Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
Six Deputies On Leave After Shooting Oregon Driver
kgw.com — Six deputies and officers were put on leave in the wake of a weekend shooting, authorities said. One witness told KGW the shooting was the closest thing to an assassination attempt that he's ever seen. “Seven people don't empty their guns into somebody without intention of killing them,” said witness Dave Langley.
alapoet- 667 diggs
- digg it
- stradf, on 07/08/2008, -23/+23Am I the only one shocked by that? Very interesting and well-written too. Dugg -F
- Dragular, on 07/09/2008, -10/+12He didn't stop his car. He then proceeded to turn around and drive at the officers in pursuit, then after attempting to ram Police vehicles he started driving towards the officers who were standing on the side of the road back where the passengers had got out.
The only thing I'm shocked about is that he's being put in prison and not in a grave. - LSDRunner, on 07/09/2008, -2/+13What is there to be shocked at?
- WNW3, on 07/09/2008, -1/+9I was pretty shocked they didn't actually hit him.
- LSDRunner, on 07/09/2008, -0/+7agreed
- crestfall, on 07/09/2008, -3/+4EDIT: Deleted detailed personal account because I truly fear this corrupt organization.
I haver been targeted for speaking up for my rights in the past, and it has been a nightmare.
These guys have ZERO accountability.
The driver in this incident may have been from Oregon, but the CCSO is Washington - and they do whatever they can to keep the "liberal scum" of Portland out of their clean, white, conservative Christian community.
LOOSE CANNONS
I don't believe a word of their account. They will say and do whatever they have to to cover their own asses.- pjr12345, on 07/09/2008, -2/+2Would that your paranoia were true...
- crestfall, on 07/09/2008, -1/+3would what? write someone off if they say things you don't like to hear?
- pjr12345, on 07/09/2008, -2/+2Would that your paranoia were true...
- Dragular, on 07/09/2008, -10/+12He didn't stop his car. He then proceeded to turn around and drive at the officers in pursuit, then after attempting to ram Police vehicles he started driving towards the officers who were standing on the side of the road back where the passengers had got out.
- alapoet, on 07/08/2008, -30/+51One thing I found particularly troubling about the story is that the "suspect" took the time to stop and let his two passengers out, and, according to the story, even phoned law enforcement to let them know where he was going!
But still, it seems the only option they considered was shooting up his truck like they were a bunch of Wild West cowboys or something.- Darmichar, on 07/09/2008, -14/+26One thing I found particularly troubling is he didn't just stay put in the beginning and none of this would have happened.
Do you really have that much of a hard on for Police that you would try to spin this story to make them out to be the bad guys here? They have no idea what the guy is trying to do. They assume he is trying to run them over. He hasn't listened to their requests for him to stop. I don't know about you but to me it sounds like he left them no choice but to use deadly force.- 0x0000ff, on 07/09/2008, -12/+2.
- blanketfury, on 07/09/2008, -6/+9Totally agree.
Routine traffic stop that wouldn't have ended in a tragedy HAD THE GUY COMPLIED AND PULLED OVER.
The fact that he didn't would have made ANYONE believe he was up to something. - SimonTB, on 07/09/2008, -2/+5Did you even read it, Blanket? It was not a routine traffic stop, you moron.
- jamesdew, on 07/09/2008, -0/+5Also it did not end in tragedy so I'm guessing he did not read it.
- Apeezee, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2Really? Wild West cowboys? Where do you get your weed? Usually people run from the cops when they have done something wrong. Secondly, a car is considered a deadly weapon. If someone tried to run you over, you would have the legal right to shoot them dead. You make it seem like cops just run around shooting at everyone for no reason. I'd like to see what kind of diplomatic solutions you would come up with when you have a car speeding at you full speed.
- Darmichar, on 07/09/2008, -14/+26One thing I found particularly troubling is he didn't just stay put in the beginning and none of this would have happened.
- VKMO, on 07/08/2008, -34/+36This "shoot first" mentality on the part of law enforcement is getting to be a real problem.
Rather than using deadly force only as a last resort, many times they seem to be overly eager to blow some schmuck away just for not stopping right when they ask him to.- mikesbaker, on 07/09/2008, -16/+22shoot first? he was trying to run them over.
- Dragular, on 07/09/2008, -9/+5Mike! Don't you think they should have tried to force the truck to stop using brute force first? Come on man. Police are automatically evil!
- xShifty, on 07/09/2008, -4/+5They're trained specifically not to shoot first, but you'd think they would have shot at the tires or something before the driver.
- NuttySquirrel, on 07/09/2008, -3/+4Where does it say what they shot at? It doesn't get any more specific than "at the vehicle" from what I can tell. Maybe they were aiming for the tires.
- CoyotesFan84, on 07/09/2008, -2/+6This is somewhat of a slippery slope. Many states use stop sticks to stop evasion. The problem is that when you introduce something like shooting out tires, either a) it can cause unwanted, unnecessary collateral damage or B) it becomes a precedent that does not apply in all situations. Cops react on a case by case basis. If the precedent is established, the public, media, or whatever organization that will spin anti-police rhetoric will use the "Well why didn't they just shoot the guy's tires out?" line. The same goes for sniping guns out of hostage holders hands. It's a case by case basis, but usually, in situations where people either harm/intend to harm officers or the public, deadly force is necessary.
