Dad's lesson ends in tragedy


Peggy Reist

Peggy Reist

New member
This was the perfect storm that just all came together tragically. I don't know if the dad, the son, or the police were the most to blame. They were all at fault in one way or another.

Dad’s Attempt to Teach Son a Lesson Ends in the Most Tragic Way Imaginable

Link Removed
 

Tragic yes, but IMO the only one at fault is the son. The father refused to buy his son cigarettes. Seems like a reasonable parental decision. Son steals dad's work truck in fit of adolescent anger. Sounds to me like the youngster has some mental/behavioral problems so calling the police to help get the son under control is again a reasonable, albeit a tough and heartbreaking decision. As for the police, I don't know that exact circumstances in which the shots were fired. However, it is common knowledge that a vehicle, especially a pick-up truck can be used as a deadly weapon. The son had already showed blatant disregard for the safety of others by 1) fleeing from the police to begin with and then 2) by ramming a police vehicle. If somebody is endangering the public to that extent, "backing off the pursuit", is not always an option. The article then stated the kid was "revving the engine." Like I said, I don't know the exact circumstances but if what they meant by that was that he was attempting to accelerate and ram the officers again, either in their vehicle or not, I would consider deadly force justified. It's absolutely tragic that this whole thing started over a pack of cigarettes, but in the end, the kid was his own demise. I say that cautiously because I'm sure this kid needed some kind of mental health help that he wasn't getting but in the end, his decisions were what escalated the event.
 
Let's look at who is really at fault.

19 yo man, asks daddy for cigarettes. Dad, says, no. (no fault here)
19 yo man, acts like a whiny baby and demands cigarettes. Dad says, no. (19 yo's fault)
19 yo man, acts like a spoiled child and steals Dad's work truck. (19 yo's fault)
Dad, calls cops to get his work truck back. (no fault here)
Cops find truck and engage in pursuit. (no fault here)
19 yo will not pull over and acts more brazen. (19 yo fault)
19 yo uses the truck to ram into the police vehicle which by law is an attack with a deadly weapon on law enforcement. (19 yo fault)
19 yo revs engine as police try to get him to exit vehicle, 19 yo already tried to use the truck as a battering ram. Police have due cause to believe he would do it again. (19 yo fault)
Police shoot 19 yo .... this is where we need more facts. If we just take the article's word for it, the 19 yo would not stop for police, did use the truck to ram into police vehicles and was revving the engine as if to do it again. How many of you would think he would? I know I probably would think this punk would have tried to run me down just by the course of events that have expired.

To claim the Dad is in any way at fault in this situation is ludicrous. All of this lies on the shoulders of the 19 yo. His actions escalated this situation. As far as whether it was a decent shoot, LE can show that a person in a stolen truck is fleeing from police, rammed into the police, and was partaking in actions reasonable to assume that he would ram into them again. From the article it sounds like it was a good shoot. Tragic... unavoidable by many stupid things on the part of the 19 yo, but certainly tragic.
 
wolf_fire said:
Let's look at who is really at fault.

19 yo man, asks daddy for cigarettes. Dad, says, no. (no fault here)
19 yo man, acts like a whiny baby and demands cigarettes. Dad says, no. (19 yo's fault)
19 yo man, acts like a spoiled child and steals Dad's work truck. (19 yo's fault)
Dad, calls cops to get his work truck back. (no fault here)
Cops find truck and engage in pursuit. (no fault here)
19 yo will not pull over and acts more brazen. (19 yo fault)
19 yo uses the truck to ram into the police vehicle which by law is an attack with a deadly weapon on law enforcement. (19 yo fault)
19 yo revs engine as police try to get him to exit vehicle, 19 yo already tried to use the truck as a battering ram. Police have due cause to believe he would do it again. (19 yo fault)
Police shoot 19 yo .... this is where we need more facts. If we just take the article's word for it, the 19 yo would not stop for police, did use the truck to ram into police vehicles and was revving the engine as if to do it again. How many of you would think he would? I know I probably would think this punk would have tried to run me down just by the course of events that have expired.

