I do not know how many posters have driven 100 mph; I have, never in town though. But at 100mph things happen fast and the results could be catastrophic. The cop�??s job is to protect people, whether it is a rampaging elephant or an out of control driver. The cops made every reasonable attempt to get the driver to stop. Who was the driver? Was he wanted for something, was he trying to commit suicide?
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
JonP wrote:
Airtruth wrote:
You haven’t explained to me how come there were 2 camera’s available at all times that the police were doing what they are supposed to do, but for a few seconds all of a sudden there is no video, then it comes back with the officer on the hood of a car on his knees aiming a gun at the suspect. You never mentioned of police officers are trained to do this after they ram a vehicle. It would seem like a dumb procedure, but a great way to get an excuse to shoot somebody.
Maybe because he didn’t edit the video? Seriously, how the hell is he supposed to know.
The driver was putting civilians lives at risk by his driving, and then directly put an officer’s life at risk. Sorry, but in that situation it’s better that the crazy guy dies than the officer trying to stop him. Anyone who attempts to severely injure/kill an officer is going to get shot. That’s not such a hard concept to understand and I don’t see how people are defending this driver
well if I’m at a shooting range, the officer can very well say he had an excuse to kill me because he jumped felt like he had the right to walk in front of the target. Since his life is now in danger because he decided to walk in front of my gun. Matter of fact all the idiot cops can walk on to the highway and start killing people because their lives are in danger since cars are coming at the 65 miles per hour.
That’s really dumb thinking, hey I can kill who I want just put myself in harms way first.
As far as you or him not knowing how the video was edited… great. You can defend everything else he does but when it comes to that… well he didn’t edit the tape… NO SHIT… He didn’t shoot the guy either, he sure has an opinion on that.[/quote]
Your comparison is ridiculous. The suspect stole a vehicle, ran from police, violated who knows how many traffic laws, and put who knows how many civilians at risk with his high speed wreckless driving, all before shots were even fired. Finally, the officers almost had him pinned with their vehicles.
Unfortunately, it was not enough and there was an avenue of escape which you can clearly see in the video. An officer, whether foolishly or not, closed the gap by placing his own body between the avenue of escape and the suspect. Who knows what might have happened had the suspect escaped.
As far as the officers could tell, he could have been armed, he could have been intoxicated, who knows. Either way, he had to be caught in order to insure the safety of the public. Eventually the situation was that an officer’s life was being put at risk by the suspect’s continued acceleration. At that point deadly force was returned in kind.
Oh, look what I found:
[quote] Supreme Court uses police video to uphold deadly force in chases
By David G. Savage
Los Angeles Times
WASHINGTON �?? The Supreme Court ruled Monday that police may use deadly force to stop a speeding motorist who ignores warnings and poses a danger to the public.[/quote]
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003687996_scotus01.html
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
well if I’m at a shooting range, the officer can very well say he had an excuse to kill me because he jumped felt like he had the right to walk in front of the target. Since his life is now in danger because he decided to walk in front of my gun. Matter of fact all the idiot cops can walk on to the highway and start killing people because their lives are in danger since cars are coming at the 65 miles per hour.
That’s really dumb thinking, hey I can kill who I want just put myself in harms way first.
As far as you or him not knowing how the video was edited… great. You can defend everything else he does but when it comes to that… well he didn’t edit the tape… NO SHIT… He didn’t shoot the guy either, he sure has an opinion on that.[/quote]
Holy batcrap that is a horrible argument. In your example the cop put himself in danger for absolutely no reason. In real life, the driver of the car put everyone involved at risk.
Second, of course he has an opinion on the officer shooting the guy, HE SAW IT. How can you have an opinion on something if you don’t even know what that something is? It’s just a random guess you’re pulling out of your ass because it’s cool to hate cops.
Your post is so full of stupid that I have a headache and need to go lay down. Please stop posting
[quote]JonP wrote:
Airtruth wrote:
well if I’m at a shooting range, the officer can very well say he had an excuse to kill me because he jumped felt like he had the right to walk in front of the target. Since his life is now in danger because he decided to walk in front of my gun. Matter of fact all the idiot cops can walk on to the highway and start killing people because their lives are in danger since cars are coming at the 65 miles per hour.