- mikesbaker, on 07/09/2008, -1/+4police use shot guns to take out tires - or stop sticks. those things take a minute to get out of your trunk
- Serial0Hacker, on 07/09/2008, -2/+4They should have called a time out, while they get the stop sticks.
- monkbot1, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2thats because he's probably a terrorist (they tend not to do what they're told)
- lordrahl, on 07/09/2008, -2/+1Anyone who doesn't comply with a police order should know he is about to get shot at. all these ppl complaining about police shooting people is starting to piss me off. If a person runs from the cops, shooting him should be the policeman's first option. The way it is now even if it looks like the suspect if gonna pull a gun on him the cop cant shoot the guy without getting into trouble for it.
Oh and i'm not just talking about this story either.
- mikesbaker, on 07/09/2008, -16/+22shoot first? he was trying to run them over.
- akittenone, on 07/08/2008, -17/+31why did no one question why he let the passengers out, why he called to tell them know where he was going ? not the actions of a man that needed to be shot like a duck in a shooting gallery
- CoyotesFan84, on 07/09/2008, -8/+3Because that fact is irrelevant to what happened later on. Whether the driver let passengers out or not has no bearing on the fact that he turned his vehicle around and tried to use it as a weapon on the cops in question. Had the driver stopped his vehicle, allowed the police to take him into custody, and followed common sense, he'd be alive today.
- CoyotesFan84, on 07/09/2008, -2/+4I stand corrected. Misleading article is misleading. He is alive and lucky because of it. Somehow, by the grace of whatever, he did not suffer any fatal injuries. Even still, he should not have turned the vehicle around and tried to harm law enforcement officers.
- jamesdew, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4What FACT? the artice says "Fearing that the vehicle was going to run over the officers and the passengers"
Now admittedly driving towards a bunch of police officers when you have already pissed a few off is not a very good idea. But I hardly think that we can say "FACT he was trying to run them over"
Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't we don't have his side of the story. - narius, on 07/09/2008, -2/+1That's very true. We don't know whether he was actually going to run over the police officers or not. All we do know is that he was directing his car towards the law enforcement officers after being in pursuit. My instinct would be that if this man fled from Police he would be very capable of also using his vehicle as a weapon.
In that instant of time, the police officers had to decide whether or not they felt they were in danger due to this man driving his vehicle towards them. Based on his previous actions, it is very reasonable that they choose to protect themselves the way they did. It's not their job to only defend themselves after one of them has been hit. so they shouldn't be expected to do so either.
- crestfall, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1the CCSO's entire story is *****. I knew these guys would be making the news someday soon. it's crazy what they get away with here.
- CoyotesFan84, on 07/09/2008, -8/+3Because that fact is irrelevant to what happened later on. Whether the driver let passengers out or not has no bearing on the fact that he turned his vehicle around and tried to use it as a weapon on the cops in question. Had the driver stopped his vehicle, allowed the police to take him into custody, and followed common sense, he'd be alive today.
- thirdcoastborn, on 07/08/2008, -14/+31In Austin, they shoot you in the back 4 or 5 times. And then one more while you're already dead laying there.
- mydigga, on 07/08/2008, -1/+37The they sprinkle some crack on you and run ;)
- thirdcoastborn, on 07/09/2008, -2/+11sprinkle crack and put a crack pipe in your hand
- ancientdinko, on 07/09/2008, -2/+11hand crack sprinkles and put a pipe in your crack
- mikesbaker, on 07/09/2008, -2/+8stop just stop it now
- monkbot1, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3and then put the video on youtube
- RizzoFrank, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2and then post for profits.
- mydigga, on 07/08/2008, -1/+37The they sprinkle some crack on you and run ;)
- Surferess, on 07/08/2008, -15/+10Interesting that they are taking the San Diego police way of shooting first and asking questions later.
- Lixnig, on 07/08/2008, -6/+81The article says that the car turned around and started driving at the officers. It was at that point that they opened fire. Then when he was driving at the other group if people who were out of their vehicles, they opened fire again. The article also does not say how many rounds were fired. When he got out of the vehicle, no further shots were fired...how is this in any way an assassination attempt? I'm not a cop, but if someone was driving their car at me with what appeared the willingness to kill me, I would certainly fire back.
- alapoet, on 07/09/2008, -21/+12The article doesn't say that's what happened.
The article says that, according to the COPS, that's what happened.
Cops aren't always truthful. Especially when their jobs are on the line.
Oh -- and you can't "fire back" unless you're being fired upon. These cops weren't. They just wanted to be Rambo.- mikesbaker, on 07/09/2008, -6/+18trying to run cops over counts as assault with a deadly weapon *****
- superkendall, on 07/09/2008, -3/+10I hope you aren't driving in the same state as me with that cavalier attitude about the deadliness of a motor vehicle.
- CoyotesFan84, on 07/09/2008, -7/+6Yeah... you can "fire back" if you're not fired upon. If that were the case, there would be a lot more fallen officers. Maybe you should do a bit more reading before sounding ignorant.
- Wiini, on 07/09/2008, -5/+8"Oh -- and you can't "fire back" unless you're being fired upon".
Man, where do you kids get this stuff?
A two ton vehicle and you think they can't shoot?
That's it! You've discovered it!! The Achilles heel of every Police Force in America.. Attack them with knives! Since they don't carry knives, all they can do is bend over and let you shove the knife into their ass! You know, because they can't shoot unless fired upon and all.
