DPD can no longer shoot at cars used as weapons against then.

[SideShow Bob]

The DPD Chief announces new rules of engagement for officers.

http://kdvr.com/2015/06/09/new-polic...-against-them/

Is this good or bad ? My take on this is: As long as you don't have a gun and are not engaged in firing at DPD officers, feel free to run them over without having to worry about getting shot at...
Bad for officers, good for the dirtbags....

[Irving]

That seems unreasonable to me. If there should be a restriction on when to not use deadly force, it should be when your life is not in danger. If you're life is in danger, use appropriate force.

[OtterbatHellcat]

I think it's messed up, Bob.

Kinder, gentler, and dead is what DPD is now expecting for their officers I guess.

But hey....if you think criminals currently in the act of "doing wrong in society" either while, or shortly before getting behind the wheel of a vehicle......then stuff is all good for the shit bag now. It'll be really good when officers can no longer shoot at a moving/fleeing criminal........rapist.....murderer....robber....e tc.... who is on foot either.

[Ridge]

Too often across the country can you see cops heroically diving in front of moving cars and then shooting the driver to death because they were concerned for their safety.

It would seem that the DPD is trying to do this in advance to gain some public approval.

Here is an example where this happened, and a pastor was killed as a result:

[roberth]

That is pure horseshit, guess what every criminal is going to do now.

[Hound]

IMHO they went too far but there was/is a point to it. In the video above (grainy as it is) the cop should not be shooting. On the other hand if a person is actively trying to hit a cop, they should be able to defend themselves. The Rambo BS with cops PUTTING their lives in danger(as in the video) has no place in policing. It is dangerous enough as is. That does not mean that if a cop is in an alley and some young stupid girl is flooring it, with nowhere to get to safety, aiming at a cop, they should not be able to defend themselves. Just as any civillian would, so should the cops. There has to be a middle ground. Sounds like that is not the case. Anybody here have the 'actual' wording of this policy. All I have is what they described on the evening news. I would like to know what it really states.

[Ridge]

It's not like taking off in a car gives the criminal immunity from the police. They can still be fired upon if there is a threat. I think it's more to stop things like the video above, where the cop puts themselves in danger and then the citizen pays for it.

[Monky]

Dpd's new motto.. ' stop! Or I'll say stop again!'


Sent by a free-range electronic weasel, with no sense of personal space.

[GilpinGuy]

Too often across the country can you see cops heroically diving in front of moving cars and then shooting the driver to death because they were concerned for their safety.

Their own safety or the safety of the public who they are supposed to be protecting? If they heroically do as you wrote, then good for them for doing their job, if stopping that moving vehicle is warranted. If they are just looking to kill people, then they are murderers.

[lead_magnet]

It's not like changing a policy changes the law. If an officer has to break policy to save his life, he might get fired but at least he wont go to jail (if found reasonable, etc.)