(CNN)The family of a Mexican national fatally shot by police in Pasco, Washington, has filed a $25 million claim against the city alleging that three officers killed the unarmed man "execution style."
Antonio Zambrano-Montes, 35, was shot by police Tuesday after he allegedly hurled rocks at vehicles and Pasco officers.
The city and the police department weren't commenting on the claim, Pasco City Manager Dave Zabell said Saturday.
The case is attracting attention because a video posted on YouTube shows Zambrano running across a street with police in pursuit before he was fatally shot. The shooting has sparked local protests and anger at what some say is another example of police brutality and excessive force against an unarmed man who is a minority.
Zambrano-Montes' widow, Teresa De Jesus Meraz Ruiz, 32, and the couple's two minor daughters accused three Pasco officers in "the murder" of Zambrano-Montes, according to the claim filed Friday.
One officer, Ryan Flanagan, "has a prior history of official misconduct in civil rights matters," the claim alleges. The other two officers are Adam Wright and Adrian Alaniz, the claim said.
The three officers are on paid administrative leave; Zabell said the city wouldn't comment on the accusations against them.
Flanagan is a nine-year veteran; Wright, a firearms instructor with eight years' experience; and Alaniz, an officer with two years on the job, officials said.
Mexican diplomat concerned
Meanwhile, the Mexican consul in Seattle, Eduardo Baca, wrote a letter Thursday to Police Chief Robert Metzger expressing "deep concern over the unwarranted use of lethal force against an unarmed Mexican national by police officers."
Baca asked for a thorough investigation "in accordance with the Vienna Convention on Consular Affairs provision, to which both Mexico and the United States are parties."
Read consul's letter
On Friday, Metzger wrote a letter to Baca stating that the Pasco department and other law agencies are investigating "the circumstances surrounding the incident."
When a Tri-City Special Investigations Unit completes its inquiry, the report will be forwarded to the Franklin County Prosecutor's Office, Metzger wrote.
Police have alleged that Zambrano-Montes was throwing rocks at cars and trucks when he was confronted by officers. Officers attempted "voice commands and low level force," and used a Taser, police said, but those efforts were unsuccessful.
Read chief's reply
After two officers were struck with rocks -- at least one of them as large as a softball -- police said the officers resorted to deadly force.
Didn't understand English
Zambrano-Montes's family have told reporters he wouldn't have been able to understand the commands.
"He didn't understand English and they were talking to him in English," one cousin said. "Why not get a Hispanic officer?"
The incident began, according to the claim, on Tuesday about 5 p.m. when Zambrano-Montes was suspected of throwing rocks.
A very brief encounter occurred between Zambrano-Montes and police, "during which the officers may have tried to taser" him, the claim said.
Zambrano-Montes separated from the officer and walked away from them in the crosswalk, the claim said.
"He had his back to the officers," the claim said. "At this point, the officers started shooting at Mr. Zambrano-Montes.
"After Mr. Zambrano-Montes reached the other side of the street and got on the sidewalk, he continued to walk away from the officers with his hands out where they could be seen, again showing that he had no knife, no gun or nothing else in his hands that would cause a threat to the three officers who were then lined up on the sidewalk behind ... Antonio Zambrano-Montes," the claim alleges.
"As Mr. Zambrano-Montes turned toward the officers, all three officers fired multiple rounds, killing Antonio Zambrano-Montes on the sidewalk in front of numerous businesses," the claim alleges.
"At the time that he was shot and killed, execution style, by the three officers named herein, in broad daylight, and with no knife or firearm in his hands, and for the conduct of throwing rocks at an earlier time, Mr. Zambrano-Montes posed no danger to the three officers, such that they were justified in the use of deadly force..." the claim said.
The claim accuses the police of assault, battery, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, wrongful death and civil rights violations.
Police-involved shootings
The claim said the incident was the third fatal shooting by a Pasco officer "in a very short period of time," and accused the city of "retaining officers who had a proven history of violation of civil rights against the Latino/Hispanic community" and "allowing and fostering overt racial (animus) towards the Hispanic/Latino community within the Pasco Police Department."
Zambrano-Montes's shooting death was the fourth fatal officer-involved shooting in Pasco in the past seven months, said city spokesman Jon Funfar. One of those shootings, however, involved a deputy from Benton County, although Pasco is in Franklin County, Funfar said. According to the Tri-City Herald, officers were cleared in the other three shootings.
The coroner said his office would conduct a separate inquest in the Zambrano-Montes case with six community members, once the law enforcement investigation is complete.
The family's attorney, George Trejo, said supporters were scheduled to march Saturday from a park to City Hall and the police department.
On Wednesday, about 100 protesters marched outside Pasco City Hall, with some chanting "It was only a rock," CNN affiliate KEPR reported.
The shooting comes in a period of strained police-community relations following the police-involved deaths last summer of Eric Garner, 43, on Staten Island in New York and Michael Brown, 18, in Ferguson, Missouri.
The medical examiner ruled Garner's July 17 death a homicide due to compression of his neck and chest when he was taken down by an officer using a chokehold. His death sparked street protests, a review of police procedures and calls for a federal civil rights investigation. A grand jury declined to prosecute Officer Daniel Pantaleo in the case.
A few weeks later, Ferguson police Officer Darren Wilson shot Brown after an altercation in the street.
The death of Brown, who was unarmed, thrust into the forefront the issue of law enforcement's use of deadly force. A grand jury declined to prosecute Wilson, a decision that led to national demonstrations.
Again, no weapon. These cops were in so much danger!
Medium of Death wrote: The video he turns round with his arms facing forward at hip height. Could have been a gun for all the pursuing officers knew.
If he didn't want to get shot maybe he shouldn't have thrown rocks at police cars or ran away from the police.
"After Mr. Zambrano-Montes reached the other side of the street and got on the sidewalk, he continued to walk away from the officers with his hands out where they could be seen, again showing that he had no knife, no gun or nothing else in his hands that would cause a threat to the three officers who were then lined up on the sidewalk behind ... Antonio Zambrano-Montes," the claim alleges.
You should read more. Also, throwing rocks does not give somebody the right to use deadly force. I expected this argument, but holy gak, first post?
sirlynchmob wrote:I thought you were going with the cops in madison AL, who paralyze a man. But at least this cop got arrested and needs bail money.
Madison, AL– Madison police officer Eric Parker is facing charges of third-degree assault after brutally attacking a 57-year-old man who could not understand the officer’s instructions due to a language barrier. and was left hospitalized on the morning of Friday, February 6.
The run in with Parker left this innocent man hospitalized on the morning of Friday, February 6.
The Indian citizen, Sureshbhai Patel, had just come to the United States about a week prior to the incident to help his son, Chirag Patel, and his wife care for their new baby. Sureshbhai Patel was staying with them at their new house in Madison so Chirag could pursue his master’s degree in electrical engineering. Each morning, the grandfather would take a walk, which apparently threatened one of the neighbors.
The neighbor called the police and described the gentleman as, “a skinny black guy, he’s got a toboggan on, he’s really skinny.” The Zimmerman-like neighbor told the operator that he was following him, as he was supposed to be on his way to work. However, he was apparently so threatened with this peaceful grandfather out taking a morning stroll, that he didn’t want to leave his wife home alone.
Eric Parker and his trainee Andrew Slaughter arrived at the scene around 8 am. What happened next, left this innocent man paralyzed. The attack was caught on dash cam.
Medium of Death wrote: The video he turns round with his arms facing forward at hip height. Could have been a gun for all the pursuing officers knew.
If he didn't want to get shot maybe he shouldn't have thrown rocks at police cars or ran away from the police.
"After Mr. Zambrano-Montes reached the other side of the street and got on the sidewalk, he continued to walk away from the officers with his hands out where they could be seen, again showing that he had no knife, no gun or nothing else in his hands that would cause a threat to the three officers who were then lined up on the sidewalk behind ... Antonio Zambrano-Montes," the claim alleges.
*Throw Rocks at officers*
*SURPRISED when attacked by Officers*
When an officer tells you to get down, you get down, hands behind head, if the arrest is unlawful, you fight it later.
hotsauceman1 wrote: *Throw Rocks at officers*
*SURPRISED when attacked by Officers*
When an officer tells you to get down, you get down, hands behind head, if the arrest is unlawful, you fight it later.
Holy crap, did anybody read anything?
"He didn't understand English and they were talking to him in English," one cousin said. "Why not get a Hispanic officer?"
hotsauceman1 wrote: *Throw Rocks at officers*
*SURPRISED when attacked by Officers*
When an officer tells you to get down, you get down, hands behind head, if the arrest is unlawful, you fight it later.
Holy crap, did anybody read anything?
"He didn't understand English and they were talking to him in English," one cousin said. "Why not get a Hispanic officer?"
So... while he's throwing rocks, they're supposed to call dispatch, find an officer who can speak spanish, and wait around for a half hour for him to drive over from wherever he's currently located to handle the situation? When the situation pretty much consists of "stop throwing large rocks at people with guns"?
Your just anti-police baiting like you do in every thread. You haven't even watched the clip of him leading up to him getting shot.
Criticism of the police can be justified but i don't really see anything that went terribly wrong here. The outcome isn't surprising.
I also think the language barrier is BS. If you're in another country and the police shout and point guns at you it would probably be prudent to put your hands up or lie down.
Cops might have screwed up on this one, though I'll wait till more info comes out before I accuse someone of murder.
As MoD said, if you watch the video, it seems like the dude turns toward the cops and reaches for his belt. Then again, it's hard to see, so I'm not sure. In any case, it's sad the man is dead.
hotsauceman1 wrote: *Throw Rocks at officers*
*SURPRISED when attacked by Officers*
When an officer tells you to get down, you get down, hands behind head, if the arrest is unlawful, you fight it later.
Holy crap, did anybody read anything?
"He didn't understand English and they were talking to him in English," one cousin said. "Why not get a Hispanic officer?"
Did you? It said in the article that the man had had encounters with the police in the past and was arrested on at least one occasion. Do you honestly believe that, upon encountering 3 police officers during a similar situation to the one in which he was previously arrested, this man didn't understand protocol?
Medium of Death wrote: Your just anti-police baiting like you do in every thread. You haven't even watched the clip of him leading up to him getting shot.
Criticism of the police can be justified but i don't really see anything that went terribly wrong here. The outcome isn't surprising.
I also think the language barrier is BS. If you're in another country and the police shout and point guns at you it would probably be prudent to put your hands up or lie down.
It's sad when this is considered the norm. Where cops can freely execute people by fireing squads and it is deemed as not only the norm, but the rational thing to do. It's sad how many people think the police escalating the violence when it's not called for, is now the norm and accepted.
These bloodthirsty cops were out for blood. They chose this poor man out of the crowd, while he was just throwing softball sized rocks at passing vehicles. Then this 35 year old man came upon an insurmountable language barrier and could not overcome it, so sensibly decided to smash the barrier with more rocks. The cops, looking to fill their kill-quota, then exhausted all non-lethal techniques available, to cover their butts in the inevitable shitstorm that follows a police shooting, lethal or nonlethal. They even put themselves in front of the flying rocks, thrown by a 35 year old man, to justify their use of force. They then used lethal force.
Medium of Death wrote: Your just anti-police baiting like you do in every thread. You haven't even watched the clip of him leading up to him getting shot.
Criticism of the police can be justified but i don't really see anything that went terribly wrong here. The outcome isn't surprising.
I also think the language barrier is BS. If you're in another country and the police shout and point guns at you it would probably be prudent to put your hands up or lie down.
It's sad when this is considered the norm. Where cops can freely execute people by fireing squads and it is deemed as not only the norm, but the rational thing to do. It's sad how many people think the police escalating the violence when it's not called for, is now the norm and accepted.
Firing squads by the po po is the norm?
Dude... pass me what you're having, 'cuz that's cray-cray man.
Guy throws rocks as large as softballs at cars, trucks, and then police. He then gets shot. I don't see the problem here. He could've killed multiple people! Thank god he was removed from the gene pool.
Medium of Death wrote: Your just anti-police baiting like you do in every thread. You haven't even watched the clip of him leading up to him getting shot.
Criticism of the police can be justified but i don't really see anything that went terribly wrong here. The outcome isn't surprising.
I also think the language barrier is BS. If you're in another country and the police shout and point guns at you it would probably be prudent to put your hands up or lie down.
It's sad when this is considered the norm. Where cops can freely execute people by fireing squads and it is deemed as not only the norm, but the rational thing to do. It's sad how many people think the police escalating the violence when it's not called for, is now the norm and accepted.
It's sad when this is considered the norm. Where cops can freely execute people by fireing squads and it is deemed as not only the norm, but the rational thing to do. It's sad how many people think the police escalating the violence when it's not called for, is now the norm and accepted.
Medium of Death wrote: Your just anti-police baiting like you do in every thread. You haven't even watched the clip of him leading up to him getting shot.
Criticism of the police can be justified but i don't really see anything that went terribly wrong here. The outcome isn't surprising.
I also think the language barrier is BS. If you're in another country and the police shout and point guns at you it would probably be prudent to put your hands up or lie down.
It's sad when this is considered the norm. Where cops can freely execute people by fireing squads and it is deemed as not only the norm, but the rational thing to do. It's sad how many people think the police escalating the violence when it's not called for, is now the norm and accepted.
Medium of Death wrote: Your just anti-police baiting like you do in every thread. You haven't even watched the clip of him leading up to him getting shot.
Criticism of the police can be justified but i don't really see anything that went terribly wrong here. The outcome isn't surprising.
I also think the language barrier is BS. If you're in another country and the police shout and point guns at you it would probably be prudent to put your hands up or lie down.
I am not anti-police baiting. I am pointing out the fact that the police decided to use deadly force against a man who was unarmed. I like that you say that "criticism of the police can be justified" but then attempt to bash me for criticizing them. I did watch the clip. In the clip, he was attempting to flee, clearly with nothing in his hands then turned around.
hotsauceman1 wrote: *Throw Rocks at officers*
*SURPRISED when attacked by Officers*
When an officer tells you to get down, you get down, hands behind head, if the arrest is unlawful, you fight it later.
Holy crap, did anybody read anything?
"He didn't understand English and they were talking to him in English," one cousin said. "Why not get a Hispanic officer?"
So... while he's throwing rocks, they're supposed to call dispatch, find an officer who can speak spanish, and wait around for a half hour for him to drive over from wherever he's currently located to handle the situation? When the situation pretty much consists of "stop throwing large rocks at people with guns"?
Yeah, that's going to get my sympathy.
3 men cannot stop 1 man from throwing rocks without firing a weapon at him. Clearly, this is a calm and normal reaction. I mean, they could have tried to subdue the man, since it is 3 on 1. Then they could have called for an Officer who speaks spanish to come and talk him while he is in custody. But screw that, he is 30 minutes away! Lets smoke him!
It's sad when this is considered the norm. Where cops can freely execute people by fireing squads and it is deemed as not only the norm, but the rational thing to do. It's sad how many people think the police escalating the violence when it's not called for, is now the norm and accepted.
Do you have any evidence for the claims you make?
Did you not read the post I replied to?
i don't really see anything that went terribly wrong here. The outcome isn't surprising.
This guy clearly see's the police actions as the norm, and accepts it's outcome. And as you need further evidence, I would guess you also see this as the norm and acceptable. You two clearly prove the claims I made.
However, it also includes the number of officers who were involved in homicides of felons: 631 officers. The number of officers is higher than the number of homicide victims because 121 victims, or 28.4 percent of all 2012 victims, were shot by multiple officers when they died
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm all for exposing officers who were in the wrong, but I'm not sure this one is right. Language barrier or not, don't throw rocks at cops is pretty self explanatory. Go to somewhere like Madrid or Bangkok and throw rocks at the cops. Call me after you're arrested or worse.
hotsauceman1 wrote: *Throw Rocks at officers* *SURPRISED when attacked by Officers* When an officer tells you to get down, you get down, hands behind head, if the arrest is unlawful, you fight it later.
