03Lightningrocks wrote:KD5NRH wrote:03Lightningrocks wrote:I don't have much to say about why the officer approached said suspects without proper backup, but I do wonder how taking wild shots at a speeding car "AFTER THE FACT" would be called coming to the aid of an officer.
The car was already moving when the officer fired. 30mph (pretty slow for fleeing the immediate scene of a felony) is 15 yards per second. Thus, unless he was better than the typical IPSC shooter, the car covered 15-45 yards in the time it took him to draw and get sights on target. It was probably coming at him for at least part of that time, so he would feel threatened as well. Since he got one or two hits, (an impressive feat with a fast moving target) it's reasonable to assume he was pretty close.
Of course, it might have stopped or slowed significantly, in which case he would be reasonable in assuming they were either preparing to finish off the officer or shoot him to eliminate witnesses.
Maybe I should have been more clear. I don't have the ability or law enforcement knowledge to question why a duly authorized officer of the law makes the decision to fire. My only question about the officer was why he did not wait for backup. The citizen had NO business firing. Warning... don't try this trick at home... you will likely find yourself in jail. Joe citizen is real darned lucky he got away with this.
It appears that this incident occurred in an alley, making it highly probably that there was little space on either side of the car as it went by the officer and the citizen - this alone probably created a fear for their lives. A car speeding down an alley toward me will get my attention, a car speeding down an alley toward me that may have just run over an LEO, who has already fired upon the car will...well force some type of reaction from me.
The officer's decision to approach the car without backup may be explained by a few different things. It is possible that, wait for it, they wanted to catch the bad guy.
We often use the lack of police presence on the scene of a crime, or remark that police arrive after the crime has been committed as the reason that we provide for our own safety and that of our family. They realize this and want to prevent or catch the criminals in the act, just as much, if not more than we do. I have no idea what the FWPD policies are with backup, but often times as Steve mentioned, they count on backup being dispatched automatically and coming fairly soon. Trusting that they'll have backup in a minute, sometimes they go ahead and make contact. It's also possible that they are short staffed because of another major call, or simply because of budget issues.
Another thing to think about is that, if you were a police officer who had just been flagged down by a business owner about a car sitting right down there, would you say to the man, "Well, I'll check it out, but need to wait a couple of minutes for my backup." That response would be unacceptable to most of the public, as you and the business owner watched the car pull away before your backup arrives on scene. Trying to appease the public, the business owner, and the departmental policies often places officers in a difficult position and they do their best to weight all of the options. I'd guess his response was more like, "Sure, I'll call it in (knowing backup will be on the way), go check out the car, and maybe catch them in the act."
There are a number of things to be learned and improved upon from this situation, but I'm supporting the officer and the citizen based on what I know of the events.
& me too, for all listed reasons.