That’s really dumb thinking, hey I can kill who I want just put myself in harms way first.
As far as you or him not knowing how the video was edited… great. You can defend everything else he does but when it comes to that… well he didn’t edit the tape… NO SHIT… He didn’t shoot the guy either, he sure has an opinion on that.
Holy batcrap that is a horrible argument. In your example the cop put himself in danger for absolutely no reason. In real life, the driver of the car put everyone involved at risk.
Second, of course he has an opinion on the officer shooting the guy, HE SAW IT. How can you have an opinion on something if you don’t even know what that something is? It’s just a random guess you’re pulling out of your ass because it’s cool to hate cops.
Your post is so full of stupid that I have a headache and need to go lay down. Please stop posting[/quote]
It’s cool to hate cops? Damn I must be arguing with another eminem wannabe. If you ever grow up you’ll learn to judge based on merit and not what all the popular kids do.
And please inform me to this video you have that you can make an opinon on, but he can’t since “he didn’t see it”. I do remember you specifically saying “He directly put the officers life at risk”, so you must have the magic video that shows the driver lifting the police officer placing him on the hood then getting back in the car and driving. Or are you saying thats correct police procedure as done by officer code 1231:-Jet-LI?
He was not only endangering the cop�??s life but any one that was on the road that night
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
JonP wrote:
Airtruth wrote:
well if I’m at a shooting range, the officer can very well say he had an excuse to kill me because he jumped felt like he had the right to walk in front of the target. Since his life is now in danger because he decided to walk in front of my gun. Matter of fact all the idiot cops can walk on to the highway and start killing people because their lives are in danger since cars are coming at the 65 miles per hour.
That’s really dumb thinking, hey I can kill who I want just put myself in harms way first.
As far as you or him not knowing how the video was edited… great. You can defend everything else he does but when it comes to that… well he didn’t edit the tape… NO SHIT… He didn’t shoot the guy either, he sure has an opinion on that.
Holy batcrap that is a horrible argument. In your example the cop put himself in danger for absolutely no reason. In real life, the driver of the car put everyone involved at risk.
Second, of course he has an opinion on the officer shooting the guy, HE SAW IT. How can you have an opinion on something if you don’t even know what that something is? It’s just a random guess you’re pulling out of your ass because it’s cool to hate cops.
Your post is so full of stupid that I have a headache and need to go lay down. Please stop posting
It’s cool to hate cops? Damn I must be arguing with another eminem wannabe. If you ever grow up you’ll learn to judge based on merit and not what all the popular kids do.
And please inform me to this video you have that you can make an opinon on, but he can’t since “he didn’t see it”. I do remember you specifically saying “He directly put the officers life at risk”, so you must have the magic video that shows the driver lifting the police officer placing him on the hood then getting back in the car and driving. Or are you saying thats correct police procedure as done by officer code 1231:-Jet-LI? [/quote]
Air Truth,
So say a prisoner is trying to escape from prison and is hauling ass while carrying a knife. Let’s say one of the guards managed to get a handgun and steps between the prisoner and his escape route in an effort to stop him. Is it the officer’s fault if he (the officer) gets stabbed in the process of the prisoner escaping, even if by accident?
In both cases, the real one and my hypothetical one, the officer puts himself in harm’s way in order to prevent the perp’s escape. In both cases the “escapee” has a weapon that can kill (knife, vehicle). Whether the perp intends to kill the officer or not is unclear in both cases, but he still poses a threat to the officer’s life.
In my opinion, if the prisoner kills the corrections officer and is subsequently charged with manslaughter, whether intentionally or accidentally, that is the risk that the prisoner accepted when he decided to try and escape from prison.
In the case of the real scenario, the suspect accepted the risk of possibly killing someone when he decided to evade the police. Furthermore, he accepted the risk of possibly putting a police officer’s life in danger while trying to escape. His intentions matter not. So in my opinion, deadly force was justified in this scenario.
The officer was just doing his job–trying to prevent the suspects escape. Whether he needed to jump on the hood of the vehicle or not is unclear. Either way the vehicle was coming at him and the officer’s presence was not deterring the driver’s acceleration. Whether the driver was just trying to escape or intentionally trying to harm the officer doesn’t matter. The suspect was risking the life of the officer with his actions, and thus had to be met with deadly force.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
I am not saying either of those two deserved to get shot. What I am saying is that they both engaged in behaviour that they should have known better not to do. They engaged in actions that they knew could get them shot. [/quote]
It’s a 13 years old we’re talking about here. You can’t make the case that he was aware that reaching for his cell-phone would get him shot.