So throwing rocks at police is now a valid reason for being shot to death? You guys are barbaric. Even Iran has better human rights than that. Throwing rocks at police is of course a sure way to get fined or arrested, but killed?
I'm all for exposing officers who were in the wrong, but I'm not sure this one is right. Language barrier or not, don't throw rocks at cops is pretty self explanatory. Go to somewhere like Madrid or Bangkok and throw rocks at the cops. Call me after you're arrested or worse.
I am pretty sure no one has been killed in Madrid for throwing stuff at police at least since the dictator Franco died.
hotsauceman1 wrote: *Throw Rocks at officers*
*SURPRISED when attacked by Officers*
When an officer tells you to get down, you get down, hands behind head, if the arrest is unlawful, you fight it later.
So throwing rocks at police is now a valid reason for being shot to death? You guys are barbaric. Even Iran has better human rights than that.
Throwing rocks at police is of course a sure way to get fined or arrested, but killed?
Assaulting a police officer or any private citizen can result in acts of lawful self defense that leave the person who committed the assault dead. That's been true for a few centuries here in the US. The onus is not on the cops or private citizen who is being assaulted with thrown rocks to resolve the situation peacefully, the onus is on the rock thrower to not assault people with lethal implements. You can be killed or incapacitated by a thrown rock, it's a clear cut case of somebody presenting a reasonable imminent threat of bodily harm which gives anyone, cop or citizen, the lawful right to defend himself/herself with lethal force.
If somebody chooses to play stupid games (such as chucking rocks at people/cops) they tend to win stupid prizes (such as being shot to death).
TheCustomLime wrote: And it wasn't the rock throwing either that got him shot I believe. It was how he reached for his waistband.
That is an even better reason. So as soon as someone gets his hands near his waist you can kill him? Ridiculous. You can not kill someone on the possibility he just might be about to take out a gun in front of a whole lot of police guys aiming weapons at him. It is especially slowed since he was running away and clearly trying to avoid confrontation. From all this shootings, I gather US police are little better than murderous armed thugs that can shoot anyone on sight and get away with it. This does not happen in other countries. Police should only shoot when they can actually see a gun, not on the suspicion a suspect might possibly be reaching for one.
hotsauceman1 wrote: *Throw Rocks at officers* *SURPRISED when attacked by Officers* When an officer tells you to get down, you get down, hands behind head, if the arrest is unlawful, you fight it later.
So throwing rocks at police is now a valid reason for being shot to death? You guys are barbaric. Even Iran has better human rights than that. Throwing rocks at police is of course a sure way to get fined or arrested, but killed?
Assaulting a police officer or any private citizen can result in acts of lawful self defense that leave the person who committed the assault dead. That's been true for a few centuries here in the US. The onus is not on the cops or private citizen who is being assaulted with thrown rocks to resolve the situation peacefully, the onus is on the rock thrower to not assault people with lethal implements. You can be killed or incapacitated by a thrown rock, it's a clear cut case of somebody presenting a reasonable imminent threat of bodily harm which gives anyone, cop or citizen, the lawful right to defend himself/herself with lethal force.
So hitting someone in the face or throwing a rock at someone is in the US a legal ground for killing someone? I have a hard time believing that, but if it is true, the US truly wins an award for the single-most barbaric place on earth (after North Korea). And where are the borders to it? What exactly constitutes a "reasonable threat of bodily harm"? I think that would be rather subjective.
TheCustomLime wrote: Rocks can kill people, you know. And it wasn't the rock throwing either that got him shot I believe. It was how he reached for his waistband.
Reaching for your waistband has been shown time and time again to be a criminal offense. Especially when there is no weapon there and said person does not draw a weapon, which can clearly be seen. Now, the "hindsight 20/20" argument is going to get thrown around. Then, somebody will mention that if they had waited another 2-3 seconds or waited until they saw a weapon, a human being would be alive. But, alas, he was a fool who deserved to die. For throwing rocks.
TheCustomLime wrote: And it wasn't the rock throwing either that got him shot I believe. It was how he reached for his waistband.
That is an even better reason. So as soon as someone gets his hands near his waist you can kill him? Ridiculous. You can not kill someone on the possibility he just might be about to take out a gun in front of a whole lot of police guys aiming weapons at him. It is especially slowed since he was running away and clearly trying to avoid confrontation. From all this shootings, I gather US police are little better than murderous armed thugs that can shoot anyone on sight and get away with it. This does not happen in other countries. Police should only shoot when they can actually see a gun, not on the suspicion a suspect might possibly be reaching for one.
I don't think you could find a single police department in any country in the world that limits it's officers to only being able to shoot criminals or suspects if they're armed with firearms. Different locales have different laws and different departments have different procedures and rules of engagement but you don't have to have a gun in your hand for police to have justification for shooting you.
If a person came into my neighborhood and started throwing rocks at me or my neighbors they'd likely get shot and none of us are cops.
hotsauceman1 wrote: *Throw Rocks at officers*
*SURPRISED when attacked by Officers*
When an officer tells you to get down, you get down, hands behind head, if the arrest is unlawful, you fight it later.
So throwing rocks at police is now a valid reason for being shot to death? You guys are barbaric. Even Iran has better human rights than that.
Throwing rocks at police is of course a sure way to get fined or arrested, but killed?
I must be reading this wrong, but I don't believe anyone actually said that. Hotsauce, and others, are pointing out that if you act aggressively towards police that you shouldn't be surprised if they are aggressive in return, not that any form of resistance necessitates a lethal response on the part of the police. And watching this video, it seems like the officers first response was to let off warning shot and to attempt to tazer the man first. It only seems that they went for the lethal option after the man turned around and moved his hands to his waist in a manner that at least mimics the drawing of a firearm. Now, the video is gak and I can't really say, so I could be wrong and they might have just plugged the poor guy for stupid reasons, but to take someones lack of surprise for a vote of assent towards using lethal force against any and all uncooperative individual (or someone who throws rocks, in this case) seems wrong, and slightly unfair.
EDIT: Scratch that, apparently someone did make that argument, or something similar to that before I submitted. Anyway, no, it isnt legal to shoot someone for throwing rocks at you unless they're seem to be making a concerted effort to do you extreme bodily harm and you have no reasonably means of escape or to attempt to do so would increase you chance of being harmed. At least that's how I understand it. In any case, it certainly wouldn't be legal to run them down and shoot them, not for a private citizen. Police? Different story, and varies between situations. As far as the legality of shooting someone who appears to be reaching for a gun, no vlue if a coo can actually do that. I know I can't unless the dude is in my house and I have a valid reason to believe he means myself or my family harm. Maybe if I were on the steet, but that would be iffy.
hotsauceman1 wrote: *Throw Rocks at officers*
*SURPRISED when attacked by Officers*
When an officer tells you to get down, you get down, hands behind head, if the arrest is unlawful, you fight it later.
So throwing rocks at police is now a valid reason for being shot to death? You guys are barbaric. Even Iran has better human rights than that.
Throwing rocks at police is of course a sure way to get fined or arrested, but killed?
Assaulting a police officer or any private citizen can result in acts of lawful self defense that leave the person who committed the assault dead. That's been true for a few centuries here in the US. The onus is not on the cops or private citizen who is being assaulted with thrown rocks to resolve the situation peacefully, the onus is on the rock thrower to not assault people with lethal implements. You can be killed or incapacitated by a thrown rock, it's a clear cut case of somebody presenting a reasonable imminent threat of bodily harm which gives anyone, cop or citizen, the lawful right to defend himself/herself with lethal force.
So hitting someone in the face or throwing a rock at someone is in the US a legal ground for killing someone? I have a hard time believing that, but if it is true, the US truly wins an award for the single-most barbaric place on earth (after North Korea). And where are the borders to it? What exactly constitutes a "reasonable threat of bodily harm"? I think that would be rather subjective.
A rock can constitute a deadly weapon and is absolutely a case for self defense. I wouldn't say it gives full grounds to kill someone, but someone trying to brain you with a large rock is definitely considered assault with a deadly weapon.
Hell, people have been using slingshots to kill people for ages.
After two officers were struck with rocks -- at least one of them as large as a softball
So, the man was throwing deadly objects at the police officers, then fled from them. As they approached him with weapons drawn, he reaches for his waist, turns, and raises his arms up, at which point they opened fire.
Firstly, if you think that the rocks are not dangerous, why don't you go let a friend chuck some softball sized rocks at you. Secondly, the man put himself into a situation where the police had no choice but to respond with deadly force. Those here who are saying that the police acted improperly, have made it very clear that they have never received any training in handgun use in situations like this.
I just spend 2 weeks undergoing combat training for these exact types of situations, and let me tell you what. You don't even have seconds to react when faced with the possibility of lethal force. Anyone who says otherwise, well their idiots. The officers used proper techniques of escalation of force in this matter.
They did not just start opening fire at him the second he started tossing rocks. They used verbal techniques in an effort to get him to stop. That did not work. They pursued the man when he fled, even then not opening fire. Only when the man had a rapid change in behavior, and made body movements that could very easily be taken for drawing a weapon and bringing it to bear, did they use deadly force. Watch the video, the man is running away, then he lowers his hands to his waist, turns, lifts his hands bringing them together, and drops his knees, almost as if he was taking a shooters stance.
This is a proper use of escalation of force. Did the man have opportunity? Yes. Did he have intent? He had already proved he was trying to hurt the officers. Did he have the means? The officers had a reasonable expectation that he did. Those are the three things that you need to piece together before you pull that trigger.
The man who was shot put himself into the grave. He could have avoided it any number of ways. He could have not thrown dangerous objects at police officers. He could have not ran (language barrier is BS. EVERYONE knows that you shouldn't run from the police, ESPECIALLY after you were trying to hurt them. He could have stopped running, and just lifted his arms in a clear manner then would not have been confused as if he was reaching for a weapon. Every choice that the man made led to his death.
hotsauceman1 wrote: *Throw Rocks at officers* *SURPRISED when attacked by Officers* When an officer tells you to get down, you get down, hands behind head, if the arrest is unlawful, you fight it later.
So throwing rocks at police is now a valid reason for being shot to death? You guys are barbaric. Even Iran has better human rights than that. Throwing rocks at police is of course a sure way to get fined or arrested, but killed?
I must be reading this wrong, but I don't believe anyone actually said that. Hotsauce, and others, are pointing out that if you act aggressively towards police that you shouldn't be surprised if they are aggressive in return,
Than how is the police any better than armed thugs? Police is not supposed to de-escalate, not to act agressively. Police should only act agressively if a suspect is clearly threatening the life of a policeman or bystander.
Stonebeard wrote: not that any form of resistance necessitates a lethal response on the part of the police. And watching this video, it seems like the officers first response was to let off warning shot and to attempt to tazer the man first. It only seems that they went for the lethal option after the man turned around and moved his hands to his waist in a manner that at least mimics the drawing of a firearm. Now, the video is gak and I can't really say, so I could be wrong and they might have just plugged the poor guy for stupid reasons, but to take someones lack of surprise for a vote of assent towards using lethal force against any and all uncooperative individual (or someone who throws rocks, in this case) seems wrong, and slightly unfair.
How was it reasonable for the officers to believe the man was going to pull a gun on them? Not everyone who moves his hands in the general direction of his waist is going to pull out a gun. Police should have a more reasonable suspicion that the suspect is going to pull a gun on them, and only open fire when presented with a clear threat to their lifes. That is how it works in the Netherlands. Dutch police is only allowed to use lethal force when the suspect is clearly threatening their lifes, not because they think the suspect could possibly be about to do that.
After two officers were struck with rocks -- at least one of them as large as a softball
So, the man was throwing deadly objects at the police officers, then fled from them.
Deadly objects? Was the officer struck killed? No? Than it was not a deadly object. A rock can potentially be a deadly object, but pretty much any object can be, so that is not saying much.
hotsauceman1 wrote: *Throw Rocks at officers*
*SURPRISED when attacked by Officers*
When an officer tells you to get down, you get down, hands behind head, if the arrest is unlawful, you fight it later.
So throwing rocks at police is now a valid reason for being shot to death? You guys are barbaric. Even Iran has better human rights than that.
Throwing rocks at police is of course a sure way to get fined or arrested, but killed?
I must be reading this wrong, but I don't believe anyone actually said that. Hotsauce, and others, are pointing out that if you act aggressively towards police that you shouldn't be surprised if they are aggressive in return,
Than how is the police any better than armed thugs? Police is not supposed to de-escalate, not to act agressively. Police should only act agressively if a suspect is clearly threatening the life of a policeman or bystander.
Stonebeard wrote: not that any form of resistance necessitates a lethal response on the part of the police. And watching this video, it seems like the officers first response was to let off warning shot and to attempt to tazer the man first. It only seems that they went for the lethal option after the man turned around and moved his hands to his waist in a manner that at least mimics the drawing of a firearm. Now, the video is gak and I can't really say, so I could be wrong and they might have just plugged the poor guy for stupid reasons, but to take someones lack of surprise for a vote of assent towards using lethal force against any and all uncooperative individual (or someone who throws rocks, in this case) seems wrong, and slightly unfair.
How was it reasonable for the officers to believe the man was going to pull a gun on them? Not everyone who moves his hands in the general direction of his waist is going to pull out a gun. Police should have a more reasonable suspicion that the suspect is going to pull a gun on them, and only open fire when presented with a clear threat to their lifes.
That is how it works in the Netherlands. Dutch police is only allowed to use lethal force when the suspect is clearly threatening their lifes, not because they think the suspect could possibly be about to do that.
After two officers were struck with rocks -- at least one of them as large as a softball
So, the man was throwing deadly objects at the police officers, then fled from them.
Deadly objects? Was the officer struck killed? No? Than it was not a deadly object. A rock can potentially be a deadly object, but pretty much any object can be, so that is not saying much.
How many times are men shot, but not killed? Would you say bullets are not deadly objects? How many people are stabbed and live? Are knives not deadly objects? Put your strawman down.
hotsauceman1 wrote: *Throw Rocks at officers* *SURPRISED when attacked by Officers* When an officer tells you to get down, you get down, hands behind head, if the arrest is unlawful, you fight it later.
So throwing rocks at police is now a valid reason for being shot to death? You guys are barbaric. Even Iran has better human rights than that. Throwing rocks at police is of course a sure way to get fined or arrested, but killed?
I must be reading this wrong, but I don't believe anyone actually said that. Hotsauce, and others, are pointing out that if you act aggressively towards police that you shouldn't be surprised if they are aggressive in return,
Than how is the police any better than armed thugs? Police is not supposed to de-escalate, not to act agressively. Police should only act agressively if a suspect is clearly threatening the life of a policeman or bystander.
Stonebeard wrote: not that any form of resistance necessitates a lethal response on the part of the police. And watching this video, it seems like the officers first response was to let off warning shot and to attempt to tazer the man first. It only seems that they went for the lethal option after the man turned around and moved his hands to his waist in a manner that at least mimics the drawing of a firearm. Now, the video is gak and I can't really say, so I could be wrong and they might have just plugged the poor guy for stupid reasons, but to take someones lack of surprise for a vote of assent towards using lethal force against any and all uncooperative individual (or someone who throws rocks, in this case) seems wrong, and slightly unfair.
How was it reasonable for the officers to believe the man was going to pull a gun on them? Not everyone who moves his hands in the general direction of his waist is going to pull out a gun. Police should have a more reasonable suspicion that the suspect is going to pull a gun on them, and only open fire when presented with a clear threat to their lifes. That is how it works in the Netherlands. Dutch police is only allowed to use lethal force when the suspect is clearly threatening their lifes, not because they think the suspect could possibly be about to do that.
