Justified.

Good. If you're gonna drag a cop down the road in a stolen vehicle don't expect a pat on the back.

Probably spanked as a kid.

I haven't as much confidence in Canada's finest telling the truth as you fellas do.I hope that this proves out to be on the straight and level.

I’m glad they didn’t taser him then this could get serious. Probably so high on crack that he only wanted to put on the parking brake. Another promise to appear……

I know people who went through here after this happened and they said there were 2 vehicles involved, and both had tarps over them.
They had thought it was a fatal MVA.

Service revolver...Thought those days were gone, correct but not politicaly correct would be semi-auto 10+ round pistol.

I was at the hospital when they brought this guy in...he's from California and he was shot four times in the chest and sternum...the cops were a mess. Why hide the fact that there were four shots fired? Yes the guy was in the wrong, but it wasn't only one shot!

and there was only one vehicle, i was there also...a two tone brown pick up truck, no tarps but a lot of cops and a detour set up

Considering the cops past practise I would be suspicious of anything they say. Is there a video?

Exactly seamutt. The Ian Bush shooting, the Vanderhoof shooting, even the Diezinski tazering all sounded justified until the other side of the story was told.

In trying to cover up so many incidents, the RCMP has no credibility, and a decision of 'justified' cannot be made until all the facts are presented.

Unfortunately, the 'facts' are still going to be decided by the RCMP.

I have no problem with this. The guy was driving a stolen truck so that means its justified IMO right there.

The cops put up with so much BS in this world and then we whine and cry about the perps rights?

Mercenary,

Let me see if I understand you correctly:

1) You support the death penalty
2) You are comfortable with such a penalty being delivered without a trial
3) Death is an acceptable punishment for vehicle theft

I realise that the RCMP are saying the injury (not death) occured while the officers life was in danger, to protect further injury to himself. If that is true (as it was proven NOT to be in the Diezinkski case, the Ian Bush case, and the Vanderhoof case).

Does this mean that the RCMP are lying in every case? Not at all, in fact, I still tend to believe their word. That being said, I certainly wish we already had a non-RCMP investigation checking these situations out.

This seems like a simple concept, but many seem to want to muddy the waters. If you steal a truck, and a cop shoots you while you're trying to get away, then it's your fault. Not the RCMP's. Period. End of story.

how was he being dragged and managed to shoot at the same time...sounds shady to me

Absolutely I support the death penalty. I wish we had it here in Canada.

Delivered without trial? The cop was in life or death danger himself so if he has to kill a perp to save his own life, then I support that. The suspect was trying to flee the scene by dragging a cop who was lawfully trying to apprehend him. The use of deadly force is justified in this case. Now as for death being the penalty for vehicle theft? The perp wasn't shot for vehicle theft. He was shot because he tried to kill a cop.

If a persons actions are threatening the life of a police officer, I have no problem with the said police office responding to those actions with lethal force.

"how was he being dragged and managed to shoot at the same time...sounds shady to me"

It only sounds shady because you want it to. I've seen video of this exact thing happening.

"I've seen video of this exact thing happening."

Where? Hollywood special effects?

You're kidding right?

You have seen video of this exact thing happening? You mean it is already on UTube?

Remember, just because a person is driving a supposed stolen vehicle, does not mean that the vehicle is actually stolen or that, if it is, the driver stole it. The information was from the public. Who was this person and how did they know it was stolen? Was it their truck or that of a friend?

More importantly, was there a relationship between the person who reported the vehicle as stolen and the driver?

He could have asked permission from a neighbour to use the truck, drives off in it, someone spots it as a truck that belongs to them and he phones it in. The possible scenarios are numerous.

Remember, he stopped for the police, rather than speeding up and attempting to escape.

Where it goes sour for me is that he attempted to drive off after he had stopped for the police. Why?? What happened to cause him to flee after he was stopped and there were other police around?

Too many people on here keep jumping to conclusions far too early.

Sure gus, you can 'what if' this all you want.

Until we get other information, "an officer from the Smithers detachment spotted and stopped the stolen truck on highway 16 near Tatlow Road in Smithers" and "According to police, while attempting to remove the driver from the truck, the vehicle accelerated dragging the officer. The officer pulled his service revolver shooting the driver of the truck." is what people are commenting on. Do you have any other info you'd care to share?

Free Press has a picture.

http://www.bclocalnews.com/news/71103287.html?c=y&curSection=/bc_north/pgfreepress&curTitle=BC%20News

According to the story, two vehicles under tarps. The one in the picture does not look to be a truck, it is closer to the camera but appears to be no larger than the police cars behind. Telephoto lens I assume. Is it a police car under the tarp? Another verhicle. If so, why?