And I’m not sure why you felt compelled to share those things about gangs and tags. Am I missing something here?
[quote]taylorsj wrote:
Air Truth,
So say a prisoner is trying to escape from prison and is hauling ass while carrying a knife. Let’s say one of the guards managed to get a handgun and steps between the prisoner and his escape route in an effort to stop him. Is it the officer’s fault if he (the officer) gets stabbed in the process of the prisoner escaping, even if by accident?
In both cases, the real one and my hypothetical one, the officer puts himself in harm’s way in order to prevent the perp’s escape. In both cases the “escapee” has a weapon that can kill (knife, vehicle). Whether the perp intends to kill the officer or not is unclear in both cases, but he still poses a threat to the officer’s life.
In my opinion, if the prisoner kills the corrections officer and is subsequently charged with manslaughter, whether intentionally or accidentally, that is the risk that the prisoner accepted when he decided to try and escape from prison.
In the case of the real scenario, the suspect accepted the risk of possibly killing someone when he decided to evade the police. Furthermore, he accepted the risk of possibly putting a police officer’s life in danger while trying to escape. His intentions matter not. So in my opinion, deadly force was justified in this scenario.
The officer was just doing his job–trying to prevent the suspects escape. Whether he needed to jump on the hood of the vehicle or not is unclear. Either way the vehicle was coming at him and the officer’s presence was not deterring the driver’s acceleration. Whether the driver was just trying to escape or intentionally trying to harm the officer doesn’t matter. The suspect risking the life of the officer with his actions, and thus had to be met with deadly force.[/quote]
Great post.
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
blueknight wrote:
MaloVerde wrote:
blueknight wrote:
Chewie wrote:
Donut62 wrote:
It’s easy to say that right now, at a computer, relaxing in the office. But when you’re the guy on the hood of the car making a split second decision to use lethal force, I think we can understand how the adrenaline of the situation might make you pull the trigger a few more times to make sure.
And once the decision is made to pull use lethal force, I don’t see what differnce one bullet or four makes. It’s all performed with the same intent. Probably every major police force in the country has a story of a guy on PCP who eats 13 bullets to the torso and keeps on going.
Here’s what the video showed me.
- The driver swerved and ran from the cops. The officer said he would take him out.
- He kept running.
- The police officers were ramming into his car.
- The officer fired three rounds in the air at the car, apparently fleeing.
- The officer jumped on the hood and unloaded his clip into the windshield.
It seemed to escalate too quickly and for little reason.
I agree with the meth scenario and that there is no such thing as a routine stop. I saw an officer acting like he was blood-hungry in that video.
Why did he jump on the hood of the car in the first place?
The only crime I saw that he committed was running. Who knows, there may have been a lot more than shown on the video.
Just to clarify a few things:
-
It cannot be determined from viewing the video that the driver swerved or attempted to ram the police vehicle. When an officer states in a vehicle pursuit that he is going to “take him out” he is referring to the suspect’s vehicle utilizing a PIT maneuver.
-
Ramming a suspect’s vehicle is proper police protocol.
-
If the officer was firing at the tires to incapacitate the vehicle it would appear justifiable. If the officer was firing at the fleeing driver I would view this as a questionable action.
-
Many police departments have policies regarding placing yourself in danger or compromising your safety. An assessment cannot be made as to how/why the officer ended up on the hood of the vehicle.
All violent criminal actions escalate quickly. That is the nature of violence. Ask any officer how many cases they’ve worked where an encounter started off peaceful and ended up violent with injuries/death to a suspect or police officer.
You have to remember also that many criminals run because they have warrants out on them. This could be from misdemeanors to violent felonies.
What happened to number 2?
No clarification needed. He did indeed keep on running.
You haven’t explained to me how come there were 2 camera’s available at all times that the police were doing what they are supposed to do, but for a few seconds all of a sudden there is no video, then it comes back with the officer on the hood of a car on his knees aiming a gun at the suspect. You never mentioned of police officers are trained to do this after they ram a vehicle. It would seem like a dumb procedure, but a great way to get an excuse to shoot somebody.
