Dad's lesson ends in tragedy

[BluesStringer]

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.

The Link Removed in the post you're responding to goes straight to the page with the audio on it. It's a little less than 5 minutes long. No "if" about it, it's there right where I posted the time-stamp.

However, Dad is still exonerated since he did nothing to escalate this situation.[/QUOTE]

Dad is likely grew up in a time (and maybe a place) when trusting LE was often rewarded with results that reinforced that trust. To blame him even if that was not accurate would be more a grotesque case of blaming the victim than holding his kid wholly responsible for his own death would be. It never occurred to me to blame Dad in any way, shape, manner or form.

Blues

 

[buckey01]

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.

This not the case in Iowa. It is illegal for a cop or a civilian to shoot a fleeing felon. When there is no immediate threat, deadly force is not permitted. And when a threat ends so does the right to use deadly force. We had state policeman a few years ago punished for using deadly force against a fleeing suspect suspected of drug possession. I believe it was decided by the state supreme court.

 

[BluesStringer]

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.

I am only paying attention to what he experienced, as at 3:52 of the linked audio he was informed again that his own fellow officers "knew the suspect" and that backing off would have been the appropriate move.

You're right. His first duty is to defend himself....against an immediate threat. The so-called threat was a vehicle that was either in Park or Neutral with the driver revving the engine of the "weapon." He wasn't a threat at the time the officer "defended himself." You don't "defend yourself" after the fact of a threat.

I think of McPherson the same way I think of the LAPD Nazis who opened fire on the two Hispanic females while the manhunt for the large black man, Chris Dorner, was going on. Scared and pissed off over a threat to some of their own, they pulled their triggers without giving a second thought to public safety, much less a thought to protecting the public. Cops such as these should not be on the force if they can't manage the adrenaline dumps that their jobs assure will happen fairly regularly better than they did in these two examples, period.

Blues

 

[buckey01]

Blues you are exactly right. There is a definite attitude change in departments all around the country. I can tell you one thing for sure; there are a lot of really young cops in Iowa with a new and different attitude, dangerously aggressive.

 

[mappow]

Action-Reaction. Who's responsibility was the initial action?

 

[BluesStringer]

Action-Reaction. Who's responsibility was the initial action?

Hardly the question being discussed here, mappow. The initial action was definitely the kid's. The question is the appropriateness, the legality, and even the morality of the reaction. McPherson probably passes on legality, but fails miserably as far as I'm concerned on appropriateness and morality. Conducting "policing" right on the edge of "legal" when it comes to deadly force is a practice deserving of condemnation by the public that these so-called "servants" serve. And according to buckey, who lives in IA, McPherson may have even crossed that legal line.

Blues

 

[vt_shooter]

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.

"Fleeing felon laws" aren't that simple. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Tennessee v. Garner that police must have probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others before they can use deadly force, so they can't shoot merely because he's an escaping felon, he must pose a significant threat. Not all felons are a threat. But yeah, a guy trying to run you down with a 4 ton truck is a threat, but if a felon started to run away on foot and isn't threatening anyone the police would be well advised to not shoot.

 

[S&W645]

I want to see pictures of the police car that got rammed. Bet there isn't much if any damage to it. Because the ramming could very well have been the cop hitting the truck and not the other way around. In traffic, the mind can make it look like you are sitting still when you aren't or even moving when you are not. Where is the dash cam video of the chase?

 

[superprincess]

My opinion it sounds like the father knowingly mislead the police by saying the vehicle was stolen, when he knew his own son took it. Most likely his son would have came back home in a couple of hours. How long can you be upset over a pack of cigarettes and most likely he was going to the store to buy himself a pack of cigarettes and would probably came right back Or he was going to a buddy's house to get a cigarette. I know you guys do not want to hear this but in a round about way, ultimately the father's actions snowballed down hill and led to his son's death. He should have waited a reasonable amount of time and remained calm instead of trying to teach his son a lesson by sicing the cops on him. Also I believe the cops took extreme measures and should be sued.

 

[superprincess]

Well, finding out ain't that hard......No pun intended! Link Removed

Thanks Blues, this is why your one of my favorites on usa carry

 

[BluesStringer]

I want to see pictures of the police car that got rammed. Bet there isn't much if any damage to it. Because the ramming could very well have been the cop hitting the truck and not the other way around. In traffic, the mind can make it look like you are sitting still when you aren't or even moving when you are not. Where is the dash cam video of the chase?

Not only is the damage to the vehicles that we don't know about important before scrutinizing the shooting, but there's one thing that I think we do know about that has bugged me all day about this too. That being that out of all the cops that would've been there at the end of the chase, only the one, McPherson, opened fire. I keep thinking about this. If the kid was such a threat, why did only one cop open fire?

To me, that question answers itself; the only threat to life there at that moment was McPherson.

Blues

 

[GlassWolf]

My opinion it sounds like the father knowingly mislead the police by saying the vehicle was stolen, when he knew his own son took it. Most likely his son would have came back home in a couple of hours. How long can you be upset over a pack of cigarettes and most likely he was going to the store to buy himself a pack of cigarettes and would probably came right back Or he was going to a buddy's house to get a cigarette. I know you guys do not want to hear this but in a round about way, ultimately the father's actions snowballed down hill and led to his son's death. He should have waited a reasonable amount of time and remained calm instead of trying to teach his son a lesson by sicing the cops on him. Also I believe the cops took extreme measures and should be sued.

If you want to use the butterfly effect, I could probably find some way to link the blame back to you or myself, too. Fact is everyone is responsible for his or her own actions. The sooner liberals realize that, the sooner their entire party will fall apart.

