General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCop Drives Right at Suspect, Runs Him Over in Disturbing Dash Cam Video
Last edited Wed Apr 15, 2015, 12:18 AM - Edit history (1)
Marana, Arizona police have released dash cam video showing Officer Michael Rapiejko driving his police car right at suspect Mario Valencia and running him over.
According to the police, Valencia had been suspected of multiple thefts, including the reported theft the day he was struck of a rifle from a nearby Walmart, a robbery, and setting a fire at a church.
He also allegedly stole a vehicle, only to abandon it, and when he was confronted earlier by the police, he pointed the rifle at his own head and threatened to take his life before running off with the weapon still in hand.
After he was hit, Valencia ended up in the hospital. His attorney, of course, is outraged about the “excessive use of force,” but the police have defended Rapiejko’s actions:
“If we’re going to choose between maybe we’ll let him go a little bit farther and see what happens, or we’re going to take him out now and eliminate any opportunity he has to hurt somebody, you’re going to err on the side of, in favor of the innocent people,” Police Chief Terry Rozema said. “Without a doubt.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/cop-drives-right-at-suspect-runs-him-over-in-disturbing-dash-cam-video/
video at link
edited to add video: thanks MrMickeysMom (post 10)
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
DJ13
(23,671 posts)
951-Riverside
(7,234 posts)Its a slap to the face of the real victims of police brutality to suggest this jackass who terrorized a community is somehow a victim.
He's as much of a "victim" as Michael Slager is.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Slowly motoring through the water, baited hook drifting in the water behind your boat. Hoping for a nibble...
closeupready
(29,503 posts)I feel like I shouldn't approve of his approach, but on this one, I'm not outraged at all.
951-Riverside
(7,234 posts)951-Riverside
(7,234 posts)We're not talking about a guy simply walking down the street with what appeared to be a rifle, we have a guy who committed arson, stole a rifle, fired it in public right in front officers and was walking around in a residential neighborhood still armed with it.
The last thing you want is some maniac with a rifle to have cover + distance. Had he been an experienced marksman, he could have easily taken out those officers from a distance and had the opportunity to have sufficient cover from small arms fire. The one officer who told the others to "stand by", put them all at risk.
The other officer made the right call by quickly closing in the distance between him and the threat and taking it out.
THIS was no John Crawford III or Tamir Rice incident where police officers snuck up and gunned them down with no warning when they posed no threat to anyone.
WillTwain
(1,489 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)951-Riverside
(7,234 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)yes, the dude was armed and dangerous. I did not know that vehicular manslaughter was the appropriate response to that. Even the other officer in the first half of the video sounds pretty fucking shocked by that.
951-Riverside
(7,234 posts)I am not cheering this officer on but what I did say is that if I saw a guy marching around the a rifle, firing it and I felt my life was in danger, I'm running his ass over. I'm just not letting a deranged guy who is aware of my presence, moving about and is randomly firing off a long gun in a neighborhood get the drop on me, I don't care what anyone says or what orders I get.
I'll say it again, Mario Valencia is as much of a "victim" as Officer Michael Slager who gunned down an unarmed black man. They are nothing more than bullies and cowards who terrorize communities and the response this incident has gotten is a slap to the face of real victims of excessive force like Eric Garner, Ramiro James, Tarmir Rice and John Crawford III.
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)
LisaL
(44,973 posts)He was a danger to society and this cop found a way to stop him without actually killing him.
The cop deserves a medal here.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)kill and attempted murder. This was excessive and there is nothing attributable to the cop for the fact that he lived through that attack.
LisaL
(44,973 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)What the fuck?
In this real world, a cop chose to gun a man down with his car over all other options. He didn't even attempt to de-escalate. This was no different than when a cop rolls up and opens fire without engaging. This cop tried to kill him with his car. It was clearly excessive.
I won't use silly personal attacks on you.
LisaL
(44,973 posts)elias49
(4,259 posts)The jury was unavailable.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)Interesting world you live in...
LisaL
(44,973 posts)was shot.
This cop was obviously trying to stop him and not kill him.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)My "precious suspect"....??? 
You mean the person that hadn't been arrested, charged or tried? THAT "precious" suspect?
America is SUPPOSED to be a land of laws due process and people, including the police, are supposed to abide and uphold them...
Or do you think that cops get to circumvent the legal process and just run people over whenever they fucking feel like it?
FarPoint
(12,351 posts)All shots are intended to be lethal.....I'm okay with this action.
sammythecat
(3,568 posts)but in this instance the cop was completely justified.
This guy was on a mini-rampage of felonies and now he's walking down the street firing a rifle. It seemed to me prior attempts were made to de-escalate and engage, to no avail. Now he had to be stopped. He was firing a rifle, not a pistol. What if the next round he fired hit some kid a few hundred yards away? What if the cop pulled up to talk the guy down and was immediately shot and killed? Seriously, what would you have done? How much time do you allow this guy to keep shooting?
