Dad's lesson ends in tragedy

[alternety]

After viewing the dashcam, I would like to up my reference to the son from idiot to to something more like homicidal sociopath. He completely ignored the likely death toll from his actions and utterly unconcerned with injuries and destruction. He turned himself from a son arguing with this dad into a seriously deranged criminal. And, of course, he had to know the police knew (or would immediately) who he was. Hence his whole behavior was without utility. Imagine the upholstery cleaning bill for the driver of the car going through the green light from the right when the truck blew through the red. Then the wrong way on a one way street. I don't know where the cars recommending "back off" were. But seeing the video, I also have the question in my mind if I would have stopped the chase or continued it with serious concern that the son was a serious threat to the public even if they stopped chasing.

Also note, the chase was started by the felon. He most likely was not going to be a felon at that point, but he quickly fixed that. It appears he ran as soon as he simply saw a police car behind him. There was clearly no siren; lights unknown. How would he react if after pursuit ended he suddenly saw anything resembling in his mind at this point, probably anything with flashing lights) a police car. These are trade-offs and decisions that could be discussed for hours, but had to be made by the man on the sharp end in minutes and seconds. We can not realistically expect an adrenaline pumped person, who had been directly attacked, to make only correct decisions. Or even ones that would get the popular vote by armchair evaluators. Those who believe that is not true are either supermen or deluded. A competent examination on the scene will be needed and maybe a jury.

Regarding the shooting, no audio of officer demanding to turn off the engine. I am not sure I heard the engine racing, although it was running. Rather like having a a 4000 lb bullet in the chamber (note to some - no Pizza involved in this). Danger to officers; we can't see if the truck could go forward at the end. Had he repeated his previous behavior of backing into police cars he could easily injured or killed the officer getting out of the car that had pulled in front of the truck earlier (ending to the left front of the shooters car).

The way the son had behaved would be very hard to ignore if there was any chance that he would resume his actions in that relatively small area. It is very hard to second guess the thought processes of the shooter after repeated attacks and the exposed position of fellow officers. It is a tough call made in fractions of a second. I am not attempting at this point to decide the validity of the shooting. I also fully agree that our new "militarized" police forces have made more and more incredibly wrong choices. But the event is just starting to be investigated. And, of course, my conclusion does not really matter at all.

The post directly above this one was made while I was typing. That was my guess.

 

[msg51]

No weapon in history ever acted on it's own.

Can you guarantee a different outcome? This is from the Front page story from the register that was not fit for this forum.

A recent Ames police chase of someone who drove off without paying for gas was stopped out of safety concerns. The fleeing vehicle did not slow down, and the incident ended with one teenager dead and another driver seriously injured, Holmes wrote. The investigative process into Monday’s shooting was completed sooner than usual, officials said. It can take weeks before an investigation into a police shooting is concluded, a DCI official said Wednesday. However, the county attorney’s decision and patrol car videos were released Thursday because dispatch audio was made public Tuesday by The Des Moines Register, Huff 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

 

[BluesStringer]

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.

I agree with this. If I'm not mistaken, it's a little worse than it being "dad's" work truck though, it was his employer's truck. Link Removed article that the OP link to The Blaze was taking its information from:

Police began pursuing Tyler Comstock of Boone after his father reported the truck stolen. The truck belonged to a lawn care company.

So it went beyond being only between son and dad. The owner of the truck, dad's employer, has a right to expect that dad reports any crimes against their property.

I do not believe that dad calling the cops was inappropriate in any way.

I'm not so sure that the "to teach him a lesson" meme is completely accurate either. The Blaze seems to have editorialized that line themselves from the Register article I just quoted from. Again from that article:

“He took off with my truck. I call the police, and they kill him,” James Comstock told The Des Moines Register on Tuesday. “It was over a damn pack of cigarettes. I wouldn’t buy him none.

“And I lose my son for that.”

Nowhere in that article (or any others of the ones I've read from the Register so far) does it say that Dad said he was trying to teach his kid a lesson. He witnessed a truck being stolen, he reported it, and it never occurred to him that some trigger-happy cop hyped-up on adrenaline would shoot him before even trying to give a verbal order to the kid after exiting his patrol unit. But anyway, the "Dad was trying to teach him a lesson" meme was apparently made up from the imagination of a Blaze writer.

