PDA

View Full Version : UNBELIEVABLE!!! Video: Don't break the law in Blue Ash, OHIO



WMR
09-28-2007, 01:19 PM
http://www.officer.com/videonetwork/index.jsp?showid=378811

This is one of the wildest police chase videos I've ever seen... much wilder than anything you see on those "wildest police chase" videos.

At the end, I was like: "Damnnnnnnnn!"

WMR
09-28-2007, 01:21 PM
Here's the story to go along with the pursuit. Helps explain why things got so deadly...

http://www.wcpo.com/mostpopular/story.aspx?content_id=4b0e49e2-a2bc-4742-aecf-757bb372f02d

WMR
09-28-2007, 01:23 PM
Here's the dude's passenger discussing the ordeal: Compelling read.: http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070830/NEWS01/708300349

Joseph
09-28-2007, 01:30 PM
Wow.

WMR
09-28-2007, 01:35 PM
Wow.

The end looks like something out of a movie, doesn't it?

Joseph
09-28-2007, 01:41 PM
Yeah, really it does.

My dad was a cop, and my wife works for the police here. Stuff like that makes you appreciate what they deal with daily more and more.

Ltlabner
09-28-2007, 04:53 PM
More (http://www.wcpo.com/mostpopular/story.aspx?content_id=384a1828-eada-4264-9e6c-8def9f217708) info on the driver.

I wouldn't want to be a patrol officer if you paid me $1,000,000 a year. I respect the men and women who put their lives on the line daily dealing with these sorts of idiots.


Drunk? check
High? check
Driving at high rate of speed? check
Fleeing and aluding? check
Assulting police officers with a deadly weapon (three times)? check
Long history of crime and very little socially redeaming qualities? check

Honestly, I don't know what motivates police officers. Whatever it is, I highly respect it.

dabvu2498
09-28-2007, 04:59 PM
Drunk? check
High? check
Driving at high rate of speed? check
Fleeing and aluding? check
Assulting police officers with a deadly weapon (three times)? check
Long history of crime and very little socially redeaming qualities? check


Driving stolen car? check

Yachtzee
09-28-2007, 05:04 PM
I had a Cleveland police officer bring in cruiser videos he's collected over the years. You wouldn't believe some of the crazy stuff people pull. I don't care what the passenger says. That guy looked like he had no intention of stopping until he killed someone.

Highlifeman21
09-28-2007, 05:20 PM
Surreal

Ltlabner
09-28-2007, 05:27 PM
That final shot with the officer kneeling on the hood of the car, and putting an end to things, is chilling.

BRM
09-28-2007, 05:33 PM
That's crazy. I agree with Abner, you couldn't pay me enough to be a patrol officer.

Screwball
09-28-2007, 05:46 PM
That final shot with the officer kneeling on the hood of the car, and putting an end to things, is chilling.

Yep. I even read where WilyMo said it gets deadly, but seeing it for myself gave me goosebumps. It reminds me of seeing video of the twin towers from 9/11 - you know what's gonna happen, but once you see it, it sends shivers down your spine.

Ltlabner
09-28-2007, 05:47 PM
Here's the story to go along with the pursuit. Helps explain why things got so deadly...

http://www.wcpo.com/mostpopular/story.aspx?content_id=4b0e49e2-a2bc-4742-aecf-757bb372f02d


"Obviously they had him stopped, they didn't need to keep firing," he said. "For a car, it's not worth a life."

Wow...that guy is dilusional.

After all the chasing...all the ramming....a few shots fired AND a police officer pearched on the hood of the car, the driver clearly still had the car moving forward. That's not "stopped".

pedro
09-28-2007, 05:53 PM
Wow...that guy is dilusional.

After all the chasing...all the ramming....a few shots fired AND a police officer pearched on the hood of the car, the driver clearly still had the car moving forward. That's not "stopped".

It appeared to me that the cop on the hood fired several shots. If so I ask you this, at what point does a person who's been shot several times lose their ability to bring the car to a stop?

Ltlabner
09-28-2007, 06:06 PM
It appeared to me that the cop on the hood fired several shots. If so I ask you this, at what point does a person who's been shot several times lose their ability to bring the car to a stop?

The car was clearly moving as the officer approached, and hopped onto the hood. The driver didn't slam on the breaks to either avoid hitting the officer, nor to "surrender" once the officer had a weapon drawn on him. What should the officer have done? Throw a big net over the car?

This criminal brought this outcome on himself.

But to answer your question....the officer fired several rounds because auto glass serriously degrades the performance of bullets, especially the types of ammunition used by police officers. It's nieve to think the officer, perched on the hood of a moving car, adrenneline from a high-speed chase pumping, and firing through automotive glass can place a single shot to either incapacitate the criminal (which is ludacriss anyway) or perminatley disable the criminal.

Additionally, several rounds are fired because the officer does not know what chemicals are in the criminals system. As it turned out this guy had several. It's not uncommon for people who are high/drunk to be shot and continue functioning, thus continuing to put the officers lives in jeprody.

But once the criminal paints the police into a corner, the outcome is of his own doing.

pedro
09-28-2007, 06:15 PM
I'm just curious how many rounds he fired once on the hood. Looks to me like 5-6, and the car was merely rolling forward from what I can see, if the guy driving was intent on speeding off at that point wouldn't he have gunned it?

Joseph
09-28-2007, 06:27 PM
I'm just curious how many rounds he fired once on the hood. Looks to me like 5-6, and the car was merely rolling forward from what I can see, if the guy driving was intent on speeding off at that point wouldn't he have gunned it?

If its your life vs his, how many shots would you take?

pedro
09-28-2007, 06:50 PM
If its your life vs his, how many shots would you take?

I understand, it just doesn't appear to me that the guy was trying to drive away at the last point. It looks to me that the car was merely rolling and if the driver was already incapacitated I'm just not sure how many more bullets are going to keep the car from rolling. It's kind of hard to hit the breaks when you're already dead (although i know he didn't die at the scene)

I'll ask another question. If the driver had been some stupid high school kid would we all feel that the force was justified?

