situation. Sometimes I approve and sometimes I don't. I'm conflicted here but I don't think the officer who shit did it out of emotion or lack or training. Made a clear decision and with knowing everything about the guy it seems to have been the right call. An eradic driver experiencing a mental episode with no history of violence or crime could have done exactly what the guy did and I wouldn't have approved the shooting. That's why it's so tricky sometimes. A hit long winded but this is how I comment. Try and express myself thoroughly
To the host that said pursuits are stupid, you are ignorant to say that. Read the US Supreme Court case Scott vs Harris for a discussion that directly criticizes your ignorant statement. There cannot be a reward for dangerous driving and an immunity from capture or intervention by police. That ignorant logic you used in the video requires the presumption that what the suspect chooses to do rather than surrender is actually the fault of police and not the suspect, that the police should be civilly and criminally liable and not the suspect, and that police actually must run away from any suspect causing danger to others. As the Supreme Court has said, that is contrary to the duty of police. The police cannot operate like that and the logic is repeatedly rejected in courts across the US. Most police agencies allow vehicle pursuits, the ones that don't are cesspools of criminal activity, victimization, and rampat brazen lawlessness and escapes by people who often then cannot be identified because they were allowed to escape and victimize someone else without consequence (Chicago can't even pursue on foot in most circumstances, Detroit, Atlanta, etc).
I'm a supervisor at my agency, the only one that went to law school, and our pursuit policy resembles the actual state of the law in my state (and almost every other state minus Washington) – everyone fleeing police can be pursued regardless of what crime they're suspected of committing. If they increase the danger to the public, then we increase the use of force to protect the public. That includes ramming their vehicle even if it kills them if their driving is reckless enough or possibly what the officer in this case did.
People that think police should just be historians and write reports should not be involved in law enforcement. People can be dangerous in any circumstance and police have to be able to intervene and stop it in any circumstance. This host would probably let a school shooter escape just because he got into a car.
All right with that. Guy was a threat to everyone.
Use deadly force in more situations. Crime will start to drastically change.
That’s more then 20yards. Great marksmanship
Shot an unarmed man that did not point a gun at the officers. Justified? In my opinion, NO. Did he pose a threat to the public in the vehicle he was driving? Yes but he was a threat to the public long before the car chase anyway. Does that justify an automatic death sentence by police? NO. Should have ended the pursuit long ago, shame on that department risking the general publics lives like that. What if he was running away on foot? Would that justify him being shot in the back?
It depends on how dark the perp was as to whether or not the shooting was justified.
Even the other cop was like, wait…are we shooting here??