To claim the Dad is in any way at fault in this situation is ludicrous. All of this lies on the shoulders of the 19 yo. His actions escalated this situation. As far as whether it was a decent shoot, LE can show that a person in a stolen truck is fleeing from police, rammed into the police, and was partaking in actions reasonable to assume that he would ram into them again. From the article it sounds like it was a good shoot. Tragic... unavoidable by many stupid things on the part of the 19 yo, but certainly tragic.
Click to expand...

But that is if you believe the police side of the story. Take a look at what purports to be the truck stolen. Front of it is against brush. Did the vehicle get that way after the kid was shot or before? If before, then it is an unjustified shooting. Many angles of attack if the front is blocked that would not require shooting the kid. Truck used to ram police vehicle? Show me the front of the truck. The side shows damage that looks like the police rammed the truck and what little shows of the front looks undamaged. He backed into the following police car when the officer was on the road chasing him? Needs further investigation.
 
There's a link Link Removed of the radio transmissions that it doesn't seem anyone is taking into account.

1) First officer assigned the call is informed right off the bat that it was the kid's dad who made the report and the dispatcher informed him that it was a "he got mad and took off" kind of family dispute call.

2) At 3:05 of the linked audio, another voice not that of the dispatcher's says, "If he's that reckless....coming into the college area, why don't you back off." This male voice can be heard over a siren, presumably one of the units now involved in the chase communicating with the lead vehicle. That transmission was not even acknowledged by anyone in the chase, and it continued "Southbound on Wallace."

3) 3:52: Another transmission male voice says, "We know the suspect, so we can probably back it off." No audio of this transmission being acknowledged either.

4) Only two out of six shots fired hit the kid on a crowded campus. The chase had ended. The cop who fired had ignored advice twice to back off due to pedestrian safety concerns. Where did the other four shots go? If the chase had been backed off from, those four bullets would not have had the opportunity to injure or kill more kids on a college campus. Would the evaluations of it being a "good shoot" be the same if one (or more) of those strays had found a flesh-and-bone target?

5) Today in Ames, IA, it is apparently a death penalty offense to have "...revved the engine and refused orders to turn it [the truck] off." That is what the Des Moines Register says happened. Nothing about trying to ram the cops again, he just revved the engine, which by the way, suggests to me that the truck wasn't even in gear. Conjecture about another attempted ramming of the cop car(s) in order to exonerate a cop for opening fire over what he knew at the time started as a relatively minor family dispute seems completely out of place here.

It's possible that the Register edited out whatever acknowledgement of the "back off" transmissions that may have taken place. Perhaps such acknowledgements, if they happened at all, would offer an explanation for why it was imperative to continue the chase onto a crowded college campus and then open fire on a kid revving his engine, but for the life of me, I can't imagine what "public safety" premise such an explanation would consist of.

I will never understand how people can jump to the defense of cops who open fire on unarmed suspects and kill them. Especially a cop who knew that the kid just had a minor argument with his dad and, given time to cool down, the situation would've most likely resolved itself before the day was over. I mean, if there's going to be conjecture about this killing, why not let it enure to the benefit of a dead kid instead of the trigger happy cop that killed him?

Blues
 
Even if he wasn't actively trying to run down a cop, several states have a fleeing felon law, allowing deadly force to prevent his escape. Also, if he's already rammed a cop he's shown brazen disregard for the safety of others and should be considered a danger to the public. Either of those things could have justified the shooting whether he was actively trying to hit a cop or not. They probably could have taken a different route, but legally I think the shooting was justified.
 
jcreek said:
Even if he wasn't actively trying to run down a cop, several states have a fleeing felon law, allowing deadly force to prevent his escape.
Click to expand...

He wasn't fleeing when he was shot, and there's as much evidence that he couldn't flee because of damage to the truck or being otherwise stuck where he was, as there is evidence that he intended to keep fleeing and/or posed a threat to the officers or others in the general vicinity. In other words, no evidence for us to go on at all on either premise. The kid was stopped and was killed for revving his engine, but the cop gets the benefit of the doubt, 180° out of phase with the American Way of suspects maintaining benefit of the doubt until the jury comes back with a guilty verdict.