You've been watching too much TV kiddo. time to turn it off and go outside. - jamesdew, on 07/09/2008, -1/+5Are you people idiots, he is saying that the term "fire back" implies that the man fired at them first.
Let me explain
Steve fired, John fired back at him -- makes sense
Steve hit John so John hit him back -- makes sense
Steve ate an ice cream so John fired at him -- makes sense
Steve ate an ice cream so John fired back at him -- does not make sense
Steve was driving a truck so john hit him back -- does not make sense - VKMO, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Thank you, jamesdew -- that is exactly what I meant.
It's a matter of being clear and accurate with your language, which is evidently beyond the abilities of more than a few of these verbally challenged folks. - Lixnig, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1"Fire back" does not necessarily imply that the offender fired a gun first...it implies that the officers fired their weapons in retaliation to some action taken by the offender directed toward the officers. In this case, he tried to run them over with a car. They fired back.
- Wiini, on 07/09/2008, -4/+21Man - I've posted 'against' police on several police brutality diggs over the last year or so, but I can't believe how long it took for someone to tell it like it was. And I do mean it, I'm usually the first to criticize the police in circumstances like these.
Seriously, if some nutcase circled around my cars, refused to obey police commands, pull over, and appeared to be heading right for me, you're damn straight, I'd pump him full of lead.
This isn't no tazer story. This is just some nut job, who had it coming. he's lucky he wasn't killed. - crownedgriffin, on 07/09/2008, -2/+12Digg me down for this, but just because someone is a cop doesn't automatically make them a liar. If I thought that the guy was trying to charge me down, I'd have shot him too.
- jamesdew, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2yes I agree but was he? And i'm not saying that we should start not believing cops but there were other "passengers" there also, we need more witness statments to get a clear picture of what actually happened.
- alapoet, on 07/09/2008, -21/+12The article doesn't say that's what happened.
- ileen4justice, on 07/09/2008, -23/+8The police state is upon us.
- mikesbaker, on 07/09/2008, -9/+4Look at China if you want to see what a police state really is. Oh and here is a good one for you. I bring this up because of your profile pic. The democrats are just as dirty as the republicans. Look at this current FISA crap. Where is your savior Obama now?
- mikesbaker, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1***** that was in the wrong thread
- mikesbaker, on 07/09/2008, -9/+4Look at China if you want to see what a police state really is. Oh and here is a good one for you. I bring this up because of your profile pic. The democrats are just as dirty as the republicans. Look at this current FISA crap. Where is your savior Obama now?
- mikesbaker, on 07/09/2008, -24/+46Dave Langely is an old idiot. Lets break this down. Cops show up to a disturbance. They try to stop a bronco and it flees. The bronco stops and lets out passengers and then tries to evade the police. After unsuccessfully evading the police the driver turns his bronco on the police officers. Maybe that ***** flies in Canada but here in America it will get you killed as well it should.
- alapoet, on 07/09/2008, -17/+13The guy is from Vancouver, Washington, not Vancouver, B.C.
Fascist dumb ass.- mikesbaker, on 07/09/2008, -16/+5That doesn't change the fact that you are a libtard with your head completely up your ass. Please tell me what should the cops have done in this situation? Also the guy did not die. Sounds to me like he should count his blessings.
- superkendall, on 07/09/2008, -5/+6Of course, no Canadian would be stupid enough to try and ram armed police officers. Plus they are far too mellow.
Not sure how it follows he's a fascist for pointing out that trying to run down any armed human will result in your demise. I wouldn't be throwing around derogatory terms until you gain more sense yourself. - mikesbaker, on 07/09/2008, -7/+5alapoet is a member of the very very very far left. logic and reality are meaningless to him.
- Caviarmy, on 07/09/2008, -2/+5Little high-strung there, mikey?
- mikesbaker, on 07/09/2008, -6/+3not really you are just saying that because you work in a starbucks
- Dragular, on 07/09/2008, -3/+5@super
Because supporting police officers attempting to uphold the law and protect themselves means you're a fascist, duh. Welcome to the mind of people who have gone tooooo far left. - flashingcurser, on 07/09/2008, -2/+4Washougal, camas, and Vancouver are indeed on the north side of the Columbia river. Just north of Portland. If one ever wanted to see a police state, drive through the state of Washington. Count the number of police you see while driving through it. Hell count the police that follow you for no reason. That is one aspect of Washington that I don't miss. In Montana, Idaho, Oregon, California, Wyoming, the Dakotas you can drive all day and not see one.
- VinceNoir, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2Bwahahahaha! I love that, "fascist dumb ass". That's awesome! Digg +1000 for you.
- mikesbaker, on 07/09/2008, -4/+4@flashingcurser stop talking out of your ass THERE IS NO WHERE IN AMERICA THAT IS A POLICE STATE FOR ***** SAKE
police state
–noun
a nation in which the police, esp. a secret police, summarily suppresses any social, economic, or political act that conflicts with governmental policy.
@vincenoir
/facepalm - flashingcurser, on 07/09/2008, -2/+3@mike You're right, I exaggerated with the "police state" comment. But seriously have you ever driven through Washington? I bet you can drive all day through texas and not have a cop follow you for no reason. You cannot in Washington. I spent more than 27 years there. I wonder why a texan is so defensive about washington? What are you so angry about?