Remember, the bullet from just about any rifle is lethal well out to 1000 yds. If his next shot killed someone's loved one how would you tell them you took that risk because you wanted to take longer to try and end this peacefully without hurting the shooter? Knowing you had the option of lethal force to end the situation immediately, would they accept any reason for not using that option and instead risking the lives of others?
Marr
(20,317 posts)The alternative at that point was to shoot him, which would almost certainly mean killing him.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)Because the cops would unload their clips into him? They are incapable of shooting to wound? They are fucking useless marksmen?
There were plenty of other ways of dealing with this suspect without running him the fuck over with a car...
Marr
(20,317 posts)And because, yes, if they're going to open fire, they're going to shoot to kill. The last thing you want is a wounded man with a rifle firing back at you-- especially if all you've got is a pistol and a shotgun.
Can you describe a few of these 'other ways'?
11 Bravo
(23,926 posts)They are not trained to shoot at anything other than center mass. That's why it's called lethal force. This cop opted for a non-lethal alternative.
Jim Beard
(2,535 posts)as well as down the side of the neck. Bleeding out can be quick in a leg shot.
Also, this man could have still shot anyone after a "Wounding" shot.
11 Bravo
(23,926 posts)shoot the gun out of his hand?"
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)at each other while a discussion of internal motivations ensues. That and the Man from Mars.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)If he attempted to get out of the cop car, the shooter would have shot him. I don't think the shooter was in the mood for talking after what he did that day already? I am very curious to know what you would have done.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I'd think an imaginary world rather than a real world would consist of only two possibilities in this instance-- killing him or running him down... a most irrational premise.
He also disobeyed a direct order.
I guess killing is more fun that following orders.
Boxerfan
(2,533 posts)The guy was walking down the street firing a gun. There is not a lot of choice in that matter if he's about to enter a area with a lot of people. Or just from the situation he put himself in-basically suicide by cop. He's lucky to be alive whether he was stupid or mentally disturbed.
Of course a perfect world would have mental health as part of a national single payer health system. And police trained for crisis intervention etc...
But that's not reality.
Kablooie
(18,632 posts)It was unorthodox but when a crazy guy is walking around shooting things, the only other option would be to shoot him, like Atticus shooting the mad dog in the street.
It was a risk but there was a chance it would not be lethal and that turned out to be correct.
DarknessFalls
(16 posts)The suspect was actively shooting off s high power rifle. The officer thought quickly, improvised,and ended the conflict without taking a life. Well done.
LisaL
(44,973 posts)This suspect was armed and apparently fired a shot.
Police could have shot him on the spot. Instead he was run over and is still alive. His lawyer should STFU.
Response to one_voice (Original post)
aikoaiko This message was self-deleted by its author.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)
one_voice
(20,043 posts)I will add it to the OP.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)and the other car comes from behind to run him over, very deliberately. And at a speed that makes him lucky to be alive.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)The other officer to stand down. The chief of police was on the news and cleared that up.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Is that your implication?
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)He said that the audio you hear was not his boss telling him to stand down. It was the driver telling the other officer to get out of the way.
The chief said that in this case, there were few options. A gun fight could have resulted in bullets flying everywhere and potential injury to innocent people or police officers. He said that it was not acceptable to let the guy continue walking towards the people who were in the business near by--anyone could have walked out into a dangerous hostage situation. He said that the guy needed to be taken down.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)"its fuzzy." "I'm out." I agree that the situation is fuzzy. It is easy for us in our safe arm chairs to declare his actions outrageous. And it certainly appears to be horrific.
But, so does an armed angry man walking around threatening people and shooting a gun.
Ugly fuzzy situations--I am glad I don't have to make those decisions.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)The "perp" was uncooperative, armed, and potentially dangerous.
The video is shocking, but it solved the problem.
My initial impressions were at least partially misguided. The chief of police was rational in his explanations without rationalizing.
It's really fuzzy, and I'm done here. I'll let those more confident in their opinions voice them however they please, but there is nothing definitive to be said.
(your patience and persistence were appreciated)
muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)The first, up to 0:54, is from the car following him slowly, and talking to the central police person. That police officer says:
"it's definitely unlocked now, he's definitely loaded. Have units be prepared. (starts driving slowly)"
(central) "was the subject shooting, or did you shoot?"
"Negative, I did not shoot. Err, unit right there, stand off, just stand off! The gun is loaded! Unit on (garbled) stay off!"
(police car overtakes at speed, hits the guy)
"Oh! Jesus Christ, man down!"
After that, we have the view from the driver who ran him down. The audio for that is just the final:
(as he started to overtake the car travelling slowly)
"
garbled) stay off!"
(hits him)
So, yes, the car closest to him (until about a second before impact) said 'stand off'. And that was the car that knew he had fired a bullet. And we know that was the car in front, because it's the same man who, after the hit, says, shocked, "Oh! Jesus Christ, man down!".
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)He's lucky he didn't kill him.
The guy had a rifle. Never pointed it at anyone but himself.
Cops could have pulled up and sheltered behind their cars and dealt with him.
Hell, they could have shot him with a tranquilizer gun.
But instead, they run him over with a 3,000 pound vehicle. It's brutal, and it's overkill.