After two officers were struck with rocks -- at least one of them as large as a softball
So, the man was throwing deadly objects at the police officers, then fled from them.
Deadly objects? Was the officer struck killed? No? Than it was not a deadly object. A rock can potentially be a deadly object, but pretty much any object can be, so that is not saying much.
How many times are men shot, but not killed? Would you say bullets are not deadly objects? How many people are stabbed and live? Are knives not deadly objects? Put your strawman down.
There are gradations of 'deadliness' Shooting or stabbing someone is far more likely to result in dead than throwing a rock at someone is.
Also, I did not clearly see the guy reaching for his waistband. He just turns around, brings his arms in front of him (likely to show he has nothing in them) and the police shoots him. From the video I can see clearly he his not pulling anything from his waistband. It is broad daylight, the polices is standing about 2 meters away from the suspect. Couldn't they see he wasn't carrying anything in his hands? Is American police that blind? Or are American guns invisible?
Doesn't matter. It can still cause deadly harm. And why don't you read the rest of my post. I did not in anyways say that simply throwing rocks was a justification of using deadly force. It was the rest of the mans actions. Why don't you explain how my break down of the escalation of force was wrong.
hotsauceman1 wrote: *Throw Rocks at officers*
*SURPRISED when attacked by Officers*
When an officer tells you to get down, you get down, hands behind head, if the arrest is unlawful, you fight it later.
So throwing rocks at police is now a valid reason for being shot to death? You guys are barbaric. Even Iran has better human rights than that.
Throwing rocks at police is of course a sure way to get fined or arrested, but killed?
I must be reading this wrong, but I don't believe anyone actually said that. Hotsauce, and others, are pointing out that if you act aggressively towards police that you shouldn't be surprised if they are aggressive in return,
Than how is the police any better than armed thugs? Police is not supposed to de-escalate, not to act agressively. Police should only act agressively if a suspect is clearly threatening the life of a policeman or bystander.
Stonebeard wrote: not that any form of resistance necessitates a lethal response on the part of the police. And watching this video, it seems like the officers first response was to let off warning shot and to attempt to tazer the man first. It only seems that they went for the lethal option after the man turned around and moved his hands to his waist in a manner that at least mimics the drawing of a firearm. Now, the video is gak and I can't really say, so I could be wrong and they might have just plugged the poor guy for stupid reasons, but to take someones lack of surprise for a vote of assent towards using lethal force against any and all uncooperative individual (or someone who throws rocks, in this case) seems wrong, and slightly unfair.
How was it reasonable for the officers to believe the man was going to pull a gun on them? Not everyone who moves his hands in the general direction of his waist is going to pull out a gun. Police should have a more reasonable suspicion that the suspect is going to pull a gun on them, and only open fire when presented with a clear threat to their lifes.
That is how it works in the Netherlands. Dutch police is only allowed to use lethal force when the suspect is clearly threatening their lifes, not because they think the suspect could possibly be about to do that.
After two officers were struck with rocks -- at least one of them as large as a softball
So, the man was throwing deadly objects at the police officers, then fled from them.
Deadly objects? Was the officer struck killed? No? Than it was not a deadly object. A rock can potentially be a deadly object, but pretty much any object can be, so that is not saying much.
So the only way that you can justify self-defense is if other person uses a "deadly object" on you, and the only time something counts as a deadly object is when it kills the person it's used against? Meaning that the only way you can defend yourself is if someone's already killed you, in which case it's too late? No wonder no one seems to be taking your side of the argument seriously.
Did he? I forget how many people can reach for a weapon, draw it, then fire it before a police officer can pull the trigger of a weapon already pointed at a person.
Damn, we should start hiring those gunslingers for police! 3 police officers could not subdue a man who had rocks.
Clearly these are outstanding examples of our Police Force.
I can see your argument of rocks being deadly weapons, had he not turned and attempted to flee. At that point, it is very clear he is not attempting any further harm on a person. Then, he turns and through the blur of the video, it could appear he is reaching for his waistband. But then his hands are immediately out to his sides empty. If escalation of force involves "OH MY GOD HIS HAND MOVED THE WRONG WAY HE COULD BE REACHING FOR A WEAPON" then Escalation of Force needs to be looked in to and fixed. Because this is clearly causing the deaths of unarmed human beings.
If he was interested in drawing a weapon and firing on the Police, why was he throwing rocks at them?
TheCustomLime wrote: And it wasn't the rock throwing either that got him shot I believe. It was how he reached for his waistband.
That is an even better reason. So as soon as someone gets his hands near his waist you can kill him? Ridiculous. You can not kill someone on the possibility he just might be about to take out a gun in front of a whole lot of police guys aiming weapons at him. It is especially slowed since he was running away and clearly trying to avoid confrontation. From all this shootings, I gather US police are little better than murderous armed thugs that can shoot anyone on sight and get away with it. This does not happen in other countries. Police should only shoot when they can actually see a gun, not on the suspicion a suspect might possibly be reaching for one.
hotsauceman1 wrote: *Throw Rocks at officers*
*SURPRISED when attacked by Officers*
When an officer tells you to get down, you get down, hands behind head, if the arrest is unlawful, you fight it later.
So throwing rocks at police is now a valid reason for being shot to death? You guys are barbaric. Even Iran has better human rights than that.
Throwing rocks at police is of course a sure way to get fined or arrested, but killed?
Assaulting a police officer or any private citizen can result in acts of lawful self defense that leave the person who committed the assault dead. That's been true for a few centuries here in the US. The onus is not on the cops or private citizen who is being assaulted with thrown rocks to resolve the situation peacefully, the onus is on the rock thrower to not assault people with lethal implements. You can be killed or incapacitated by a thrown rock, it's a clear cut case of somebody presenting a reasonable imminent threat of bodily harm which gives anyone, cop or citizen, the lawful right to defend himself/herself with lethal force.
So hitting someone in the face or throwing a rock at someone is in the US a legal ground for killing someone? I have a hard time believing that, but if it is true, the US truly wins an award for the single-most barbaric place on earth (after North Korea). And where are the borders to it? What exactly constitutes a "reasonable threat of bodily harm"? I think that would be rather subjective.
Here is the verbatim text of the applicable state statute:
Spoiler:
(a) A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat in any place he or she has the lawful right to be if either of the following applies:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another.
The definition of reasonable will be determined by the local prosecutor and if charges are filed and it goes to court the definition of "reasonable" will be determined by a jury of your peers. Here in the US a citizen does not have to wait to be struck to defend himself or herself with force. The use of deadly force is limited to situations in which you have a reasonable fear that you will seriously harmed or killed if you don't use deadly force. Does a single punch give me the legal justification to shoot somebody? No. Does a punch followed up by successive blows by somebody whom I believe is trying to beat me to the point of severe injury or death legal justification to shoot my attacker? Yes. Is being attacked with a lethal weapon like a rock justification for me to defend myself with lethal force? Yes.Obviously the size of the rock and the force with which it is thrown plays a large part in the reasonableness of choosing to use lethal force against the attacker.
In this particular instance, Zambrano was throwing rocks at cars in a busy intersection before throwing any rocks at the police who responded. If Zambrano kept throwing rocks at cars while the cops were there and the thrown rocks presented a clear threat of imminent harm to the passing motorists either directly or due to their ability of the rocks to cause accidents then the cops would have been justified in shooting him to end the threat to the motorists.
Did he? I forget how many people can reach for a weapon, draw it, then fire it before a police officer can pull the trigger of a weapon already pointed at a person.
Damn, we should start hiring those gunslingers for police! 3 police officers could not subdue a man who had rocks.
Clearly these are outstanding examples of our Police Force.
I can see your argument of rocks being deadly weapons, had he not turned and attempted to flee. At that point, it is very clear he is not attempting any further harm on a person. Then, he turns and through the blur of the video, it could appear he is reaching for his waistband. But then his hands are immediately out to his sides empty. If escalation of force involves "OH MY GOD HIS HAND MOVED THE WRONG WAY HE COULD BE REACHING FOR A WEAPON" then Escalation of Force needs to be looked in to and fixed. Because this is clearly causing the deaths of unarmed human beings.
If he was interested in drawing a weapon and firing on the Police, why was he throwing rocks at them?
As I said, I just spent some time in training for these types of scenarios. A person in my class who had never handled weapons before, was able to draw hers from a locked holster, chamber a round, and pull the trigger in less then a second.
The escalation of force is not causing the death of unarmed people. It is the peoples actions themselves. This man here. Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, etc... Their actions put them at the receiving end of the bullet. These actions keep countless police and military personnel alive when they could otherwise be dead. Maybe that is an acceptable outcome for you, but it is not for me.
Did he? I forget how many people can reach for a weapon, draw it, then fire it before a police officer can pull the trigger of a weapon already pointed at a person.
Damn, we should start hiring those gunslingers for police! 3 police officers could not subdue a man who had rocks.
Clearly these are outstanding examples of our Police Force.
I can see your argument of rocks being deadly weapons, had he not turned and attempted to flee. At that point, it is very clear he is not attempting any further harm on a person. Then, he turns and through the blur of the video, it could appear he is reaching for his waistband. But then his hands are immediately out to his sides empty. If escalation of force involves "OH MY GOD HIS HAND MOVED THE WRONG WAY HE COULD BE REACHING FOR A WEAPON" then Escalation of Force needs to be looked in to and fixed. Because this is clearly causing the deaths of unarmed human beings.
If he was interested in drawing a weapon and firing on the Police, why was he throwing rocks at them?
As I said, I just spent some time in training for these types of scenarios. A person in my class who had never handled weapons before, was able to draw hers from a locked holster, chamber a round, and pull the trigger in less then a second.
The escalation of force is not causing the death of unarmed people. It is the peoples actions themselves. This man here. Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, etc... Their actions put them at the receiving end of the bullet. These actions keep countless police and military personnel alive when they could otherwise be dead. Maybe that is an acceptable outcome for you, but it is not for me.
Escalation of force did cause the death of this unarmed individual. The man no longer had a rock in his hand and did not reach for a weapon. He had no weapon on him. Their force was escalated too much.
So, can she draw a weapon and fire it before you can pull the trigger with a weapon already pointed at her? Your anecdote, please explain it in context to the scenario.
Did he? I forget how many people can reach for a weapon, draw it, then fire it before a police officer can pull the trigger of a weapon already pointed at a person.
Damn, we should start hiring those gunslingers for police! 3 police officers could not subdue a man who had rocks.
Clearly these are outstanding examples of our Police Force.
I can see your argument of rocks being deadly weapons, had he not turned and attempted to flee. At that point, it is very clear he is not attempting any further harm on a person. Then, he turns and through the blur of the video, it could appear he is reaching for his waistband. But then his hands are immediately out to his sides empty. If escalation of force involves "OH MY GOD HIS HAND MOVED THE WRONG WAY HE COULD BE REACHING FOR A WEAPON" then Escalation of Force needs to be looked in to and fixed. Because this is clearly causing the deaths of unarmed human beings.
If he was interested in drawing a weapon and firing on the Police, why was he throwing rocks at them?
As I said, I just spent some time in training for these types of scenarios. A person in my class who had never handled weapons before, was able to draw hers from a locked holster, chamber a round, and pull the trigger in less then a second.
The escalation of force is not causing the death of unarmed people. It is the peoples actions themselves. This man here. Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, etc... Their actions put them at the receiving end of the bullet. These actions keep countless police and military personnel alive when they could otherwise be dead. Maybe that is an acceptable outcome for you, but it is not for me.
Escalation of force did cause the death of this unarmed individual. The man no longer had a rock in his hand and did not reach for a weapon. He had no weapon on him. Their force was escalated too much.
So, can she draw a weapon and fire it before you can pull the trigger with a weapon already pointed at her? Your anecdote, please explain it in context to the scenario.
If the police officers had waited, yes it was possible that he could have opened fire if he had a weapon. The amount of time that took place in there, I could have opened fire, and I'm not the quickest on the draw. Dude, keep sticking your head in the sand if you like, but you're just armchair commandoing here. You are refusing to put yourself in their shoes. I'm providing you first hand knowledge and experience for this type of situation, these are techniques that have been brought about through decades of trial and error. Hundreds of thousands of police officers and military personnel are trained on these techniques, and use them daily, constant refinement is made to ensure the minimum amount of collateral damage occurs, experts nationwide are involved, yet you say it is wrong.
You honestly believe that these officers should put their lives at greater risk, when the perp already made the choices that brought himself to this point?
Laemos wrote: Why does he be a victim just because he runs out of rocks?
Because that's how self defense works. You're allowed to use lethal force to stop an immediate threat, you don't get indefinite permission to shoot someone because their initial act labeled them a Bad Person. If the person is no longer a threat then it is no longer a case of self defense and your use of lethal force becomes murder or attempted murder.
Did he? I forget how many people can reach for a weapon, draw it, then fire it before a police officer can pull the trigger of a weapon already pointed at a person.
Damn, we should start hiring those gunslingers for police! 3 police officers could not subdue a man who had rocks.
Clearly these are outstanding examples of our Police Force.
I can see your argument of rocks being deadly weapons, had he not turned and attempted to flee. At that point, it is very clear he is not attempting any further harm on a person. Then, he turns and through the blur of the video, it could appear he is reaching for his waistband. But then his hands are immediately out to his sides empty. If escalation of force involves "OH MY GOD HIS HAND MOVED THE WRONG WAY HE COULD BE REACHING FOR A WEAPON" then Escalation of Force needs to be looked in to and fixed. Because this is clearly causing the deaths of unarmed human beings.
If he was interested in drawing a weapon and firing on the Police, why was he throwing rocks at them?
As I said, I just spent some time in training for these types of scenarios. A person in my class who had never handled weapons before, was able to draw hers from a locked holster, chamber a round, and pull the trigger in less then a second.
The escalation of force is not causing the death of unarmed people. It is the peoples actions themselves. This man here. Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, etc... Their actions put them at the receiving end of the bullet. These actions keep countless police and military personnel alive when they could otherwise be dead. Maybe that is an acceptable outcome for you, but it is not for me.
Michael Brown and this guy, I will absolutely give you. Trayvon, I'm still not sure. I didn't feel I knew the evidence well enough to swing either way.
Don't get me wrong, I think police do jump to the use of force more often than is necessary, but in cases like this I feel the police are being unfairly scrutinized.
djones520 wrote: Doesn't matter. It can still cause deadly harm. And why don't you read the rest of my post. I did not in anyways say that simply throwing rocks was a justification of using deadly force. It was the rest of the mans actions. Why don't you explain how my break down of the escalation of force was wrong.
Okay
djones520 wrote: So, the man was throwing deadly objects at the police officers, then fled from them. As they approached him with weapons drawn, he reaches for his waist, turns, and raises his arms up, at which point they opened fire.
Firstly, if you think that the rocks are not dangerous, why don't you go let a friend chuck some softball sized rocks at you. Secondly, the man put himself into a situation where the police had no choice but to respond with deadly force. Those here who are saying that the police acted improperly, have made it very clear that they have never received any training in handgun use in situations like this.
I have been hit by softball sized rocks. I lived. Sure, rocks can be dangerous, but I would not call them 'deadly missiles' they are not lethal more often than not. Your second and third arguments are fallacious.
djones520 wrote: I just spend 2 weeks undergoing combat training for these exact types of situations, and let me tell you what. You don't even have seconds to react when faced with the possibility of lethal force. Anyone who says otherwise, well their idiots. The officers used proper techniques of escalation of force in this matter.