WMR
09-28-2007, 08:25 PM
I understand, it just doesn't appear to me that the guy was trying to drive away at the last point. It looks to me that the car was merely rolling and if the driver was already incapacitated I'm just not sure how many more bullets are going to keep the car from rolling. It's kind of hard to hit the breaks when you're already dead (although i know he didn't die at the scene)

I'll ask another question. If the driver had been some stupid high school kid would we all feel that the force was justified?

It seems like their history with this guy played a definite role in how they treated his maneuvering against them...

if it had been an unknown/teenager, I think they probably would have pursued him differently.

pedro
09-28-2007, 08:33 PM
It seems like their history with this guy played a definite role in how they treated his maneuvering against them...

if it had been an unknown/teenager, I think they probably would have pursued him differently.

Correct me if I'm wrong but if it was stolen car how did they know who was driving?

And if they didn't know who was driving then none of his prior criminal activity is relevant to the situation.

WMR
09-28-2007, 08:37 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong but if it was stolen car how did they know who was driving?

And if they didn't know who was driving then none of his prior criminal activity is relevant to the situation.

I thought I read in one of those articles that it became apparent midway through the pursuit who they were chasing? They obviously got up close and personal with him at numerous points throughout the pursuit.

WMR
09-28-2007, 08:39 PM
But to answer your earlier question more broadly, if someone is attempting to run down a police officer with their automobile, he is justified in using whatever lethal force he judges as appropriate and necessary to save his life and stop the perpetrator.

Was shooting 5 times excessive?

I couldn't imagine placing myself in that officer's shoes, so I'll hold my judgment on his decision in that position in abeyance.

pedro
09-28-2007, 08:39 PM
I thought I read in one of those articles that it became apparent midway through the pursuit who they were chasing? They obviously got up close and personal with him at numerous points throughout the pursuit.

I don't think so.

Ltlabner
09-28-2007, 08:40 PM
I'll ask another question. If the driver had been some stupid high school kid would we all feel that the force was justified?

Yep.

If you run from the cops for that length of time, attempt to ram them several times, keep running after they shoot at you, and then keep driving with an officer on the hood of your car then you run the risk of a police officer using force, perhaps deadly, to subdue you.

But somehow I think you meant to ask about a stupid white high school kid in your hypothetical. At least, that seems to be where you are headed with this.

Ltlabner
09-28-2007, 08:51 PM
I've watched the video over a few times.

At 3:53 into it, the car is actually sitting still when the officer hops on the hood. THEN it takes off. That's when the officer raises his weapon and fired multiple times.

The criminal had a choice the second the officer hops on the hood of his car. He can either take off and risk being shot or he can imediatley throw his hands in the air and surrender. Unless the investigation reveals some gross procedural errors, I can't fault the officer for the choices of the criminal based on this video.

Joseph
09-28-2007, 08:55 PM
I'm biased, as stated my dad was a cop. I don't care if it was a pregnant woman, if she's doing what that guy was apparently doing, I'm shooting until I know they aren't moving anymore.

No job in America has it as bad as cops. They are 'out to get' everyone. Every traffic stop is them 'harassing' someone. Every speed zone is them making someone late for work. Doing their job has them universally disliked.

MrCinatit
09-28-2007, 08:59 PM
I've watched the video over a few times.

At 3:53 into it, the car is actually sitting still when the officer hops on the hood. THEN it takes off. That's when the officer raises his weapon and fired multiple times.

The criminal had a choice the second the officer hops on the hood of his car. He can either take off and risk being shot or he can imediatley throw his hands in the air and surrender. Unless the investigation reveals some gross procedural errors, I can't fault the officer for the choices of the criminal based on this video.

That is exactly what happened - the suspect's vehicle lights were not moving until the other officer approached, then the other vehicle lurched forward, before coming to a sudden stop when the guy on the hood opened fired.
I believe the guy on the hood was justified. I've been stuck on the hood of some idiot who decided she did not need to stop - it is not the fun, wild ride it looks like.



No job in America has it as bad as cops. They are 'out to get' everyone. Every traffic stop is them 'harassing' someone. Every speed zone is them making someone late for work. Doing their job has them universally disliked.

And, along with that, when a crime does happen..."Well, if you guys were doing your jobs, this wouldn't happen..."

Ltlabner
09-28-2007, 09:09 PM
NM

pedro
09-28-2007, 09:22 PM
And constantly second-guessed by those who haven't the foggiest how "life on the street" works, or live in the fantesy world where if you just ask nicely Mr. Criminal will do what you ask.

.

Ok, I'm sorry, but this made me laugh out loud.

Spent a lot of time "on the streets" have we? or did you just get scared by the kids hanging out in front of UDF in Milford?

I lived in downtown Atlanta for ten years. I think I've got a pretty good idea of how things work "on the street". Ever had someone get shot on the front steps of your house? Ever lived 2 doors down from a crack house? Well I have.

Finally, "Mr. Criminal" was a human being who obviously made a fatal mistake, but let's not get carried away with de-humanizing him. I'm sure he has loved ones just like anyone else, even if he did happen to break the law.

Ltlabner
09-28-2007, 09:27 PM
Ok, I'm sorry, but this made me laugh out loud.

Finally, "Mr. Criminal" was a human being who obviously made a fatal mistake, but let's not get carried away with de-humanizing him. I'm sure he has loved ones just like anyone else, even if he did happen to break the law.

Well, thanks for proving your street-cred to us. Since my comment wasn't related to anyone on this forum, I'm not sure why you felt compelled to share all your street experiences.

And I'm not sure why you feal compelled to accuse people of "being scared" of certian individuals. You've done it in other discussions, and now this one. Frankly, I'm not even really sure what that means.

