Yet another NM Law Enforcement Issue

[Denim Chicken]

So, which is more dangerous to the kids...
1. shooting at the tires to keep her from leaving again
2. mom fleeing the scene for a second time with the kids in the van leading to a possible wreck from speeding away

They were put in a bad situation and both actions were wrong. The backup officer had to know about the scuffle, they communicate via radio.

If I were a cop and saw that kid charging at me while mom is trying to get away, I would see that as a clear threat. So, when can the officer see that his life is in imminent danger, after he is shot laying on the ground?

I am not excusing his actions for shooting, only stating that there was a threat there.

The guy that shot started after everyone was in the car and it was leaving. Where was the threat?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

So, which is more dangerous to the kids...
1. shooting at the tires to keep her from leaving again
2. mom fleeing the scene for a second time with the kids in the van leading to a possible wreck from speeding away

They were put in a bad situation and both actions were wrong. The backup officer had to know about the scuffle, they communicate via radio.

If I were a cop and saw that kid charging at me while mom is trying to get away, I would see that as a clear threat. So, when can the officer see that his life is in imminent danger, after he is shot laying on the ground?

I am not excusing his actions for shooting, only stating that there was a threat there.

Both were wrong. The Mother has already been charged and she will go to court. The Officer in question, has not been charged but he should be IMO.

There is no question the Mother put those children in danger but that doesn't justify deadly force. You don't fire a weapon unless you are legally justified to do so. As far as the Teenage boy goes, he had no weapon so you can't say that he represented deadly force. This is why every Cop carries a Taser.

 

[Tabascocat]

The guy that shot started after everyone was in the car and it was leaving. Where was the threat?

They were running away for a second time! Those kids were in danger. The mom put her kids in a police chase and she could have run off the road, hit another car, anything. I see it as the shooting officer only trying to prevent that from happening. I am probably wrong but it looks like he was only trying to take out a tire so she could not further endanger the childrens' lives.

I guess I am having trouble seeing the shooting of a tire deadly force here. Maybe he had another intention but did not look like it. He should and will be evaluated by IA.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

They were running away for a second time! Those kids were in danger. The mom put her kids in a police chase and she could have run off the road, hit another car, anything. I see it as the shooting officer only trying to prevent that from happening. I am probably wrong but it looks like he was only trying to take out a tire so she could not further endanger the childrens' lives.

I guess I am having trouble seeing the shooting of a tire deadly force here. Maybe he had another intention but did not look like it. He should and will be evaluated by IA.

Because you can't know where those bullets will end up. It's not easy to hit a tire on a moving car, especially when the car is moving directly away from you. It's much more dangerous but either way, it doesn't matter. The Laws are clear. You can only discharge your weapon under specific circumstances and shooting tires is not one of them. The Officer in question broke the Law. He should be dealt with. More is required of Officers of the Law then is required of Legal Citizens. This is why they have weapons and citizens do not.

With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

For the record, the District Attorney has already said that Charges will not be filed against Elias Montoya, the officer in question.

 

[Tabascocat]

For the record, the District Attorney has already said that Charges will not be filed against Elias Montoya, the officer in question.

Does that mean I was right and you were wrong?

http://t2.***NOT-ALLOWED***/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRrJpX5hJSs7ROtvl5QNpEvsN14AzC4_yWrKxOYBoZ-MNwHBZII

Sorry, that was too easy................

 

[Denim Chicken]

IDK if the officer was really trying to shoot the tire or not, but if he was he obviously wasn't a good enough shot to hit it and could have easily blasted a kid.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Does that mean I was right and you were wrong?

http://t2.***NOT-ALLOWED***/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRrJpX5hJSs7ROtvl5QNpEvsN14AzC4_yWrKxOYBoZ-MNwHBZII

Sorry, that was too easy................

That means that it's who you know, not what you did here in New Mexico. How is that right? He broke the law. His name in Montoya. That means he is related to somebody.