- mikesbaker, on 07/09/2008, -4/+2i'm just sick of everyone calling America a Fascist regime and a police state. it just makes you sound ignorant.
- VinceNoir, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2@mikesbaker
So why is it that I can't actively and loudly protest the Bush administration when he's in town with full media coverage? And how come I can't do it unless I'm a mile and a half away from him in a "safe zone"? That was not something we had in the past. I wouldn't say we are a police state just yet. But there are far too many encroachments on our rights to say that we're not headed there. Don't let your loyalty to the right-wing or libertarian view blind you to the negative effects of the Bush administration on our nation.
- macbethslady, on 07/09/2008, -3/+8You're absolutely right, mikesbaker. Were they supposed to NOT shoot this guy as he barreled at them in a bronco? This criminal is very lucky to be alive. If the cops had killed him, they would have been within their rights.
- Wiini, on 07/09/2008, -1/+10What scares me most, even on digg, is how many people are immediately against the police. I mean really, I hate police as much as the next digger (really!). I'm all over those tazer stories, the police brutality stories, the "police searched me without right" stories.. I hate those, and I criticize left and right. But if ever there was a time to be on the cops side, I'd say this is the one.
Some douche bag refuses to obey all comands, goes around two road blocks, gets shot at, and then continues to drive directly towards me in a bronco? Light em' up baby!- pbon, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1Right, but how many of the police involved in the brutality cases were held accountable for their actions? The fact that the officers were put on leave tells me that there may be more to this story than we know. Unless putting officers on leave is standard procedure, but judging by how righteous the police forces act in these situations, I doubt it.. If anyone knows if putting officers on leave is standard procedure (and you aren't some right-wing troll who would say so just to say so), let me know..
- macbethslady, on 07/09/2008, -0/+0"Putting deputies and police officers on paid leave after a shooting is routine procedure." - the article (Though to be fair, the police department may simply have told that to the media.)
- diemunkiesdie, on 07/09/2008, -1/+4Dave Langely also can't count. According to another article (link below) witnesses claim there were only ten shots before the driver stopped. 10 shots doesn't exactly seem like 7 officers emptying their guns at all!
http://www.koin.com/mostpopular/story.aspx?content ... - crestfall, on 07/09/2008, -2/+1If you had experienced the CCSO outside of drinking beers or hunting with them, you may have a different opinion. I don't believe a ***** word they say.
- monkbot1, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1killing is far to popular an option in America
- thesonofdarwin, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2It's the only option these days. Why? Cause you have people like the above supporting and allowing such actions.
- alapoet, on 07/09/2008, -17/+13The guy is from Vancouver, Washington, not Vancouver, B.C.
- Owwmykneecap, on 07/09/2008, -13/+4Oregon, thats where the cops murdered an irish guy who was "Breaking in" to his sisters house.
No, people should no why i say, I am glad the police in Ireland don't have guns.- Codeblew, on 07/09/2008, -2/+1This happened in Washington. Read the article.
- Owwmykneecap, on 07/09/2008, -4/+2The guy was from oregon.
The state where an Irishman was killed.
I'm linking the two stories, is that too hard to understand?
- vladkov, on 07/09/2008, -2/+20It happened in Washington, not Oregon.
- Jon855, on 07/09/2008, -3/+1Yeah, the title said Oregon driver and not Washington.
- alexdagrate, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2Yeah, the driver was from Washington, the shooting happened in Washington.
- Jon855, on 07/09/2008, -3/+1Yeah, the title said Oregon driver and not Washington.
- superkendall, on 07/09/2008, -5/+19Makes you wonder what old Dave has seen that he's such a good judge of assassination attempts.
- mikesbaker, on 07/09/2008, -2/+1from the looks of him - the bottom of a lot of bottles of whiskey
- razorsharp84, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3an opportunity to get his name and face on the news?
- Enderpanda, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Common sense?
- CheeseNRice, on 07/09/2008, -7/+15“Seven people don't empty their guns into somebody without intention of killing them,”
Cops are trained to shoot to kill. You never shoot to "injure" somebody.- seanc6610, on 07/09/2008, -10/+7yes you do. law enforcement is usually taught to shoot to neutralize a threat whenever possible, not necessarily to kill.
- goombah, on 07/09/2008, -2/+10Just how do you shoot to neutralize, not kill? What, aim for the shoulder and prey it stops him? Or the leg? No, neutralize means to stop someone, and if that kills them, then so be it. How many cops do you see training to shoot somewhere other than the head or chest? You don't draw a gun with the intention to only injure. That will get you killed. If you aren't fully prepared to use deadly force then don't use a gun. That goes for anyone, LEO or civilian.
- blanketfury, on 07/09/2008, -9/+2Cops are trained to shoot to kill. You never shoot to "injure" somebody.
How the ***** do you know this? Have you been to a police academy?
Or was that something you watched on TV?- Eganj, on 07/09/2008, -1/+9Cops are trained to shoot for center mass. So yes they are trained to shoot to kill.
- CheeseNRice, on 07/09/2008, -2/+6My brother is a cop, also, if you ever take any C&C permit classes it's one of the first practices they teach you. That's "how the *****" I know this, numb nuts.
- blanketfury, on 07/09/2008, -2/+4You have a bad temper.
You would make a bad cop. - CheeseNRice, on 07/09/2008, -3/+2Guess it's good that I am not one then? Wouldn't ya say buddy?