And people here are cheerleading for it. On a progressive discussion board.
LisaL
(44,973 posts)Shooting in the air is dangerous because what goes up must come down. That should could have killed someone.
elias49
(4,259 posts)Wow.
Takket
(21,563 posts)elias49
(4,259 posts)
CherokeeDem
(3,709 posts)a shot fired in the air in Miami during a New Years Eve celebration a few years ago killed an eight-year-old girl. Shot in the air and came back down taking a life.
Not a laughing matter ... sarcasm or not.
TampaAnimusVortex
(785 posts)Statistically it's almost impossible for a random bullet to just hit someone walking down the street given the amount of area it could come down in safely.
You don't murder people when they did something that might kill someone 1 out of a million times. It's insane. Have some sense of proportionality.
LisaL
(44,973 posts)Somebody far away (as far as I know, police haven't found him) was shooting up in the air to celebrate New Years.
So, it's not almost impossible and in fact had happened a number of times prior.
TampaAnimusVortex
(785 posts)I said if you compute the sq ft area that it could come down in, and divide it by the sq ft where there are people's heads, then the odds turn into 1 in a million (if that).
Again, you don’t murder people on those type of odds.
LisaL
(44,973 posts)You gotta increase those odds.
TampaAnimusVortex
(785 posts)Given that anyone might just pick up a gun and start shooting blindly into the air, its probably safer to just kill everyone in the neighbourhood.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2011/03/watch_out_for_falling_bullets.html
Jim Beard
(2,535 posts)The issue the guy has shown that he has and possibly discharge a firearm in the city not too far away from a busy store. The cops had a real reason to take out the SHOOTER.
TampaAnimusVortex
(785 posts)Most people hearing the term "Shooter" would associate him with shooting someone, which he didn't - and using the method he did (shooting strait up in the air), he almost certainly would have never hit anyone if given a thousand bullets to try.
I am more curious though as to why your bias drives you to try and paint him the same as someone who actually is targeting individuals. This is like suggesting that a cook who might make someone a pufferfish meal (which if cooked in correctly, theoretically can kill someone) is equivalent to someone who deliberately injects rat poison into a cake. It's almost like your trying to trump up the issue to rationalize killing someone... Why would you resort to violence so easily?
How about we change that biased "shooter" to a more neutral term, say "idiot"? Then the question becomes, does being an idiot warrant being murdered? I personally say no.
CherokeeDem
(3,709 posts)United States[edit]
January 1, 2015: A 43-year old man, Javier Suarez Rivera, was struck in his head and killed while watching fireworks with his family in SE Houston.[22][23]
July 4, 2013: A 7-year old boy, Brendon Mackey, was struck in the top of his head and killed while walking with his father shortly before 9 p.m. amid a large crowd prior to the fireworks display over the Swift Creek Reservoir.[24]
July 4, 2012: A 34-year woman, Michelle Packard, was struck in the head and killed while watching the fireworks with her family. The police believe the shot could have come from a mile away.[25]
January 1, 2010: A four-year-old boy, Marquel Peters, was struck by a bullet and killed inside his church The Church of God of Prophecy in Decatur, GA. It is presumed the bullet may have penetrated the roof of the church around 12:20AM.[26]
December 28, 2005: A 23-year-old U.S. Army private on leave after basic training fired a 9mm pistol into the air in celebration with friends, according to police, and one of the bullets came through a fifth-floor apartment window in the New York City borough of Queens, striking a 28-year-old mother of two in the eye. Her husband found her lifeless body moments later. The shooter had been drinking the night before and turned himself in to police the next morning when he heard the news. He was charged with second-degree manslaughter and weapons-related crimes,[27][28] and was later found guilty and sentenced to four to 12 years in prison.[29]
June 14, 1999: Arizona, A fourteen year-old girl, Shannon Smith, was struck on the top of her head by a bullet and killed while in the backyard of her home.[30] This incident resulted in Arizona enacting "Shannon's Law" in 2000, that made the discharge of a firearm into the air illegal[31]
December 31, 1994: Amy Silberman, a tourist from Boston, was killed by a falling bullet from celebratory firing while walking on the Riverwalk in the French Quarter of New Orleans, Louisiana. The Police Department there has been striving to educate the public on the danger since then, frequently making arrests for firing into the air.[32]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebratory_gunfire (Yes, I know it's Wiki)
Not impossible as you say... unlikely yes... but not impossible. These are examples of guns being fired in the air. (Most of these are not guns fired straight-up, but fired at an angle into the air, which would maintain enough velocity to kill.) Guns fired directly toward buildings and down streets are more likely to kill someone.
I find the actions of this police officer extreme but not uncalled for. If this man was shooting toward inhabited areas he needed to be stopped.
"You don't murder people when they did something that might kill someone 1 out of a million times." It is my understanding that the man was injured not killed, thankfully. I also wonder, when is the murder of one person not statistically important. It is where I come from....
TampaAnimusVortex
(785 posts)CherokeeDem
(3,709 posts)No one has claimed it wasn't difficult to kill someone this way or that it is common... just that it can and has occurred.