Yay fleeing felon laws that are responsible for turning that premise on its head!

jcreek said:
Also, if he's already rammed a cop he's shown brazen disregard for the safety of others and should be considered a danger to the public.
Click to expand...

Like I said, apparently in Ames, IA it is a death penalty offense to rev your engine or previously have disregarded the safety of others before committing the revving. "Considered a danger to the public," combined with the possibility that IA has a fleeing felon law such as you suggest, means it's open season to kill the kid? Disgusting.

jcreek said:
Either of those things could have justified the shooting whether he was actively trying to hit a cop or not. They probably could have taken a different route, but legally I think the shooting was justified.
Click to expand...

badge_fluffers_rock_button.jpg
 
As Ames Police Officer Adam McPherson followed Tyler onto the ISU campus, the 19-year-old allegedly rammed McPherson’s car.
Click to expand...

This one sentence explains the entire situation to me.

Comstock told The Des Moines Register that his son was not armed.
Click to expand...

The above is incorrect. The vehicle at this point is considered a weapon, and the police officer reacted to defend himself. Even if the kid had shut off the truck and exited the vehicle and been arrested, he'd have gone to prison for attempted murder and assault against a LEO.

I'm sorry but I don't feel badly about this at all. I've had someone try to run me over in a parking lot, and have had to fire into a car before.. more than once. It's justified as soon as a person tries to hit you with a 4000 pound car.
 
GlassWolf said:
I've had someone try to run me over in a parking lot, and have had to fire into a car before.. more than once. It's justified as soon as a person tries to hit you with a 4000 pound car.
Click to expand...

Right. The kid tried to hit the officer with a 4000 pound car while the officer himself was protected by another 4000 pound car, and no mention of him having been hurt by that act is in the linked article or audio we've heard so far. The kid was stopped when McPherson opened fire. If the collision the young man caused during the chase was the "justification" for opening fire, then it's worse than I first thought; refusing to turn off the engine and/or revving it wasn't the death penalty offense, a prior bad act that no one got hurt by was!

The only way anyone can "justify" this shooting with the information we have available to us now is to make all manner of excuses for what amounts to an adrenaline-dumped, trigger-happy cop who was just pissed because someone didn't want to be arrested for having an argument with his dad.

We can't put panties on the heads of muslim terrorists without being condemned world-wide for our "torture" practices, yet cops are issued and carry at least two real torture devices to use on American citizens at the drop of a hat (pepper spray and tasers), but still people make excuses for them when they ignore their less deadly options and just open fire!

I would have a *little* more understanding of the cop if he didn't know from the very first second of the call that this was just a family dispute. His own compadres (or at least one of them) tried to get him to back off for that very reason ("We know the suspect, so we can probably back it off"), but no, he ran the truck (or the driver) until it couldn't go anymore and then opened fire. You guys can make all the excuses for him you want to, but at the bottom line, that's what happened.

Blues
 
At one time I always gave the police the benefit of doubt, but something is wrong here. Under Iowa law, in fact under most state's laws, once the threat is over the justification for using deadly force is also over. From the picture it looks like the truck and driver were no longer a danger. The LEOs were also aware of the family situation. The kid probably would have faced more county jail time, but death? I don't think that the reaction was in any way proportional.

As a long time resident of Iowa I have noticed a definite change in the attitude of the police. They no longer consider themselves to be public servants. They believe that they are the law and also now they are beyond the law. People are not even allowed to ask questions, let alone challenge them. This is a result of the militarization of the police and is what one would find in a third world police state.

Iowa is no longer the bucolic rural state that does not pose any danger for the police. But still, compared to most other states is still relatively safe. There needs to be a real and independent investigation of the officer's reactions in this case. There have been similar incidents in recent years and there is usually an attempted whitewash of the facts. The police simply are not capable of investigating themselves. They have developed this attitude of an occupying military force. We now have cops who pose more of a danger to public than the criminals. This situation is not ideal and poses a danger to the police themselves. There are times when the police need the help of the public and alienating that public is not helpful.
 
