Excessive use of force by Police?

[DaveTN]

I don’t think so. I thought this was so funny I had to play it for everyone at work today.
I would have done something like that. Glad the Chief is standing behind his Officer.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/14/us/arizona-police-run-over-suspect/

[NRA]

yeah the the nut job deserved the grill tattoo, who knows what his future actions would have led too.

[Chucktshoes]

Even I don't feel the use of force was excessive in this case. In fact, I believe that it was commendable in that it kept him from being made into swiss cheese from officer bullets.

[rugerla1]

Nope, good job!

[Mike.357]

the cop did the right thing. 

[GhostDog]

Deadly force is deadly force. If an officer is justified to shoot, then hitting w/ a car or flashlight to the head is also OK.

[Guest Spru]

Yeah this is one of the few lately I have to agree with officers. I have a tendency to lean towards excessive force with the anti-police movement. This case though, he was technically an active shooter and they could have saved the tax payers a few thousands bucks, damage to the cruiser, and just shot him. Instead they went with a less lethal option and he is still alive thanks to their actions. Hopefully he can get some help.

[daddyo]

Devil's advocate here....

 

What if the guy was hearing impaired and was unaware of what was going on behind him?

Did he have a criminal record?

 

Seems to me that this plays right into the anti-gun crowd's hands. They believe that ANYONE openly carrying a weapon should be run over or otherwise snuffed out by police regardless of any credible evidence that a crime is about to be committed, because we're all just about to snap at any moment and start indiscriminately killing people.

[GlockSpock]

Devil's advocate here....

 

What if the guy was hearing impaired and was unaware of what was going on behind him?

Did he have a criminal record?

 

Seems to me that this plays right into the anti-gun crowd's hands. They believe that ANYONE openly carrying a weapon should be run over or otherwise snuffed out by police regardless of any credible evidence that a crime is about to be committed, because we're all just about to snap at any moment and start indiscriminately killing people.

 

I think he had stolen the rifle and had fired at least one round into the sky as a sort of intimidation tactic. He was asking for trouble of some sort.

 

From the article the Devil's Advocate did not read:

 

Tucson Police Sgt. Pete Dugan told CNN that Valencia was involved in several incidents in Tucson the day he was struck.

 

At 6:45 a.m., Valencia robbed a 7-Eleven in Tucson with a metal object in his hand. Authorities said he was dressed only in his underwear. He was charged with theft.

 

A little more than an hour later, police said, Valencia set a fire at a church for which he was charged with arson of an occupied structure.

 

Just after that he entered a home and stole a car, police said.

 

Authorities said he drove to a Walmart where he stole a .30-30 rifle and ammunition. He fled the store with Walmart employees in pursuit.

Edited April 16, 2015 by CZ9MM

[TNWNGR]

That officers actions were actually inline with use of force matrices and justified. It doesn't matter whether the offender is rational or irrational, i.e. Mentally ill, he is an active threat. Discussions on how and when to use a patrol car as a blunt weapon aren't new, nor is their use as such. Having the stones and wherewithal to actually know when you've absolutely got to do what the officer in question did and then doing so are what's rare.

[daddyo]

I think he had stolen the rifle and had fired at least one round into the sky as a sort of intimidation tactic. He was asking for trouble of some sort.

 

From the article the Devil's Advocate did not read:

 

Tucson Police Sgt. Pete Dugan told CNN that Valencia was involved in several incidents in Tucson the day he was struck.

 

At 6:45 a.m., Valencia robbed a 7-Eleven in Tucson with a metal object in his hand. Authorities said he was dressed only in his underwear. He was charged with theft.

 

A little more than an hour later, police said, Valencia set a fire at a church for which he was charged with arson of an occupied structure.

 

Just after that he entered a home and stole a car, police said.

 

Authorities said he drove to a Walmart where he stole a .30-30 rifle and ammunition. He fled the store with Walmart employees in pursuit.

 

Didn't know that. Thanks.

[bersaguy]

Just a good LEO doing his job serving and protecting law biding citizens............ :up: :up:

[VERO1]

Wonder how long before the usual suspects start crying, "That officer should have just bumped him the shoulder or leg. They didn't have to run him down all the way!"?

[bersaguy]

Wonder how long before the usual suspects start crying, "That officer should have just bumped him the shoulder or leg. They didn't have to run him down all the way!"?

