civilians are running people over because they are criminals and may not be equipped with proper weaponry. However police are fully equipped to use lethal force hence the armour and guns they get given. They have a standard that they must work at and playing bumper cars shouldn’t be in the description.
Vehicles as weapons - a poll
- Thread starter joey
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #22
As I mentioned in a reply to creepis, I'm trying to give a “I’m extending the policy change as far as I possibly can". Of course in some - most - situations, actions like this are bang out of order. Sorry to edit my post: If it doesn't cause risk to civilians, the removal of the policy suggests it can be the FIRST decision to go in with something I don't think is really beneficial to the fighting roleplay in perp. Also, where in the Use of Force policy (1) are the use of vehicles ever mentioned (they're not defined as lethal force)
IMO it's only realistic to allow officers to use their vehicles as weapons in certain scenarios. If you're in a car, you turn up to a scene and you see someone in the road actively shooting at cops or civilians, it would be irresponsible to get out of your car and begin shooting instead of running them over, as running them over is a much safer and quicker alternative to taking down the suspect.
This is extremely realistic to use a vehicle as a weapon, it happens IRL many times to preserve officers lives and civilians
UK police ramming mopeds:
US police taking down an armed shooter with their vehicle:
www.police1.com
Vehicles are used as a tool by police in numerous scenarios because it makes sense and is certainly realistic.
This is extremely realistic to use a vehicle as a weapon, it happens IRL many times to preserve officers lives and civilians
UK police ramming mopeds:
US police taking down an armed shooter with their vehicle:
Video: Okla. police run over, kill armed suspect
Madison Dickson aimed a handgun at officers before her death
www.police1.com
Vehicles are used as a tool by police in numerous scenarios because it makes sense and is certainly realistic.
- Thread starter
- #25
Guarantee that clip wasn't the first contact to the situation. Apart from the UK one, it now is the first response to ram moped riding thieves. "Dickson allegedly shot a man in the head two days before the deadly confrontation with" she fled then got caught again in another exchange of fire prior to the car being usedIMO it's only realistic to allow officers to use their vehicles as weapons in certain scenarios. If you're in a car, you turn up to a scene and you see someone in the road actively shooting at cops or civilians, it would be irresponsible to get out of your car and begin shooting instead of running them over, as running them over is a much safer and quicker alternative to taking down the suspect.
This is extremely realistic to use a vehicle as a weapon, it happens IRL many times to preserve officers lives and civilians
UK police ramming mopeds:
US police taking down an armed shooter with their vehicle:
Video: Okla. police run over, kill armed suspect
Madison Dickson aimed a handgun at officers before her death
Vehicles are used as a tool by police in numerous scenarios because it makes sense and is certainly realistic.
You said in your original post you see no reason officers should be allowed to use their vehicles "for any lethal force situation", but in this situation im getting the idea that you agree vehicles could have been used in this situation?
IMO your vehicle can be used as a weapon, just follow use of force policies relevant.
- Thread starter
- #28
Yes, thank you. I don't think there are any relevant policies for it anymore, which is my main issue. I should've read over the post rather than assuming everyone would get what I was going for
My only addition then is, why do you think use of force police isn’t relevant? Using a car as a weapon would be using force, maybe the policy could be updated to mention vehicles?
Though, I don’t think it’s massively needed
Deleted member 5577
Guest
Imagine this, you’re lined up perfectly to run over a mass murderer with an AK and there’s no risk of you hurting others around you but you have to find somewhere to park get out of the car and open fire at him with your shitty pistol. Who will win now? Also it’s not like police cars are indestructible they’re pretty vulnerable to being shot up so just do that instead of getting run over.
- Thread starter
- #31
If the situation resolves to it being the only resort compared to getting out and shooting, that's fine by what I want.
- Staff
- #32
The wording didn't make a lot of sense and the instructions were to use your vehicle as a weapon as a "last resort" which would imply you'd have to exhaust every other method first, which simply isn't/wasn't feasible. If you have the opportunity to run someone over who is an active threat to life and can do so in a way that risks your own life or the lives of others less than getting out and shooting him would, run him over. Unfortunately, the guideline made it seem like you'd have to at least try and use your gun first, which is silly.
I wouldn't mind adding vehicles to the use of force continuum into one of the categories, but it is unreasonable to claim removing this one line had any impact on how you're allowed to use a car in a gunfight, because it didn't.
I wouldn't mind adding vehicles to the use of force continuum into one of the categories, but it is unreasonable to claim removing this one line had any impact on how you're allowed to use a car in a gunfight, because it didn't.