- pbon, on 07/09/2008, -4/+2http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2008/05/po ...
"... police are trained to shoot to stop a person from killing them or another human being. They are not trained to 'shoot to kill'."
Read the comment posted by 'Partial'. He claims to be a 16-year police veteran, though I readily admit that he could be full of it. He does, however, give a lot of anecdotal evidence to back himself up. What's interesting is that he's taking a very pro-police stance and accusing the 'shoot-to-kill' guy of being anti-police.
I suspect the two officers who gave 'egodraconis' the bad information, and your brother who gave you yours, are most likely right-wingnuts who'd prefer to shoot-to-kill. And since they are cops, there will be no disagreement. - pbon, on 07/09/2008, -2/+3Me again.. I just wanted to add that the fact that aiming for 'center mass' doesn't automatically imply 'shoot-to-kill'. It *is* possible to survive a headshot. If you don't know that, then you must be 12 and play too much counter-strike.
Also, wouldn't a true 'shoot-to-kill' policy imply that the officers are to continue to use their firearms until the suspect is surely dead? Ridiculous concept, yes. Just like the phrase.
My best guess is that if the phrase 'shoot-to-kill' is used, it's used to remind the officers that they're using deadly force, and to be sure that they realize the likely outcome of using it.
- crestfall, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2And Vancouver cops are trained to kill people who have piercings, baggy pants, a 5 O'clock shadow, or "faggy glasses"
- n0ia, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Actually, I think it's more of a "shoot until the threat is no longer there" rule that police officers are taught. Whether that means shoot to neutralize or shoot to kill, whatever.
When an officer opens fire, you can pretty well bet that there will be more than one bullet fired from their gun. But if they were taught to shoot to neutralize then all they'd have to do is attend sniper training and shoot the weapon from someones hand every time. Not realistic.
And while I haven't attended the police academy, I do have three police officers in my family and work for a former officer.
- thabbe, on 07/09/2008, -11/+3i think bush has already pardoned the driver, no worries.
- preban, on 07/09/2008, -14/+9Um, firing their guns at the vehicle could cause the driver to lose control and then DEFINITELY kill some people. This whole story is missing some pertinent info, we're not being told something. But anyways, the threat the police say they were under which prompted them to open fire doesn't wash with me. It sounds like they are excusing their reckless discharge of weapons.
BTW, I'm having a hard time believing that SEVERAL police officers just REACTED ON THEIR OWN by shooting at the vehicle all at once? Wouldn't that require planning? Sounds strange.- DMin, on 07/09/2008, -7/+7Strange...as though they had all been trained to shoot at a charging vehicle that refused to pull over. But that's just crazy talk now, isn't it?
- preban, on 07/09/2008, -2/+6Yes it is. Shooting at a vehicle with handgun rounds will not stop it but it will possibly make it uncontrollable and more likely to cause an accident.
- xShifty, on 07/09/2008, -3/+5One guy probably fired and then the mob mentality took over and they all started firing. But remember this is the official story and it's easy to misremember when your job is on the line.
- mxmj, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2Is that what they are calling it these days...
- KOSmurfy, on 07/09/2008, -2/+2I heard they have a tape of the vehicle crashing... AT FREE FALL SPEED! this was obviously an inside job! spread the troof
- DMin, on 07/09/2008, -7/+7Strange...as though they had all been trained to shoot at a charging vehicle that refused to pull over. But that's just crazy talk now, isn't it?
- protoopus, on 07/09/2008, -16/+15there is NOTHING more dangerous than a coward with a gun (unless it's a half-dozen of them).
- mikesbaker, on 07/09/2008, -4/+6coward - ok we will do a test - i will drive my car at you and you have to not move or react at all or you are a coward
- Eganj, on 07/09/2008, -3/+7How about an idiot with a keyboard?
- protoopus, on 07/09/2008, -2/+2not so much dangerous as annoying would be my guess.
- 0gre, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2How about an idiot behind the wheel of a car. Cars kill thousands more every year than guns.
- rzender, on 07/09/2008, -11/+34If a person takes a knife, a bat, a gun .. a rock. .. a CAR and threatens anyone with it. i.e. Brandish, Fires, Stabs, DRIVES . By all means expect to get shop by the cops.
Those cops were 100% justified.
Red and blue lights are behind you no matter what just pull over. Then this wouldn't happen.- preban, on 07/09/2008, -12/+7No they weren't. Sidearms are meant to be used for personal defensive purposes. That and the fact that shooting the vehicle and possibly injuring and killing the driver would cause more damage than either disabling the vehicle or pursuing another way.
Evading the police is not pretext for assassination, regardless of what Rush Limbaugh thinks.- mikesbaker, on 07/09/2008, -5/+7idiot learn what assassination means
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assassinati ...
to kill suddenly or secretively, esp. a politically prominent person; murder premeditatedly and treacherously.
you guys keep quoting some old ass redneck like he knows what he is talking about. - Eganj, on 07/09/2008, -3/+3How exactly would you disable a speeding car heading directly towards you? With your witty retorts? Jackass.
- Kazaki, on 07/09/2008, -2/+1Well *****, if using my gun to shoot at a car driving towards me isn't for "personal defensive purposes," then what is? Do I have to wait till I have a few bullets inside of me before I can fight back?
And you suggest it should of been handled another way, proposing "pursing another way." Ok, sure, I'll just crawl after him dragging my entire broken sawdust body. You know, seeing how I let him just run over everybody in the interest of preventing "more damage," as you say.