Wow! Two whole weeks of training? You must be such an expert now. Again you use fallacious arguments like: "Anyone who says otherwise, well their idiots.". But it is good to know you are the ultimate and infallible judge of proper techniques of escalation of force. Of course I must be an idiot for disagreeing with high and mighty you. I am sorry, my lord.
djones520 wrote: They did not just start opening fire at him the second he started tossing rocks. They used verbal techniques in an effort to get him to stop. That did not work. They pursued the man when he fled, even then not opening fire. Only when the man had a rapid change in behavior, and made body movements that could very easily be taken for drawing a weapon and bringing it to bear, did they use deadly force. Watch the video, the man is running away, then he lowers his hands to his waist, turns, lifts his hands bringing them together, and drops his knees, almost as if he was taking a shooters stance.
Verbal techniques obviously did not work because he did not speak english. Doesn't the US police have procedures for that? The man barely gets his hands to his waist at all, he just moves them in front of him after turning around. It is clear from the video he could not have pulled anything out. The police, standing 2 meters away could have seen that too. His stance could have been mistaken for a shooters stance, but did the police not see his hands were empty and he did not pull anything? His hands were visible almost the entire time and the police was standing only a few meters away.
djones520 wrote: This is a proper use of escalation of force. Did the man have opportunity? Yes. Did he have intent? He had already proved he was trying to hurt the officers. Did he have the means? The officers had a reasonable expectation that he did. Those are the three things that you need to piece together before you pull that trigger.
Yes, by stopping to throw rocks and running away he proved the intent of hurting officers. From the video, I see the man did not really have an opportunity to pull out a gun (if so, where?). The officers did not have a reasonable expectation, because in 99% of similar cases when the suspect runs away while the police aims weapons at him the suspect does not have the intention to pull out a gun (because that would certainly get him killed). By running away, people generally try to avoid confrontation and escape danger.
djones520 wrote: The man who was shot put himself into the grave. He could have avoided it any number of ways. He could have not thrown dangerous objects at police officers. He could have not ran (language barrier is BS. EVERYONE knows that you shouldn't run from the police, ESPECIALLY after you were trying to hurt them. He could have stopped running, and just lifted his arms in a clear manner then would not have been confused as if he was reaching for a weapon. Every choice that the man made led to his death.
True, throwing rocks at police is stupid but it is also a common way of protesting in many countries. Running is something that people often do when they are panicked and want to escape confrontation, and when you are panicky and desperately trying to show police you are unarmed you may not think about such a simple thing as raising your hands above your head, but rather put them towards the police to show them you are unarmed.
Than how is the police any better than armed thugs? Police is not supposed to de-escalate, not to act agressively. Police should only act agressively if a suspect is clearly threatening the life of a policeman or bystander.
Well, I think this might be a case of different thoughts on how to deal with this sort of thing. They only resorted to lethal force after attempting to tazer him. And then only after attempting to communicate (Which resulted in them having rocks thrown at them). I personally see nothing wrong with attempting to tazer a man who is a threat to himself and othrrs.
How was it reasonable for the officers to believe the man was going to pull a gun on them? Not everyone who moves his hands in the general direction of his waist is going to pull out a gun. Police should have a more reasonable suspicion that the suspect is going to pull a gun on them, and only open fire when presented with a clear threat to their lifes.
That is how it works in the Netherlands. Dutch police is only allowed to use lethal force when the suspect is clearly threatening their lifes, not because they think the suspect could possibly be about to do that.
Im sure, or at least I hope, this wasn't JUST the motion. I imagine it was a combination of their assessments of his mental state, the previous agressively behavior and possibly the ubiquitous nature of firearms here. It might not be nice, and I'm actually not even sure if it is legal, but I can understand it. I imagine if your police were under the same threats as ours as frequency, they may respond accordingly.
Did he? I forget how many people can reach for a weapon, draw it, then fire it before a police officer can pull the trigger of a weapon already pointed at a person.
Damn, we should start hiring those gunslingers for police! 3 police officers could not subdue a man who had rocks.
Clearly these are outstanding examples of our Police Force.
I can see your argument of rocks being deadly weapons, had he not turned and attempted to flee. At that point, it is very clear he is not attempting any further harm on a person. Then, he turns and through the blur of the video, it could appear he is reaching for his waistband. But then his hands are immediately out to his sides empty. If escalation of force involves "OH MY GOD HIS HAND MOVED THE WRONG WAY HE COULD BE REACHING FOR A WEAPON" then Escalation of Force needs to be looked in to and fixed. Because this is clearly causing the deaths of unarmed human beings.
If he was interested in drawing a weapon and firing on the Police, why was he throwing rocks at them?
As I said, I just spent some time in training for these types of scenarios. A person in my class who had never handled weapons before, was able to draw hers from a locked holster, chamber a round, and pull the trigger in less then a second.
The escalation of force is not causing the death of unarmed people. It is the peoples actions themselves. This man here. Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, etc... Their actions put them at the receiving end of the bullet. These actions keep countless police and military personnel alive when they could otherwise be dead. Maybe that is an acceptable outcome for you, but it is not for me.
Michael Brown and this guy, I will absolutely give you. Trayvon, I'm still not sure. I didn't feel I knew the evidence well enough to swing either way.
Don't get me wrong, I think police do jump to the use of force more often than is necessary, but in cases like this I feel the police are being unfairly scrutinized.
Trayvon was mounted on Zimmerman, and smashing his head into a concrete block. That was when Z pulled the trigger.
Laemos wrote: Why does he be a victim just because he runs out of rocks?
Because that's how self defense works. You're allowed to use lethal force to stop an immediate threat, you don't get indefinite permission to shoot someone because their initial act labeled them a Bad Person. If the person is no longer a threat then it is no longer a case of self defense and your use of lethal force becomes murder or attempted murder.
What about perceived threats? The man had already assaulted officers and had a criminal past. He then ran, abruptly stopped, and turned in what could be deemed a move to draw a weapon.
Did he? I forget how many people can reach for a weapon, draw it, then fire it before a police officer can pull the trigger of a weapon already pointed at a person.
Damn, we should start hiring those gunslingers for police! 3 police officers could not subdue a man who had rocks.
Clearly these are outstanding examples of our Police Force.
I can see your argument of rocks being deadly weapons, had he not turned and attempted to flee. At that point, it is very clear he is not attempting any further harm on a person. Then, he turns and through the blur of the video, it could appear he is reaching for his waistband. But then his hands are immediately out to his sides empty. If escalation of force involves "OH MY GOD HIS HAND MOVED THE WRONG WAY HE COULD BE REACHING FOR A WEAPON" then Escalation of Force needs to be looked in to and fixed. Because this is clearly causing the deaths of unarmed human beings.
If he was interested in drawing a weapon and firing on the Police, why was he throwing rocks at them?
The man had already hurled rocks at passing cars, a dangerous potentially lethal crime, resulting in the police response. He then threw rocks at cops, again committing a violent, potentially lethal crime and then fled from the cops after the initial violent interaction with them. The police gave chase to the fleeing violent criminal who eventually stops on the sidewalk across the street and then makes a suspicious movement that looks like he's reaching for something in his pants. The cops know that the man is demonstrably dangerous, violent and aggressive, the cops don't know what might be in his waistband, a gun, a knife, an improvised explosive device, or something harmless or absolutely nothing. However, at that point it doesn't matter what is or isn't in his waistband because he's already a demonstrably dangerous violent criminal and the suspicious movement by itself is enough to have a reasonable fear that Zambrano was an imminent threat and justify the use of deadly force. It doesn't matter whether or not he had anything to reach for it only matters that it was reasonable to believe that the person who just a minute earlier was violently attacking random motorists and cops, who hadn't been searched and could therefore be carrying anything on his person, had tried to flee the scene to evade arrest and then when cornered by the cops made a threatening movement. In that context the cops can justify the shooting. Looking at the incident in hindsight and giving undue importance to the fact that he was unarmed when he died is a pointless exercise because it ignores the context of the actions and their lawful justifications.
Did he? I forget how many people can reach for a weapon, draw it, then fire it before a police officer can pull the trigger of a weapon already pointed at a person.
Damn, we should start hiring those gunslingers for police! 3 police officers could not subdue a man who had rocks.
Clearly these are outstanding examples of our Police Force.
I can see your argument of rocks being deadly weapons, had he not turned and attempted to flee. At that point, it is very clear he is not attempting any further harm on a person. Then, he turns and through the blur of the video, it could appear he is reaching for his waistband. But then his hands are immediately out to his sides empty. If escalation of force involves "OH MY GOD HIS HAND MOVED THE WRONG WAY HE COULD BE REACHING FOR A WEAPON" then Escalation of Force needs to be looked in to and fixed. Because this is clearly causing the deaths of unarmed human beings.
If he was interested in drawing a weapon and firing on the Police, why was he throwing rocks at them?
As I said, I just spent some time in training for these types of scenarios. A person in my class who had never handled weapons before, was able to draw hers from a locked holster, chamber a round, and pull the trigger in less then a second.
The escalation of force is not causing the death of unarmed people. It is the peoples actions themselves. This man here. Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, etc... Their actions put them at the receiving end of the bullet. These actions keep countless police and military personnel alive when they could otherwise be dead. Maybe that is an acceptable outcome for you, but it is not for me.
Michael Brown and this guy, I will absolutely give you. Trayvon, I'm still not sure. I didn't feel I knew the evidence well enough to swing either way.
Don't get me wrong, I think police do jump to the use of force more often than is necessary, but in cases like this I feel the police are being unfairly scrutinized.
Trayvon was mounted on Zimmerman, and smashing his head into a concrete block. That was when Z pulled the trigger.
Z had been basically stalking and harassing him. I don't think either was in the right.
Also, throwing rocks does not give somebody the right to use deadly force. I expected this argument, but holy gak, first post?
That is where you would be wrong. Police are allowed to escalate the situation to protect themselves. So basically, if you attack them with any weapon at all, they can shoot you.
Also, I saw the video. The guy attacks the cops, runs, then whips around to attack them again. Most sane people will not stop and turn back around to attack armed gunmen, while unarmed. The cops are going to assume he is armed and act accordingly.
Now, don't get me wrong. There are abuses of power by law enforcement in this country on a daily basis, I just don't believe this is one of them.
Did he? I forget how many people can reach for a weapon, draw it, then fire it before a police officer can pull the trigger of a weapon already pointed at a person.
Damn, we should start hiring those gunslingers for police! 3 police officers could not subdue a man who had rocks.
Clearly these are outstanding examples of our Police Force.
I can see your argument of rocks being deadly weapons, had he not turned and attempted to flee. At that point, it is very clear he is not attempting any further harm on a person. Then, he turns and through the blur of the video, it could appear he is reaching for his waistband. But then his hands are immediately out to his sides empty. If escalation of force involves "OH MY GOD HIS HAND MOVED THE WRONG WAY HE COULD BE REACHING FOR A WEAPON" then Escalation of Force needs to be looked in to and fixed. Because this is clearly causing the deaths of unarmed human beings.
If he was interested in drawing a weapon and firing on the Police, why was he throwing rocks at them?
As I said, I just spent some time in training for these types of scenarios. A person in my class who had never handled weapons before, was able to draw hers from a locked holster, chamber a round, and pull the trigger in less then a second.
The escalation of force is not causing the death of unarmed people. It is the peoples actions themselves. This man here. Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, etc... Their actions put them at the receiving end of the bullet. These actions keep countless police and military personnel alive when they could otherwise be dead. Maybe that is an acceptable outcome for you, but it is not for me.
Michael Brown and this guy, I will absolutely give you. Trayvon, I'm still not sure. I didn't feel I knew the evidence well enough to swing either way.
Don't get me wrong, I think police do jump to the use of force more often than is necessary, but in cases like this I feel the police are being unfairly scrutinized.
Trayvon was mounted on Zimmerman, and smashing his head into a concrete block. That was when Z pulled the trigger.
Z had been basically stalking and harassing him. I don't think either was in the right.
None of which gave T the right to attack him like he did. It was T's choice to resort to physical violence, and that is why he ended up on a slab.
djones520 wrote: I just spend 2 weeks undergoing combat training for these exact types of situations, and let me tell you what. You don't even have seconds to react when faced with the possibility of lethal force. Anyone who says otherwise, well their idiots. The officers used proper techniques of escalation of force in this matter.
Wow! Two whole weeks of training? You must be such an expert now. Again you use fallacious arguments like: "Anyone who says otherwise, well their idiots.". But it is good to know you are the ultimate and infallible judge of proper techniques of escalation of force. Of course I must be an idiot for disagreeing with high and mighty you. I am sorry, my lord.
I'm pretty sure djones' little finger has more training in this kind of thing than you do. Instead of being condescending to him, you ought to pay attention to what he has to say. You might actually learn something.
Did he? I forget how many people can reach for a weapon, draw it, then fire it before a police officer can pull the trigger of a weapon already pointed at a person.
Damn, we should start hiring those gunslingers for police! 3 police officers could not subdue a man who had rocks.
Clearly these are outstanding examples of our Police Force.
I can see your argument of rocks being deadly weapons, had he not turned and attempted to flee. At that point, it is very clear he is not attempting any further harm on a person. Then, he turns and through the blur of the video, it could appear he is reaching for his waistband. But then his hands are immediately out to his sides empty. If escalation of force involves "OH MY GOD HIS HAND MOVED THE WRONG WAY HE COULD BE REACHING FOR A WEAPON" then Escalation of Force needs to be looked in to and fixed. Because this is clearly causing the deaths of unarmed human beings.
If he was interested in drawing a weapon and firing on the Police, why was he throwing rocks at them?
As I said, I just spent some time in training for these types of scenarios. A person in my class who had never handled weapons before, was able to draw hers from a locked holster, chamber a round, and pull the trigger in less then a second.
The escalation of force is not causing the death of unarmed people. It is the peoples actions themselves. This man here. Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, etc... Their actions put them at the receiving end of the bullet. These actions keep countless police and military personnel alive when they could otherwise be dead. Maybe that is an acceptable outcome for you, but it is not for me.
Escalation of force did cause the death of this unarmed individual. The man no longer had a rock in his hand and did not reach for a weapon. He had no weapon on him. Their force was escalated too much.
So, can she draw a weapon and fire it before you can pull the trigger with a weapon already pointed at her? Your anecdote, please explain it in context to the scenario.
If the police officers had waited, yes it was possible that he could have opened fire if he had a weapon. The amount of time that took place in there, I could have opened fire, and I'm not the quickest on the draw. Dude, keep sticking your head in the sand if you like, but you're just armchair commandoing here. You are refusing to put yourself in their shoes. I'm providing you first hand knowledge and experience for this type of situation, these are techniques that have been brought about through decades of trial and error. Hundreds of thousands of police officers and military personnel are trained on these techniques, and use them daily, constant refinement is made to ensure the minimum amount of collateral damage occurs, experts nationwide are involved, yet you say it is wrong.
You honestly believe that these officers should put their lives at greater risk, when the perp already made the choices that brought himself to this point?
I am going to have to ask you to pull your head out of the sand and answer my question. Could you pull the trigger faster than her while she has to draw, chamber a round, then pull the trigger. Remember, your gun is 100% locked and loaded, ready to fire. You only have one step, pull the trigger. Can you do it faster than her?
The point is, they should have waited to see if there was a gun. They did not. They just went crazy when they saw his hand move. Your anecdote is laughable at best. How do I know you took the training? Who the crap are you? Why should I believe you? (See, when I went and talked to an LEO and he told me what I relayed in a previous thread, I was told to get out and I had absolutely not done that) See how this works!
I honestly believe that they should have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this person has a weapon and that they have intent to use lethal force on the Officers. None of this is shown and there is no indication that he had any plans to pull a weapon and fire on them.
But you are right, I shouldn't question these things. Especially when we have experts in the field like you, with two weeks of training.
Also, throwing rocks does not give somebody the right to use deadly force. I expected this argument, but holy gak, first post?