As dogshawred observed, the video shows clearly that there was almost no discernible time between McPherson exiting his vehicle and opening fire. And as I presumed yesterday, there were several cops there and only one opened fire. Only one out of at least three who could be seen in the video thought young Comstock posed a great enough threat to kill him. That just doesn't make sense to me. After just watching (and listening carefully) to the video at the CBS link that AgentSmith posted, the report of six shots fired is a mistake - it was seven. Minor and insignificant misreporting, but obvious nonetheless.

Whatever, Link Removed, the investigation is closed, nothing to see here, move along. Young Comstock had some hurt comin' his way, no doubt about that, but there was no time when the cops' lives were in actual danger that I saw. Yeah, seems all of 'em got jostled around in their cars, but in life-threatening-danger? I don't see it.

This is "policing" today. I feel less safe knowing that cops like McPherson are out there everywhere "protecting and serving" us.

Blues

 

[BluesStringer]

No weapon in history ever acted on it's own.

Wow, profound man. What does it mean in context to anything I said though?

Can you guarantee a different outcome?

Yeah. Keep your weapon holstered, McPherson, and take the advice of calmer heads within your own ranks by backing off, and a young man wouldn't have died of lead poisoning at your hand! Guaran-freakin'-teed!

This is from the Front page story from the register that was not fit for this forum.

Not "fit" for this forum? If that's true, why are you posting from it? If you mean "unrelated to the incident that is the topic of this thread," well yeah that's right, but again, why are you posting here in that case either?

A recent Ames police chase of someone who drove off without paying for gas was stopped out of safety concerns. The fleeing vehicle did not slow down, and the incident ended with one teenager dead and another driver seriously injured, Holmes wrote. The investigative process into Monday’s shooting was completed sooner than usual, officials said. It can take weeks before an investigation into a police shooting is concluded, a DCI official said Wednesday. However, the county attorney’s decision and patrol car videos were released Thursday because dispatch audio was made public Tuesday by The Des Moines Register, Huff said.

Try linking to whatever you're talking about. I can't tell where the drive-off from the gas station ends and the Comstock shooting begins, and that's even assuming that the Comstock shooting is part of that disjointed paragraph, which I wouldn't bet on.

What does any of this have to do with anything I said? If you just wanted to throw random thoughts out there, you could have done it without quoting my post and pretending it was in reply to whatever I said.

Blues

 

[3gunshooter]

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.

It's not only in Iowa.

 

[S&W645]

It's not only in Iowa.

I was sort of given that kind of warning today by someone who works in Corrections. And it does involve DHS and all the ammo they are buying. Officers at the ranges are going through up to 5000 rounds in one day for training. They are training hard for gun battles.

 

[buckey01]

I wouldn't necessarily believe anything printed in the DesMoines Register. It is a far left wing rag that believes in almost total control by big government. I'm not sure what their agenda is here, but they always appear to me as being too tolerant of sloppy, agenda driven reporting. The left wing agenda of the Register regularly appears in news as well as editorials.

I'm sure that there is plenty of fault on both sides of this situation. However, the young man, despite being a real jerk, probably didn't deserve the death penalty for irresponsible and reckless driving. It appears that there was no longer an immediate threat to life; therefore the right to use deadly force no longer existed. When there are several cops present and only one decides to kill an unarmed person, it usually means that some faulty judgement is involved. Even though the cop probably was justified in his anger, temper tantrums can't be tolerated in law enforcement. .

 

[S&W645]

Notice that there seems to be a disconnect between the pictures of where the truck was and where the video shows it. Car that was right behind the truck in the video is not right there in the pictures and in the audio, you hear a racing engine, after the shots were fired.

 

[Chris Rakes]

just another reason the LE should not have lethal force.

 

[superprincess]

Seems like LEO needs to spend more time in the classroom studying how to handle crisis situations, instead of going through 5000 rounds in one day for training. Geez what good is it to know how to shoot? If you don't know when it is appropriate to shoot.

 

[alternety]

Are DHS troops really LEOs? Or perhaps RegimeEOs.

 

[S&W645]

Seems like LEO needs to spend more time in the classroom studying how to handle crisis situations, instead of going through 5000 rounds in one day for training. Geez what good is it to know how to shoot? If you don't know when it is appropriate to shoot.

My guess, they will be told to shoot and not ask questions. Either of themselves or higher ups.