TampaAnimusVortex
(785 posts)What I was claiming was that the idiot shooting in the air had no reasonable expectation of killing anyone, and he most certainly wasn't deliberately targeting people by shooting once into the air. Was it stupid? Yes... Did he deserve to be run over? I seriously doubt this.
This is just more heavy handed use of force by cops we see over and over again on our news. US cops kill 70x more people than other first world countries, so its obvious this would have been handled differently in Canada or the UK.
CherokeeDem
(3,709 posts)I don't believe the police in this case followed the best course of action at all. My comments strictly concern the danger of firing a weapon randomly. No doubt the celebratory shooters never expected to harm anyone, even though some were injured or killed.... but I'm not convinced the man in the video in question was unaware of the consequence of his actions.
I have close friends who live in Scotland and Paris, France. Believe me they are appalled at the violence in the United States. Likely this would have been handled differently in Canada or Europe, but it wasn't. This country is far from civilized...
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)Happened a couple times here in phoenix
TampaAnimusVortex
(785 posts)The odds of being killed by random gunfire (especially this particular type) is FAR lower than being killed by a police officer.
The US policy kill over 70 time more people than all the other first world countries around.
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/police-kill-citizens-70-times-rate-first-world-nations/
Why anyone would want to adopt the side of those who automatically resort to killing at first opportunity, I'm not sure. I'm don't know how many of these recently released videos demonstrate how easily cops will kill whomever they run across.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)What they did in this case is no different than rolling up and shooting.
LisaL
(44,973 posts)armed with a weapon, and he shot that weapon.
TampaAnimusVortex
(785 posts)Someone who shoots randomly into the air might have a 1 in a million chance at hitting someone. You don’t murder people on a million to one chance.
DustyJoe
(849 posts)The police stopped a suicide thus saving his life.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)He is lucky that they didn't kill him.
a2liberal
(1,524 posts)This thread was brought to my attention by a jury alert, and wow! It left me wondering whether I had accidentally ended up in freeperville.
elias49
(4,259 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Yeah… It's like the crowd watching the car chase Luke Wilson's character, "Not Sure", in the movie, "Idiocracy", few crissake. 
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)DetlefK
(16,423 posts)The dose has to match exactly his size and state.
A big, agitated guy and the dose is too weak, doing nothing.
A small, exhausted guy and the dose could kill him.
Also, sheltering behind the cars would have meant that the suspect runs away and everything starts anew.
Some kind of net-cannons would be the best idea, unless the suspect is armed and has threatened suicide.
I think, running him over with a car without killing him is one of the better choices for dealing with a mentally deranged arsonist on the loose.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)1. You don't wait until the person points the gun at you, because then it is almost always too late to avoid getting shot
2. Aside from maybe the engine block and the brake pads, a rifle round, even the old black powder rifle rounds from the 1870's, will go through one side of the patrol car and out the other.
3. Tranquilizer guns are not standard issue and even if they were, do not take effect immediately, leaving a person time to act.
Using the patrol car to hit him was far more effective means of stopping the suspect with minimal danger to everyone else nearby, or would you have preferred the police shooting him, which would have almost certainly resulted in him being dead and bullets from any misses ending up who knows where?
ann---
(1,933 posts)How anyone can justify that police "method" is beyond
my understanding. How many suspects (armed or unarmed) are you
going to see run over by a ton of steel now that this officer is being
praised for his attempt at murder.
It was a mistake in judgement. Don't these police learn how to aim
their guns at a suspect's legs or torso - or somewhere to make him fall?
Why must it always be "kill, kill, kill?" It makes me want to puke.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)Last edited Wed Apr 15, 2015, 11:15 AM - Edit history (1)
NO police department in this country teaches their officers to aim at a suspects legs or shoot to wound.
1. Shooting at moving legs or arms is very hard to do; the bullet will usually go through the arm or leg and could result in an innocent bystander being injured or killed; it rarely stops the suspect; it doesn't automatically cause the suspect to stop being a threat and the average police officer only hits their target about 30-40% of the time when aiming at the torso.
2. Police are either correct in using lethal force to stop a threat, in which case the manner in which they do so really doesn't matter or they are not correct in using lethal force to stop a threat and should be prosecuted if they do so.
3. What makes you think police haven't struck suspects with cars before?
What's laughable is how little people understand the state and Federal laws governing the use of force in the United States and somehow think their uninformed opinions take precedence over what is in their state criminal codes.
mythology
(9,527 posts)A shot to the leg has a good chance of hitting the femoral artery and a shot to the arm has a good chance of hitting the brachial artery which would cause the guy to bleed out in a few minutes.
justhanginon
(3,290 posts)in those few minutes while he is "bleeding out"?