 

[wolf_fire]

The Link Removed in the post you're responding to goes straight to the page with the audio on it. It's a little less than 5 minutes long. No "if" about it, it's there right where I posted the time-stamp.

However, Dad is still exonerated since he did nothing to escalate this situation.

Dad is likely grew up in a time (and maybe a place) when trusting LE was often rewarded with results that reinforced that trust. To blame him even if that was not accurate would be more a grotesque case of blaming the victim than holding his kid wholly responsible for his own death would be. It never occurred to me to blame Dad in any way, shape, manner or form.

Blues

The fault thread stems from the original post where it was mentioned that all (dad, son, and cops) had fault in this situation. The "if" was not an intention to doubt the validity of the audio transmission. The word "since" would have been a better term to use.

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

 

[alternety]

Working from the published information, I agree on the doubts about shooting being the appropriate solution and judgement on the part of the officer in carrying on the chase. The kid's (kind of old to be a kid) behavior certainly escalated an otherwise minor problem. I do, however, feel that dad was misusing the police. Sort of like calling 911 when your pizza arrives cold (yes it happens). Had he kept it the domestic dispute it was, nothing would have happened. Dad would have had reasonable expectation of getting his truck back; without adding to the arrest record of the kid. His son had not threatened any harm. The kid was an idiot, but dad's unwarranted, and I feel improper, escalation (I'll teach the little bastard a lesson) initiated the chain of events.

 

[wolf_fire]

Working from the published information, I agree on the doubts about shooting being the appropriate solution and judgement on the part of the officer in carrying on the chase. The kid's (kind of old to be a kid) behavior certainly escalated an otherwise minor problem. I do, however, feel that dad was misusing the police. Sort of like calling 911 when your pizza arrives cold (yes it happens). Had he kept it the domestic dispute it was, nothing would have happened. Dad would have had reasonable expectation of getting his truck back; without adding to the arrest record of the kid. His son had not threatened any harm. The kid was an idiot, but dad's unwarranted, and I feel improper, escalation (I'll teach the little bastard a lesson) initiated the chain of events.

The 19 yo adult stole dad's work truck. I'm not sure how you equate a felony car jacking to pizza being delivered cold. If I, or any of my brothers or sisters growing up, would have stolen the family car (not a work vehicle) my mom and dad would have easily called the cops on our arse. Yes, it was to teach a lesson, but also because the kid STOLE the work vehicle.

 

[tophop1]

Here Is the dashcam.Link Removed

 

[Rich M]

That cops life was not in danger. He just jump out and shoots. I see this **** every day in the news.
.
NEVER call the cops for something you can deal with yourself. Just wait till Jr gets home with the truck and handle it then.
.

 

[dogshawred]

After watching the dashcam video, I am hard pressed to understand why this individual was killed by police. Statements purported made during the incident weren't on the video. At the end McPherson was not heard demanding the engine be shut off, only stating that the engine was still running after the shooting was over. It appears that he no sooner got our of his patrol car took a stance and openrd fired. There wasn't much time for anything else and he was immediately adjacent to the patrol car at the time so audio would have been recorded.
~
Most everyone seems to consider the actions of the father proper. I ask you if you feel after reading all available information including the article in the Des Moines Register do you think that his father now thinks his actions were appropriate?
~
Tough love is old school education and is intended to be used in a direct application manner, i.e. your son is out of control and you are the one who deals directly with him in a harsh but loving manner to correct his behavior.
~
Placing the discipline of tough love into the hands of authorities might be ok if you are letting him sit in a cell over night instead of bailing him out at 2 AM. Calling the police to report your work truck stolen by your son is another matter, because now you have placed him in a completely unique situation of your own creation without any control of what is going to happen or how it is going to culminate.
~
While watching the video I noticed that the kid took off all of a sudden before the cop lite up his siren and couldn't tell if he had his lights on before hand. Question, did dad call his son to tell him that he had reported his truck stolen by his son to let him know he was teaching him a lesson. Putting the son who already has a record of arrest in greater fear of his ultimate arrest.
~
Consequences of ones actions, the son has paid for his actions, actually overpaid since the actions of the police weren't totally above reproach especially since they already knew who the suspect was and knew they could find him at any time without endangering other, themselves or the son. The father is now paying for his actions of overreacting with the lose of his son. At the beginning of the audio tape of the chase the dispatcher explains that father and son were working together at the same job sight and the son had left in the work truck. Unknown at this time is whether the son worked for the Spring Green landscape company along with his father or the son was just giving his father a hand that day at the sight. If in fact the son worked for Spring Green he may very well had the right to be driving that vehicle and was not actually stealing it in the first place.
~
There are just too much information missing to really know what, why and how all this fits together. More questions than answers, I know from my own experiences of tough love, if my own father had ever put me in this type of situation, with this end result he would have never been able to live with himself. I pray that James Comstock and his family receive the help they need to weather this storm.

 

[mwhals]

The 19 year old son's actions directly led to his debt. He stole the truck, he rammed the car and he refused to exit the vehicle. The son is at fault.

Regarding the police, we don't have the facts. I imagine an internal investigation will happen to determine if the officers were reasonable in using deadly force.

I see the son's fault and police actions as two separate items, but it was the son that initiated the actions.


Sent from my iPhone using Link Removed

 

[AgentSmith5150]

More info here Link Removed

"A state's attorney says the police officer who fatally shot the apparently unarmed man "acted reasonably under very difficult circumstances and....use of deadly force was justified," reported KCCI. "