Police fatally shoot suspect in Drexel Hill
Source: philly.com
A 52-year-old Delaware County man who had posted rambling rants and violent threats against police was shot and killed by officers Tuesday as they tried to arrest him in Drexel Hill.
When officers from three departments confronted Joseph A. Pacini of Clifton Heights and ordered him to get out of his car, he instead gunned his Nissan sedan into reverse and struck a police vehicle, according to Upper Darby Police Superintendent Michael Chitwood.
Five officers then opened fire.
"The officers were in fear of their lives and did what they had to do," Chitwood said. "He threatened to kill police, threatened to kill FBI agents."
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20141231_Police_investigating_Drexel_Hill_shooting.html#QjSbjX7bvGrDEuMT.99
Read more: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20141231_Police_investigating_Drexel_Hill_shooting.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
crim son
(27,464 posts)Killing him was the best approach.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)The cops always say the driver was trying to run them over and they feared for their lives.
But I wonder how many were just trying to get the hell out of there.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)951-Riverside
(7,234 posts)________________________________________________________________
And then there is the car where they rammed an innocent man's truck and riddled it with bullets during the Dorner manhunt.
Police shooting at Redondo Beach man during Dorner manhunt was ‘reasonable mistake,’ DA says
&maxh=400&maxw=667
Officer Brian McGee acted in “an atmosphere of fear and extreme anticipation” when he purposely rammed David Perdue’s pickup truck and fired at least three shots at him on Feb. 7, 2013, mistakenly believing Dorner was at the wheel. The bullets missed Perdue, who has filed a lawsuit against the city of Torrance.
“McGee’s belief that Dorner was driving the truck was reasonable,” prosecutors said in ruling the shooting was justified.
Perdue’s attorney, Robert Sheahen, greeted the decision with disbelief. He called it “nonsense.”
“Being anxious and afraid does not justify attempting to execute a man on his way to go surfing,” Sheahen said. “It’s gibberish from the D.A.’s office covering up the buffoonery of the Torrance police.”
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)
PSPS
(13,579 posts)When officers from three departments confronted Joseph A. Pacini of Clifton Heights and ordered him to get out of his car, he instead gunned his Nissan sedan into reverse and struck a police vehicle, according to Upper Darby Police Superintendent Michael Chitwood.
Apparently, posting "rambling rants and violent threats against police" warrants dispatching the death squads now.
TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)By not getting out of his car when ordered and putting it in reverse smashing into one of the cop cars narrowly missing one of the officers he got what he intended to. He used his car as a weapon, and from his video it's clear he left the house with the intent on trying to kill police officers and expecting he'd end up dead from them having to shoot him.
I live right next door to the fitness center where this nut was acting up and heard something about it Monday night from one of the employees while out with the dog. I've seen him before though maybe in the parking lot since I cut through that lot every day all the time when I walk the dog. Might be the guy that'd been harassing my neighbors awhile ago that would sit in his car and stare at what we were doing in our yards. One of my neighbors ended up in an altercation with the guy. I'm not sure, I'll have to ask them if they think it was him.
branford
(4,462 posts)including Pacini's video
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026023358
[link:
Archae
(46,301 posts)Oh, and if shot, they should be "shot to wound" in the legs or arms.
Even though real life is NOT Hollywood.
It's painfully obvious this guy was dangerous.
He had severe mental illness that I have no doubt was exacerbated by constant exposure to Alex Jones and other far-right talk radio.
He should have been given help, but "It's not in the budget..."
951-Riverside
(7,234 posts)It doesn't matter what his mental status is, the penalty for "threatening" a police officer is death in the good all US of A. 
branford
(4,462 posts)He was shot when police were protecting themselves after they attempted to lawfully arrest him, and he responded by assaulting them with a lethal weapon, his car.
If hit by an automobile, a police officer will be just as dead or injured, regardless of whether the driver is or is not mentally ill.
951-Riverside
(7,234 posts)He "threatened" officers, he disobeyed an ORDER and so he had to be executed ...errr umm the officers had to defend themselves against the 5ton weapon that he was in possession of.
It was a tragedy and so forth but its not like officers can just run out the way or back their vehicles away, if they did that then they'd look like punks and they can't be havin' that yo' ...err ummm someone could get seriously hurt like the kids and the handicaps and the old people and such.
At the end of the day, if you disrespect a cop be prepared to get a shitload of bullets in your ass. ...errr umm Officers want to go home to their families.
branford
(4,462 posts)You are effectively arguing that it should not only be legal and permissible to forcefully resist a lawful arrest, but to actually employ lethal means against the police while doing so. Moreover, you also demand that when faced with a lethal threat, the proper procedure for police should be to run away.