Sometimes I think some people would require that a policeman be shot at and then and only then is he allowed to shoot, that is, if he survives. These situations require split second decisions. I personally think the office was justified and made a good decision.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)From start to finish was about 9 1/2 minutes and the gunfight itself was 4 minutes. I haven't seen an exact time line, but I'd estimate Platt received a non-survivable gun shot wound between 60-90 seconds from when he climbed out of the car. He then proceeded to kill two FBI agents and badly wound 3 more before being shot to death while trying to escape in a car, suffering a total of 12 gunshot wounds.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)ann---
(1,933 posts)I am horrified that this officer still has a job and is not
being charged with attempted murder. I would hate to be
around any person like that who has no self-control and
is so easily willing to ram a ton of steel into a human being.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)....I can't believe some of the stuff being posted here today...
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)He was a loose cannon who attempted to harm and possibly kill the suspect with his car.
All others were acting with restraint.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)THe driver was telling the officer the guy with the gun was walking towards to stand down.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)... or was somehow within protocol, give us some evidence.
ann---
(1,933 posts)Who gave that cop the command to ram his vehicle into
a human being and then into a wall when it was not clear
that anyone was behind that wall who could have been
maimed or killed by that idiot officer.
I cannot believe that this method is acceptable in America.
Now I understand what the French people I met in Paris
meant when they say that Europe sees us as
"L'amérique Interdite" (Forbidden America) - I saw the film when I was there.
We are a disgrace in the eyes of the world.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)HE was telling the other officer to stand off, and he took over the situation. As I stated up stream, the chief said that it was a dangerous situation with few options.
He said a gun fight: could have resulted in bullets flying everywhere, innocent people getting hurt, or killed. Letting him walk was not an option as he was walking towards businesses where innocent citizens were, which could have resulted in a hostage situation, or worse.
GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)focused on!!! Am I right???
Oh wait.. thats total BS and one of the most pathetic distractions from the real situation I've ever read.
Go back to your job where if your boss says "can i see that invoice?" You hold it 3 feet away saying "See with your eyes not with your hands! HUR HUR.. You asked asked to see it! hur hur!"
ann---
(1,933 posts)You can even hear the horror in the officer's voice when
he sees that policeman disobeying the order and ramming
into a human being with a car. It is nauseating.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)The voice you hear is the guy driving.
ann---
(1,933 posts)dash cam video. They were shown separately and the
officer in the car who said the guy shot the rift "into the sky"
was HORRIFIED that the cop came from behind and
tried to kill the suspect.
Look at it again. You are mistaken
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)(Here, not under the original linked article.)
I'm not sure how really different it is to deliberately run a police car at someone versus shooting at them with a police revolver (or non-revolver firearm). If you want to call it 'assault with a deadly weapon' or 'intent to murder' or whatever, how is it not exactly the same thing when police shoot suspects?
I can see how, if you are also going to say the police shouldn't be shooting this guy that you can then also say they shouldn't be running him over, but if you're going to say they do have the right to shoot him, then I don't see how you can say they can't use a car, as unorthodox as that might seem. Both are deadly weapons.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Roll up and try to kill.
ann---
(1,933 posts)their police cars and aimed for his legs. Are the cops
SO bad at aiming that they have to kill every suspect
they come into contact with? American justice is violent
because we are becoming a police state and the cops
want us to believe THEY have the answers. They don't.
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)its not the real world. Better yet go observe a police training range. If you think American justice is violent then you are correct it always has been since the first law enforcement officer was murdered in 1791 in Albany Co. NY. The 1920's were the deadly years. A wounded person can just as easy kill.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)ann---
(1,933 posts)You can't be serious. Cops don't "have a right" to shoot
a suspect unless it is in self-defense. If the guy was shooting
"to the sky" then the police didn't' have the RIGHT to shoot to
kill him. They could have tried something. What you are saying
is that cops can now run their vehicles into suspects and even if
they kill them, that's ok with you. OMG - this can't be happening
in America. What a disgrace we are.
B2G
(9,766 posts)What about in the defense of innocent people who's lives are being threatened?
ann---
(1,933 posts)The guy hadn't shot anybody, shot into "the sky" and
was aiming at his own chin. So, you think it's okay
to ram a human body of a mentallly disturbed person
with a ton of steel?
OMG - just OMG.
B2G
(9,766 posts)"Cops don't "have a right" to shoot a suspect unless it is in self-defense."
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I don't say police have a 'right to shoot' a suspect. I said that cars are deadly weapons just like guns, and that people who DO think police should be able to shoot someone might as well be able to hit them with cars.
After all, this guy survived the car. It seems like most of the time when police use guns, the suspects don't survive.
But that's not at all like saying 'it's ok with me'. I'd certainly personally prefer that police not kill anyone, not even dipsticks going around firing rifles. On the other hand, if the police are going to shoot anyone, I'd certainly prefer it to be people who actually are armed and have fired their weapon in public, not just people they pretend they 'feared' were 'reaching for their waistbands'.
Takket
(21,563 posts)They say he fired his gun but when? A minute before he was run over? 15 minutes before?
Did they use a megaphone and order the guy to surrender? What sort of attempts did they make to get him to stop before running him over?