How in the hell is calling a criminal, a criminal de-humanizing? That's what he was. I didn't say he was scum, deserved to be shot or sub-human. Are we so PC that calling a criminal a criminal is a bad thing?

pedro
09-28-2007, 09:31 PM
well being that you felt compelled to erase your post there's really no point in rebuttal at this point. Obviously, you must have felt you implied something. I know I did.

Ltlabner
09-28-2007, 09:33 PM
well being that you felt compelled to erase your post there's really no point in rebuttal at this point. Obviously, you must have felt you implied something. I know I did.

Actually, I erased my post because I felt it was swerving too near to Peanut Gallery zone. And I erased it long before your post.

But, don't let that stop you from making up reasons in your mind.

Razor Shines
09-28-2007, 09:47 PM
Ok, I'm sorry, but this made me laugh out loud.

Spent a lot of time "on the streets" have we? or did you just get scared by the kids hanging out in front of UDF in Milford?

I lived in downtown Atlanta for ten years. I think I've got a pretty good idea of how things work "on the street". Ever had someone get shot on the front steps of your house? Ever lived 2 doors down from a crack house? Well I have.

Finally, "Mr. Criminal" was a human being who obviously made a fatal mistake, but let's not get carried away with de-humanizing him. I'm sure he has loved ones just like anyone else, even if he did happen to break the law.
Seemed to me like he made several mistakes that led to his death. He did, however, have several chances to end the situation before anyone got hurt. I'm sorry that he died but it was no one's fault but his own.

Yachtzee
09-28-2007, 09:51 PM
It appeared to me that the cop on the hood fired several shots. If so I ask you this, at what point does a person who's been shot several times lose their ability to bring the car to a stop?

I believe that the standard procedure involving deadly force is that, when an officer believes it is necessary for his own safety and the safety of the general public, the officer pretty much shoots until he empties his weapon. Better to empty the weapon and make sure the guy is dead than to fire one or two shots, fail to incapacitate the threat, and end up with more people dead. The question here that internal affairs would investigate is whether deadly force was necessary, but I doubt they'd look into whether he fired 1 or 2 shots versus unloading his clip.

pedro
09-28-2007, 09:54 PM
I believe that the standard procedure involving deadly force is that, when an officer believes it is necessary for his own safety and the safety of the general public, the officer pretty much shoots until he empties his weapon. Better to empty the weapon and make sure the guy is dead than to fire one or two shots, fail to incapacitate the threat, and end up with more people dead. The question here that internal affairs would investigate is whether deadly force was necessary, but I doubt they'd look into whether he fired 1 or 2 shots versus unloading his clip.

Interesting. I'm certainly not suggesting the cop was unwarranted in firing his weapon, I was merely questioning if anyone else felt it was odd that he fired so many times.

Ltlabner
09-28-2007, 10:03 PM
Interesting. I'm certainly not suggesting the cop was unwarranted in firing his weapon, I was merely questioning if anyone else felt it was odd that he fired so many times.

Yachtze summed it up nicely.

The film isn't that clear, but I'm guessing he fired 5 or 6 times. I don't know what specific weapons the BAPD carries, but I'd be really supprised if they carried any less than 10 rounds. Perhaps as many as 15.

So, in actuallity, he fired enough rounds to ensure the threat was dealt with (he might have missed, the auto glass might have shattered a bullet, the first wound might have not stopped the person being shot, etc) but didn't shoot more than about 1/2 the rounds in the weapon. Really, he exercised restraint (based soley on what is visable on the video).

BoydsOfSummer
09-28-2007, 10:18 PM
He should have been yelling at the dude, "we'll get you counseling for whatever brought this episode on, just surrender!"

I mean...

He should have pulled his backup weapon just to make sure. That's where he messed up.

RedFanAlways1966
09-28-2007, 10:23 PM
Officers tried to get him to stop, but instead Bennett led them on a chase of several miles through Blue Ash, at speeds of up to 100 miles per hour.

As Bennett's car approached Reed Hartman Highway at Glendale Milford, he was seen driving left of the center line and without his headlights on.

Thank God no innocent people were killed by this now deceased person. I feel bad for the officers who were injured while trying to keep this now deceased person from hurting innocent people. The driver had no regard for anyone but himself. Thank God there are brave people like those officers to stop people like this.

GoReds33
09-28-2007, 11:16 PM
Thank God no innocent people were killed by this now deceased person. I feel bad for the officers who were injured while trying to keep this now deceased person from hurting innocent people. The driver had no regard for anyone but himself. Thank God there are brave people like those officers to stop people like this.I too am very greatful no officers died in this ordeal. There are so many idiots in this world. I just hope I'm not one of them.:)

Johnny Footstool
09-29-2007, 04:47 AM
I believe that the standard procedure involving deadly force is that, when an officer believes it is necessary for his own safety and the safety of the general public, the officer pretty much shoots until he empties his weapon. Better to empty the weapon and make sure the guy is dead than to fire one or two shots, fail to incapacitate the threat, and end up with more people dead. The question here that internal affairs would investigate is whether deadly force was necessary, but I doubt they'd look into whether he fired 1 or 2 shots versus unloading his clip.

This makes a lot of sense. When the officer is faced with a potentially fatal outcome, he is justified in using deadly force to defend himself. Kneeling on the hood of a moving vehicle is not the best position to be shooting from, so I don't fault the officer for firing as many times as he did in order to make sure that the driver was subdued.

GAC
09-29-2007, 06:58 AM
It appeared to me that the cop on the hood fired several shots. If so I ask you this, at what point does a person who's been shot several times lose their ability to bring the car to a stop?

Depends on other varying factors. How many of the shots actually hit the suspect and where? What's the size of the suspect? Are they hyped up on something? If, even after I've shot the guy once or twice, they are still not incapacitated or haven't lost their ability to resist/fight back, what do I do? I don't think there is any set rule or "etiquette" in those situations as to how many bullets one should fire. Unless someone gets shot in the heart or brain, a person can sustain multiple gun shot wounds that miss vital organs, and still not be incapacitated enough not to resist if they want to.