But sure, if it makes you feel better knowing that somebody is getting around the law because he's related to somebody, then I guess that's a question you have to deal with. It doesn't mean you or he is right. It means exactly what I said earlier. Down here, the Law does not have to abide by the Law and that's not right.

Welcome to the Land of Entrapment.

 

[Tabascocat]

That means that it's who you know, not what you did here in New Mexico. How is that right? He broke the law. His name in Montoya. That means he is related to somebody.

But sure, if it makes you feel better knowing that somebody is getting around the law because he's related to somebody, then I guess that's a question you have to deal with. It doesn't mean you or he is right. It means exactly what I said earlier. Down here, the Law does not have to abide by the Law and that's not right.

Welcome to the Land of Entrapment.

Lighten up....you take things way too seriously. What the officer did was wrong but does not deserve a public stoning. Yes, he could have made the situation worse but it was in the heat of the moment. These guys aren't exactly FBI trained, probably was a month long academy using bow n arrows with 1975 walkie-talkies

I think he should probably be suspended with some kind of re-training but should not lose his job over this incident. This situation is nothing like the other one in Deming, they all should face charges there.

 

[Denim Chicken]

Lighten up....you take things way too seriously. What the officer did was wrong but does not deserve a public stoning.

Yeah, take it easy. Just squeezing off a few rounds at some kids, lol. Make him watch a video and call it a day.

 

[Tabascocat]

Yeah, take it easy. Just squeezing off a few rounds at some kids, lol. Make him watch a video and call it a day.

The lighten up was for my picture, a joke

 

[Denim Chicken]

The lighten up was for my picture, a joke

Ha ha, my bad. I cant see pictures (webblock software).

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Lighten up....you take things way too seriously. What the officer did was wrong but does not deserve a public stoning. Yes, he could have made the situation worse but it was in the heat of the moment. These guys aren't exactly FBI trained, probably was a month long academy using bow n arrows with 1975 walkie-talkies

I think he should probably be suspended with some kind of re-training but should not lose his job over this incident. This situation is nothing like the other one in Deming, they all should face charges there.

Right. He should, at a minimum, lose his job. He should be prosecuted. He's a State Police Officer, which for the record, is the best trained of all of the Law Enforcement in New Mexico.

 

[BigStar]

Here is another video that has gone national involving New Mexico Law Enforcement.

This is a video of State Police pulling over a women and her kids, from Tennessee. It goes bad quickly and the resulting actions of the Police Officers are now being investigated. Here is the link with the Video.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/11/1...r-investigation-after-firing-at-minivan-with/

Cops = Criminals without the balls...

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

14 year old kid comes out swinging. Man, good one Brainiac.

well if you saw the fuzz beating on your mom, would you let it happen?

she was dumb to drive away the first time, not sure why she would do that, it was just a speeding ticket

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

So, which is more dangerous to the kids...
1. shooting at the tires to keep her from leaving again
2. mom fleeing the scene for a second time with the kids in the van leading to a possible wreck from speeding away

They were put in a bad situation and both actions were wrong. The backup officer had to know about the scuffle, they communicate via radio.

If I were a cop and saw that kid charging at me while mom is trying to get away, I would see that as a clear threat. So, when can the officer see that his life is in imminent danger, after he is shot laying on the ground?

I am not excusing his actions for shooting, only stating that there was a threat there.

the tot had no gun, hard to say the cop was in danger

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Either is wrong. You don't shoot at a car full of kids, regardless of where you're aiming.

hell what the maniac who was using his billy club on the window. Maybe glass in a kids' eye isn't an issue in New Mexico

 

[PJTHEDOORS]

well if you saw the fuzz beating on your mom, would you let it happen?

she was dumb to drive away the first time, not sure why she would do that, it was just a speeding ticket

Let's see....cops have gun....14 year old has no gun. Ah, I stay in car. Wait, not with her stoned and driving. I get out and sit on the curb.

 

[punchnjudy]

The cop who fired should be in prison.