I've never heard of a cop running over someone to stop them. seems incredibly stupid. He's lucky that suspect didn't turn and fire his fun through the windshield and kill the cop. The police chief said on TV that this wasn't "standard procedure". Well if its not the cop should be disciplined.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)If someone has a gun and is shooting it... well... for the safety of others.. what was done here was necessary.
ann---
(1,933 posts)Since when is a vehicle a "weapon of choice." Only in
the mind of a psychopathic killer.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)The man was brandishing a weapon, shooting it in a residential area.
The police are well within their rights to use force.
The safety of innocents in this situation is paramount.
If he wasn't carrying and shooting a gun. .... Then different story.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)Read in my responses. But you are way off base.
ann---
(1,933 posts)if I recall the video correctly. The first officer says he shot the gun
"into the sky" - so I'm sure if he wanted t kill somebody (or himself)
he would have by then.
And, these talking heads on TV defending this cop make me laugh. They
say he "saved his life" by preventing him from committing suicide with the
gun? I was hysterical. How can you ram a ton of steel into a human and
call it "saving his life?"
Are_grits_groceries
(17,111 posts)Without the car, the only way for it to end would be for him to be talked down or he will be shot and probably killed. The rifle puts many people in danger because of its range. The cops will be on hair trigger because ANY motion that appears to be aiming the gun will draw fire.
If the cop in the car wanted to kill him, he would have gunned it and thrown him into next week. As it was, he was relatively protected and took out the suspect with enough force to stop him but not kill him. That was lucky but a better option than others.
I have been as appalled as anyone about all the killing. It is time to demilitarize the cops and bring the police and communities together. One of the problems is that neither side knows the other at all.
Would another shooting have made you happy? He had to be disarmed and it wasn't going to be a long drawn out situation. I certainly don't recommend this as SOP, but in that situation it best a lot of alternatives.
ann---
(1,933 posts)there WOULD have been a shooting. Police have used many
different methods to "talk down" a disturbed individual. Why
wasn't a taser used in this case - or tear gas.
A 2000+ lb. vehicle is a deadly weapon even in the hands of the
police. I am shocked that his officer is not being charged. If
the man had died - it would have been murder.
Action_Patrol
(845 posts)You honestly don't understand any of this. It's not a dig at you, I promise. You are simply looking at this through a fictional tv filter.
if someone is holding a gun, nobody is going to approach them with anything less than another gun. A taser doesn't always work and have you ever been near tear gas? It's pretty rough but it's not going to stop anyone. It's crowd control.
Marr
(20,317 posts)gunfight because they allowed an armed, uncooperative man who'd already been making threats and firing his weapon to just walk right into the area, I expect you'd be cursing them for not acting sooner.
And as mentioned already, tasers and tear gas are absurd suggestions in that situation. They would've been well justified in shooting him at that point, which would've almost certainly meant killing him. And that's assuming they even had rifles. If they opened up with pistols, they would've missed a hell of a lot more than they hit, sending bullets flying everywhere, potentially killing innocent people.
TampaAnimusVortex
(785 posts)Shooting in the air, while stupid has almost no chance of hitting someone unless your in some crazy dense populated area. The odds of him hitting anyone like that was 1 in a million. You don’t murder people for 1 in a million odds.
As for the threat he MIGHT had presented to cops... they get paid to put their lives on the line, they signed up knowing exactly that's what they are expected to do. Not terminate any potential threat with extreme malice before determining there was an alternate line of action.
We will never know now if they had simply pulled up and demanded he drop his weapon if he would have or if they would have had to shoot him. Shoot (or crush) first, then ask questions later in cases like this where there was no obvious and immediate threat is a HORRIBLE policy. And no, walking down the street isn't a threat - its very legal in lots of states. Shooting randomly in the air isn't the same as shooting at someone. Have some proportionality.
ann---
(1,933 posts)is not being charged with SOMETHING! My gawd! Since when is
2000+ pounds the weapon of choice to catch an obviously disturbed
individual? The officer in the video cam that filmed it was completely
shocked at the reckless behavior of that stupid officer who could have
killed that man - and others who may have been behind the wall he
ran into.
I have absolutely NO respect for the police any more - none. And, no
respect for their superiors who let them get away with attempted murder
like this.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Just saying. We have no idea how this will end. Have we heard from the Mayor? Governor?
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)Attempted vehicular homicide!
Damn, what the frig is going on over there in 'Murica?
ann---
(1,933 posts)fast becoming a police state where common sense and
prudent policing is out the window. Aim to kill - without
arrest, capture or a trial. Execution comes first here now.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)meted out by roid-pumped 'terminators'.
SO glad I don't live State-side in these 'days of dread'.
It just never stops. Day after day.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Only now the multiprocessor has replaced the vacuum-tube nightly news.
Blue_Adept
(6,399 posts)Both here and at the YouTube video itself. Too similar in too many instances at that.
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)Mowed the guy down like he was a fly on the windshield.
sorefeet
(1,241 posts)there is no way you could hit a person that hard with the thought of "just going to wound this guy a little". He had no way of knowing the person would live through the attack. Excessive force, charge the cop. He is not a hero.
My Good Babushka
(2,710 posts)They were asked to leave. The cops didn't run them over.