[/quote]
There seems to be some confusion here so I will clarify this. The video is actually a compilation of 3 separate videos from the 3 vehicles involved in this pursuit. The vehicles are identified by their ID unit which you can observe in the upper left corner of each video.
The first vehicle, BAPD 066, (Blue Ash Police Department) is the primary vehicle in pursuit. Vehicles #2 BAPD 051 and #3 BAPD 063 are his backup. The split screen shows the pursuit from the vantage point of vehicles #1 and #2.
The video then shows an officer firing at the suspect vehicle from the camera of vehicle #3. The last frame shows vehicle #3 arriving on scene as the officer is already on the hood and firing at the suspect. Vehicles #1 and #2 are slightly out of vehicle #3 camera range.
At no time is the camera turned off and on from vehicle #3 and it captures the shooting as it occurs. So it cannot be determined from this video what action occurred prior to the officer ending up on the hood and firing at the suspect.
Whoever placed the video on this website compiled the videos and edited them for length. All 3 videos in their entirety and the official police report are available from the Blue Ash PD as they are all public record.
[quote]taylorsj wrote:
Air Truth,
So say a prisoner is trying to escape from prison and is hauling ass while carrying a knife. Let’s say one of the guards managed to get a handgun and steps between the prisoner and his escape route in an effort to stop him. Is it the officer’s fault if he (the officer) gets stabbed in the process of the prisoner escaping, even if by accident?
In both cases, the real one and my hypothetical one, the officer puts himself in harm’s way in order to prevent the perp’s escape. In both cases the “escapee” has a weapon that can kill (knife, vehicle). Whether the perp intends to kill the officer or not is unclear in both cases, but he still poses a threat to the officer’s life.
In my opinion, if the prisoner kills the corrections officer and is subsequently charged with manslaughter, whether intentionally or accidentally, that is the risk that the prisoner accepted when he decided to try and escape from prison.
In the case of the real scenario, the suspect accepted the risk of possibly killing someone when he decided to evade the police. Furthermore, he accepted the risk of possibly putting a police officer’s life in danger while trying to escape. His intentions matter not. So in my opinion, deadly force was justified in this scenario.
The officer was just doing his job–trying to prevent the suspects escape. Whether he needed to jump on the hood of the vehicle or not is unclear. Either way the vehicle was coming at him and the officer’s presence was not deterring the driver’s acceleration. Whether the driver was just trying to escape or intentionally trying to harm the officer doesn’t matter. The suspect was risking the life of the officer with his actions, and thus had to be met with deadly force.[/quote]
Excellent post, very logical.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Sifu wrote:
I am not saying either of those two deserved to get shot. What I am saying is that they both engaged in behaviour that they should have known better not to do. They engaged in actions that they knew could get them shot.
It’s a 13 years old we’re talking about here. You can’t make the case that he was aware that reaching for his cell-phone would get him shot.
And I’m not sure why you felt compelled to share those things about gangs and tags. Am I missing something here?[/quote]
In America there are enough cops show on tv that any 13 year old should know that if a cop points a gun at you and says freeze you had better freeze.
Did you read the full story? The kids said they were going around the city tagging over tags. In urban America that is not a good way to get shot. Maybe in Sweden tags are benign, but not in America. Tags are how gangs claim their territory. If you see a tag that says crip that means where you are standing is crip territory. If you go spray over it with a tag that says something else like bloods, you are saying that a rival gang now claims that turf. Gang turf wars quite often are deadly.
That is why I wrote that. The kid was a 13 year old dumbass who was going around asking to get shot by gang members. Then when he encoutered the police he did something that was asking to get shot by police.
If you look at his actions the kid was trying to show off to everyone that he was not afraid to get shot. He repeatedly engaged in risky behaviour and his luck ran out. And now you want to come along and say. Oh how terrible. That horrible cop. He should have waited until that kid had shot him first.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
If you look at his actions the kid was trying to show off to everyone that he was not afraid to get shot.[/quote]
So, what you’re trying to say is that the kid was suicidal/masochistic and deserve to be shot. Right?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Sifu wrote:
If you look at his actions the kid was trying to show off to everyone that he was not afraid to get shot.