That is not the law anywhere, and I believe that even you acknowledge the vast majority of the public would never countenance anything remotely close to your ideas.
LincolnsLeftHand
(43 posts)Because any rational person would understand that a public servant like a police officer should use necessary force to protect themselves from someone trying to run them over. Or perhaps you think the police should have simply let this person run them down? That's not a particularly enlightened position to take.
951-Riverside
(7,234 posts)Even if they could back off and give the guy some room or jump out of the way or just follow the guy until he runs out of gas, it would show a sign of weakness and send a message to others that its okay to disobey ORDERS and disrespect the badge.
You've gotta take out the guy to preserve your cred and keep those punk ass civilians in check.
Just how things work homeslice.
branford
(4,462 posts)The police would also have been criminally negligent if they "backed off" and "gave some room" to someone who is actively demonstrating a complete disregard for public safety and lives and attempting to injure or kill them, no less an individual like Mr. Pacini whose arrest was lawfully predicated on a citizen complaint, a professed desire and intent to harm others, and an actual video wherein he expressly stated, "There is no way that I am going to allow anyone to take my freedom away again, OK? Believe it. It's a fact. So I will immediately take out whomever attempts this on the spot. That means you'll have to kill me on the spot."
951-Riverside
(7,234 posts)Just protecting and serving, gotta get home to the family and so forth. He disrespected the badge when he made that youtube video and didnt follow an officer's ORDER so they had to kill his ass to maintain our dominance and cred plus he was mentally ill which mades him a burden on society and an undesirable so they were doing him a favor errr umm... He was in possession of a 5ton weapon that could have injured or even killed many people, his death is a tragedy but MISTER Pacini ultimately brought this on himself. No officer shows up to work wanting to kill someone and they don't take being to be put in the position of taking someone's life lightly.
*wink*
nilesobek
(1,423 posts)Ice Cube and the crunk guy. Like the video where he grabs his favorite Louisville slugger and a selected Raiders hat.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Well, except for prosecutors and they grand juries they lead by the nose.
branford
(4,462 posts)with all due respect, you really need to get out and about more. The entire country is not remotely like DU, even in liberal enclaves like NYC. You might have even noticed that conservative, law and order, pro-police Republicans just took control of Congress and control more state governments than in generations.
As to believing the police account, there should be more than sufficient forensic evidence to confirm or discount the police reports. Pacini's video threats, however, speak volumes.
LincolnsLeftHand
(43 posts)Much better than my response.
Response to LincolnsLeftHand (Reply #19)
pablo_marmol This message was self-deleted by its author.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)OldRedneck
(1,397 posts)Especially if you are a "militia member" at the Bundy ranch with a federal agent in your sights.
Right?
951-Riverside
(7,234 posts)Not sure what the moocher ranch fiasco has to do with anything but okay.
Response to OldRedneck (Reply #11)
branford This message was self-deleted by its author.
christx30
(6,241 posts)he would have gotten a visit from heavily armed and highly trained agents from the U.S. Secret Service. If he had fought them, I guarantee they would not try to sit with him and discuss anything.
whathehell
(29,034 posts)There's a continuum of force that's supposed to be used. 
branford
(4,462 posts)Your motivations are noble, but shooting to wound is "Hollywood" because it's virtually impossible to accomplish and endangers police officers and the public in real life.
Continuum of force applies to measures employed before a gun is drawn, like using mace or a taser, and to a threat that is not immediately lethal, but still non-compliant.
With respect to this particular story, how would you propose the police shoot to disable a suspect sitting behind the steering wheel of a moving car while it's being driven right at them?
whathehell
(29,034 posts)I was actually thinking of something less "imminent" than someone driving
a car into a person, something more along the lines of the Michael Brown situation
where the person is on foot and has no weapon.
branford
(4,462 posts)solely for purposes of our discussion, an individual reaching into a cruiser, attacking an officer and reaching for his weapon, would certainly be considered an immediate and deadly threat to both the officer and public warranting the use of lethal force. The real issue in the case was the basic veracity of Wilson's account.
I would also note that individuals who are unarmed are still often more than capable of presenting an immediate and very dangerous threat to officers and the public depending on the particular circumstances. Not only are a substantial number of people killed every year with just hands and feet, if you've ever witnessed a mentally unbalanced individual on drugs like meth threatening citizens and police, as I unfortunately have, you'll never again doubt that items like firearms and knives are not always required to create an immediately lethal situation.