 

[wolf_fire]

just another reason the LE should not have lethal force.

That makes no sense. "Police report to an armed bank robbery in progress"... "Police report to a domestic violence case concerning a man with a gun...
armed robbery in progress at the 7-11, police report

If you were a cop, would you go unarmed?

 

[JCliff]

I read the articles, listened to the tapes, watched the video (many times). My two cents:
.
The father was in no way at fault in this event. This obviously was a very troubled young man.
.
I agree that the chase should not have been continued. Though not ordered to back off, the suggestion was made twice, and that clearly would have been the best course of action. By forcing the chase through this suburban area, the police unnecessarily increased the risk of potentially grave injury to everyone in the area. Sheer luck is the only reason other people weren’t hurt during this event. As noted in the audio, they knew who he was, what he was driving, and they most likely could have picked him up at leisure later in the day…and if they didn’t, so what? It’s not like they were after someone who had just shot 3 people in a holdup. I’ll return to the kind of thinking that leads to this later.
.
Having stipulated that I believe the chase should have been terminated, then clearly the end of the encounter wouldn’t have occurred the way it did. Assessing the end of this encounter as it happened is a completely different matter. I found the written news reports to be either erroneous or misleading as to what happened versus what I saw on the dashcam video. Too many reporters tend to “fill in” or interpolate meaning beyond what is factually there, or what they are told by witnesses. They try to fashion a “story.” Regardless, the video clearly shows young Mr. Comstock intentionally ramming the police cruiser with the pickup at least 3 times. In all 50 states, such an act of violence is felony assault with a deadly weapon. The last ramming took place approximately 2 seconds before the officer opened fire, just after he (the officer) had exited his vehicle. The pickup was still in motion (though not much at that instant…switching gears…? I don’t know) at the moment the officer starts shooting. I hear what sounds like an engine racing. I disagree with those whose assessment is that the officers involved were in no danger. At the end of this encounter, they were definitely in danger (and I mean of grievous injury or death), and it was imminent. Mr. Comstock had clearly demonstrated he was willing to use his vehicle as a weapon, and had done so just 2 seconds before he was shot. From the information available to us and presented on this forum, I believe the local district attorney’s assessment was correct. I also believe that ultimately, young Mr. Comstock made an unforced decision to attack police with a pickup truck. Like most people, I would rather this had ended differently. My recommendation to anyone is don’t intentionally ram occupied police vehicles (or anyone’s vehicle for that matter) and then complain if you get shot.
.
Why did it go the way it did? The meme of militarization of our police forces has been steadily occurring across our country, particularly over the last decade or so. Not just in weapons and tactics, but in attitude and culture. In the military when the enemy is met, pursuit to an overwhelming decisive encounter and victory is most desired, and highly encouraged. That mindset is not well suited to civilian police work in most instances. First, the populaces the police work among are not “the enemy,” but seem to be all too frequently treated as just that. Second, most police work does not require and should not culminate in the overwhelming use of force. I believe the mindset of decisive encounter with overwhelming force, and a mindset of “he’s now the enemy,” are what kept the chase going which ultimately led to the demise of young Mr. Comstock. I’m not looking at the world through rose-colored lenses either. There’s plenty of evil out there, and no shortage of sh!theads. There are times and places that civil police work calls for immediate and decisive force; I submit that young Mr. Comstock’s situation was not one of them. At the end, I don’t blame the officer for shooting. I blame a poor decision to engage in a dangerous pursuit when it wasn’t called for, that ultimately led to the shooting.

 

[SigShooter77]

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?

I get that police have the right to defend themselves but it seems that "He tried to ram us!" is now becoming a license to kill for cops across the us. What is "ramming"? was there actual gross damage to the car that would justify deadly force? was there incidental contact because a scared person didn't act appropriately? It also seems like "he tried to ram us" also allows the cops to shoot you any time after the "alleged" ramming incident, even after the "threat" is over.