So, what you’re trying to say is that the kid was suicidal/masochistic and deserve to be shot. Right?[/quote]
No, he is saying that being stupid is always punished.
Sometimes sooner, sometimes later.
You don’t tug on Superman’s cape
You don’t spit into the wind
You don’t pull the mask off that old Lone Ranger
And you don’t mess around with Jim
[quote]Chewie wrote:
thought the firing of shots in the first place was excessive.
I never saw the car try to ram him. [/quote]
I’ve only today started reading this thread. I watched the video a few times as well. Like you, even from my first viewing, I thought the officer obviously embellished the ramming. His patrol car was STATIONARY. If the guy wanted to hit it, he could have. He obviously went AROUND the patrol car.
Also, the officer made no attempt to evade the “ramming”. All this sets up, as you describe, use of excessive force because the guy has already “attacked” an officer.
I’m not saying what the guy did was right. I’m not saying you should get away with running from the police. A “box in” with the THREE available patrol cars to prevent escape would not have been excessive, however. Then, with the obvious threat of being hit or run over gone, the only reason to fire is if he draws a weapon.
cueball
[quote]taylorsj wrote:
Air Truth,
So say a prisoner is trying to escape from prison and is hauling ass while carrying a knife. Let’s say one of the guards managed to get a handgun and steps between the prisoner and his escape route in an effort to stop him. Is it the officer’s fault if he (the officer) gets stabbed in the process of the prisoner escaping, even if by accident?
In both cases, the real one and my hypothetical one, the officer puts himself in harm’s way in order to prevent the perp’s escape. In both cases the “escapee” has a weapon that can kill (knife, vehicle). Whether the perp intends to kill the officer or not is unclear in both cases, but he still poses a threat to the officer’s life.
In my opinion, if the prisoner kills the corrections officer and is subsequently charged with manslaughter, whether intentionally or accidentally, that is the risk that the prisoner accepted when he decided to try and escape from prison.
In the case of the real scenario, the suspect accepted the risk of possibly killing someone when he decided to evade the police. Furthermore, he accepted the risk of possibly putting a police officer’s life in danger while trying to escape. His intentions matter not. So in my opinion, deadly force was justified in this scenario.
The officer was just doing his job–trying to prevent the suspects escape. Whether he needed to jump on the hood of the vehicle or not is unclear. Either way the vehicle was coming at him and the officer’s presence was not deterring the driver’s acceleration. Whether the driver was just trying to escape or intentionally trying to harm the officer doesn’t matter. The suspect was risking the life of the officer with his actions, and thus had to be met with deadly force.[/quote]
I agree with this post till the end. did any body pay attention to how SLOW the car was moving when the officer was on top of the hood? Creeping. Almost slow enough to be residual momentum from before the officer rammed him.
I know if it was me in that car and I was trying to get away, I wouldn’t be creeping. That pedal would be on the floor! And that rapid acceleration would throw that officer off or back over the roof. This I would consider trying to harm the officer.
My stance on this, however, does not say I don’t think that some form of foce should have been used. He definitely put the general public in danger at those speeds had he encountered anyone. I do feel, that the car could have been disabled with three cars without the use of firearms.
cueball
[quote]taylorsj wrote:
Air Truth,
So say a prisoner is trying to escape from prison and is hauling ass while carrying a knife. Let’s say one of the guards managed to get a handgun and steps between the prisoner and his escape route in an effort to stop him. Is it the officer’s fault if he (the officer) gets stabbed in the process of the prisoner escaping, even if by accident?
In both cases, the real one and my hypothetical one, the officer puts himself in harm’s way in order to prevent the perp’s escape. In both cases the “escapee” has a weapon that can kill (knife, vehicle). Whether the perp intends to kill the officer or not is unclear in both cases, but he still poses a threat to the officer’s life.
In my opinion, if the prisoner kills the corrections officer and is subsequently charged with manslaughter, whether intentionally or accidentally, that is the risk that the prisoner accepted when he decided to try and escape from prison.
In the case of the real scenario, the suspect accepted the risk of possibly killing someone when he decided to evade the police. Furthermore, he accepted the risk of possibly putting a police officer’s life in danger while trying to escape. His intentions matter not. So in my opinion, deadly force was justified in this scenario.