- mikesbaker, on 07/09/2008, -5/+7idiot learn what assassination means
- JimmyJoseph, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2Are you one of those people who believes "ALWAYS Just do whatever the police officer says"?
- preban, on 07/09/2008, -12/+7No they weren't. Sidearms are meant to be used for personal defensive purposes. That and the fact that shooting the vehicle and possibly injuring and killing the driver would cause more damage than either disabling the vehicle or pursuing another way.
- averagejock, on 07/09/2008, -6/+13What I find more disturbing is the apparent inability of the officers to actually hit what they were shooting at.
- rzender, on 07/09/2008, -5/+10Try shooting a handgun on the move while your life is in danger at a moving target. Don't expect to get a perfect 2 inch group. Plus you've got glass and metal in the way of the driver.
- preban, on 07/09/2008, -4/+3Equals a ridiculously negligent use of a handgun. I'm sorry but this is inexcusable. If any one of us were to react as the police did we would rightly be facing some serious charges.
- mikesbaker, on 07/09/2008, -2/+2not really - if someone threatens your life legally you can kill them. trying to run them someone over is threatening someone's life. i had to point that out because otherwise you would not have understood.
- brathje, on 07/09/2008, -1/+5You've clearly never tried to shoot something that's trying to kill you. Not meant as an insult. But check out "On Killing" by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman. The stats on shooting effectiveness is mind blowing.
- blanketfury, on 07/09/2008, -1/+4Read it. Awesome book.
- crownedgriffin, on 07/09/2008, -1/+6There was one of them vechicle things in the way. Engine blocks and firewalls are pretty good at stopping bullets.
- rzender, on 07/09/2008, -5/+10Try shooting a handgun on the move while your life is in danger at a moving target. Don't expect to get a perfect 2 inch group. Plus you've got glass and metal in the way of the driver.
- HappyScrappy, on 07/09/2008, -1/+14The evidence will have to be reviewed, but if he actually tried to run over the cops, I'm not surprised he was shot at by every cop gun in the vicinity.
- potisreallygood, on 07/09/2008, -2/+3surprised this didn't get any attention...
http://digg.com/odd_stuff/Dashcam_video_released_o ... - adamsteinbaugh, on 07/09/2008, -1/+17"One witness told KGW the shooting was the closest thing to an assassination attempt that he's ever seen."
How many near-assassination attempts has this guy seen?! Remind me not to hang around him. - SgtQuackers, on 07/09/2008, -6/+11If you try to run over police you will get shot. In a life or death situation like that the cops will always make sure that they go home. He got what he deserved. You try to kill a cop you should be shot.
- shredluc, on 07/09/2008, -5/+6What if the cops are trying to kill you first? Then what?
- overtoke, on 07/09/2008, -4/+3Hey idiot, he was driving down the road, he was not trying to run over the cops. If he was trying to run over the cops then there should be some dead cops somewhere shouldn't there be?
I guess if we have to endure bad cops its a good thing when they also have poor aim. - crestfall, on 07/09/2008, -3/+3I can't believe how readily you accept the official story
- Enderpanda, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2What do you expect from a guy with that screename?
- CoyotesFan84, on 07/09/2008, -3/+13"But Brown took off again and police followed. Eventually, police said the Bronco turned around and headed right for them. The driver headed directly at deputies and officers who said they then fired multiple gun shots at the vehicle."
As soon as Brown decided to turn his vehicle around and start driving toward the cops, this turned into a low speed chase to attempted assault with a deadly weapon. The cops felt their lives were in danger and acted appropriately. Police are trained, if necessary, to use deadly force. It's not called "harmful force". It's "deadly force". They are trained to kill anyone who deliberately puts the officers life in danger, therefore saving themselves from any harm or intended harm.
Think of it like someone pulling a gun. A vehicle can cause serious damage and severely injury if not kill anyone struck by it. Given the situation and Mr. Brown turning his vehicle around and starting to drive toward the officers, they were well within legal justification to protect themselves and their fellow officers.- overtoke, on 07/09/2008, -3/+1If the man had actually been 'heading right for them' then there is no way they should have missed.
And do you really just stand there and shoot your gun at someone when they are driving right for you? No, you move, unless you are stupid or have murderous intent.
And as soon as you move the vehicle is no longer a threat and you do not have a right to fire.- ChildeRoland420, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1That's just retarded. If you move but don't shoot the driver, then he can just adjust his aim. That's why you do both.
- overtoke, on 07/09/2008, -3/+1If the man had actually been 'heading right for them' then there is no way they should have missed.
- newsmergers, on 07/09/2008, -7/+0newsmergers.com provide breaking offbeat news and headlines about odd events!
- Barackalypse, on 07/09/2008, -2/+13Buried for a very very misleading summary, police didn't kill anyone here. The driver allegedly was driving right at their roadblock, they shot at the vehicle, when the man finally stopped the car and exited it they took him into custody.
- snockhockster, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2Taken into custody, released, and the police aren't even sure if he will face charges.
That's some sound police work there... - Elliuotatar, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2While I agree with you that based on the story there doesn't seem to be wrongdoing, why were the officers put on leave?
- Fejerro, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2It's standard procedure. RTFA.
- ChildeRoland420, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2It's SOP.