What happens if I, as the officer, step back and think "OK. I've pumped 5 bullets into this guy. That should be enough", and then this guy pulls a gun off his person and puts one between my eyes?

I understand where you might be coming from pedro, and you ask some very viable questions. And those questions will be addressed in the investigation.

Over these many years I've had the privilege of associating with relatives and friends who work in the various areas of law enforcement from undercover detective, ATF, and Highway Patrol. My uncle is a retired city cop in Cleveland, and man some of the stories he use to tell me about simply amazed me. My neighbor was a police detective and chased this guy (who had a shotgun) on foot for several blocks. He finally cornered him in a church and it went hand to hand. During the scuffle he got distracted when someone in the church yelled "Don't hurt him!". The criminal then broke his jaw with the butt of the shotgun. How he was able to still subdue the guy amazes me. But he was off work for months in rehab.

I could never be a cop simply because it involves being able to make that quick decision and judgment. If it was me I'd be like Dirty Harry ("do you feel lucky punk?"). :lol:

And I'm not sure anymore what the standard calibre gun police officers carry anymore. Is it .45 mm? But Abner does bring up a very truthful point when it comes to trying to shoot through the safety glass of the windshield. Unless one is using a shotgun or high calibre automatic weapon, it may very well take you a couple shots just to get through that glass and then provide you with the opportunity to get that "clean" shot.

In situations like that everything happens so quickly. And even though these officers are trained for such circumstances, there may be circumstances presently evident that they have no way of knowing till after the fact. Such as - WHY was he fleeing? Was it only because it was a stolen car? He obviously didn't want to get caught. Was there something else in that car that this guy didn't want to the cops to find?

What if the driver had a gun?

Yes, assumptions have to be made in situations like this. But If I am going to error, then I'm going to error on the safe side. If anyone is going home safe that night to his family, then its going to be me. Especially after what this guy just put me through. We'd all be having a different conversation if, after the car was rammed/stopped, the guy rolls down the window and kills the police officer.

There seems to be alot within our society today (and I'm not referring to you pedro), that love to see situations like this involving the police, where it's splashed all over the media, and then seem to want to quickly throw out the "excessive force" charge, as if they would have/could have handled it better.

I think of those officer's families sitting at home. And even though they realize and accept the hazardous aspects of their loved one's job, they still have to live daily with possibly getting that dreaded call one night where their spouse was killed in the line of duty by some punk.

And I've never known any police officer who had to kill someone - and yes, I do know some - where it doesn't affect them emotionally, and they have to learn to accept/live with that fact the rest of their lives. They are human too. ;)

WMR
09-29-2007, 07:10 AM
I understand where you might be coming from; but IMO it's not simply about bringing the car to a stop. We can't really see the driver and what may/may not be going on inside the car once it got stopped, but what if that driver had a gun? He obviously didn't want to get caught, and as an officer you have to assume he's not putting you through a high speed chase simply because of a U turn.

If I am going to error, then I'm going to error on the safe side. Especially after what this guy just put me through. We'd all be having a different conversation if, after the car was rammed/stopped, the guy rolls down the window and kills the police officer.

Great post, GAC.

If he rolled down his window and killed the police officer perched on his hood, what then??

Redsfaithful
09-29-2007, 07:37 AM
Why is this post even allowed if political discussion is banned?

Everytime an officer uses deadly force it's a political issue, regardless of where you stand on what happened.

Ltlabner
09-29-2007, 11:18 AM
Everytime an officer uses deadly force it's a political issue, regardless of where you stand on what happened.

:confused:

Hardly. It's really rather a simple issue. A criminal refused to surrender to the police and was posing such a risk to the officers and those around him that they felt it neccessary to employ deadly force. It's a shame the criminal chose to put others in harm, and as Pedro pointed out, there's likely a family that he's leaving behind that will bare some increased burden because of his supremely poor decision making.

If investigations reveal gross procedural errors then the officers should be disciplined, and disciplined sevearly. If they targeted the guy, and shot him for no reason, then try them for murder.

But there's really nothing political about it.

westofyou
09-29-2007, 12:03 PM
Why is this post even allowed if political discussion is banned?

Everytime an officer uses deadly force it's a political issue, regardless of where you stand on what happened.


Yep, I agree on both points.

And thinking a mans death is "simple" only reinforces my agreeing more with both points.

Ltlabner
09-29-2007, 12:56 PM
And thinking a mans death is "simple" only reinforces my agreeing more with both points.

The mans death isn't a simple matter. It's tragic on many different levels. It's the facts, as presented, that led to his death that are simple. (the facts as presented, perhaps others will come to light).

No great mystery to unravel there.

My guess is that those who feal there's some great political/sociological commentary on that film are those who feal the cops always in the wrong and guilty until proven innocent.

westofyou
09-29-2007, 12:59 PM
My guess is that those who feal there's some great political/sociological commentary on that film are those who feal the cops always in the wrong and guilty until proven innocent.

Yeah that's it.

Black and white, black and white everything is black and white isn't it?

I know what I "feel" about it, and I'd venture your "guess' is just that, a "guess"

Ltlabner
09-29-2007, 01:02 PM
Yeah that's it.

Black and white, black and white everything is black and white isn't it?

I know what I "feel" about it, and I'd venture your "guess' is just that, a "guess"

Nope, not everything is black and white. Neither, however, is everything gray.

I've stated several times that perhaps more details will come to light that show the police to have acted incorrectly. I'm open to whatever the investigation reveals. I'm only commenting on what is presented in the video...sorta the point of a discussion forum.

Yep, it's a guess. Sorta why I said, "my guess is....".

RANDY IN INDY
09-29-2007, 01:12 PM
There are a lot of things that need to be "no color of gray" and one of them is personal resposibility. When you can't act as a responsible citizen, bad things often happen, and personally, I am happy that people are held accountable. I feel sorry for the guy's family and the burden that they will endure, but as for the criminal, I don't have a lot of sympathy for him. He decided the way that he wanted to conduct himself. He had plenty of opportunity to avoid the outcome.

