Skip Navigation

Bodycam: Pregnant woman accused of shoplifting shot by police

Somehow this is the only country on earth where this seems to happen. When talking about shootings involving guns, okay, fine, the US is certainly an outlier there, but every country has cars and police.

This is murder.

518 comments
  • WTF? I'm thinking of many different ways that this could be handled instead of killing a woman and her unborn baby. Geez!

  • Anything short of two life sentences would be completely unacceptable. Can't wait for that piece of trash to get suspended with pay. Homicidal scum...

  • With all of these women being charged with murder for abortions, are we going to see these police punished for killing an innocent bystander (the baby)?

    The mother was not innocent in this. A vehicle is a deadly weapon. She fucked around, and found out. I do feel sorry for the unborn child though. I wish there were a way they could have stopped the car non-violently that didn't violate our freedoms. Vehicle immobilizers that police could use seem a ham-fisted solution -- If she was let go, and running from the police as she clearly intended to do, she could have easily harmed someone or killed someone else. Just because you're ready to jump on the "Poleece bad mkay" train...at least look at this further than just the incident at hand. She was fleeing, and probably panicking. She was a harm to others and stopping her was probably the right call. How else are you supposed to stop someone with a 3000lb death machine in a parking lot full of pedestrians?

    Where are the people suggesting what could have been done better here? Because I don't see them. I see stupid platitudes of "oh you could have let her go and arrested her at her house"...come on. She was a danger to the pedestrians in the parking lot there. If she was allowed to just try and race home, how many other people could have been put at risk because of her panic?

    • It's not police policy to kill fleeing suspects, plenty of jurisdictions even choose not to pursue. So the answer to those questions is that yes, they absolutely could have let her drive away, as some other police forces already do without issue.

      Aside from that, even if they decided to pursue, it is not police policy anywhere to use deadly force to stop a fleeing subject unless it becomes an acute danger to the public. A fleeing subject who has yet to break 10 MPH does not fall under that description, not here, not anywhere.

      And here's a question, if it was such a deadly situation for this officer, how did he not get injured? He was already safely out of the way of the vehicle by the time any of his bullets had an effect. Because he's not a fucking invalid and can side step a car, which he put himself in front of to begin with, pulling out of a parking spot.

      Do you feel safer today because this woman is dead? Does anyone?

      • Yes, those policies refer to fleeing suspects who pose no danger to the public. Fleeing in a vehicle poses a danger to the public. That's why they pit-maneuver vehicles fleeing on the highway.

        Great, they didn't allow her to break 10mph, it means they did their job.

        The deadly situation doesn't apply JUST to the officer -- they are meant to protect the public. It's just like computer security, someone good at their job doesn't have anything happen. They stop the problem before it becomes a problem. You're not good at your job because you LET the system get infected first.

        Ditto for policing, you don't wait for them to hurt others in order to justify stopping them after - they were already being detained. If you begin driving off with pedestrians around and the police want you out of your vehicle, they have a legitimate reason to stop you using whatever force is necessary.

        If she is just running away? Hell no, the force isn't justified here. It's her being in the car that causes the force to be justified. Same with if a person had a gun, or a knife, she has a weapon...the car.

        So you plan on volunteering to be hit between a car and a wall at 10mph to show how not-deadly it is? Because I'll concede my point if you do. If you don't want to do it, ask yourself why... it's probably because a 3000lb object traveling at 10mph can be deadly; despite your protests to the contrary.

        Nothing that you've stated here can objectively determine that these police officers did anything wrong, your political biases are at play here rather than a good neutral look at reality.

    • armed men walk up to innocent woman with guns drawn and scream at her to get out of her car

      she gets scared and tries to drive away

      oH sHE waS a DAnGer tO tHe PubLiC, SerVEs the removed riGhT!!

      You're joking, right? Right?

    • I do feel sorry for the unborn child though. I wish there were a way they could have stopped the car non-violently that didn’t violate our freedoms.

      This is unacceptable. Ohio won't have exceptions for incest and the health of the mother, but they will have exceptions if the mother allegedly commits a crime and is innocent until proven guilty under our legal system?

      Anyone who is pro life and not furious about this is a fucking craven hypocrite.

      • I'm not "pro-life". Hell, I don't value human life at all for the most part. Most people are fucking idiot trash. But I do believe that if we're passing laws that put women on murder charges for aborting, police should be held to that same standard. If they kill a child due to their enforcement actions, that should be considered killing an innocent bystander and should be held accountable for that. (And let's be fair, the only reason they want to keep people from aborting is because you're not producing another wage-slave for the nation to work to death)

        Also, obviously I wish this situation turned out differently. I don't want police everywhere to have short-range vehicle immobilizers, because like anything, police WILL abuse any power put into their possession. But on the same hand, I think to myself that maybe if they did have immobilizers, police chases, people running over others with vehicles, etc would be a much more solvable problem. Many police interactions involving cars become dangerous quickly.

        Everyone here on lemmy is so caught up in their own preconceptions that they aren't replying to have a discussion - they're replying to issue their rebuttal because they're caught up in an emotional reaction.

        Ideally this whole incident could have gone better -- but I don't know of a solution that would give the police the ability to detain this woman with the actions she was willing to take. Except obviously my idea of short-range vehicle immobilizers. But if you give that ability to the police, others will find it and hack it, abuse it, etc. So I don't think in the long run it would work.

        You could maybe equip them with some sort of tire-destroying vehicle immobilizer, something that permanently stuck into the tire - but given how tough tires are, it's not something that could easily be carried around.

        The MOST reasonable idea here was that the police shoot her tires out - but I don't know the dynamics between bullets and tires so I'm unsure if that would be dangerous to bystanders or not.

518 comments