The police are supposed to apprehend suspects without breaking the law themselves. That is why it is a dangerous job that takes a cool head, reasoning and skill. Just because suspects act crazy, it does not license officers to act crazier.
The worst thing is, my kids see these videos coming out and are forming some very definite prejudices against law enforcement.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)and threatened to kill someone? Then what?
My Good Babushka
(2,710 posts)They were actively breaking the law at the time the police found them. Still, not run over.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)calls for unique action. It is certainly easy in our safe armchairs to judge the actions taken in a split second.
I would need to know the context of your situation better before I pass judgment.
My Good Babushka
(2,710 posts)where an officer should break the law to uphold the law. Vehicular assault is breaking the law. The police weren't issued cars for running people over and destroying property. They are supposed to have a full complement of training and tools. They are supposed to use the correct tools and reasoning to apprehend suspects. The damage they do to their reputation is taking a toll on the authority of the institution, as long as they keep defending this "by any means necessary", post-apocalyptic dystopia level of violence we are being treated to, daily.
LisaL
(44,973 posts)Are you suggesting that it would be better if cops shot the suspect dead?
My Good Babushka
(2,710 posts)then yes, he should have shot the suspect. Not driven a car over him. And not every shot has to meant to kill. He could have just as easily been killed by the car striking him. One is still proper, and one is not.
TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)That's why the officer chose to hit him with the car. He was much to far away to hit with bullets many of which would have missed and gone astray landing who knows where. Using the car was the safer option for other people at large. The moment the guy shot the gun he was an IMMEDIATE danger to the public, but the police couldn't shoot at him because he was too far away from them and had they shot at him it's inevitable that stray bullets would have gone flying who knows how far and where they would land. The officer in the car took it upon himself to immediately stop the guy by a means that was safer for everyone else though endangered and possibly injured himself... hitting anything at that speed is dangerous to the people in the car, and you can see that the windshield was bashed in and that he hit the guy at a high rate of speed.
I think that what the officer did who hit the guy with his car was heroic for doing the safest thing for others in the area including other officers knowing that what he was about to do was likely going to cause physical damage of some sort to his own self or maybe even kill his own self. Even with a seatbelt on it isn't likely that he was just fine after taking a hit like that. It doesn't take much speed when your car is hit or hits something to cause pysical damage to those in the car. When I was hit at a far less rate of speed and wearing my seatbelt at the time I still have neck, shoulder and back problems and likely always will though at the time I got out of the car under my own steam and thought I was fine.
Shooting at the guy was NOT the right thing to do at the distance they were from him which is why none of them DID shoot at him... they wouldn't be able to guarantee that all the bullets would hit him and none would go astray endangering others or that it wouldn't cause him to shoot his own loaded gun at them or anyone else.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)The cop who hit the guy with his car was acting on his own, but the police department is standing behind his action. The police chief said that "deadly force was warranted." He makes some good points.
Ugh.
romanic
(2,841 posts)but judging from the video and the details, this was justified on part of the police. The guy was armed in a residential area and firing shots; who KNOWS what this dude was planning on doing - hell he was already robbing people and businesses left and right and I realy doubt he was legal to carry that rifle.
I know all of us are on edge with the police and don't trust their actions, but for the love of God I wish some of you would stop rushing to defend criminals just to spite law enforcement.
My Good Babushka
(2,710 posts)for breaking the law and destroying property in their ham-handed attempt to apprehend a suspect, is not the same as defending a criminal. No one is saying he shouldn't have been apprehended.
LisaL
(44,973 posts)Instead he used non-lethal force. But some people are never going to be happy with anything police does.
My Good Babushka
(2,710 posts)Not driven a car over him.
Marr
(20,317 posts)If they need to stop someone, they're going to use the best tool they've got. In that situation, a car seems like a pretty good choice to me. The man was armed with a rifle. I'd be surprised if the police on hand had anything that would match it for distance-- probably just pistols and shotguns. They'd be spraying the whole area with stray rounds.
I'm no fan of police in general, but I'm not going to condemn everything they do, either. I think this cop made a reasonable choice, taking the man down while putting the fewest lives in danger.
My Good Babushka
(2,710 posts)Get out of the car an apprehend him properly. There were plenty of police on the site to do the job. Shabby, unprofessional, and he didn't know he wasn't going to injure anyone else with the car.
Marr
(20,317 posts)That's awfully easy to say, sitting in a comfortable chair.
Just pull up next to a man holding a loaded weapon-- a man who has already proved uncooperative, and arrest him like he's a shoplifter. Easy!
They were justified in using deadly force at that point, and the tool used doesn't really matter. They could've dropped a piano on his head and it would've been just as legitimate as shooting him.
My Good Babushka
(2,710 posts)that the ends justify any means. It cheapens and weakens the laws. And in the end, the legitimate authority of law enforcement.
B2G
(9,766 posts)Mollify him with some cookies and milk?
You are a hoot.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)uppityperson
(115,677 posts)except he was killed.
VScott
(774 posts)I'm critical of out of control cops and use of excessive force as much as anyone,
but given the situation I have no problem with what that cop did.
phil89
(1,043 posts)For another human being. Probably suffering mental illness.. Freeperville indeed. Nauseating.