That is where you would be wrong. Police are allowed to escalate the situation to protect themselves. So basically, if you attack them with any weapon at all, they can shoot you.
Also, I saw the video. The guy attacks the cops, runs, then whips around to attack them again. Most sane people will not stop and turn back around to attack armed gunmen, while unarmed. The cops are going to assume he is armed and act accordingly.
Right, he couldn't he turning around to surrender. He is clearly a psychopath bent on the death of the police. That is why when they chased, he dropped his weapons(rocks) and ran!
You are wrong, Police are allowed to reasonably escalate a situation to protect themselves. They are supposed to escalate it just a little further to show they are willing to stop the person. At what point during the Escalation of Force is it alright to shoot an unarmed assailant? (Remember, there were 3 Cops, I assume all trained in subduing an unarmed subject)
hotsauceman1 wrote: *Throw Rocks at officers*
*SURPRISED when attacked by Officers*
When an officer tells you to get down, you get down, hands behind head, if the arrest is unlawful, you fight it later.
So throwing rocks at police is now a valid reason for being shot to death? You guys are barbaric. Even Iran has better human rights than that.
Throwing rocks at police is of course a sure way to get fined or arrested, but killed?
I must be reading this wrong, but I don't believe anyone actually said that. Hotsauce, and others, are pointing out that if you act aggressively towards police that you shouldn't be surprised if they are aggressive in return, not that any form of resistance necessitates a lethal response on the part of the police. And watching this video, it seems like the officers first response was to let off warning shot and to attempt to tazer the man first. It only seems that they went for the lethal option after the man turned around and moved his hands to his waist in a manner that at least mimics the drawing of a firearm. Now, the video is gak and I can't really say, so I could be wrong and they might have just plugged the poor guy for stupid reasons, but to take someones lack of surprise for a vote of assent towards using lethal force against any and all uncooperative individual (or someone who throws rocks, in this case) seems wrong, and slightly unfair.
EDIT: Scratch that, apparently someone did make that argument, or something similar to that before I submitted. Anyway, no, it isnt legal to shoot someone for throwing rocks at you unless they're seem to be making a concerted effort to do you extreme bodily harm and you have no reasonably means of escape or to attempt to do so would increase you chance of being harmed. At least that's how I understand it. In any case, it certainly wouldn't be legal to run them down and shoot them, not for a private citizen. Police? Different story, and varies between situations. As far as the legality of shooting someone who appears to be reaching for a gun, no vlue if a coo can actually do that. I know I can't unless the dude is in my house and I have a valid reason to believe he means myself or my family harm. Maybe if I were on the steet, but that would be iffy.
States with Stand Your Ground laws and/or Castle Doctrine laws no longer impose a duty to retreat on the defender. The onus is on the attacker to not assault people not on the defender to evade criminal attacks. Obviously not all rocks are the same size and not all throws provide the same level of velocity but just about any level of assault if left unchecked can do harm including the possibility of rendering you vulnerable to truly severe life threatening levels of harm. If somebody on the street made a persistent and concerted effort to pelt me with rocks then it would be reasonable for me to assume that person is intent on harming me so I would be justified in using force agains that attacking person to defend myself. The amount of force I would be lawfully justified in using would depend on the amount of danger the rocks posed. A grown man putting legitimate effort into his throws would likely be agreed upon as being a reasonable threat of bodily harm, justifying a response with lethal force.
djones520 wrote: None of which gave T the right to attack him like he did. It was T's choice to resort to physical violence, and that is why he ended up on a slab.
Wow, so you finally found the missing proof of who started the fight? Perhaps you could share it with us and the courts?
jreilly89 wrote: What about perceived threats? The man had already assaulted officers and had a criminal past. He then ran, abruptly stopped, and turned in what could be deemed a move to draw a weapon.
That's arguably a case for self defense, though the final answer depends on how credible the "he was reaching for a gun" argument is. If a reasonable person would believe that he was in the process of drawing a weapon then it's legitimate self defense. If he kind of moved his hands in the general direction of his pockets and the police are exaggerating the threat to defend their trigger-happy habits then no, it isn't legitimate self defense.
*rolls eyes* First, I just said I got back from two weeks of dedicated training. I did not say that was all of the training that I've had. I was just giving you a bit of background of my experience, some of my credentials so to speak. I've got 13 years experience in the military, to date. But, you can continue to attack that if you'd like. Real hands on training surely has nothing against countless hours of internet raging.
Secondly, I did not say don't ask. I just pointed out that there is reason behind all of this. Just because you want to ignore it, doesn't make you right.
Thirdly, could I have? Possibly? Until in that specific situation, I don't know. Maybe I'll freeze. Maybe not. Maybe I'd trip on something, or maybe the man will start spraying bullets wildly possibly hitting bystanders before he gets the gun onto me.
The point is the police had a duty to protect themselves, and others who were present. The man's actions led them to believe he presented an imminent risk of deadly force. They responded properly.
djones520 wrote: *rolls eyes* First, I just said I got back from two weeks of dedicated training. I did not say that was all of the training that I've had. I was just giving you a bit of background of my experience, some of my credentials so to speak. I've got 13 years experience in the military, to date. But, you can continue to attack that if you'd like. Real hands on training surely has nothing against countless hours of internet raging.
Secondly, I did not say don't ask. I just pointed out that there is reason behind all of this. Just because you want to ignore it, doesn't make you right.
Thirdly, could I have? Possibly? Until in that specific situation, I don't know. Maybe I'll freeze. Maybe not. Maybe I'd trip on something, or maybe the man will start spraying bullets wildly possibly hitting bystanders before he gets the gun onto me.
The point is the police had a duty to protect themselves, and others who were present. The man's actions led them to believe he presented an imminent risk of deadly force. They responded properly. Continue
Yeah, your military training transfers really well to Police work. There might be a reason there is a difference between them.
Anyways, I dunno. You could have. You think the other two police officers with you would have frozen or tripped on something before he would have started spraying bullets from his imaginary weapon that he would have had to draw and point at you?
djones520 wrote: The point is the police had a duty to protect themselves, and others who were present. The man's actions led them to believe he presented an imminent risk of deadly force. They responded properly.
The cops were wrong about the weapon and their response caused a needless death. But, lets not hold them accountable. Their years of experience on the matter led them to believe he did have a weapon. But, those years of experience were still wrong.....
djones520 wrote: *rolls eyes* First, I just said I got back from two weeks of dedicated training. I did not say that was all of the training that I've had. I was just giving you a bit of background of my experience, some of my credentials so to speak. I've got 13 years experience in the military, to date. But, you can continue to attack that if you'd like. Real hands on training surely has nothing against countless hours of internet raging.
Secondly, I did not say don't ask. I just pointed out that there is reason behind all of this. Just because you want to ignore it, doesn't make you right.
Thirdly, could I have? Possibly? Until in that specific situation, I don't know. Maybe I'll freeze. Maybe not. Maybe I'd trip on something, or maybe the man will start spraying bullets wildly possibly hitting bystanders before he gets the gun onto me.
The point is the police had a duty to protect themselves, and others who were present. The man's actions led them to believe he presented an imminent risk of deadly force. They responded properly. Continue
Yeah, your military training transfers really well to Police work. There might be a reason there is a difference between them.
Anyways, I dunno. You could have. You think the other two police officers with you would have frozen or tripped on something before he would have started spraying bullets from his imaginary weapon that he would have had to draw and point at you?
There is a difference between the military and police. But the concept of escalation of force is universal. You try to stay as low on the ladder as possible, but if forced to, you jump right to the top. As I've said again and again in here. The police did not just start spraying bullets. They tried staying low on that ladder. If their intent was just to kill the man, they had plenty of opportunity to do so. They were following the man at 10-15 feet. It is damn near impossible to miss someone at that range. They could have opened fire at any point. It was not until the man turned, that they did so. Why is that? I already stated why, and won't again.
And again, it doesn't matter if the other officers could have or not. When faced with the prospect of deadly force, you cannot just rely on someone else to take care of the problem. All three of the saw a threat, all three acted on it.
Did he? I forget how many people can reach for a weapon, draw it, then fire it before a police officer can pull the trigger of a weapon already pointed at a person.
Damn, we should start hiring those gunslingers for police! 3 police officers could not subdue a man who had rocks.
Clearly these are outstanding examples of our Police Force.
I can see your argument of rocks being deadly weapons, had he not turned and attempted to flee. At that point, it is very clear he is not attempting any further harm on a person. Then, he turns and through the blur of the video, it could appear he is reaching for his waistband. But then his hands are immediately out to his sides empty. If escalation of force involves "OH MY GOD HIS HAND MOVED THE WRONG WAY HE COULD BE REACHING FOR A WEAPON" then Escalation of Force needs to be looked in to and fixed. Because this is clearly causing the deaths of unarmed human beings.
If he was interested in drawing a weapon and firing on the Police, why was he throwing rocks at them?
As I said, I just spent some time in training for these types of scenarios. A person in my class who had never handled weapons before, was able to draw hers from a locked holster, chamber a round, and pull the trigger in less then a second.
The escalation of force is not causing the death of unarmed people. It is the peoples actions themselves. This man here. Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, etc... Their actions put them at the receiving end of the bullet. These actions keep countless police and military personnel alive when they could otherwise be dead. Maybe that is an acceptable outcome for you, but it is not for me.
Michael Brown and this guy, I will absolutely give you. Trayvon, I'm still not sure. I didn't feel I knew the evidence well enough to swing either way.
Don't get me wrong, I think police do jump to the use of force more often than is necessary, but in cases like this I feel the police are being unfairly scrutinized.
Trayvon was mounted on Zimmerman, and smashing his head into a concrete block. That was when Z pulled the trigger.
Z had been basically stalking and harassing him. I don't think either was in the right.
None of which gave T the right to attack him like he did. It was T's choice to resort to physical violence, and that is why he ended up on a slab.
None that we know of. The eyewitness testimony was sketchy at best, and all that's listed is that they had an altercation. Either one could have started the fight.
djones520 wrote: The point is the police had a duty to protect themselves, and others who were present. The man's actions led them to believe he presented an imminent risk of deadly force. They responded properly.
The cops were wrong about the weapon and their response caused a needless death. But, lets not hold them accountable. Their years of experience on the matter led them to believe he did have a weapon. But, those years of experience were still wrong.....
Interview cops who have fired in the line of duty and killed someone, especially those in self defense. It's not something you just do, or do for fun or without serious consideration. Killing another human being is a serious thing, and most cops suffer emotional damage from it.
And what if those years of experience were right, they had waited, and two officers had died? Yeah, let's not hold the criminal accountable for attacking officers.
Seriously. Police should be charged and punished when they're in the wrong, but stop band wagoning on the police bashing.
cleaning up after above edit
I do know my way around weapons. Like most Russian kids, I have received quite a bit of training. Granted, this is with an AK, not a pistol, but I still know that when you have a gun ready and loaded, aimed at somebodies center of mass, you will always be faster in shooting than someone who still has to pull a gun from his waistband and aim. The officers did have more than enough time and possibility to see whether the suspect was armed or not.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: It's always interesting to see the divergence in opinion between those who have under gone the relevant training, and those who have not.
This, pretty much. All of those discussions have three parties:
a) Hindsight Heroes: Has zero experience with situations like these, can only empathize with the victim, wants the discussion to be as emotional as possible
b) Neutral Nobody: Can be in favor or one side or the other, participates by sharing his personal opinion and tries to see both sides
c) Experience Expert: Experts trained on how to properly act in such situations with actual experience on the matter
Being part of c), I just hang back in situations like these. You can't argue with a), so I'll just stick to b) or just keep out. I can just facepalm at the downright stupid comments made by some hindsight heroes in here.
djones520 wrote: *rolls eyes* First, I just said I got back from two weeks of dedicated training. I did not say that was all of the training that I've had. I was just giving you a bit of background of my experience, some of my credentials so to speak. I've got 13 years experience in the military, to date. But, you can continue to attack that if you'd like. Real hands on training surely has nothing against countless hours of internet raging.
Secondly, I did not say don't ask. I just pointed out that there is reason behind all of this. Just because you want to ignore it, doesn't make you right.
Thirdly, could I have? Possibly? Until in that specific situation, I don't know. Maybe I'll freeze. Maybe not. Maybe I'd trip on something, or maybe the man will start spraying bullets wildly possibly hitting bystanders before he gets the gun onto me.
The point is the police had a duty to protect themselves, and others who were present. The man's actions led them to believe he presented an imminent risk of deadly force. They responded properly. Continue
Yeah, your military training transfers really well to Police work. There might be a reason there is a difference between them.
Military experience can be extremely relevant. For one, the military has their own police officers, so if he's was an MP then he had exactly the same sort of training and experience as any other police officer. More importantly, go and read a few memoirs from combat veterans. They're absolutely filled with stories of "well, I saw a guy and I wasn't sure if he was an enemy combatant, so I had to make a split-second decision on whether or not he was a threat or not". Force escalation scenarios are far more difficult and complex than you seem to understand.
But armchair internet experts never let reality get in the way of a good rant...
djones520 wrote: *rolls eyes* First, I just said I got back from two weeks of dedicated training. I did not say that was all of the training that I've had. I was just giving you a bit of background of my experience, some of my credentials so to speak. I've got 13 years experience in the military, to date. But, you can continue to attack that if you'd like. Real hands on training surely has nothing against countless hours of internet raging.
Secondly, I did not say don't ask. I just pointed out that there is reason behind all of this. Just because you want to ignore it, doesn't make you right.
Thirdly, could I have? Possibly? Until in that specific situation, I don't know. Maybe I'll freeze. Maybe not. Maybe I'd trip on something, or maybe the man will start spraying bullets wildly possibly hitting bystanders before he gets the gun onto me.
The point is the police had a duty to protect themselves, and others who were present. The man's actions led them to believe he presented an imminent risk of deadly force. They responded properly. Continue
Yeah, your military training transfers really well to Police work. There might be a reason there is a difference between them.
Military experience can be extremely relevant. For one, the military has their own police officers, so if he's was an MP then he had exactly the same sort of training and experience as any other police officer. More importantly, go and read a few memoirs from combat veterans. They're absolutely filled with stories of "well, I saw a guy and I wasn't sure if he was an enemy combatant, so I had to make a split-second decision on whether or not he was a threat or not". Force escalation scenarios are far more difficult and complex than you seem to understand.
But armchair internet experts never let reality get in the way of a good rant...
Quick! Attempt to undermine his argument by calling him an armchair expert! That will show the rest of the internet that he is a fool! So, you are telling me that I should not question the Police and their actions?
djones520 wrote: *rolls eyes* First, I just said I got back from two weeks of dedicated training. I did not say that was all of the training that I've had. I was just giving you a bit of background of my experience, some of my credentials so to speak. I've got 13 years experience in the military, to date. But, you can continue to attack that if you'd like. Real hands on training surely has nothing against countless hours of internet raging.
Secondly, I did not say don't ask. I just pointed out that there is reason behind all of this. Just because you want to ignore it, doesn't make you right.
Thirdly, could I have? Possibly? Until in that specific situation, I don't know. Maybe I'll freeze. Maybe not. Maybe I'd trip on something, or maybe the man will start spraying bullets wildly possibly hitting bystanders before he gets the gun onto me.
The point is the police had a duty to protect themselves, and others who were present. The man's actions led them to believe he presented an imminent risk of deadly force. They responded properly. Continue
Yeah, your military training transfers really well to Police work. There might be a reason there is a difference between them.
Anyways, I dunno. You could have. You think the other two police officers with you would have frozen or tripped on something before he would have started spraying bullets from his imaginary weapon that he would have had to draw and point at you?