Ltlabner
09-29-2007, 01:14 PM
And I'm not sure anymore what the standard calibre gun police officers carry anymore. Is it .45 mm?

I don't know for sure, but I'd guess 9mm and .40S&W are the most common callibers with .45Auto being in the mix somewhere. 9mm and .40S&W have become more common as more rounds can be carried in a smaller weapon relative to .45Auto.

Most police departments no longer cary revolvers, but some might (perhaps a rural department, or a state forest ranger, for example). If so, .357magnum is likely most common, with .38spl being less popular than it used to be.

GAC
09-29-2007, 05:03 PM
Why is this post even allowed if political discussion is banned?

Everytime an officer uses deadly force it's a political issue, regardless of where you stand on what happened.

Politics has nothing to do with why an officer uses deadly force, or why people are discussing it.

I think any of us who were involved prior in political/religious discussions on this forum, before they were banned, understand fully what types of specific political topics/discussions were being targeted by the moderators.

This discussion only becomes politcal when someone purposely injects it. Haven't seen it on here yet.

GAC
09-29-2007, 05:11 PM
Nope, not everything is black and white. Neither, however, is everything gray.

And sadly enough, those "gray areas" can get the law enforcement officer killed.

Rojo
09-29-2007, 05:55 PM
The driver had no regard for anyone but himself.

As you rush to judgement, don't forget to look up these two:

The officers are:

Sgt. Edward Charron - policeman since 1988. Blue Ash Police Department member since 1995. Promoted to sergeant in 2002. While a member of the Cincinnati Police Department in 1991, he shot and killed a Golf Manor teen after the 18-year-old tried to grab the officer's gun during a scuffle.

Sgt. Paul Hartinger - policeman since 1984. Blue Ash Police Department member since 1989. Promoted to sergeant in 1998. Sued for excessive use of force after a 1993 traffic stop.

Redsfaithful
09-29-2007, 08:31 PM
As you rush to judgement, don't forget to look up these two:

The officers are:

Sgt. Edward Charron - policeman since 1988. Blue Ash Police Department member since 1995. Promoted to sergeant in 2002. While a member of the Cincinnati Police Department in 1991, he shot and killed a Golf Manor teen after the 18-year-old tried to grab the officer's gun during a scuffle.

Sgt. Paul Hartinger - policeman since 1984. Blue Ash Police Department member since 1989. Promoted to sergeant in 1998. Sued for excessive use of force after a 1993 traffic stop.

Now, now Rojo, I'm sure if you picked any two random police officers you'd find stuff like this in their background. The things they have to go through to protect us all dont ya know.

Ltlabner
09-29-2007, 08:38 PM
As you rush to judgement, don't forget to look up these two:

The officers are:

Sgt. Edward Charron - policeman since 1988. Blue Ash Police Department member since 1995. Promoted to sergeant in 2002. While a member of the Cincinnati Police Department in 1991, he shot and killed a Golf Manor teen after the 18-year-old tried to grab the officer's gun during a scuffle.

Sgt. Paul Hartinger - policeman since 1984. Blue Ash Police Department member since 1989. Promoted to sergeant in 1998. Sued for excessive use of force after a 1993 traffic stop.

Not sure the point you are making with Officer Charron. Trying to grab an officers gun is a bad, bad decision. You present this as if it is evidence that he was/is some wreckless, over-wraught officer.

But all use of force incidents are reviewed (as they should be) and certinally an officer, like Officer Hartinger, is going to recieve extra scruitiney because of the past incidents mentioned. (then again, being sued for excessive use of force and being found guilty are two different things).

Blimpie
09-29-2007, 08:38 PM
What from your post is relavent about their backgrounds?

One officer killed a kid who was going for his gun....

The other "was sued" for excessive use of force. Since when is being sued the same thing and being found guilty of?

GAC
09-29-2007, 08:44 PM
As you rush to judgement, don't forget to look up these two:

The officers are:

Sgt. Edward Charron - policeman since 1988. Blue Ash Police Department member since 1995. Promoted to sergeant in 2002. While a member of the Cincinnati Police Department in 1991, he shot and killed a Golf Manor teen after the 18-year-old tried to grab the officer's gun during a scuffle.

If I am a police officer and you try to grab my gun during a fight - and why was this teen fighting with the officer and trying to grab the officer's gun? - and you'll probably end up shot. If you were that officer, what would be going through your mind as to why this teen was trying to get my gun, and what was he going to do with it once he got it? Was he convicted of any wrongdoing or misconduct in this situation?


Sgt. Paul Hartinger - policeman since 1984. Blue Ash Police Department member since 1989. Promoted to sergeant in 1998. Sued for excessive use of force after a 1993 traffic stop.

Is being sued equate to guilt/wrongdoing? What was the outcome of the excessive force charge? If he was exonerated in a court of law, then your point is moot.

And I really don't see how the above situations have an bearing on the current one? Completely separate issues.

Rojo
09-29-2007, 08:56 PM
And I really don't see how the above situations have an bearing on the current one? Completely separate issues.

Is the car thief's criminal past irrelevant as well?

Maybe there's only smoke in the case of Officer Charron, but I don't empty my head when I see a badge.

Ltlabner
09-29-2007, 09:00 PM
Is the car thief's criminal past is irrelevenat as well? Maybe there's only smoke in the case of Officer Charron but I don't empty my head when I see a badge.

Of course the car thiefs criminal past is irrelevant in this case. In no way should the police officers act on that past history, except perhaps to excersize more caution IF they know who the criminal/suspect they are dealing with is (ie, the offender has a history of attacking police officers, so they might use more caution approaching him). That doesn't mean an officer shouldn't excersize common sense (ie. a man with a long history of stealing diamonds is seen down the street from a reicent diamond heist. It's not unreasonable for the officer to approch the man on the street, however, he can't arrest the guy soley based on past history).