I certainly understand and respect that people of good character and conscience would like to find alternatives to the use of lethal force by police. The unfortunate reality, however, is that suggestions like shoot to wound are unrealistic and more than likely would result in injuries to police officers and innocents as well as the suspect. I eagerly await the moment in time when police are issued phasers set to stun, but until such technology exists, we'll have to do the best we can.
olddad56
(5,732 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)The shoot to wound or disable fallacy is primarily a myth propagated by movies or television.
Police are generally taught to aim for center mass, because it's the largest target and provides the best opportunity to disable a lethal threat. A police officer should never discharge their weapon unless facing a serious and potentially lethal threat.
Even when police shoot as trained, in uncertain conditions and under stress, most shots still commonly miss, and also explains why officers fire so many shots in most encounters, often emptying their entire magazine in an effort to save their life. In most instances, aiming for an arm or leg would more often than not result a wild shot that would unnecessarily endanger other officers and innocent bystanders. Lastly, shots to the extremities can still easily and quickly prove fatal, particularly if a major vein or artery is cut.
In any event, with respect to this story, how do you shoot to disable a suspect sitting behind the steering wheel of a moving car while it's being driven right at you?
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)Then the firearm should not be fired - period. Firearms 101 - never point a gun at anything unless you intend to destroy it.
The problem is not the firearms, the problems are:
1) The off-the-charts level of violence being perpetrated in the name of "law enforcement"
2) The complete lack of accountability under the law for actions done in the name of "law enforcement".
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)So...
1) Suspect exhibits troubling behavior
2) Cop pulls weapon and points it at suspect
3) Suspect sees gun and submits without further resistance
4) Cop should shoot him anyway?
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)That cop should not be pulling the weapon unless it's needed to be used right at that moment. By pulling it, he escalates the level of violence to "lethal". And that really is a key part of the problem here, cops think that lethal force is an appropriate response to just about anything.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)Unless a taser or other non-lethal substitute is used.
"Stop OR I'll shoot" must be the correct response occasionally.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Are cops actually killing people more now than they were, say, 20 years ago? Do we even know?
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)that is one of the problems
What I can say is that cop behaviors that would once have been extremely scandalous are now not only not penalized, but are actually defended by police departments, police unions, and their political supporters.
When they're caught on video committing felony assaults and even murders, these things are hand-waved away by "followed protocol" "normal procedure" and similar wishy-washy nonsense.
If this is today's protocol and procedure - which police department after police department insists it is - then I feel very safe in concluding that the violence is off the charts.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)But the violent crime rate as a whole is 1/3 what it was 20 years ago. And police shootings of minorities actually makes the news now rather than just being ignored like it was 20 years ago.
I have trouble believing things are worse now than they were when I was a teenager, personally.
TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)or serious bodily harm to themselves or anyone else. Otherwise there's no reason to draw the gun at all. Threatening with a gun, warning shots and shooting to maim isn't legal for civilians or the police. And that's as it should be.
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)The suspect narrowly missed an officer on scene when he rammed into the police car. That can be considered attempted murder.
If this is the way it happened it's hard to find fault in the actions of the police officers.
Not every police shooting is a bad one
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)We're well past the point where they do not deserve the benefit of the doubt nor any presumption of truth on the part of cops' statements.
Their excuse for murdering Garner was that he was "resisting arrest". Did you see any resistance going on during the fatal assault?
Cops lie. Routinely. They lie in reports, they lie to the press, they lie in court.
branford
(4,462 posts)The police are no exception, but no worse than the public at large. I would similarly note that suspects and witnesses also lie, and since I'm an attorney and will give the benefit to many criminal defense counsel, I will state that they are often selective and misleading with the facts at their disposal.
In any event, in this instance and before a full investigation, we have more than just the account of multiple officers. We have the decedent's automobile and the damaged police cruiser as well as a video from Pacini indicating a desire and intent to harm police officers and to violently resist all attempts to take him into custody.
You really don't need to just believe the police. We have an actual recording of Pacini and the weapon he employed to attack the police in evidence.
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)The police say is not conducive to a successful movement. There are times when they are in the right and pretending otherwise is foolish
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)I'm saying that if they make an assertion they need to back it with evidence, because the benefit of the doubt has been destroyed by a longstanding pattern of lies and the attitude of sedition represented by the "Thin Blue Line".
branford
(4,462 posts)You mean like Pacini's car, the damaged police cruiser, his video threatening law enforcement and other social media postings exclaiming that he will not be taken without violence, and the citizen complaint that brought Pancini to the attention of authorities.
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)Where there's evidence to justify the action, then it is acceptable. However, the words of police officers alone are insufficient as evidence.