His third shot was at a pretty far distance and the tires were a tiny target at his angle. Can't hit tires at that distance with any type of precision--that's ridiculous. At a van from the rear position...puh-lease. Cops have missed larger targets at much closer range in real life situations.

If that was his intent, he should still face criminal charges just as any of us would for foolishly endangering peoples' lives. He's a moron.

 

[Hoofbite]

It's everywhere ABQ. I see so many stories like this everyday.

You do see a lot of these stories but that's because they make the news at a ridiculously high rate, even if the cops didn't do anything unnecessary. In this case they were absolutely in the wrong. They're there to deescalate a situation, not take it over the top and put lives in danger.

By and large, reporting on police officers is a lot like the "how's my driving" stickers on the back of semi trucks. Nobody calls in to compliment the guy for properly signaling, staying centered in the lane, or moving over for the traffic coming up behind him. People call in to complain about the driver who just cut them off, was driving erratically, or refused to move over for passing traffic while driving 5 mph under the speed limit.

People don't report on all the times where cops do a good job or handle their duties as they should. They report on all the times where cops do something stupid like this.

There were 800,000 sworn police officers in the US in 2010. You could get 100 events of varying inappropriateness per day for the entire year and you'd have about 4.5% of the national police force giving the other 95% a horrible reputation. While that would give you far too many acts of misconduct, 95 out of 100 guys not behaving in that manner is pretty good. Get rid of the offenders and move on with the guys who do things the right way. Part of the problem is, once a person has secured a government position of any level it almost takes divine intervention to actually get rid of them. What you have a system who's hiring standards are likely a little lower than should be, but who's criteria for termination are entirely too high. You simply can't get rid of the bad eggs fast enough.

While I agree that this sort of even should never happen, the reporting in general is incredibly biased and really is a disservice to the honest and hard working police officers who handle their job like a professional day in, and day out.

Was the driver in the wrong for driving away? Of course. You're an idiot for arguing a ticket even if you are entirely right because you are in a no-win situation and will only worsen your current predicament. If you have a legitimate gripe with the ticket, handle it as you should even if the means to do so are entirely to inconvenient, more often discouraged by the cost to fight it, and the process is mostly unnecessary.

That said, the officer here had the entire wrong approach after she took off and then stopped. First off he should have had backup. Any time a routine stop ventures outside of the realm of "routine", there should be another officer at the scene to help moderate both the citizen in question but also the officer involved. When the woman takes off, the cop probably got a hefty dose of adrenaline and since he's all amped up when the lady finally stops his first move is to open her door, start screaming and try to pull her out. He should have called for backup and waited not only to allow the situation to mellow a bit but also because he's putting himself into a position he cannot handle. He can't control the passenger side of the vehicle and luckily for his sake it was a car full of children and not a car full of grown men with bad intentions.

Had he waited, the other officer would have pulled up and observed what looks to be just a routine traffic stop. Of course he'll be aware that it isn't because he's been called out there to pursue a fleeing vehicle but I think it's safe to say his nerves are going to be a little less on edge than those of the guy who was actually chasing after the van. They approach the care together and none of the kids sneaks out the passenger side, turning the entire scene into a complete circus. The cop was literally in over his head at this point because now he has two people with whom he needs to gain cooperation from and he's splitting his attention between the two by chasing after the kid. To top it off he starts clubbing the window on the side of the car where the mother isn't seated and where a handful of kids are just sitting there watching it all unfold and this isn't even the worst part of the whole situation.

The worst part is Barney Fife shows up and without having seen how it all unfolded and possibly not even aware of who he's shooting towards starts shooting at the car full of children.

Just a dumb situation made by possible by poor decisions on both sides of the fence. Was the lady in the wrong for driving off? Absolutely. That doesn't mean that the cop is defaulted into the "right" position. There's a right way and a wrong way to handle any situation and he handled this one poorly. He took on a situation that was beyond his control and when chaos ensued he resorted to beating the hell out of the van while another cop who was late to the party went straight for his weapon.