- snockhockster, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2Taken into custody, released, and the police aren't even sure if he will face charges.
- mikesbaker, on 07/09/2008, -2/+18a lot of people here seem to be having a lot of trouble with the word assassination. just because some crusty old redneck said he thought this was an assassination does not make it so and everyone who parrots that phrase is a total moron.
as·sas·si·nate
–verb (used with object), -nat·ed, -nat·ing.
1. to kill suddenly or secretively, esp. a politically prominent person; murder premeditatedly and treacherously.- CoyotesFan84, on 07/09/2008, -0/+8Lol, the first thing I thought of was Inigo Montoya saying "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means". This was no assassination attempt. You are correct sir.
- mikesbaker, on 07/09/2008, -2/+2i was going to go with that but I decided to flame instead
- CoyotesFan84, on 07/09/2008, -0/+8Lol, the first thing I thought of was Inigo Montoya saying "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means". This was no assassination attempt. You are correct sir.
- Qtip42, on 07/09/2008, -9/+4This sounds a little like that retarded cop show where they say "a drug dealer tried to ram swat officers" and the video shows him maneuvering to get around them and the officers pumping like 100 shots into the suburban because they can.
Puhhhhlease......trigger happy cops is what I call it. - rationalbeats, on 07/09/2008, -16/+4Thy all probably voted for Bush too.
- bagboyrebel, on 07/09/2008, -1/+6Just one question, why did the submitter consider it more important to tell us that the driver was from Oregon then to tell us that it happened in Washington?
- bracketdash, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2Probably a Ducks fan.
- finalcut, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3The driver was from Vancouver which, I believe, is in Washington. Nothing about this article is related to Oregon really.
- bagboyrebel, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1actually, now that you mention it there is absolutely nothing about Oregon in the entire article since Vancouver is in Washington. The headline is just wrong.
- AlexanderZero, on 07/09/2008, -3/+14This is sensationalist *****. He drove his car directly at police officers.
- mikegunh, on 07/09/2008, -4/+6"Eventually, police said the Bronco turned around and headed right for them."
Perhaps appropriately, I'm hearing 'it's headed right for us," in an Uncle Jimbo voice...- mikesbaker, on 07/09/2008, -3/+2yes except this is real life and not a cartoon. traffic stops are very dangerous. if you make a threatening move during a stop (especially on that has escalated like this one) you will probably get killed. this wasn't 'its coming right for us' this was 'holy ***** he got around our police cruisers and is gunning it at us'.
- WoollyMittens, on 07/09/2008, -4/+8If 7 officers empty their guns at a car and the driver is still alive afterwards, then the policemen in question need to spend a little time working on their aim. Wether they had a legitimate reason to shoot or not.
- mikesbaker, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1you hit something that is moving while diving out of the way
- J3Holaday, on 07/09/2008, -1/+3They shot the truck not him. The quite shooting when he got out and surrendered.
- sq2shooter, on 07/09/2008, -3/+9I feel no sympathy for people who are stupid enough to run from the cops much less turn around and head back towards them in their cars. Cops have guns and driving in a threatening manner sometimes requires a 9mm hemorrhage to stop it.
- nvisn, on 07/09/2008, -3/+8It's simple, don't break the law by taking aim at the cops and you wont get shot the ***** up.
- Enderpanda, on 07/09/2008, -3/+1Obey!
- xDynaBlade, on 07/09/2008, -3/+6I see no problem here. You don't follow commands and drive directly towards them, what else do you expect?
- mikesbaker, on 07/09/2008, -2/+4i found out more
http://www.koin.com/mostpopular/story.aspx?content ...
"It started as a complaint from a Vancouver resident about three party-crashers. That call came in about 2 a.m. Saturday. By the time officers responded, the crashers had driven away."
They crashed a party and got the cops called on them. I would bet anything that this guy was also drunk. - bigvike, on 07/09/2008, -3/+5Ok, so if you are a cop and someone has the balls to try and outrun you and six other cops there probably isn't much you would do to escape being cuffed. Which is clearly demonstrated by this criminal trying to run down the police. If you were the cop and he was coming at you, you too would empty your gun to save your ass. I wouldn't want to be put on trial based on an over exploited media quote from some senile piece of ***** white trash that says that's "the closest thing he's ever seen to an assassination attempt". I thought most assassins worked behind the scenes, not in broad daylight with a ***** car driving straight at them!
- snockhockster, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2Yet the man was released from custody.
FTA: "Police have not yet determined what charges Brown may face."
He's a criminal though right?
- snockhockster, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2Yet the man was released from custody.
- V1ncent, on 07/09/2008, -5/+4If you run you deserve not only to be shot at, but to be shot.
- EvoldicA, on 07/09/2008, -1/+3Disagree... If you are being chased its human nature to run, and not stop to ask 'hey why are you chasing me?' Just because its some guy who spent a couple weeks in police academy doesn't make it an less intimidating to have someone chasing you. Cops kind of scare me as of late... For some reason I don't like interacting with edgy people who carry weapons.
Go figure. - snockhockster, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2Yeah... cause only guilty people run right?
- V1ncent, on 07/12/2008, -0/+1It's human nature to run when someone says stop or I'll shoot you? You tell me you're going to kill me and I'll drop to my knees and service you even though I don't like guys. That's how much I value my life!