There is a difference between the military and police. But the concept of escalation of force is universal. You try to stay as low on the ladder as possible, but if forced to, you jump right to the top. As I've said again and again in here. The police did not just start spraying bullets. They tried staying low on that ladder. If their intent was just to kill the man, they had plenty of opportunity to do so. They were following the man at 10-15 feet. It is damn near impossible to miss someone at that range. They could have opened fire at any point. It was not until the man turned, that they did so. Why is that? I already stated why, and won't again.
And again, it doesn't matter if the other officers could have or not. When faced with the prospect of deadly force, you cannot just rely on someone else to take care of the problem. All three of the saw a threat, all three acted on it.
Oh, is that why they used a Tazer before? According to you, they should have just gone straight to lethal force! So I mean, that is incorrect. These cops have already violated Escalation of Force, according to you. Should they not have been forced to jump to deadly force when presented with deadly force? (Rocks you can move out of the way of)
djones520 wrote: *rolls eyes* First, I just said I got back from two weeks of dedicated training. I did not say that was all of the training that I've had. I was just giving you a bit of background of my experience, some of my credentials so to speak. I've got 13 years experience in the military, to date. But, you can continue to attack that if you'd like. Real hands on training surely has nothing against countless hours of internet raging.
Secondly, I did not say don't ask. I just pointed out that there is reason behind all of this. Just because you want to ignore it, doesn't make you right.
Thirdly, could I have? Possibly? Until in that specific situation, I don't know. Maybe I'll freeze. Maybe not. Maybe I'd trip on something, or maybe the man will start spraying bullets wildly possibly hitting bystanders before he gets the gun onto me.
The point is the police had a duty to protect themselves, and others who were present. The man's actions led them to believe he presented an imminent risk of deadly force. They responded properly. Continue
Yeah, your military training transfers really well to Police work. There might be a reason there is a difference between them.
Military experience can be extremely relevant. For one, the military has their own police officers, so if he's was an MP then he had exactly the same sort of training and experience as any other police officer. More importantly, go and read a few memoirs from combat veterans. They're absolutely filled with stories of "well, I saw a guy and I wasn't sure if he was an enemy combatant, so I had to make a split-second decision on whether or not he was a threat or not". Force escalation scenarios are far more difficult and complex than you seem to understand.
But armchair internet experts never let reality get in the way of a good rant...
Still, I would argue that a military background is a hindrance for good police officers, because ex-military risk taking elements of their military background with them and acting like they are in a combat zone engaging the enemy. I am not saying all do that, just that under stress, some of them could fall back to their military training which makes them to be more trigger happy.
Escalation of force is (or shouldn't) be the same in a warzone and in peacetime. There is a reason why the US has so much more of this kind of accidents than other countries, and it is not the easy availability of weapons. Weapons are common and easy to come by in most of Europe as well, yet we do not see this kind of accident nearly as often. As far as I can see, the US police is too trigger-happy and focusses too much on force and escalation rather than de-escalation when compared to European police forces.
And when I see US police equipment and them driving around in heavily armoured vehicles in small provincial towns I really start too think the US police is more of a military force rather than a police force. Police officers should only use lethal force as a very, very last resort when their lifes are clearly under immediate threat. In some countries, the police does not even carry lethal weapons. Just think about that.
djones520 wrote: *rolls eyes* First, I just said I got back from two weeks of dedicated training. I did not say that was all of the training that I've had. I was just giving you a bit of background of my experience, some of my credentials so to speak. I've got 13 years experience in the military, to date. But, you can continue to attack that if you'd like. Real hands on training surely has nothing against countless hours of internet raging.
Secondly, I did not say don't ask. I just pointed out that there is reason behind all of this. Just because you want to ignore it, doesn't make you right.
Thirdly, could I have? Possibly? Until in that specific situation, I don't know. Maybe I'll freeze. Maybe not. Maybe I'd trip on something, or maybe the man will start spraying bullets wildly possibly hitting bystanders before he gets the gun onto me.
The point is the police had a duty to protect themselves, and others who were present. The man's actions led them to believe he presented an imminent risk of deadly force. They responded properly. Continue
Yeah, your military training transfers really well to Police work. There might be a reason there is a difference between them.
Military experience can be extremely relevant. For one, the military has their own police officers, so if he's was an MP then he had exactly the same sort of training and experience as any other police officer. More importantly, go and read a few memoirs from combat veterans. They're absolutely filled with stories of "well, I saw a guy and I wasn't sure if he was an enemy combatant, so I had to make a split-second decision on whether or not he was a threat or not". Force escalation scenarios are far more difficult and complex than you seem to understand.
But armchair internet experts never let reality get in the way of a good rant...
Still, I would argue that a military background is a hindrance for good police officers, because ex-military risk taking elements of their military background with them and acting like they are in a combat zone engaging the enemy. I am not saying all do that, just that under stress, some of them could fall back to their military training which makes them to be more trigger happy.
Escalation of force is (or shouldn't) be the same in a warzone and in peacetime. There is a reason why the US has so much more of this kind of accidents than other countries, and it is not the easy availability of weapons. Weapons are common and easy to come by in most of Europe as well, yet we do not see this kind of accident nearly as often. As far as I can see, the US police is too trigger-happy and focusses too much on force and escalation rather than de-escalation when compared to European police forces.
And when I see US police equipment and them driving around in heavily armoured vehicles in small provincial towns I really start too think the US police is more of a military force rather than a police force. Police officers should only use lethal force as a very, very last resort when their lifes are clearly under immediate threat. In some countries, the police does not even carry lethal weapons. Just think about that.
Really? England has one of the highest stabbing incidents of any country. Also, what "heavily armed vehicles" are you referring to? Most police short of a SWAT team drive standard cars with little armaments other than their sidearm.
If the US isn't allowed to police the world, shouldn't Europe not to be allowed to look down their nose at the US?
djones520 wrote: *rolls eyes* First, I just said I got back from two weeks of dedicated training. I did not say that was all of the training that I've had. I was just giving you a bit of background of my experience, some of my credentials so to speak. I've got 13 years experience in the military, to date. But, you can continue to attack that if you'd like. Real hands on training surely has nothing against countless hours of internet raging.
Secondly, I did not say don't ask. I just pointed out that there is reason behind all of this. Just because you want to ignore it, doesn't make you right.
Thirdly, could I have? Possibly? Until in that specific situation, I don't know. Maybe I'll freeze. Maybe not. Maybe I'd trip on something, or maybe the man will start spraying bullets wildly possibly hitting bystanders before he gets the gun onto me.
The point is the police had a duty to protect themselves, and others who were present. The man's actions led them to believe he presented an imminent risk of deadly force. They responded properly. Continue
Yeah, your military training transfers really well to Police work. There might be a reason there is a difference between them.
Military experience can be extremely relevant. For one, the military has their own police officers, so if he's was an MP then he had exactly the same sort of training and experience as any other police officer. More importantly, go and read a few memoirs from combat veterans. They're absolutely filled with stories of "well, I saw a guy and I wasn't sure if he was an enemy combatant, so I had to make a split-second decision on whether or not he was a threat or not". Force escalation scenarios are far more difficult and complex than you seem to understand.
But armchair internet experts never let reality get in the way of a good rant...
Quick! Attempt to undermine his argument by calling him an armchair expert! That will show the rest of the internet that he is a fool! So, you are telling me that I should not question the Police and their actions?
No, he's saying that if you're allowed to discredit people with miltary experience as non-related, they're allowed to discredit your experience as well. Or are you actually a police officer?
djones520 wrote: MRAP's are apparently "heavily armed". Which they aren't. They are "heavily armored" which is a drastic difference.
Again. What? I live in a pretty large town and have never seen one of these. The armored bank cars are the most common "heavily armored" vehicles.
I also keep hearing about them showing up in "small provincial towns." As someone who spends a lot of time in "small provincial towns," I've never seen one in such a place.
djones520 wrote: MRAP's are apparently "heavily armed". Which they aren't. They are "heavily armored" which is a drastic difference.
Again. What? I live in a pretty large town and have never seen one of these. The armored bank cars are the most common "heavily armored" vehicles.
I also keep hearing about them showing up in "small provincial towns." As someone who spends a lot of time in "small provincial towns," I've never seen one in such a place.
In terms of police use, they are heavily armored. An MRAP will shrug off any small arms. Unless dedicated anti-armor weapons are being used, nothing is getting through. For military purposes, yeah, they aren't on the scale of Strykers/Bradley's/Abrams/etc...
I see hundreds of them every day... but that may have something to do with wear I live...
Well, there are about 17,000 independent police departments across the USA. Some of them have MRAPs, but not too many. The ones that do have them, don't exactly make much use of them. They mostly sit in the garage in the off chance they might be needed.
What some people might not understand is that there are is lot of prior military equipment that gets handed off to local agencies. I worked search and rescue for five or six years, and the police are an integral part of that. Our sheriffs department had several Humvees, woodland camo and all, that they'd picked up at some point. Go and protest the militarization of police forces all you want, but those Humvees just sat there in the vehicle fleet. I'm sure they got uses on occasion, but the fact that our local police had military equipment meant jack all.
A few months ago, there was some big news stories in the area when UC Davis students protested the Davis PD acquiring an MRAP. The city council ordered the police department to get rid of it. The chief of police just kind of shrugged and said "whatever, we just picked it up because it was too good of a deal to turn down", and sold it to another neighboring PD.
djones520 wrote: MRAP's are apparently "heavily armed". Which they aren't. They are "heavily armored" which is a drastic difference.
They aren't even heavily armored, really. They're a light armored vehicle with enhanced protection from IEDs and mines.
In terms of police use, they are heavily armored. An MRAP will shrug off any small arms. Unless dedicated anti-armor weapons are being used, nothing is getting through. For military purposes, yeah, they aren't on the scale of Strykers/Bradley's/Abrams/etc..
That's fair. I'll agree that within the continuum of vehicles used by police, they would be considered heavily armored.
Oh, and the main advantage MRAPs have over traditional SWAT vehicles is probably simply being better all-terrain vehicles. MRAPs were designed to work on rough roads out in Iraq and Afghanistan. If a PD ever needed to send SWAT up to a remote cabin, an MRAP could do it while an armored van probably couldn't. Unless you've got some sort of plan to try and kill some police officers, the occasional use of MRAPs has about zero effect on you.
jreilly89 wrote: Still, I would argue that a military background is a hindrance for good police officers, because ex-military risk taking elements of their military background with them and acting like they are in a combat zone engaging the enemy.
I don't always agree with you, but I have definitely seen on this forum and elsewhere former and active military members attempting to apply the combat escalation they would use in an active war zone as if it's equivalent to civilian policing in downtown Ohio.
DarkLink wrote: Oh, and the main advantage MRAPs have over traditional SWAT vehicles is probably simply being better all-terrain vehicles.
On this, however, I will defer to the same people I mentioned previously, but my understanding is that MRAPS are, depending on model, fairly dangerous to use in rough terrain because the high center of gravity makes them predisposed to rollovers. They're really not all-purpose vehicles.
jreilly89 wrote: Still, I would argue that a military background is a hindrance for good police officers, because ex-military risk taking elements of their military background with them and acting like they are in a combat zone engaging the enemy.
I don't always agree with you, but I have definitely seen on this forum and elsewhere former and active military members attempting to apply the combat escalation they would use in an active war zone as if it's equivalent to civilian policing in downtown Ohio.
I would argue that military ROE tends to actually be stricter than police escalation of force.
Something that also needs to be considered is that the military has escalation of force procedures stateside as well as in-country, and they are not necessarily the same. If you think that there is only one way the military uses escalation of force, and that it is restricted to "combat escalation they would use in an active warzone," you are wrong.
jreilly89 wrote: Still, I would argue that a military background is a hindrance for good police officers, because ex-military risk taking elements of their military background with them and acting like they are in a combat zone engaging the enemy.
I don't always agree with you, but I have definitely seen on this forum and elsewhere former and active military members attempting to apply the combat escalation they would use in an active war zone as if it's equivalent to civilian policing in downtown Ohio.
DarkLink wrote: Oh, and the main advantage MRAPs have over traditional SWAT vehicles is probably simply being better all-terrain vehicles.
On this, however, I will defer to the same people I mentioned previously, but my understanding is that MRAPS are, depending on model, fairly dangerous to use in rough terrain because the high center of gravity makes them predisposed to rollovers. They're really not all-purpose vehicles.
Up-armored HMMVs (which are not MRAPs) are more prone to rollovers because they are heavier due to more armor and upgraded suspension kits that are different than what the vehicle was designed for originally. This doesn't necessarily hold true for MRAPs, of which there are many different designs, all of which were designed from the ground up with more protection in mind. Some MRAPs might be predisposed to rollovers but I don't think that's the case for all of them. I see that you noted "depending on model," I just wanted to provide a bit more information.
First: The international sign of guns drawn and pointed at you should be listened to, guns pointed at you means stop doing whatever it is that you are doing, because you're about to be shot. No understanding of English required.
Second: Tasers were used and didn't work, dude keeps throwing rocks and turns them on the police. Softball sized? That has potential to break somebodies skull or cause other life threatening injuries. Dude was engaging in behavior that was putting the public directly at risk, continue to risk public and officers to wait for Spanish speaking back up? Not needed, see first point above, guns pointed at you is international for "stop immediately".
Third: Play stupid games win stupid prizes, His derp was rewarded.
jreilly89 wrote: Still, I would argue that a military background is a hindrance for good police officers, because ex-military risk taking elements of their military background with them and acting like they are in a combat zone engaging the enemy.
I don't always agree with you, but I have definitely seen on this forum and elsewhere former and active military members attempting to apply the combat escalation they would use in an active war zone as if it's equivalent to civilian policing in downtown Ohio.
DarkLink wrote: Oh, and the main advantage MRAPs have over traditional SWAT vehicles is probably simply being better all-terrain vehicles.
On this, however, I will defer to the same people I mentioned previously, but my understanding is that MRAPS are, depending on model, fairly dangerous to use in rough terrain because the high center of gravity makes them predisposed to rollovers. They're really not all-purpose vehicles.
They really aren't. I'd take an uparmored HMWWV over an MRAP if I'm needing to go off-roading, and need protection. MRAP's aren't used that much in Afghanistan because of how unsteady they are. Very prone to rolling over. Granted, they are much easier to get out of them a hummer when it goes onto its side.
Edit: Hordini, you've got it backwards. MRAP's are very top heavy. HMMWV's sit much lower to the ground, so their center of gravity is a lot lower. They sit 3' lower.
I was combat arms and my training never allowed for the escalation of force police tend to show. But that is my experience. If I shot an unarmed combatant in Afghanistan because they were throwing rocks I would be at Leavenworth right now.
Side to the MRAPs. They are extremely high centered (baring MATVs) and can easily roll in rough terrain. They are really good at driving really slowly down roads however.
@djones520
Edit: Humvees are not allowed outside the wire in Afghanistan I've no idea were that comes from.
BrotherGecko wrote: I was combat arms and my training never allowed for the escalation of force police tend to show. But that is my experience. If I shot an unarmed combatant in Afghanistan because they were throwing rocks I would be at Leavenworth right now.
Side to the MRAPs. They are extremely high centered (baring MATVs) and can easily roll in rough terrain. They are really good at driving really slowly down roads however.
@djones520
Edit: Humvees are not allowed outside the wire in Afghanistan I've no idea were that comes from.
jreilly89 wrote: Still, I would argue that a military background is a hindrance for good police officers, because ex-military risk taking elements of their military background with them and acting like they are in a combat zone engaging the enemy.
I don't always agree with you, but I have definitely seen on this forum and elsewhere former and active military members attempting to apply the combat escalation they would use in an active war zone as if it's equivalent to civilian policing in downtown Ohio.
Uh, I never said that think you're quoting someone else?