I didn't think they know who was behind the wheel in this case...IIRC.

I agree Rojo, I don't think a badge is a gift of immunity. Neither, however, is it a mark of guilt and/or suspicion.

GAC
09-29-2007, 09:05 PM
Now, now Rojo, I'm sure if you picked any two random police officers you'd find stuff like this in their background. The things they have to go through to protect us all dont ya know.

You probably would. If you a patrol officer (street cop) who was served as many years as some of these have, while also working in a highly populated area/metropolis where there is probably a higher rate of crime, then the percentages are you will be involved in a similar situation in all those years where you've had to use your gun or be involved in a deadly force incident.

And every time you do then procedure calls for you to be placed on administrative leave while an investigation is conducted into what happened and if the officer(s) acted properly.

What do you think these officers did wrong? What should they have done differently?

Why is it that every time we see situations like this, where we see law enforcment in high speed chases, confronting criminals, or people resisting or fighting with police, and where deadly force is utilized, some are so quick to condemn and judge those officers as the true "criminals"?

GAC
09-29-2007, 09:16 PM
What Abner said.

The only thing relevant is the current (or transpiring) actions of the suspect and officers in pursuit. Neither party's past has any bearing.

So what did these officers do wrong, in your eyes, in this particular situation? Do you believe he used excessive, or maybe unnecessary, force? What should he have done differently?

RedFanAlways1966
09-29-2007, 10:13 PM
As you rush to judgement....

Rush to judgement? The story I read said:

(1) Driving in excess of 100 mph in Blue Ash on city streets.
(2) Driving without headlights on the wrong side of the road.
(3) Injured police with his vehicle (a very deadly weapon).

Sure, sure, the story could have fabrications. I guess I should check the background of the reporter to see if he/she was a former police officer or is on the police payroll. But once I viewed the video I did not see any reason. The video (and the above statements) were all I needed to see/read to make a comment that the driver cared only for himself. Thank goodness someone's wife, mother or child was not killed by the driver.

Rojo
09-29-2007, 10:20 PM
Of course the car thiefs criminal past is irrelevant in this case.

And I quote,




[QUOTE=GAC]Why is it that every time we see situations like this, where we see law enforcment in high speed chases, confronting criminals, or people resisting or fighting with police, and where deadly force is utilized, some are so quick to condemn and judge those officers as the true "criminals"?

And why is it that some are so quick to give a pass? Ltlabner's quote above about the man's background was posted long before anyone here questioned the cop.

I don't know if the cop was justified. (Nor do I know what I would do in that situation).

But I do know that he fired several times at point blank range, that the other passenger thought it was excessive and that the cop's killed a man before.

Ltlabner
09-29-2007, 11:09 PM
But I do know that he fired several times at point blank range, that the other passenger thought it was excessive and that the cop's killed a man before.

He fired several times, because it's the prudent thing to do in that situation (as has been explained several times). Not sure why firing at close range was a bad thing...would you have rather he fired from 50' away? Of course the guy in the car thought it was excessive, but I'm not really sure what his opinion has to do with anything. The officers past history certinally relevant, and should be considered as the situation is reviewed, but doesn't mean he's a wildeyed killing machine. I'm not particularly shocked that a long-time police officer would be involved in a shooting.

By the way, my comment that you quoted...nice job of taking that totally out of context especially when is completley irrellevent to the conversation. I'm not a police officer, nor was I involved in this incident. My personal views/comments have little bearing on how the police should handle things (which is what was being discussed).

I can't speak for others, but I don't think it's some wonderfull thing that the man died. But he made a lot of bad decisions that ultimatley resulted in his death. Nor do I blindly think the police officers involved are saints beause they wear a badge. But there is some middle ground where criminals pay the price for their decisions, and officers are not automatically guilty of being out-of-control maniacs simply because they are the police.

GAC
09-30-2007, 10:56 AM
And why is it that some are so quick to give a pass?

Simply by watching what transpired on the video and the high speed chase, him slamming into cruisers, hitting three cops with his car (two officers were injured), etc.


But I do know that he fired several times at point blank range, that the other passenger thought it was excessive and that the cop's killed a man before.

That passenger's testimony is irrelevant as far if the cop's actions were justified or not. And while I sympathize with what he went through and the range of emotions he endured through this ordeal, who was the true cause for putting him through that? Not the police officers. But the terrible decision-making by his friend Bennett who says "#$@! this!" and decides to take the course of action that led to his death.

The passenger says it wasn't necessary because the car was stopped. Not according to the video.

After already hitting two officers with his car, he then lunges forward at a third officer who is slammed onto the roof of the car. This is the officer who then pulls out his gun and fires several shots into the windshield and ends up killing Bennett.

Now after all that has transpired, and with this third officer now on the hood of his car after he lunges at him, that officer shouldn't have felt his life was threatened when the guy was still trying to drive out of it, only now with a cop on his hood?

Point blank range? Again - the officer had to shoot through the safety glass of the windshield. It's not necessarily the number of shots fired, but how effective are they? He may have fired 5-6 shots; but how many of them actually hit the suspect and where?

There was a story in Cincinnati a few years back where the cops were called to the scene of a domestic disturbance by the woman. When the two cops got there, the guy comes flying out of the house and charges these two cops with a butcher knife. They pull their guns and start firing shots, yet the guy is still coming at them, even after one shot knocks him to the ground. He gets up and starts coming after them again. They end up killing the guy. They ended up firing multiple rounds into this guy.

Excessive or justified? Some of the neighbors said it was excessive. Yet they weren't the ones being charged at with a butcher knife.

In situations like that, and what we are discussing here, yeah, I'm going to give those police officers the benefit of the doubt unless an investigation proves otherwise.

Not everyone goes to work every day (or night) and has to face/endure the threats on their lives, and the stress-filled situations, like alot of police officers have to. Do you think people go into law enforcement because they are hoping that someday they'll get that chance to pull out their gun and kill somebody? You don't think it doesn't weigh on them emotionally, that they are somehow cold and callous when it does occur.