Well in all reality a bad guy with a gun acting irradically in public is not the guy you try to bump on the shoulder or leg with the front of your patrol car. Besides that how can you hit them in the shoulder with the bumper unless you do it just like this LEO did? It looked to me like he hit his shoulder and his leg very well................ :up: :up:

[Grayfox54]

A car is a much more effective weapon than a handgun and it does provide some degree of cover against a rifle. I think it was a smart move.

[Monkeyman2500]

Yea, I like this one. Creative tactic, and everyone is still alive.

[gjohnsoniv]

Wonder how long before the usual suspects start crying, "That officer should have just bumped him the shoulder or leg. They didn't have to run him down all the way!"?

I heard the guy was in and out of the hospital in two days, so good move on the officer's part In my opinion.

[Jonnin]

I agree, the LEO did the right thing.

 

Excessive force is a media-trial term.  It only exists for the media to use it to skew public opinion and gin up controversy to sell papers/advertising/whatever.  It is a meaningless term that has never been properly defined -- the old "we know it when we see it" approach that works until it doesn't ... fergason anyone? 

[Caster]

It's a shame it was just a squad car.  Shoulda been a Kenworth.

[frankmako]

the police did a good job.  dirt bag nut job with a rifle, the best way to stop the problems is with one of your best weapons, a vehicle. 

[vontar]

I saw the video the other morning and not seeing this part shown on TV anyone.

 

Guy is walking down the road after stealing the gun/ammo.  Someone is yelling at the police that the guy has a lock on it so the guy can't shoot it.  About then, the guy fires it in the air.  You know the Bidden way.

[TN-popo]

Devil's advocate here....

 

What if the guy was hearing impaired and was unaware of what was going on behind him?

Did he have a criminal record?

 

Seems to me that this plays right into the anti-gun crowd's hands. They believe that ANYONE openly carrying a weapon should be run over or otherwise snuffed out by police regardless of any credible evidence that a crime is about to be committed, because we're all just about to snap at any moment and start indiscriminately killing people.

 

Devil's Advocate / daddyo, when you posted this, even without knowing the backstory, did you even watch the video?  Rhetorical question, obviously you did.

 

1.  Hearing impaired and unaware?  There was verbal interaction / visual contact with the police.

2.  Criminal Record?  Who cares?  It doesn't matter.

3.  Are you really going to make this one an OC vs police issue?  Again, even without knowing the backstory, the man fired a round, on a public street, knowing he was being followed and confronted by police and the initial officer broadcasted that information before the "run over."

 

This has to be one of the most INANE posts that I've read in a long time.

 

PS.  Reading your TGO Sig Line...

 

"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst.

Nations and peoples who forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms.

Robert Heinlein 

 

...priceless.

Edited May 16, 2015 by TN-popo

[enfield]

Having difficulty seeing how intentionally running over someone fits into the escalation-of-force continuum. I think it was a mite over the top and reckless.

[DaveTN]

Having difficulty seeing how intentionally running over someone fits into the escalation-of-force continuum. I think it was a mite over the top and reckless.

He had committed a robbery, home invasion, vehicle theft, firearm theft and was an active shooter holding a rifle. Since no one was going to walk up on him and he was refusing all orders to comply; the next logical escalation of force would be to shoot him before an innocent walks into the scenario and gets shot or he shoots a cop. You think hitting him with a car was more reckless than opening fire? I don’t.

[EssOne]

 I think that with the Chief's backing the officer will probably escape criticism unless the Department has a written policy forbidding such use of the patrol car to stop criminal suspects. Such a policy, if one exists, is usually found in the Department's Pursuit Policy under the subject of ramming, and can really come back to bite one in the posterior in a civil suit, even if the Chief says it was justified. A violation of Departmental policy resulting in injury is almost always a formidable issue in the plaintiff's favor in a lawsuit against the Department. And you can count on a lawsuit as much as you can count on the sun rising in the East tomorrow - somewhere an aggressive lawyer is going to take the spectacular nature of this thing, along with photos of the poor suspect all bandaged up, to try and convince a civil jury that it was, as enfield said, over the top and reckless.

 

Huevos grandes, Jefe. Huevos grandes.

Edited April 18, 2015 by EssOne