The officer was just doing his job–trying to prevent the suspects escape. Whether he needed to jump on the hood of the vehicle or not is unclear. Either way the vehicle was coming at him and the officer’s presence was not deterring the driver’s acceleration. Whether the driver was just trying to escape or intentionally trying to harm the officer doesn’t matter. The suspect was risking the life of the officer with his actions, and thus had to be met with deadly force.[/quote]
Wonderful except like others you COMPLETELY missed the point. If you would like to make your story more like the video you would have to say the police officer runs and slides firing 2 guns at the same time trying to kill the prisoner. If he kills the prisoner, great. If he gets killed is it still great? Or was he an idiot for thinking he was jet li? Considering the fact that he is sliding if he accidently shoots one of his own officers what happens then? Gets brushed under the table?
Here we have a tape clearly displaying a foolish action and instead of everybody trying to support improvement we have hey the criminal deserved it. I bet these are all the same people crying over officer Tillman getting shot by friendly fire.
This is not the first incident of a police officer jumping on a hood of a car, and nearly all of them end up with somebody dead. The most notable case an undercover in New york Jumps on the hood holding a gun at the driver. 51 shots fired in that case. I would sure like to see what anybody here would do if somebody in street clothes jumped on the hood of their car holding a gun.
In this case a criminal who may or maynot have deserved it died, what happens when its the cop who jumps in front of the car who dies? Will police procedure change then?
[quote]cueball wrote:
taylorsj wrote:
Air Truth,
So say a prisoner is trying to escape from prison and is hauling ass while carrying a knife. Let’s say one of the guards managed to get a handgun and steps between the prisoner and his escape route in an effort to stop him. Is it the officer’s fault if he (the officer) gets stabbed in the process of the prisoner escaping, even if by accident?
In both cases, the real one and my hypothetical one, the officer puts himself in harm’s way in order to prevent the perp’s escape. In both cases the “escapee” has a weapon that can kill (knife, vehicle). Whether the perp intends to kill the officer or not is unclear in both cases, but he still poses a threat to the officer’s life.
In my opinion, if the prisoner kills the corrections officer and is subsequently charged with manslaughter, whether intentionally or accidentally, that is the risk that the prisoner accepted when he decided to try and escape from prison.
In the case of the real scenario, the suspect accepted the risk of possibly killing someone when he decided to evade the police. Furthermore, he accepted the risk of possibly putting a police officer’s life in danger while trying to escape. His intentions matter not. So in my opinion, deadly force was justified in this scenario.
The officer was just doing his job–trying to prevent the suspects escape. Whether he needed to jump on the hood of the vehicle or not is unclear. Either way the vehicle was coming at him and the officer’s presence was not deterring the driver’s acceleration. Whether the driver was just trying to escape or intentionally trying to harm the officer doesn’t matter. The suspect was risking the life of the officer with his actions, and thus had to be met with deadly force.
I agree with this post till the end. did any body pay attention to how SLOW the car was moving when the officer was on top of the hood? Creeping. Almost slow enough to be residual momentum from before the officer rammed him.
I know if it was me in that car and I was trying to get away, I wouldn’t be creeping. That pedal would be on the floor! And that rapid acceleration would throw that officer off or back over the roof. This I would consider trying to harm the officer.
My stance on this, however, does not say I don’t think that some form of foce should have been used. He definitely put the general public in danger at those speeds had he encountered anyone. I do feel, that the car could have been disabled with three cars without the use of firearms.
cueball[/quote]
I did notice that too. First time seeing the video and before the cop shot, I actually thought maybe the suspect was knocked out by an airbag or something because it looked like he was hunched over and the car was moving at the speed of a powerful idle engine.
[quote]cueball wrote:
I do feel, that the car could have been disabled with three cars without the use of firearms. [/quote]
I beg to differ. Blowing up the tires could have worked just as well.
[quote]lixy wrote:
cueball wrote:
I do feel, that the car could have been disabled with three cars without the use of firearms.
I beg to differ. Blowing up the tires could have worked just as well.[/quote]
So what are you begging to differ with? By saying “just as well” you acknowledge the fact that both options carry the same amount of effectiveness. Seems your just fishing for justification to discharge a weapon when, in fact, doing it without works “just as well”.
cueball