Talk to any psychiatric counselor who works in Human Affairs in a police department. They'll tell you differently.

Redsfaithful
09-30-2007, 12:42 PM
Why is it that every time we see situations like this, where we see law enforcment in high speed chases, confronting criminals, or people resisting or fighting with police, and where deadly force is utilized, some are so quick to condemn and judge those officers as the true "criminals"?

With the facts presented it seems as if the cops did the right thing. I just don't understand the cheerleading.

Redsfaithful
09-30-2007, 12:44 PM
Do you think people go into law enforcement because they are hoping that someday they'll get that chance to pull out their gun and kill somebody?

I think you are pretty naive if you think there aren't people who go into law enforcement because they get a kick out of the power it gives them, up to and including the gun they might get to use. The bar we have set for people to become police officers in this country is pretty damn low.

RFS62
09-30-2007, 02:11 PM
I think you are pretty naive if you think there aren't people who go into law enforcement because they get a kick out of the power it gives them, up to and including the gun they might get to use. The bar we have set for people to become police officers in this country is pretty damn low.


Yeah, I can't imagine why there aren't more highly qualified candidates lined up to take a job with terrible pay and the opportunity to get killed every day of the week.

Redsfaithful
09-30-2007, 07:23 PM
Yeah, I can't imagine why there aren't more highly qualified candidates lined up to take a job with terrible pay and the opportunity to get killed every day of the week.

I am all for increasing officer pay if it would increase the quality of officer.

GAC
10-01-2007, 09:27 AM
With the facts presented it seems as if the cops did the right thing. I just don't understand the cheerleading.

I wasn't cheerleading, nor taking any joy in this guy losing his life. It was tragic. JUst simply an amazing piece of video footage.

I don't think anyone was taking enjoyment with what occurred though.


I think you are pretty naive if you think there aren't people who go into law enforcement because they get a kick out of the power it gives them, up to and including the gun they might get to use.

And I think it's pretty naive of you to think that I think that. I never said or implied that. That's just how you read things into it.


The bar we have set for people to become police officers in this country is pretty damn low.

When you think about it, that's a pretty insulting statement to be making about those that choose to enter the many areas of law enforcement. How do you know where that "bar" is set at?

Highlifeman21
10-01-2007, 09:48 AM
I'm surprised this thread is still open.

Note to self, stay out of Blue Ash on my next trip home...

Roy Tucker
10-01-2007, 10:59 AM
I'm surprised this thread is still open.

Note to self, stay out of Blue Ash on my next trip home...

Hey, its a nice town. I work there. Great people, great schools, solid economic base. That whole area where the chase happened is all light industry, office buildings, hi tech, etc etc. Homes and residential areas are nice. Voted into one of those "100 greatest places to live" polls a few years back.

For something like to happen there is highly unusual. I was shocked when I heard of what happened and saw the video. The only Blue Ash cops I see are directing traffic into schools.

TeamSelig
10-01-2007, 11:34 AM
A vehicle can be considered a deadly weapon (and rightfully so). The guy was using it as one. This one is easy. Justified.

registerthis
10-01-2007, 12:46 PM
We live in a rather high crime area--lots of untoward and dangerous activity going on, particularly at night. In our dealings with the local community governing groups and associations, we've gotten to know personally two of the officers responsible for patrolling our district, and we honestly couldn't ask for two better or more professional officers. They do a fantastic job leading their fellow officers, dealing with criminal issues that arise, and getting to know those in the local community.

A couple of weeks ago, two out-of-uniform D.C. police officers killed a D.C. teenager whom they claimed was riding a stolen bike and had fired shots at them. Perhaps; but the problem is that no gun was ever found, and several witnesses to the incident claimed that the teenager was unarmed and never fired a weapon at the officers. The officers fired three shots to the teenager's head, killing him instantly.

I raise these two examples because I'm reading a lot of generalizations--from both sides of the issue--about police officers in this thread that are rather unfortunate. It's an intensely demanding and--largely--thankless job that I can't imagine many people have an interest in doing. In most major cities, every time an officer steps foot outside he/she is placing themselves in harm's way. That said, officers enjoy a very priveleged place in society, tasked with maintaining order and granted a monopoly on the use of legal force and violence. It's their responsibility to uphold that charge and to avoid at all costs images or perceptions of improprieties in the way they carry out their duties. In cases such as the one in this video, where lethal force is used, the burden of responsibility will *always* be on the officer to justify his or her decision. That's as it should be. It certainly does not mean that an officer is never justified in using deadly force (the example shown in this video appears to be one such example), simply that an officer who makes a decision that results in the ending of a life must have very sound and explicit reasons for doing so.

registerthis
10-01-2007, 12:49 PM
Note to self, stay out of Blue Ash on my next trip home...

I imagine if you're not drunk, high, attempting to run people over in your car, and leading police officers on a violent high speed chase, you're likely to escape Blue Ash with your health and safety intact.

westofyou
10-01-2007, 12:51 PM
I imagine if you're not drunk, high, attempting to run people over in your car, and leading police officers on a violent high speed chase, you're likely to escape Blue Ash with your health and safety intact.

And some chili

http://www.blueashchili.com/img/layout/logo.gif

Spring~Fields
10-01-2007, 02:24 PM
I need to hear from the other experienced officers that were at the scene, I want their views and I want to know why they appear to choose a different course of action, if they in fact did, from the officer on the hood firing his weapon multiple times, did those officers believe that the situation could be handled in a different manner? They appear that they might have been dealing with it differently. Also since the driver was putting many at risk by using his vehicle, was there other means to disable that vehicle available to the officers.

Ltlabner
10-01-2007, 02:49 PM
Register: Very well stated opinion that mirrors mine on the subject. You summed it up very nicely. As I posted a ways back, you couldn't pay me enough money to take on the responsibility those officers do on a daily basis.

