Really? That broke his collar bone?! It seemed like he barely connected, but if he won in court, I'm sure there was medical evidence.
How much did the jury award him? I hope a lot. Not for the kick, but for ramming him when he clearly only noticed the cop at the light, and then he immediately put his blinker on and even gave an "oh crap" head hang right before he stops and gets rammed.
I wonder if the cop even had his lights and siren on before then, since there's no sound we cant tell. He certainly wasn't up close enough to be heard on a loud motorcycle until the end, nor was he making his presence known before then.
Even if the bike wasn't stopping, he wasn't endangering anyone, so there was no reason to hit him, possibly seriously injuring or killing him, in the first place. Speeding is not a capital offence. Intentional vehicular homicide should be, even if you wear blue pants with a racing stripe.

As I see it, the intent was obviously NOT to just injure him, it was to kill him with the vehicle. No question in my mind.
From the first cop's perspective, the action is NOT reasonable in the least...just listen to him on the radio, flabbergasted and disgusted at the second cop's actions.
This was FAR from a "safe resolution", it's only by chance that the man wasn't caught between the car and the cement wall it crashed all the way through....and crushing him to death certainly seemed to be the intent.
EDIT: If a citizen rolled his car towards a cop at 1/20 the speed seen here, he would almost certainly be shot and charged with attempted vehicular homicide...we've actually seen exactly that happen in other videos just because the brake lights went off, and the cops were "justified" in that case.

Anyone else find it odd that those who constantly rail against the overreaching powers of government are the same one's who consistently defend overtly violent cops as if they aren't the governmental enforcers? Can you say "disconnect"?

the ONLY issue I have with the video is the youtube title, which obviously we can't control.

Just because I don't believe someone should get a violent beating not even 10 seconds after a crash doesn't mean I think this guy is innocent in any stretch of the imagination. Despite the shitty cops, hopefully he was charged with attempted vehicular homicide when/if he recovered. I suspect he's probably guilty of whatever instigated the chase in the first place also.

Nuance is a bitch isn't it

Luckily the kid was only prepared for GTA and not vehicular homicide.

>> ^Psychologic:

True enough, but if someone is determined to kill/injure others then I feel like they could do more damage with a vehicle than with a pistol and large clip.

I'm not so sure about that. You can hear a car coming, and get out of the way if you react fast enough. Getting inside a building pretty much immunizes you from random acts of vehicular homicide.

It's true that people intent on murder will not be deterred by laws, but it's also true that if you make them resort to lesser tools of killing, they will have a harder time doing the same amount of damage.

>> ^Psychologic:
I can see an argument for restriction of guns on public property (we already restrict who can drive on public property), but I'm not sure I want clip size restrictions for private property. Of course I don't live in a major city, so what I find "reasonable" could be a function of local population density.


I guess I have the reverse view after this Tuscon incident. Loughtner was stopped when he went to reload. He had a 31 round extended clip, and if he'd only had the 9 or 10 in a normal clip, he would have been able to get off only a third of the shots before he was made vulnerable by the need to reload.

As O'Donnell said on another night, eventually the police reports will give us the shot order, and allow us to do the grim accounting of finding out who would still be alive if Loughtner had been forced to settle for a 10-round clip instead of a 31-round one. At that point, we can debate about whether the freedom to have extended clips was really worth the lives of the people killed by the bottom twenty bullets Loughtner fired.

@blankfist vehicular homicide isn't some myth, people commit murder with their car all the time.

Also, there's a lot of people accidentally killing pedestrians with cars.

We have very different ways of dealing with those situations under the eyes of the law.

Which is to say, the state tells you that you need to hit your brakes, or else they'll violently coerce you.

Just like they tell you to test for salmonella in food before you serve it to people, or else they'll violently coerce you.

And you're okay with letting it do so.

Which, according to the standard of "If the government can be used to force him to [do something] he doesn't want to [do], then the government thereby owns and has a right to his labor," means you're in favor of slavery.

Which means I should violently resist your oppression of people's liberty.

Keep in mind that none of this is my idea; it's your philosophy, consistently applied.

All absurdity that's been involved along the way has been yours.

With a turret top, I would've been ticketed for much faster than 120mph - and probably been charged with vehicular homicide.