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to my home town. Not much to say about this, it's much too close to home, literally.
 
SR40c said:
Ladies and gentlemen, Welcome to my home town.
Click to expand...

If you're saying that you live in the Ames/Ankeny/ DesMoines corridor, you have my sympathy. I live 125 miles from there and usually try to avoid that whole stretch of I-35. The police in Ames do have an attitude; but I always thought it could be chalked up to exposure to the Iowa State students.
 
S&W645 said:
But that is if you believe the police side of the story. Take a look at what purports to be the truck stolen. Front of it is against brush. Did the vehicle get that way after the kid was shot or before? If before, then it is an unjustified shooting. Many angles of attack if the front is blocked that would not require shooting the kid. Truck used to ram police vehicle? Show me the front of the truck. The side shows damage that looks like the police rammed the truck and what little shows of the front looks undamaged. He backed into the following police car when the officer was on the road chasing him? Needs further investigation.
Click to expand...

Agreed. This is why I added, "If we just take the article's word for it"
 
BluesStringer said:
There's a link Link Removed of the radio transmissions that it doesn't seem anyone is taking into account.

1) First officer assigned the call is informed right off the bat that it was the kid's dad who made the report and the dispatcher informed him that it was a "he got mad and took off" kind of family dispute call.

2) At 3:05 of the linked audio, another voice not that of the dispatcher's says, "If he's that reckless....coming into the college area, why don't you back off." This male voice can be heard over a siren, presumably one of the units now involved in the chase communicating with the lead vehicle. That transmission was not even acknowledged by anyone in the chase, and it continued "Southbound on Wallace."

3) 3:52: Another transmission male voice says, "We know the suspect, so we can probably back it off." No audio of this transmission being acknowledged either.

4) Only two out of six shots fired hit the kid on a crowded campus. The chase had ended. The cop who fired had ignored advice twice to back off due to pedestrian safety concerns. Where did the other four shots go? If the chase had been backed off from, those four bullets would not have had the opportunity to injure or kill more kids on a college campus. Would the evaluations of it being a "good shoot" be the same if one (or more) of those strays had found a flesh-and-bone target?

5) Today in Ames, IA, it is apparently a death penalty offense to have "...revved the engine and refused orders to turn it [the truck] off." That is what the Des Moines Register says happened. Nothing about trying to ram the cops again, he just revved the engine, which by the way, suggests to me that the truck wasn't even in gear. Conjecture about another attempted ramming of the cop car(s) in order to exonerate a cop for opening fire over what he knew at the time started as a relatively minor family dispute seems completely out of place here.

It's possible that the Register edited out whatever acknowledgement of the "back off" transmissions that may have taken place. Perhaps such acknowledgements, if they happened at all, would offer an explanation for why it was imperative to continue the chase onto a crowded college campus and then open fire on a kid revving his engine, but for the life of me, I can't imagine what "public safety" premise such an explanation would consist of.

I will never understand how people can jump to the defense of cops who open fire on unarmed suspects and kill them. Especially a cop who knew that the kid just had a minor argument with his dad and, given time to cool down, the situation would've most likely resolved itself before the day was over. I mean, if there's going to be conjecture about this killing, why not let it enure to the benefit of a dead kid instead of the trigger happy cop that killed him?

Blues
Click to expand...

Good fact checking. Let me amend my faults to now it is both the 19 yo and the cops fault. If there is actual audio transmission that says, "hey we know this kid, back off" and the LEO's ignored that, they have a good deal of fault in this situation as well. However, Dad is still exonerated since he did nothing to escalate this situation.
 
The driver of the truck was driving and acting aggressively. The officer's first duty is to defend himself. The officer acted reasonably in my opinion, if you look at things from his perspective, ignoring the back-story and only paying attention to what the officer experienced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 175 (members: 0, guests: 175)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,545
Messages
611,262
Members
74,959
Latest member
defcon

Share this page

Back
Top