VScott
(774 posts)At least the incident will give him a good jailhouse story to tell other inmates.
phil89
(1,043 posts)His injuries? You do understand he was almost certainly suffering mental illness, correct? Your attitude toward a tragic situation is sickening. You're a sociopath perhaps?
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)I have no problem with what that cop did.
Nobody died...not the suspect, and certainly no innocent citizens.
I would ask anybody who does have a problem with it what they would do.
What do you do when there's a guy running through the neighborhood with a gun, looking perfectly willing to shoot anybody who got in his way?
phil89
(1,043 posts)Is not post an idiotic comment dehumanizing the person, likening him to a bowling pin (so hilarious right? Like the guy had no one in his life who ever loved or cared about him?).
Secondly, I would have followed procedure if I were a cop. The cop didn't follow procedure. Pretty simple.
Third, your supposition that he looked ready to shoot anyone in his way... When he fired into the air and never pointed a gun at anyone is bizarre.
Finally, the cop was trying to kill him, so claiming that no one was killed, as if the situation was defused safely is akin to someone being lucky enough to survive a police shooting. The cops don't deserve credit for the guy luckily surviving their attack.
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)to sit on our asses and second guess what someone else SHOULD have done when we weren't there in the moment to deal with the consequences of our actions...or inactions.
I would have followed procedure if I were a cop. The cop didn't follow procedure. Pretty simple.
Sometimes things don't work out so well when cops "follow procedure". So what specific procedure did the cop not follow?
your supposition that he looked ready to shoot anyone in his way... When he fired into the air and never pointed a gun at anyone is bizarre.
Just as bizarre to suppose that he would NOT shoot anyone who got in his way. So he fired into the air. So what? If he became more desperate he might do anything. You have absolutely NO idea as to his state of mind. Neither do I, but I'm willing to imagine that he could be capable of doing anything.
Finally, the cop was trying to kill him, so claiming that no one was killed, as if the situation was defused safely is akin to someone being lucky enough to survive a police shooting. The cops don't deserve credit for the guy luckily surviving their attack.
How do you know what that cop was trying to do? Did he personally tell you what he intended to do? Or, did I miss some news conference in which the cop admitted he was trying to kill the guy? Do tell...
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)something I forgot to mention regarding the guy only shooting into the air...
There's a funny thing called "gravity".
When you fire a bullet into the air, it doesn't continue on into space. It doesn't suspend itself in mid air.
I comes down somewhere.
If the shooter is lucky, it lands in some sand or water, or someplace else where nobody will be injured or killed.
I wouldn't even mention this except for being reminded of a TV show I saw a few days ago where guys in prison were being interviewed. One of them was a man who fired off a gun into the air during an argument. Sadly, it came down and killed someone.
His 11 year old daughter.
He'll get out of prison eventually, since he didn't intend to do it.
But he'll have to live the rest of his life knowing he killed his own child.
Yeah...bullets fired into the air can actually kill someone.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)The perp is alive. He had alreqdy discharged the rifle. He was a danger. Tasers are generally not used in this situation. Deadly force was warranted. Getting hit by a car and surviving is preferable to getting shot and being dead.
madville
(7,410 posts)Who knows what the outcome could have been otherwise. He easily could have run into one of those houses and taken people hostage, started firing the gun again, etc. I think he got off lucky.
phil89
(1,043 posts)try to execute people based on what might happen, right? Makes sense to me!
madville
(7,410 posts)Had just assaulted an 11 year old boy with a pipe in a home invasion before he stole the rifle from Walmart. I'm glad they stopped him before he assaulted or killed an more innocent people.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)This guy was armed, unstable, and on a crime spree, but it seems like shooting him in the legs might have been a better choice. Jesus. And the cop smashed his own car pretty violently.
My Good Babushka
(2,710 posts)whether it be a car or a gun. Clearly, the police had other choices, like the cops in the following accounts.
People who pointed guns at officers and didn't get killed (or run over)
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)is claiming it's impossible to approach a guy with a gun with deadly force...the problem seems to be that it's impossible to know beforehand, in the heat of the moment, what the best course of action would be. Yes, it's easy to judge afterward, but not that easy before.
Some people pointed guns at cops and didn't get killed or run over.
OTOH, some cops have approached cars in a friendly manner, not suspecting that anyone in the car would have a gun, and they've been shot. Some died.
A good split second decision can send everyone away with their lives.
A bad one can turn tragic...
Calista241
(5,586 posts)A huge firefight in the middle of a neighborhood.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)I don't know what caliber the rifle was, but hunting rifles can reach out and touch people at great distances, and after traveling through numerous walls in a residential area.
The fact he had a rifle may have made the decision for the officer.
I'm certain had he had a pistol, he'd be dead.
madville
(7,410 posts)Assaulted an 11 year old boy with a pipe in a home invasion earlier that day. I can't fault the cop here, yes it was messy, but the end result justified based on all the events leading up to it.
I'm surprised the cops showed as much restraint as they did for as long as they did.