- EvoldicA, on 07/09/2008, -1/+3Disagree... If you are being chased its human nature to run, and not stop to ask 'hey why are you chasing me?' Just because its some guy who spent a couple weeks in police academy doesn't make it an less intimidating to have someone chasing you. Cops kind of scare me as of late... For some reason I don't like interacting with edgy people who carry weapons.
- itsbob, on 07/09/2008, -1/+5Have you ever seen how an Oregonian drives?
- tenmenkilled, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Pay attention and you might learn something. ;)
- LouiseBonde, on 07/09/2008, -2/+45 key situations where the driver should have obeyed:
1st chance: "The driver ... would not pull over for police."
2nd chance: "..the driver pulled over ...and the two passengers got out."
3rd chance: "..the Bronco turned around ... The driver headed directly at deputies and officers who said they then fired multiple gun shots at the vehicle."
4th chance: “Fearing that the vehicle was going to run over the officers and the passengers, officers fired at the vehicle."
5th chance: “The driver refused to obey commands by the officers however, was ultimately taken into custody without further incident.”
"..he never intended to elude police." BS! He had several chances to stop, but he chose to ignore them.
"In fact, they said he called dispatch to tell police where he was heading." Great, so from now on when the police asks you to pull over, you just ignore them and call dispatch. Then they can make house calls instead.
What a load of bull! A car is a weapon! If it came straight at me I'd fire too.
And in case you missed it - the driver attacked the officers with his car twice, and he still only needed overnight treatment!- snockhockster, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2Maybe it's just me, but you'd think if the situation were truly as you believe and describe the driver would actually have been held in custody instead of being released with police unsure if the driver will even face charges.
FTA: " Brown was transported to South West Washington Medical Center where he was treated overnight and released. Police have not yet determined what charges Brown may face." - punkcat, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1i'm betting on mental retardation.
- snockhockster, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2Maybe it's just me, but you'd think if the situation were truly as you believe and describe the driver would actually have been held in custody instead of being released with police unsure if the driver will even face charges.
- monkbot1, on 07/09/2008, -2/+1about dam time I was fed up reading stories of cops tasering people abit of old school police brutallity thats more the America I grew up with.
- Enderpanda, on 07/09/2008, -5/+0Downmod me if you think arrogant cops and such are patrolling this thread and downmodding any comment that could be considered anti-police.
/let's see them figure out what to do to this comment- madjeff, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2I'm as sick of rogue cops as the next person, but in this case I'm downmodding you because you are an idiot...
- Enderpanda, on 07/09/2008, -0/+0Ah! You must be a cop!
And hey I don't care what your 'reason' is, downmod away! Or upmod... Yer choice dude.
Damned if you do... damned if you don't.
- Enderpanda, on 07/09/2008, -0/+0Ah! You must be a cop!
- sentinel106, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1downmod? I believe the term is "burred," which I have graciously done to you
- Enderpanda, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1U mean "buried"? (u see, that's the the past tense of bury... burred is possibly what happens to your socks after a few hours in the woods). BTW if u dont know what downmod means, maybe you need to get outta Digg more often... Go out and see the tubes - I hear they are lovely this time of year.
Burr me MOAR!!! (don't be shy, it's the thumbs-down looking icon in the corner... go ahead, click it... CLICK IT!)
- Enderpanda, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1U mean "buried"? (u see, that's the the past tense of bury... burred is possibly what happens to your socks after a few hours in the woods). BTW if u dont know what downmod means, maybe you need to get outta Digg more often... Go out and see the tubes - I hear they are lovely this time of year.
- madjeff, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2I'm as sick of rogue cops as the next person, but in this case I'm downmodding you because you are an idiot...
- snockhockster, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2" Brown was transported to South West Washington Medical Center where he was treated overnight and released. Police have not yet determined what charges Brown may face."
Apparently all you arm chair warriors missed that part of the article. - mjklaser, on 07/09/2008, -1/+4But, they all MISSED him?
- soinie, on 07/09/2008, -3/+2Despite semi-automatic hand guns, nightsticks, mace, tazers, automatic weapons, body armor, swat teams, drug sniffing police dogs, spy helicopters, armored vehicles- our police officers just don't feel safe enough not to empty their weapons at unarmed civilians. They need that edge to sleep soundly at night.
- Fejerro, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1A vehicle is a deadly weapon. This was not an "unarmed civilian," this was a man armed with a deadly weapon, who had disobeyed police orders repeatedly, who was now pointing the deadly weapon directly at police.
- crestfall, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1would what?
- VoodooPunk, on 07/09/2008, -1/+3Running from the police puts countless lives in danger. The idiot driver had plenty of opportunities to give himself up peacefully. As far as I'm concerned, the only person at fault is the man that chose to endanger himself and others by running from the police.
- madjeff, on 07/09/2008, -2/+4The people agreeing with the headline, did you and I read the same story? The guy crashed a party and was probably drunk, ran from the cops for MILES, would not obey the cops by pulling over, turned his car around and headed straight for the cops and the passengers he had dropped off, and the cops fired on him to protect themselves and the passengers. No one died. And you are screaming police brutality?
The driver was an idiot and deserved to be shot. Hell, my only criticism of the cops is that they obviously need some time at the range to improve their aim. =) - gbv23, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Nobody involved was from Oregon. It was just across the river in Washington.
We've had much more egregious shootings in Oregon. Two that come to mind are the nude guy in Sandy and the mushrooms guy in Clackamas ---both unarmed
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by