Province report
http://www.theprovince.com/news/injured+police+shooting+Smithers+after+officer+dragged/2252239/story.html

That should read: "an officer from the Smithers detachment spotted and stopped the ALLEGED stolen truck on highway 16 near Tatlow Road in Smithers"

Don't you agree????? From the story information, what facts do you have that it was stolen?

There was one post on the Province site that the officer was observed to approach the truck with a drawn gun. ALLEGED mind you and on a blog.

We all know what blogs are like, don't we??!! :-)

MrPG. There are three stories.

Read them all and tell me how many officers approached the truck.

You might also notice that the second story about the same story on this site show different times.

from that story: "Highway 16 which was closed moments after the shooting at 11:51am Saturday was reopened at about 2:00PM Sunday afternoon."

Here is a police dragging incident on Youtube...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQkqnE6_eQA

A question I have is how would an officer ever get themselves into a situation where they were attached to the vehicle to the extent that they were dragged by it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Va-RFhFE7w0

And here is the obvious lesson ... is this not taught at Depot? An obvious thing to teach, isn't it?

http://video.filestube.com/video,434ccaa7c2e325f503e9.html

As they say, the newbies get posted to the small communities.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7ZjiRdphZ8

There are so many of these on the net it is unbelievable. We pay these folks how much? I think we should expect better trained people for the amount we pay them.

Can anyone tell me what the best practice is for approaching a car and for removing a person from the vehicle without killing the driver and injuring the police officer?

If there isn't one it does not take a rocket scientist to write one.

It's a wonder how the RCMP are able to recruit anybody, given some of the posts on here. They can't win.

I agree with the comments regarding 'spin'. Trying to flee with an officer attached to your car justifies deadly force. If we are going to second and third guess every response to dangerous criminal activity we are going to handcuff law enforcement to the point where we will no longer have protection from violent criminals, we will only have (the possibility) of punishment after the fact. By the way, i am not a big TV fan but anyone who can't see how or why someone would take off after first stopping for police has obviously never watched 'cops' or even the news. As for their rational....well how about : bone stupid? Desperate idiot?
I would have to ask Gus and some others whether they feel that law enforcement (at any level) should be armed at all? It is a fair question given your comparison between the use of deadly force during ad arrest to summary execution and the death penalty. I also cant resist once again poking at all those armchair quarterbacks out there. It seems funny that so many people think that the police are useless when they themselves could never do the job.
Tell you what Gus, and others, how about you all try to get me out of my car when i A: dont want to get out, B: Dont care about the rule of law, C: Dont care if I live or die, D: dont care whether other people live or die and D: hate you because you chose a job that shows you DO care. Oh yeah, i am at the wheel of a running death machine and may have an assortment of weapons at my disposal. Can you write a procedure for that? Would you be willing to try to do it? I didnt think so.
I dont see a lot of rocket scientists or any other run of the mill folk out there doing that kind of work. Why is that exactly? Is it because truck driving, logging , bank managing or blogging are more virtuous, or more challenging or even more fulfilling? I doubt it. I think there are few enough people with the abiltity and willingness to do this work without every Tom ,Dick and petty bureaucrat criticizeing their every action.
I suppose one could draw a parallel to the whole idea of the armchair quarterback here. I mean , after all, none of us could play in the pros but we all think we should second guess the pro players. Maybe Gus ought to write a best practice manual for winning the Grey Cup....What's that? you think they probably already have one? It was written by folks who have actually PLAYED at that level? Ohh.....I guess maybe the same might be true for the RCMP and their training procedures. Look up 'hubris' in the dictionary.

By the way, i am NOT a police officer, nor do i have any affiliation to one, but i still feel that the innuendo in the end of Gus' post is scandalous and offensive. "what happened that caused him to flee after he was stopped and were there other police around". A surprisingly naked insinuation from someone who pointlessly waves the word 'ALLEGED' like a flag.

"Tell you what Gus, and others, how about you all try to get me out of my car"

Police must act to protect their safety and that of the suspect. The Queensland procedures I posted on the other thread on this spell that out clearly and it makes abundant sense and is the assumption I am going by.

A police scene is not unlike many others. A hazard assessment has to be made.

In the first innstance, how important is it to stop this person?

Is he a suspected murderer? Very important to apprehend.

Is he a drunk driver endangering others on the road if he were to continue? Important to stop him from continuing to drive.