Realistically why would I use my weapon and risk missing, or being shot back at when. I have the opportunity to negate all threats to the general public, myself, and my colleagues by hitting a suspect with my car in a controlled manner, even if not killing them all the way I can purposely knock them over, then step out of the vehicle and take appropriate action.
- Staff
- #34
Hi there, evil criminal who malds over being hit by zoomer cops and pensioners like @Samuel here, I can see why you would think that this policy was a good thing, however, I can reasonably see why this policy was “removed” however, allow me to elaborate my point further:
As disgustingly busted as I think this “feature” is, being ragdolled with a weapon out now has a significant chance of forcing civilians to drop both their phone (If on org TS or a call) and weapons, making nudging them with your car a viable tactic against criminals.
3.4 and 3.6 obviously still applies to officers when using their cars as weapons by the way, and typically any officer who knowingly drives up to people firing rifles with the sole intention of running them over is in violation of said rule. The policy was removed because of a few reasons, one being that IA investigators were constantly recommending action be taken against cops unfairly for swerving into someone spraying them, and the fact that it’s already covered under use of force, running someone over should be a last resort in the same sense that shooting them would be.
Criminals do run cops over with speedy go zoomy supercars as well so let’s take that into account. Sure, civs pay the damages but at the end of the day, Claiming that the 500 dollars for an engine fix after splatting a cop or 7 being an actual viable issue criminals face is like saying that an itchy nose is a viable threat to Cocaine addicts.
Tl;dr: This policy was removed because the subject was, is, and forever will be under use of Force, and this isn’t a green light to go do donuts around bank trying to run over all the gun men.
I advise that every officer who might be confused on this matter to know that, and I cannot stress this enough, That nothing has changed policy wise technically, and that the policies ”Removal” doesn’t give you a new 24/7 license to dispense justice on all crimes via the bonnet of your car. Running shooters over in preservation of life was always allowed policy wise, refer to “use of force”. Running a suspect over at any speed will be considered use of deadly force.
As disgustingly busted as I think this “feature” is, being ragdolled with a weapon out now has a significant chance of forcing civilians to drop both their phone (If on org TS or a call) and weapons, making nudging them with your car a viable tactic against criminals.
3.4 and 3.6 obviously still applies to officers when using their cars as weapons by the way, and typically any officer who knowingly drives up to people firing rifles with the sole intention of running them over is in violation of said rule. The policy was removed because of a few reasons, one being that IA investigators were constantly recommending action be taken against cops unfairly for swerving into someone spraying them, and the fact that it’s already covered under use of force, running someone over should be a last resort in the same sense that shooting them would be.
Criminals do run cops over with speedy go zoomy supercars as well so let’s take that into account. Sure, civs pay the damages but at the end of the day, Claiming that the 500 dollars for an engine fix after splatting a cop or 7 being an actual viable issue criminals face is like saying that an itchy nose is a viable threat to Cocaine addicts.
Tl;dr: This policy was removed because the subject was, is, and forever will be under use of Force, and this isn’t a green light to go do donuts around bank trying to run over all the gun men.
I advise that every officer who might be confused on this matter to know that, and I cannot stress this enough, That nothing has changed policy wise technically, and that the policies ”Removal” doesn’t give you a new 24/7 license to dispense justice on all crimes via the bonnet of your car. Running shooters over in preservation of life was always allowed policy wise, refer to “use of force”. Running a suspect over at any speed will be considered use of deadly force.
Thanks for at least editing it to specify it is a joke however I reckon at least 15 people have seen this and completely misinterpreted this as a serious fact (as literally everyone did seeing these replies). I sure as fuck don’t hope that no one quotes this in an IA statement any time in the future though.
- Staff
- #35
the only people that want this policy removed are the ones that only partake in raids
I mean, its perfectly reasonable to use your car as a weapon in high threat situations and also, its not like armour will help someone if there being shot at by an as50. people are just salty when they get run over by an Officer
- Messages
- 461
- Reaction score
- 480
- Points
- 485
I feel like adding it to the use of force continuum would make it more clear for officers on how to approach using the car to take down a suspect so it isn't missused.
But now your causing more questions "any officer who knowingly drives up to people firing rifles with the sole intention of running them over is in violation of said rule" but what if my intention was to run over 1 armed person hop out the car and then try and shoot the other 2? would I still be in violation of these rules rule?
Last edited:
Similar threads