TeamSelig
10-01-2007, 03:19 PM
Register: Very well stated opinion that mirrors mine on the subject. You summed it up very nicely. As I posted a ways back, you couldn't pay me enough money to take on the responsibility those officers do on a daily basis.

Really? I would nearly do it for free and cannot wait 'til the day comes.

camisadelgolf
10-01-2007, 03:40 PM
For seven years or so, I lived in the neighborhood in Blue Ash in which that man was living. In fact, I was being dropped off after a fantasy football draft, and the car I was in was pulled over and forced to remain immobile until the man's car had passed. Anyway, although many people don't believe me when I tell them, I live in a "black neighborhood" in Blue Ash known as Hazelwood.

Unfortunately, during high school, everyone always assumed my neighborhood was dangerous because it was "black". I had to put up with a ridiculous amount of grief from many of the white kids. Granted, there was crime there--we'd occasionally be crushing 40s and smoking pot while playing basketball (on a tennis court) after school--but overall, it is a very nice neighborhood, and it's getting much nicer ever since they started redeveloping around the time I moved there (in 1998).

Anyway, all I'm trying to say is that I lived in the "most dangerous" part of Blue Ash, and my safety wasn't threatened a single time. Also, even though Blue Ash is mostly white, North Blue Ash is mostly a "black neighborhood", which does not equal "dangerous neighborhood" as many people in Blue Ash claim it does. Don't let the video and certain people in Blue Ash scare you away from the area--it's easily one of the safest locations in Greater Cincinnati.

Highlifeman21
10-01-2007, 04:37 PM
Hey, its a nice town. I work there. Great people, great schools, solid economic base. That whole area where the chase happened is all light industry, office buildings, hi tech, etc etc. Homes and residential areas are nice. Voted into one of those "100 greatest places to live" polls a few years back.

For something like to happen there is highly unusual. I was shocked when I heard of what happened and saw the video. The only Blue Ash cops I see are directing traffic into schools.

Sorry, my post was in jest. My parents practically live in Blue Ash. I love Blue Ash to death, it's the type of area I'd wanna live if I lived in Cincinnati, and I think they have one of the best Muni Golf Courses in the country. To hear that unfortunate event happened in Blue Ash, was shocking, b/c nothing like that ever happens in Blue Ash.

stevekun
10-01-2007, 04:53 PM
This is a crazy video....man imagine if this guy would have hit someone while going 100

redsmetz
10-01-2007, 08:13 PM
For seven years or so, I lived in the neighborhood in Blue Ash in which that man was living. In fact, I was being dropped off after a fantasy football draft, and the car I was in was pulled over and forced to remain immobile until the man's car had passed. Anyway, although many people don't believe me when I tell them, I live in a "black neighborhood" in Blue Ash known as Hazelwood.

Unfortunately, during high school, everyone always assumed my neighborhood was dangerous because it was "black". I had to put up with a ridiculous amount of grief from many of the white kids. Granted, there was crime there--we'd occasionally be crushing 40s and smoking pot while playing basketball (on a tennis court) after school--but overall, it is a very nice neighborhood, and it's getting much nicer ever since they started redeveloping around the time I moved there (in 1998).

Anyway, all I'm trying to say is that I lived in the "most dangerous" part of Blue Ash, and my safety wasn't threatened a single time. Also, even though Blue Ash is mostly white, North Blue Ash is mostly a "black neighborhood", which does not equal "dangerous neighborhood" as many people in Blue Ash claim it does. Don't let the video and certain people in Blue Ash scare you away from the area--it's easily one of the safest locations in Greater Cincinnati.

I haven't read the whole thread but Hazelwood was mentioned in this morning's paper - about a man who had the unofficial title of "Mayor of Hazelwood". I knew of the area because my dad worked on Cornell Road throughout the 60's and we passed Hazelwood on our way to his office. Very interesting history.

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/08/14/loc_hazelwood.html

GAC
10-01-2007, 10:28 PM
In cases such as the one in this video, where lethal force is used, the burden of responsibility will *always* be on the officer to justify his or her decision. That's as it should be. It certainly does not mean that an officer is never justified in using deadly force (the example shown in this video appears to be one such example), simply that an officer who makes a decision that results in the ending of a life must have very sound and explicit reasons for doing so.

Overall good post.

And what you state above is exactly how it should be, in regards to a police officer's actions and decision making being examined/scrutinized whenever deadly force is utilized.

There has to be that "checks and balance" in the system, or else there could be greater abuse of that authority.

camisadelgolf
10-02-2007, 08:18 AM
I haven't read the whole thread but Hazelwood was mentioned in this morning's paper - about a man who had the unofficial title of "Mayor of Hazelwood". I knew of the area because my dad worked on Cornell Road throughout the 60's and we passed Hazelwood on our way to his office. Very interesting history.

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/08/14/loc_hazelwood.html

I've never seen a place like it. I didn't enjoy the place too much, personally. The only advantages it had over the rest of Blue Ash was that it was less than a mile from the high school, and it was much closer to 275 (but farther from Ronald Reagan). I would recommend having more park space in the area, too, but although Blue Ash police are some of the most highly-regarded (and highly-paid) in Greater Cincinnati, I don't think they would be willing to do the necessary upkeep to have a nice park in the neighborhood. Some would call it racism, but I think it's just laziness. Hazelwood is nearly ten minutes away from the police station while the rest of the Blue Ash residences are mostly within a five minute drive. Anyway, if you're into real estate, I recommend looking into Blue Ash. You can find some properties pretty cheap, and the value will escalate greatly in the coming years (since it's in the Sycamore school district and they're redeveloping the area).

TeamCasey
10-02-2007, 05:51 PM
Aren't the taxes really high in Blue Ash?

westofyou
10-02-2007, 06:01 PM
Aren't the taxes really high in Blue Ash?

So... what is considered really high taxes in Cincinnati?

property wise....

TeamCasey
10-03-2007, 06:08 PM
I was hoping someone would pipe in here. I don't know. I just listen to people talk about different areas.