The importance of getting him out of the vehicle MUST be part of the consideration. This is similar to the analysis an offcier needs to go through when deciding whether to pursue a verhicle, how much danger will it place him into, the suspect, and the general public?

The rest becomes a continual feedback loop based on circumstances that develop that continue to be measured by evaluating the need against the risks as they change with every circumstance.

I think it goes without saying that those who have some training in this will tend to do better than those who do not, and those who have some experience with this will tend to improve over time.

Not all officers are created equal. Not all professional drivers are created equal. In each vocation there are those that excell, those who are in the wrong vocation, and those who are average or the norm.

The assumption that the person had to be extracted from the vehicle at all costs appears to be a false one based on the info we have been given so far.

WHile on the surface the idea of measuring the importance of the crime might make sense, it is likely to create a situation of a different sort. If i know that escalating the situation will cause the cops to back off, what is to stop me from doing so in order to avoid being arrested? If they dont try to get me out of the car, then i can (and will) try to drive away. If they dont pursue me if i exceed a certain speed, i will. At best i will escape and at worst i will hurt someone else in the process. Either way, the crime goes unpunished, the criminal scoffs, with good reason at the cops and the police officers get to deal once again with trying to do an impossible job.
There is also the idea of respect for the rule of law. So many here lack that respect and feel that there is valid rationale for such an attitude right up until they are violated by some other law breaker. Then it is time for the police to 'do their job'. Lets face it, respect comes from a firm hand.
Your post regarding a complex feedback decision process puts the lie to the idea that 'it isnt rocket science' unless you meant to say that rocket science is a heck of a lot more straight forward.
"The rest becomes a continuous feedback loop based on circumstances that develop that continue to be measured by evaluating the need against the risks as they change with every circumstance". Even if that was possible to do in an objective manner (evaluating 'need' against 'risks' as they change with every circumstance) it would be impossible to objectively assess performance, except with the all seeing eye of hindsite. It certainly would be out of the realm of common expertise (ie 250) to assess.
Now here is the rub: The process you described WAS used by the officer in question. It is used in every situation they face. Imagine yourself as the officer at the scene, and you will see that this is true. Whether you agree with the officers actions depends on your assessment of the 'risks' and 'needs' involved. Your assessment of these factors will obviously (for some folks on this board) also depend on your politics. Since you were not there, and since you have not taken any sort of oath to safeguard the citizens of this country (and because your political motives are completely unknown) why should you, or any other armchair quarterback feel the need to criticize and judge the police on this and every other arrest incident. There is a big difference between questioning police behaviour in doubtful circumstances and declaring all police behaviour doubtful. By the way, there is also a big difference between calling for a neutral third party for investigations into police behaviour and declaring that the current system 'is corrupt'. The former is a suggestion aimed at removing the possibility of bias in the process, the latter is a statement of opinion which, if 250 was really concerned about libel, might not have a place on this forum.

"If they dont try to get me out of the car, then i can (and will) try to drive away."

Why did you stop in the first place?

"Your assessment of these factors will obviously (for some folks on this board) also depend on your politics"

Good Lord!!!!!!!

If there is anything they have to screen for at Depot, THAT is it!!!

The assessment is based purely on safety, and that includes the safety of the person being stopped and the public that might be affected.

This person can be stopped elsewhere if push comes to shove. I cannot get inside the head of either the driver or the cop.

You probably think this guy is some macho hunk. He could be a whimp who was scared shitless. Who knows? You don't. I don't.

But we sure have fun on this site dealing with those who see the world in black and white, don't we?

Yup, Gus your guys in black hats are pretty obvious to me. Honestly though, you have NEVER seen a cops episode or one of those shows with car chases? People stop and then try to take off all the time. As them why. Maybe they think they can get some distance. Maybe they didnt think the truck had been reported stolen yet and they though they could bluff their way out of it. You asked for speculation here so here is some more: Maybe instead of just being real scared and maybe too dumb for rational thought, he decided that he would shoot/stab the cop as he leaned in...then he realise the knife was in the back seat....or maybe he left it in the woods with his last victim...
Sorry for the drama but to suggest other folk are seeing things in black and white while you are the reasoned objective viewer is a little much. Quite aside from a decidedly ,shall we say cynical view of the RCMP you have been at pains to paint this guy as an poor, if somewhat stupid, scared little rabbit. While we are speculating on him one way, we might as well go the other too.
As for politics, the RCMP operate according to procedure. That was the point: You and I (and all the other pundit wannabes on 250) let our politics color how we see such situations, they endeavor to be objective.