Quit being such a white knight. Your inventing a hypothetical situation in your head, to justify your argument and demonize the police in this situation.
I lived through a situation where the police nearly hit me with a car, jumped out, and drew their guns on me.
Want to know what I did ?
I stood as perfectly still as I possibley could with my hands in the air.
You know what I didn't do ?
Throw rocks at the cops, run away, and suddenly spin back around at them.
Cops are scared gak they are going to die in the line of duty. If you give them any reason to think your going to kill/maim/injure them they are going to shoot first and worry about the consequences later.
djones520 wrote: Edit: Hordini, you've got it backwards. MRAP's are very top heavy. HMMWV's sit much lower to the ground, so their center of gravity is a lot lower. They sit 3' lower.
My mistake, that makes sense, most MRAPs probably are more top heavy. I think I was remembering something I heard years ago when they were transitioning from unarmored HMMVs to the up-armored HMMVs (prior to MRAPs being so widespread) that the up-armored version had problems with flipping that the original unarmored variant didn't have due to the change in weight distribution.
jreilly89 wrote: Still, I would argue that a military background is a hindrance for good police officers, because ex-military risk taking elements of their military background with them and acting like they are in a combat zone engaging the enemy.
I don't always agree with you, but I have definitely seen on this forum and elsewhere former and active military members attempting to apply the combat escalation they would use in an active war zone as if it's equivalent to civilian policing in downtown Ohio.
Uh, I never said that think you're quoting someone else?
... Interesting. Normally I'd say well, I screwed up trimming the quote, but in this case, you weren't even part of the quote tree that was in; so I truly have no idea how that was attributed to you and not Iron Captain. In any event, my apologies for the error.
jreilly89 wrote: Still, I would argue that a military background is a hindrance for good police officers, because ex-military risk taking elements of their military background with them and acting like they are in a combat zone engaging the enemy.
I don't always agree with you, but I have definitely seen on this forum and elsewhere former and active military members attempting to apply the combat escalation they would use in an active war zone as if it's equivalent to civilian policing in downtown Ohio.
Uh, I never said that think you're quoting someone else?
... Interesting. Normally I'd say well, I screwed up trimming the quote, but in this case, you weren't even part of the quote tree that was in; so I truly have no idea how that was attributed to you and not Iron Captain. In any event, my apologies for the error.
No worries. Just trying to make sure I didn't black out and start posting stuff all over Dakka
BrotherGecko wrote: I was combat arms and my training never allowed for the escalation of force police tend to show. But that is my experience. If I shot an unarmed combatant in Afghanistan because they were throwing rocks I would be at Leavenworth right now.
Side to the MRAPs. They are extremely high centered (baring MATVs) and can easily roll in rough terrain. They are really good at driving really slowly down roads however.
@djones520
Edit: Humvees are not allowed outside the wire in Afghanistan I've no idea were that comes from.
Frag 5's to 7's were the norm for up armored HUMVEE's to roll outside the wire before the arrival of MRAP's vehicle type of family. That was 2008 so when I rotated back in 2010 it was only MRAP's style family that rolled outside the wire.
jreilly89 wrote: Still, I would argue that a military background is a hindrance for good police officers, because ex-military risk taking elements of their military background with them and acting like they are in a combat zone engaging the enemy.
I don't always agree with you, but I have definitely seen on this forum and elsewhere former and active military members attempting to apply the combat escalation they would use in an active war zone as if it's equivalent to civilian policing in downtown Ohio.
DarkLink wrote: Oh, and the main advantage MRAPs have over traditional SWAT vehicles is probably simply being better all-terrain vehicles.
On this, however, I will defer to the same people I mentioned previously, but my understanding is that MRAPS are, depending on model, fairly dangerous to use in rough terrain because the high center of gravity makes them predisposed to rollovers. They're really not all-purpose vehicles.
They really aren't. I'd take an uparmored HMWWV over an MRAP if I'm needing to go off-roading, and need protection. MRAP's aren't used that much in Afghanistan because of how unsteady they are. Very prone to rolling over. Granted, they are much easier to get out of them a hummer when it goes onto its side.
Edit: Hordini, you've got it backwards. MRAP's are very top heavy. HMMWV's sit much lower to the ground, so their center of gravity is a lot lower. They sit 3' lower.
Right, MRAPs aren't exactly rock climbers. That said, they're a lot better than the armored vans SWAT would otherwise use. I doubt those could get much rougher than a flat dirt road. Regardless, my point was that as far as police are concerned, MRAPs are probably just slightly more capable versions of what they would normally use.
hotsauceman1 wrote: *Throw Rocks at officers*
*SURPRISED when attacked by Officers*
When an officer tells you to get down, you get down, hands behind head, if the arrest is unlawful, you fight it later.
So throwing rocks at police is now a valid reason for being shot to death? You guys are barbaric. Even Iran has better human rights than that.
Throwing rocks at police is of course a sure way to get fined or arrested, but killed?
I must be reading this wrong, but I don't believe anyone actually said that. Hotsauce, and others, are pointing out that if you act aggressively towards police that you shouldn't be surprised if they are aggressive in return, not that any form of resistance necessitates a lethal response on the part of the police. And watching this video, it seems like the officers first response was to let off warning shot and to attempt to tazer the man first. It only seems that they went for the lethal option after the man turned around and moved his hands to his waist in a manner that at least mimics the drawing of a firearm. Now, the video is gak and I can't really say, so I could be wrong and they might have just plugged the poor guy for stupid reasons, but to take someones lack of surprise for a vote of assent towards using lethal force against any and all uncooperative individual (or someone who throws rocks, in this case) seems wrong, and slightly unfair.
EDIT: Scratch that, apparently someone did make that argument, or something similar to that before I submitted. Anyway, no, it isnt legal to shoot someone for throwing rocks at you unless they're seem to be making a concerted effort to do you extreme bodily harm and you have no reasonably means of escape or to attempt to do so would increase you chance of being harmed. At least that's how I understand it. In any case, it certainly wouldn't be legal to run them down and shoot them, not for a private citizen. Police? Different story, and varies between situations. As far as the legality of shooting someone who appears to be reaching for a gun, no vlue if a coo can actually do that. I know I can't unless the dude is in my house and I have a valid reason to believe he means myself or my family harm. Maybe if I were on the steet, but that would be iffy.
States with Stand Your Ground laws and/or Castle Doctrine laws no longer impose a duty to retreat on the defender. The onus is on the attacker to not assault people not on the defender to evade criminal attacks. Obviously not all rocks are the same size and not all throws provide the same level of velocity but just about any level of assault if left unchecked can do harm including the possibility of rendering you vulnerable to truly severe life threatening levels of harm. If somebody on the street made a persistent and concerted effort to pelt me with rocks then it would be reasonable for me to assume that person is intent on harming me so I would be justified in using force agains that attacking person to defend myself. The amount of force I would be lawfully justified in using would depend on the amount of danger the rocks posed. A grown man putting legitimate effort into his throws would likely be agreed upon as being a reasonable threat of bodily harm, justifying a response with lethal force.
Of which Washington, to my knowledge, has neither, so they're essentially irrelevant in this case (castle doctrine entirely so, since you don't own the street). IF that were the case, as I already stated, sure, so if you were one of the people in the cars and he made a move to approach your car, you could blow his head in, but not if he chucks two rocks your way and runs away. What the man MIGHT have done doesn't matter. What he did was chuck a rock or two and blitz. I know of no law in any state that would give you, as a private citizen, the right to chase the dude down.
Quit being such a white knight. Your inventing a hypothetical situation in your head, to justify your argument and demonize the police in this situation.
Because that's not being done by both sides in this at all...
BrotherGecko wrote: I was combat arms and my training never allowed for the escalation of force police tend to show. But that is my experience. If I shot an unarmed combatant in Afghanistan because they were throwing rocks I would be at Leavenworth right now.
Side to the MRAPs. They are extremely high centered (baring MATVs) and can easily roll in rough terrain. They are really good at driving really slowly down roads however.
@djones520
Edit: Humvees are not allowed outside the wire in Afghanistan I've no idea were that comes from.
Frag 5's to 7's were the norm for up armored HUMVEE's to roll outside the wire before the arrival of MRAP's vehicle type of family. That was 2008 so when I rotated back in 2010 it was only MRAP's style family that rolled outside the wire.
I'm well aware of the time line to it all. Even before 2010 it required approval from a commissioned officer to go outside the wire in one. I responding to a comment that MRAPs are not used in Afghanistan in favor of 1165s which is completely false.
Quit being such a white knight. Your inventing a hypothetical situation in your head, to justify your argument and demonize the police in this situation.
I lived through a situation where the police nearly hit me with a car, jumped out, and drew their guns on me.
Want to know what I did ?
I stood as perfectly still as I possibley could with my hands in the air.
You know what I didn't do ?
Throw rocks at the cops, run away, and suddenly spin back around at them.
Cops are scared gak they are going to die in the line of duty. If you give them any reason to think your going to kill/maim/injure them they are going to shoot first and worry about the consequences later.
What about the hypothetical situation where he was attempting to pull a weapon? You guys seemed pretty interested in that.....
hotsauceman1 wrote: *Throw Rocks at officers*
*SURPRISED when attacked by Officers*
When an officer tells you to get down, you get down, hands behind head, if the arrest is unlawful, you fight it later.
So throwing rocks at police is now a valid reason for being shot to death? You guys are barbaric. Even Iran has better human rights than that.
Throwing rocks at police is of course a sure way to get fined or arrested, but killed?
I must be reading this wrong, but I don't believe anyone actually said that. Hotsauce, and others, are pointing out that if you act aggressively towards police that you shouldn't be surprised if they are aggressive in return, not that any form of resistance necessitates a lethal response on the part of the police. And watching this video, it seems like the officers first response was to let off warning shot and to attempt to tazer the man first. It only seems that they went for the lethal option after the man turned around and moved his hands to his waist in a manner that at least mimics the drawing of a firearm. Now, the video is gak and I can't really say, so I could be wrong and they might have just plugged the poor guy for stupid reasons, but to take someones lack of surprise for a vote of assent towards using lethal force against any and all uncooperative individual (or someone who throws rocks, in this case) seems wrong, and slightly unfair.
EDIT: Scratch that, apparently someone did make that argument, or something similar to that before I submitted. Anyway, no, it isnt legal to shoot someone for throwing rocks at you unless they're seem to be making a concerted effort to do you extreme bodily harm and you have no reasonably means of escape or to attempt to do so would increase you chance of being harmed. At least that's how I understand it. In any case, it certainly wouldn't be legal to run them down and shoot them, not for a private citizen. Police? Different story, and varies between situations. As far as the legality of shooting someone who appears to be reaching for a gun, no vlue if a coo can actually do that. I know I can't unless the dude is in my house and I have a valid reason to believe he means myself or my family harm. Maybe if I were on the steet, but that would be iffy.
States with Stand Your Ground laws and/or Castle Doctrine laws no longer impose a duty to retreat on the defender. The onus is on the attacker to not assault people not on the defender to evade criminal attacks. Obviously not all rocks are the same size and not all throws provide the same level of velocity but just about any level of assault if left unchecked can do harm including the possibility of rendering you vulnerable to truly severe life threatening levels of harm. If somebody on the street made a persistent and concerted effort to pelt me with rocks then it would be reasonable for me to assume that person is intent on harming me so I would be justified in using force agains that attacking person to defend myself. The amount of force I would be lawfully justified in using would depend on the amount of danger the rocks posed. A grown man putting legitimate effort into his throws would likely be agreed upon as being a reasonable threat of bodily harm, justifying a response with lethal force.
Of which Washington, to my knowledge, has neither, so they're essentially irrelevant in this case (castle doctrine entirely so, since you don't own the street). IF that were the case, as I already stated, sure, so if you were one of the people in the cars and he made a move to approach your car, you could blow his head in, but not if he chucks two rocks your way and runs away. What the man MIGHT have done doesn't matter. What he did was chuck a rock or two and blitz. I know of no law in any state that would give you, as a private citizen, the right to chase the dude down.
I never made the argument that a private citizen could shoot a fleeing criminal. What I stated was that throwing rocks at somebody was a threat of imminent harm that would justify a shooting in self defense. I agree with you that in your hypothetical example a citizen in Washington state couldn't shoot somebody who threw rocks at people and was fleeing the scene. I also agree with you that I is a wholly irrelevant hypothetical example. Zambrano wasn't chased by a citizen he was chased by cops and cops have the right and the obligation to pursue violent criminals who flew the scene of their crimes. The cops in question were justified in chasing him and will likely be found to have had lawful justification to shoot him.
Washington has no duty to retreat precedent was set in State v. Studd (1999) and State v. Reynaldo Redmond (2003) when the court found: "that there is no duty to retreat when a person is assaulted in a place where he or she has a right to be." But, the law is ambiguous. WA does not have an explicit 'Castle Doctrine', but like many of the other laws pertaining to gun ownership, they are based on rights of the gun owner and revolve around what the state expects is common sense and best judgment of the user.
Spoiler:
RCW 9A.16.050 Homicide --- By other person --- When justifiable.
Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:
(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or
(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.
hotsauceman1 wrote: *Throw Rocks at officers* *SURPRISED when attacked by Officers* When an officer tells you to get down, you get down, hands behind head, if the arrest is unlawful, you fight it later.
So throwing rocks at police is now a valid reason for being shot to death? You guys are barbaric. Even Iran has better human rights than that. Throwing rocks at police is of course a sure way to get fined or arrested, but killed?
I must be reading this wrong, but I don't believe anyone actually said that. Hotsauce, and others, are pointing out that if you act aggressively towards police that you shouldn't be surprised if they are aggressive in return, not that any form of resistance necessitates a lethal response on the part of the police. And watching this video, it seems like the officers first response was to let off warning shot and to attempt to tazer the man first. It only seems that they went for the lethal option after the man turned around and moved his hands to his waist in a manner that at least mimics the drawing of a firearm. Now, the video is gak and I can't really say, so I could be wrong and they might have just plugged the poor guy for stupid reasons, but to take someones lack of surprise for a vote of assent towards using lethal force against any and all uncooperative individual (or someone who throws rocks, in this case) seems wrong, and slightly unfair.
EDIT: Scratch that, apparently someone did make that argument, or something similar to that before I submitted. Anyway, no, it isnt legal to shoot someone for throwing rocks at you unless they're seem to be making a concerted effort to do you extreme bodily harm and you have no reasonably means of escape or to attempt to do so would increase you chance of being harmed. At least that's how I understand it. In any case, it certainly wouldn't be legal to run them down and shoot them, not for a private citizen. Police? Different story, and varies between situations. As far as the legality of shooting someone who appears to be reaching for a gun, no vlue if a coo can actually do that. I know I can't unless the dude is in my house and I have a valid reason to believe he means myself or my family harm. Maybe if I were on the steet, but that would be iffy.
States with Stand Your Ground laws and/or Castle Doctrine laws no longer impose a duty to retreat on the defender. The onus is on the attacker to not assault people not on the defender to evade criminal attacks. Obviously not all rocks are the same size and not all throws provide the same level of velocity but just about any level of assault if left unchecked can do harm including the possibility of rendering you vulnerable to truly severe life threatening levels of harm. If somebody on the street made a persistent and concerted effort to pelt me with rocks then it would be reasonable for me to assume that person is intent on harming me so I would be justified in using force agains that attacking person to defend myself. The amount of force I would be lawfully justified in using would depend on the amount of danger the rocks posed. A grown man putting legitimate effort into his throws would likely be agreed upon as being a reasonable threat of bodily harm, justifying a response with lethal force.