It takes me back to the days of my youth watching South Park

 

[S&W645]

I read the articles, listened to the tapes, watched the video (many times). My two cents:
.
The father was in no way at fault in this event. This obviously was a very troubled young man.
.
I agree that the chase should not have been continued. Though not ordered to back off, the suggestion was made twice, and that clearly would have been the best course of action. By forcing the chase through this suburban area, the police unnecessarily increased the risk of potentially grave injury to everyone in the area. Sheer luck is the only reason other people weren’t hurt during this event. As noted in the audio, they knew who he was, what he was driving, and they most likely could have picked him up at leisure later in the day…and if they didn’t, so what? It’s not like they were after someone who had just shot 3 people in a holdup. I’ll return to the kind of thinking that leads to this later.
.
Having stipulated that I believe the chase should have been terminated, then clearly the end of the encounter wouldn’t have occurred the way it did. Assessing the end of this encounter as it happened is a completely different matter. I found the written news reports to be either erroneous or misleading as to what happened versus what I saw on the dashcam video. Too many reporters tend to “fill in” or interpolate meaning beyond what is factually there, or what they are told by witnesses. They try to fashion a “story.” Regardless, the video clearly shows young Mr. Comstock intentionally ramming the police cruiser with the pickup at least 3 times. In all 50 states, such an act of violence is felony assault with a deadly weapon. The last ramming took place approximately 2 seconds before the officer opened fire, just after he (the officer) had exited his vehicle. The pickup was still in motion (though not much at that instant…switching gears…? I don’t know) at the moment the officer starts shooting. I hear what sounds like an engine racing. I disagree with those whose assessment is that the officers involved were in no danger. At the end of this encounter, they were definitely in danger (and I mean of grievous injury or death), and it was imminent. Mr. Comstock had clearly demonstrated he was willing to use his vehicle as a weapon, and had done so just 2 seconds before he was shot. From the information available to us and presented on this forum, I believe the local district attorney’s assessment was correct. I also believe that ultimately, young Mr. Comstock made an unforced decision to attack police with a pickup truck. Like most people, I would rather this had ended differently. My recommendation to anyone is don’t intentionally ram occupied police vehicles (or anyone’s vehicle for that matter) and then complain if you get shot.
.
Why did it go the way it did? The meme of militarization of our police forces has been steadily occurring across our country, particularly over the last decade or so. Not just in weapons and tactics, but in attitude and culture. In the military when the enemy is met, pursuit to an overwhelming decisive encounter and victory is most desired, and highly encouraged. That mindset is not well suited to civilian police work in most instances. First, the populaces the police work among are not “the enemy,” but seem to be all too frequently treated as just that. Second, most police work does not require and should not culminate in the overwhelming use of force. I believe the mindset of decisive encounter with overwhelming force, and a mindset of “he’s now the enemy,” are what kept the chase going which ultimately led to the demise of young Mr. Comstock. I’m not looking at the world through rose-colored lenses either. There’s plenty of evil out there, and no shortage of sh!theads. There are times and places that civil police work calls for immediate and decisive force; I submit that young Mr. Comstock’s situation was not one of them. At the end, I don’t blame the officer for shooting. I blame a poor decision to engage in a dangerous pursuit when it wasn’t called for, that ultimately led to the shooting.

Just like a citizen can't shoot a robber fleeing that does not pose an eminent danger, this cop shot the kid while the truck was stopped. Show clearly that in the dash cam video. The rear of the truck was against the right front fender of the car. The other officer was way off to the side and not in danger. When a deadly threat ends, so does the right to use deadly force. This officer was trigger happy.

 

[SR40c]

My whole problem with police shootings, is when you take the same situation and put John Q Public in their shoes, would they be judged the same. I say no and that is just plain wrong. It's especially wrong in place like Iowa that doesn't even have Stand Your Ground or Castle Doctrine. It's B-U-L-L-S-H-!-T.

 

[S&W645]

My whole problem with police shootings, is when you take the same situation and put John Q Public in their shoes, would they be judged the same. I say no and that is just plain wrong. It's especially wrong in place like Iowa that doesn't even have Stand Your Ground or Castle Doctrine. It's B-U-L-L-S-H-!-T.

Florida House just had a committee meeting and vote on doing away with the SYG and SYG in the home. It was a rather lopsided vote. 11 to keep and 2 to repeal. Back in 2005 when we got that, the vote in the Florida Senate was 94 to 20.

And I agree, a common citizen would be sitting in jail for the same thing a cop is excused from. Like the innocent victims of police gunfire in NYC. Or Miami. Or Chicago. Or DC.