Of which Washington, to my knowledge, has neither, so they're essentially irrelevant in this case (castle doctrine entirely so, since you don't own the street). IF that were the case, as I already stated, sure, so if you were one of the people in the cars and he made a move to approach your car, you could blow his head in, but not if he chucks two rocks your way and runs away. What the man MIGHT have done doesn't matter. What he did was chuck a rock or two and blitz. I know of no law in any state that would give you, as a private citizen, the right to chase the dude down.
I never made the argument that a private citizen could shoot a fleeing criminal. What I stated was that throwing rocks at somebody was a threat of imminent harm that would justify a shooting in self defense. I agree with you that in your hypothetical example a citizen in Washington state couldn't shoot somebody who threw rocks at people and was fleeing the scene. I also agree with you that I is a wholly irrelevant hypothetical example. Zambrano wasn't chased by a citizen he was chased by cops and cops have the right and the obligation to pursue violent criminals who flew the scene of their crimes. The cops in question were justified in chasing him and will likely be found to have had lawful justification to shoot him.
Washington has no duty to retreat precedent was set in State v. Studd (1999) and State v. Reynaldo Redmond (2003) when the court found: "that there is no duty to retreat when a person is assaulted in a place where he or she has a right to be." But, the law is ambiguous. WA does not have an explicit 'Castle Doctrine', but like many of the other laws pertaining to gun ownership, they are based on rights of the gun owner and revolve around what the state expects is common sense and best judgment of the user.
Spoiler:
RCW 9A.16.050 Homicide --- By other person --- When justifiable. Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:
(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or
(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.
Ah, see, you had me confused when you brought those up, mostly because I was under the impression Washington didn't have either of those. In any case, they're largely irrelevant here. And, yes, obviously the officer is obligated to peruse the suspect. To whether the officers had the right to fire, I don't know enough about what an officer can or cannot do under any given set of conditions, so I won't say, but if history is anything to go by, I would imagine you are correct and that they won't be charged.
The above response and my previous response might come off a tad rude. I apologize if they do. Also, thank you for pointing that fact about Washington law. I might be attending grad school up there, so it's good to know what I can and cannot do.
Quit being such a white knight. Your inventing a hypothetical situation in your head, to justify your argument and demonize the police in this situation.
I lived through a situation where the police nearly hit me with a car, jumped out, and drew their guns on me.
Want to know what I did ?
I stood as perfectly still as I possibley could with my hands in the air.
You know what I didn't do ?
Throw rocks at the cops, run away, and suddenly spin back around at them.
Cops are scared gak they are going to die in the line of duty. If you give them any reason to think your going to kill/maim/injure them they are going to shoot first and worry about the consequences later.
What about the hypothetical situation where he was attempting to pull a weapon? You guys seemed pretty interested in that.....
While that is a hypothetical, it is what you always assume to be the case if you are facing a hostile subject.
Medium of Death wrote: The video he turns round with his arms facing forward at hip height. Could have been a gun for all the pursuing officers knew.
If he didn't want to get shot maybe he shouldn't have thrown rocks at police cars or ran away from the police.
Yeah, pretty much, I saw this on the news. They kept on going on about if he were unarmed or not. Rocks can kill, just look at how they stone people to death in some parts of the world and the man was unhinged and refusing to cooperate, probably because he was in the country illegally. So the cops shot a dangerous crazy person, what's the deal?
If you want a real case of police brutality then consider the Indian man who didn't speak english get thrown to the ground and suffer back injury.
TheCustomLime wrote: And it wasn't the rock throwing either that got him shot I believe. It was how he reached for his waistband.
That is an even better reason. So as soon as someone gets his hands near his waist you can kill him? Ridiculous. You can not kill someone on the possibility he just might be about to take out a gun in front of a whole lot of police guys aiming weapons at him. It is especially slowed since he was running away and clearly trying to avoid confrontation. From all this shootings, I gather US police are little better than murderous armed thugs that can shoot anyone on sight and get away with it. This does not happen in other countries. Police should only shoot when they can actually see a gun, not on the suspicion a suspect might possibly be reaching for one.
I don't think you could find a single police department in any country in the world that limits it's officers to only being able to shoot criminals or suspects if they're armed with firearms. Different locales have different laws and different departments have different procedures and rules of engagement but you don't have to have a gun in your hand for police to have justification for shooting you.
If a person came into my neighborhood and started throwing rocks at me or my neighbors they'd likely get shot and none of us are cops.
And you or your neighbors would probably go to jail for homicide. In most states, especially all those states that lack "Stand Your Ground" laws, if you do not make the attempt to remove yourself from the area when threatened, and instead just haul off and shoot someone, you're guilty of homicide.
I don't care nearly as much for active criminals. If he hadn't been here illegally none of this would have happened, and I wouldn't have wasted valuable seconds typing this.
TheCustomLime wrote: And it wasn't the rock throwing either that got him shot I believe. It was how he reached for his waistband.
That is an even better reason. So as soon as someone gets his hands near his waist you can kill him? Ridiculous. You can not kill someone on the possibility he just might be about to take out a gun in front of a whole lot of police guys aiming weapons at him. It is especially slowed since he was running away and clearly trying to avoid confrontation. From all this shootings, I gather US police are little better than murderous armed thugs that can shoot anyone on sight and get away with it. This does not happen in other countries. Police should only shoot when they can actually see a gun, not on the suspicion a suspect might possibly be reaching for one.
I don't think you could find a single police department in any country in the world that limits it's officers to only being able to shoot criminals or suspects if they're armed with firearms. Different locales have different laws and different departments have different procedures and rules of engagement but you don't have to have a gun in your hand for police to have justification for shooting you.
If a person came into my neighborhood and started throwing rocks at me or my neighbors they'd likely get shot and none of us are cops.
And you or your neighbors would probably go to jail for homicide. In most states, especially all those states that lack "Stand Your Ground" laws, if you do not make the attempt to remove yourself from the area when threatened, and instead just haul off and shoot someone, you're guilty of homicide.
You missed the part where Iran still stones people to death. People have been charged for homicide for dropping stones on cars from overpasses in California.
This is now cute kid game. Rocks are still Man's first and most mobile method of killing another man.
TheCustomLime wrote: And it wasn't the rock throwing either that got him shot I believe. It was how he reached for his waistband.
That is an even better reason. So as soon as someone gets his hands near his waist you can kill him? Ridiculous. You can not kill someone on the possibility he just might be about to take out a gun in front of a whole lot of police guys aiming weapons at him. It is especially slowed since he was running away and clearly trying to avoid confrontation. From all this shootings, I gather US police are little better than murderous armed thugs that can shoot anyone on sight and get away with it. This does not happen in other countries. Police should only shoot when they can actually see a gun, not on the suspicion a suspect might possibly be reaching for one.
I don't think you could find a single police department in any country in the world that limits it's officers to only being able to shoot criminals or suspects if they're armed with firearms. Different locales have different laws and different departments have different procedures and rules of engagement but you don't have to have a gun in your hand for police to have justification for shooting you.
If a person came into my neighborhood and started throwing rocks at me or my neighbors they'd likely get shot and none of us are cops.
And you or your neighbors would probably go to jail for homicide. In most states, especially all those states that lack "Stand Your Ground" laws, if you do not make the attempt to remove yourself from the area when threatened, and instead just haul off and shoot someone, you're guilty of homicide.
It's a good thing I don't live in a state that has a duty to retreat and specifically stated that in a hypothetical assault via rock throwing in my neighborhood that it would justify a response with lethal force. I actually know the self defense laws that govern my state, it's a prerequisite for obtaining a concealed carry permit, which I have. Different states/locales have different laws, nowhere have I stated otherwise. If you have issues with the way self defense laws are written in some states that is your issue it doesn't alter the fact that having somebody chucking rocks at you in NC is a reasonable imminent threat of bodily harm or death.
People also confuse "chucking rocks" as in small rocks kids throw at each other, to "chucking rocks" as in large stones that can kill another person or permanently injure them if struck in the head.
Its all in what type of "rocks" we're talking about.
Frazzled wrote: People also confuse "chucking rocks" as in small rocks kids throw at each other, to "chucking rocks" as in large stones that can kill another person or permanently injure them if struck in the head.
Its all in what type of "rocks" we're talking about.
Exactly. As I said earlier in this thread, there are different types of throwing rocks. A kid flicking driveway gravel at you is entirely different than a deranged adult man hurling softball sized rocks at cars and people, which is what witnesses state that Zambrano was doing before he was chased and shot by the cops. If I'm out in my yard and a deranged man starts throwing softball sized rocks at me and doesn't acknowledge my verbal commands that he stop (regardless of whether he is fluent in English) then that man has become a reasonable threat of imminent bodily harm or death to me. He is the aggressor and if he doesn't stop throwing rocks at me I'll get hurt so I have the right to defend myself.
In this particular situation the cops were wholly justified in responding to the scene, commanding Zambrano to stop throwing rocks, drawing their weapons when he refused and threw rocks at the cops and chasing after Zambrano when he tried to flee. There is a level of ambiguity in whether or not Zambrano's final actions were enough to justify shooting him but once you reach the point where cops have drawn their weapons and are in pursuit of a violent criminal fleeing the scene to evade arrest you have a situation where the cops aren't going to give Zambrano the benefit of the doubt and they're going to interpret any action that could be aggressive/dangerous as such and that is entirely due to Zambrano's own actions.
TheCustomLime wrote: And it wasn't the rock throwing either that got him shot I believe. It was how he reached for his waistband.
That is an even better reason. So as soon as someone gets his hands near his waist you can kill him? Ridiculous. You can not kill someone on the possibility he just might be about to take out a gun in front of a whole lot of police guys aiming weapons at him. It is especially slowed since he was running away and clearly trying to avoid confrontation. From all this shootings, I gather US police are little better than murderous armed thugs that can shoot anyone on sight and get away with it. This does not happen in other countries. Police should only shoot when they can actually see a gun, not on the suspicion a suspect might possibly be reaching for one.
I don't think you could find a single police department in any country in the world that limits it's officers to only being able to shoot criminals or suspects if they're armed with firearms. Different locales have different laws and different departments have different procedures and rules of engagement but you don't have to have a gun in your hand for police to have justification for shooting you.
If a person came into my neighborhood and started throwing rocks at me or my neighbors they'd likely get shot and none of us are cops.
And you or your neighbors would probably go to jail for homicide. In most states, especially all those states that lack "Stand Your Ground" laws, if you do not make the attempt to remove yourself from the area when threatened, and instead just haul off and shoot someone, you're guilty of homicide.
No, you'd probably be arrested. But the prosecutor would likely drop the charges in a clear case of self defense. And no judge in his right mind would convict you.
Stonebeard wrote: Also, thank you for pointing that fact about Washington law. I might be attending grad school up there, so it's good to know what I can and cannot do.
Stonebeard, during your stay in Washington, even if tempted, please refrain from throwing softball sized rocks at the police.
hotsauceman1 wrote: *Throw Rocks at officers*
*SURPRISED when attacked by Officers*
When an officer tells you to get down, you get down, hands behind head, if the arrest is unlawful, you fight it later.
So throwing rocks at police is now a valid reason for being shot to death? You guys are barbaric. Even Iran has better human rights than that.
Throwing rocks at police is of course a sure way to get fined or arrested, but killed?
I must be reading this wrong, but I don't believe anyone actually said that. Hotsauce, and others, are pointing out that if you act aggressively towards police that you shouldn't be surprised if they are aggressive in return, not that any form of resistance necessitates a lethal response on the part of the police. And watching this video, it seems like the officers first response was to let off warning shot and to attempt to tazer the man first. It only seems that they went for the lethal option after the man turned around and moved his hands to his waist in a manner that at least mimics the drawing of a firearm. Now, the video is gak and I can't really say, so I could be wrong and they might have just plugged the poor guy for stupid reasons, but to take someones lack of surprise for a vote of assent towards using lethal force against any and all uncooperative individual (or someone who throws rocks, in this case) seems wrong, and slightly unfair.
EDIT: Scratch that, apparently someone did make that argument, or something similar to that before I submitted. Anyway, no, it isnt legal to shoot someone for throwing rocks at you unless they're seem to be making a concerted effort to do you extreme bodily harm and you have no reasonably means of escape or to attempt to do so would increase you chance of being harmed. At least that's how I understand it. In any case, it certainly wouldn't be legal to run them down and shoot them, not for a private citizen. Police? Different story, and varies between situations. As far as the legality of shooting someone who appears to be reaching for a gun, no vlue if a coo can actually do that. I know I can't unless the dude is in my house and I have a valid reason to believe he means myself or my family harm. Maybe if I were on the steet, but that would be iffy.
States with Stand Your Ground laws and/or Castle Doctrine laws no longer impose a duty to retreat on the defender. The onus is on the attacker to not assault people not on the defender to evade criminal attacks. Obviously not all rocks are the same size and not all throws provide the same level of velocity but just about any level of assault if left unchecked can do harm including the possibility of rendering you vulnerable to truly severe life threatening levels of harm. If somebody on the street made a persistent and concerted effort to pelt me with rocks then it would be reasonable for me to assume that person is intent on harming me so I would be justified in using force agains that attacking person to defend myself. The amount of force I would be lawfully justified in using would depend on the amount of danger the rocks posed. A grown man putting legitimate effort into his throws would likely be agreed upon as being a reasonable threat of bodily harm, justifying a response with lethal force.
Of which Washington, to my knowledge, has neither, so they're essentially irrelevant in this case (castle doctrine entirely so, since you don't own the street). IF that were the case, as I already stated, sure, so if you were one of the people in the cars and he made a move to approach your car, you could blow his head in, but not if he chucks two rocks your way and runs away. What the man MIGHT have done doesn't matter. What he did was chuck a rock or two and blitz. I know of no law in any state that would give you, as a private citizen, the right to chase the dude down.
I never made the argument that a private citizen could shoot a fleeing criminal. What I stated was that throwing rocks at somebody was a threat of imminent harm that would justify a shooting in self defense. I agree with you that in your hypothetical example a citizen in Washington state couldn't shoot somebody who threw rocks at people and was fleeing the scene. I also agree with you that I is a wholly irrelevant hypothetical example. Zambrano wasn't chased by a citizen he was chased by cops and cops have the right and the obligation to pursue violent criminals who flew the scene of their crimes. The cops in question were justified in chasing him and will likely be found to have had lawful justification to shoot him.
Washington has no duty to retreat precedent was set in State v. Studd (1999) and State v. Reynaldo Redmond (2003) when the court found: "that there is no duty to retreat when a person is assaulted in a place where he or she has a right to be." But, the law is ambiguous. WA does not have an explicit 'Castle Doctrine', but like many of the other laws pertaining to gun ownership, they are based on rights of the gun owner and revolve around what the state expects is common sense and best judgment of the user.
[spoiler]RCW 9A.16.050 Homicide --- By other person --- When justifiable.
Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:
(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or
(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.
[/spoiler]
Ah, see, you had me confused when you brought those up, mostly because I was under the impression Washington didn't have either of those. In any case, they're largely irrelevant here. And, yes, obviously the officer is obligated to peruse the suspect. To whether the officers had the right to fire, I don't know enough about what an officer can or cannot do under any given set of conditions, so I won't say, but if history is anything to go by, I would imagine you are correct and that they won't be charged.
The above response and my previous response might come off a tad rude. I apologize if they do. Also, thank you for pointing that fact about Washington law. I might be attending grad school up there, so it's good to know what I can and cannot do.
No worries, I never thought you were rude. I just wanted to clarify things before we ended up going down a rabbit hole of a tangent.
Stonebeard wrote: Also, thank you for pointing that fact about Washington law. I might be attending grad school up there, so it's good to know what I can and cannot do.
Stonebeard, during your stay in Washington, even if tempted, please refrain from throwing softball sized rocks at the police.
Awww, well that just takes all the fun right out of it, doesn't it?
think you're quoting someone else?