 

[BluesStringer]

I read the articles, listened to the tapes, watched the video (many times). My two cents:
.
The father was in no way at fault in this event. This obviously was a very troubled young man.
.
I agree that the chase should not have been continued. Though not ordered to back off, the suggestion was made twice, and that clearly would have been the best course of action. By forcing the chase through this suburban area, the police unnecessarily increased the risk of potentially grave injury to everyone in the area. Sheer luck is the only reason other people weren’t hurt during this event. As noted in the audio, they knew who he was, what he was driving, and they most likely could have picked him up at leisure later in the day…and if they didn’t, so what? It’s not like they were after someone who had just shot 3 people in a holdup. I’ll return to the kind of thinking that leads to this later.
.
Having stipulated that I believe the chase should have been terminated, then clearly the end of the encounter wouldn’t have occurred the way it did. Assessing the end of this encounter as it happened is a completely different matter. I found the written news reports to be either erroneous or misleading as to what happened versus what I saw on the dashcam video. Too many reporters tend to “fill in” or interpolate meaning beyond what is factually there, or what they are told by witnesses. They try to fashion a “story.” Regardless, the video clearly shows young Mr. Comstock intentionally ramming the police cruiser with the pickup at least 3 times. In all 50 states, such an act of violence is felony assault with a deadly weapon. The last ramming took place approximately 2 seconds before the officer opened fire, just after he (the officer) had exited his vehicle. The pickup was still in motion (though not much at that instant…switching gears…? I don’t know) at the moment the officer starts shooting. I hear what sounds like an engine racing. I disagree with those whose assessment is that the officers involved were in no danger. At the end of this encounter, they were definitely in danger (and I mean of grievous injury or death), and it was imminent. Mr. Comstock had clearly demonstrated he was willing to use his vehicle as a weapon, and had done so just 2 seconds before he was shot. From the information available to us and presented on this forum, I believe the local district attorney’s assessment was correct. I also believe that ultimately, young Mr. Comstock made an unforced decision to attack police with a pickup truck. Like most people, I would rather this had ended differently. My recommendation to anyone is don’t intentionally ram occupied police vehicles (or anyone’s vehicle for that matter) and then complain if you get shot.
.
Why did it go the way it did? The meme of militarization of our police forces has been steadily occurring across our country, particularly over the last decade or so. Not just in weapons and tactics, but in attitude and culture. In the military when the enemy is met, pursuit to an overwhelming decisive encounter and victory is most desired, and highly encouraged. That mindset is not well suited to civilian police work in most instances. First, the populaces the police work among are not “the enemy,” but seem to be all too frequently treated as just that. Second, most police work does not require and should not culminate in the overwhelming use of force. I believe the mindset of decisive encounter with overwhelming force, and a mindset of “he’s now the enemy,” are what kept the chase going which ultimately led to the demise of young Mr. Comstock. I’m not looking at the world through rose-colored lenses either. There’s plenty of evil out there, and no shortage of sh!theads. There are times and places that civil police work calls for immediate and decisive force; I submit that young Mr. Comstock’s situation was not one of them. At the end, I don’t blame the officer for shooting. I blame a poor decision to engage in a dangerous pursuit when it wasn’t called for, that ultimately led to the shooting.

On the wider problems contributing to this event (military mindset etc.), I agree 100%. On the point about "imminent" threat, I get the rationale, but cannot agree on the "imminent" part. All the vehicles were in the grass and there wasn't enough traction available to get over 5 or so mph. Any imminent threat that McPherson faced was due to him getting out of his vehicle and (somewhat) exposing himself to a direct hit by the truck, but considering that he opened fire while the truck was on the opposite side of his vehicle from which he just exited, that potential never had a chance to develop into a real threat, imminent or otherwise. The worst threat any of those officers faced if they had only used their cars to pen the truck in was to be jostled around - that's it.

That said, there is probably not a better post analyzing the chase and ending, or the media coverage, or the misinformation, in this thread. I get that the shooting was probably "legal," but legal and justified are not the same concepts, though Chiefs of Police and the courts seem to think they are. You add that to all the problems with modern policing that you so eloquently summarized, and I find no true justification for the shooting to hang my hat on. Other than that, great post, thanks for it.

Blues

 

[JCliff]

Link to an excellent article on NRO (also posted in LEO Encounters thread) by Mark Steyn, "The Drift Towards Despotism."
.
The Drift toward Despotism | National Review Online
.
I think you'll like this one Blues.