View Full Version : Bam! Police Car Rams Felon in AZ
Dang. Saw this story this morning. Quite the busy day for the felon :angry:. Looks in video at one point he has rifle to his chin threatening suicide. He then fires off a shot into the air. Curious on the communication that was taking place between officers before the ramming.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/arizona-cop-used-car-ram-armed-suspect-video-shows-n341636
Police said Valencia, 36, held up a 7-Eleven convenience store in Tucson, started a fire at a church, and then broke into a home and stole a car and drove to a Walmart in Marana, a town northwest of Tucson.
Valencia allegedly asked a store worker if he could see a rifle and then used it as a club to bash a case and threaten the employee, and ran off with the rifle and a box of .30-30 ammunition, police said. He loaded the weapon and pointed it at an officer before firing instead into the air, and was struck by the police car as he approached a business, police said in a statement Tuesday.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rFG4SOnCU0
Without knowing all the facts, I still believe ramming the perp with a the police car was better than the other option: shooting the perp and placing others at greater risk in the process.
ETA: This was likely a suicide-by-cop wannabe.
Without knowing all the facts, I still believe ramming the perp with a the police car was better than the other option: shooting the perp and placing others at greater risk in the process.
ETA: This was likely a suicide-by-cop wannabe.
I agree on ramming vs. open confrontation based upon the facts as I understand them at this point. Appears dude was even muzzle sweeping the officer in the car. Odds would be greatly stacked on a WAY worse outcome had this gone on.
As they say "play stupid games win stupid prizes".
Moose-Knuckle
04-15-15, 09:50
Problem resolution and threat neutralization 101:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ3ThTtQoWs
skijunkie55
04-15-15, 09:51
Chime in the progressive liberal narrative : "this is police brutality! they could have easily shot him in the leg or tried to de-escalate another way..."
Good work on the officers ending something that could have turned deadly for numerous officers and bystanders.
Without knowing all the facts, I still believe ramming the perp with a the police car was better than the other option: shooting the perp and placing others at greater risk in the process.
ETA: This was likely a suicide-by-cop wannabe.
I agree. I trained new personnel to use the squad car before the service pistol when deadly force was justified and warranted.
If you spoke with veteran personnel who drove squad cars with hood ornaments, they would tell you that a hood ornament was not just for decoration, it also served it's purpose as a front sight.
Without knowing all the facts, I still believe ramming the perp with a the police car was better than the other option: shooting the perp and placing others at greater risk in the process.
ETA: This was likely a suicide-by-cop wannabe.
I agree. I trained new personnel to use the squad car before the service pistol when deadly force was justified and warranted.
If you spoke with veteran personnel who drove squad cars with hood ornaments, they would tell you that a hood ornament was not just for decoration. The hood ornament also made a very good front sight.
Eurodriver
04-15-15, 10:36
Wish I could find the video of LE ramming a peep in a vehicle as he is shooting at the cop.
You can see the gun fly out of his hand as the crown Vic nails him.
I think that cop might have been a GTA fan. http://youtu.be/6gQNgh6iSBM --GTA Mother#%€ker ....10 points
Ouch.... If I was the prep, I think I would rather have been shot...
#wontbuffout
I have no issue with this but as a member of the tax paying society I am pissed off. Damage to the car, private property, who knows what else. And very bad PR. If he was that much of a threat I would just shoot and call it a day. But it is a judgment call and it worked.
Maybe that is why I am not an LEO...... ;)
Not sure that getting into a gunfight is a good choice. Given the low percentage of actual hits, pass throughs and other ways in which a projectile can end up in the wrong person I think the car was a good choice. That there was a one shot stop.
Irony: small child slips and falls on a street and dies while this effing asshole keeps breathing after being hit by a car.
Not sure that getting into a gunfight is a good choice. Given the low percentage of actual hits, pass throughs and other ways in which a projectile can end up in the wrong person I think the car was a good choice. That there was a one shot stop.
Irony: small child slips and falls on a street and dies while this effing asshole keeps breathing after being hit by a car.
I see what you are saying, work at the level you are comfortable with. Again, why I am not a LEO. I use a rifle and have shot people in the head once. It ends the situation rather fast.
Only in the hospital for 2 days? Really? What is this guy made out of rubber?
I have no issue with this but as a member of the tax paying society I am pissed off. Damage to the car, private property, who knows what else. And very bad PR. If he was that much of a threat I would just shoot and call it a day. But it is a judgment call and it worked.
Maybe that is why I am not an LEO...... ;)
Send the perp the bill. Problem solved.
"Couldn't they just run him over in the leg?"
Sent from my PG41200 using Tapatalk 2
BBossman,
I think I broke a rib laughing at your comment!
Send the perp the bill. Problem solved.
LOL.....if only it was that easy.
http://www.azfamily.com/story/28801395/marana-police-dash-cam-video-shows-cruiser-ram-crime-spree-suspect?autostart=true
saw that on the local news site :)
I have no issue with this but as a member of the tax paying society I am pissed off. Damage to the car, private property, who knows what else. And very bad PR. If he was that much of a threat I would just shoot and call it a day. But it is a judgment call and it worked.
Maybe that is why I am not an LEO...... ;)
I understand your point, but if a LEO engages someone with a firearm and gets injured during the process there will be other costs. Breaking things instead of shooting is sometimes the better course of action.
In years past, my agency requested the court order the suspect to financially reimburse the department for damage to property incurred during a scuffle or other incident with police. If the suspect was a juvenile we would request the parents be ordered to reimburse for property damage.
A motor vehicle is a great threat stopper and LEO have a much better chance of hitting the target. :D
Excessive force my ass! I think they showed great judgment in dealing with the perp. Throwing the car into reverse and taking another run at the perp - now that would be excessive...
Wish I could find the video of LE ramming a peep in a vehicle as he is shooting at the cop.
You can see the gun fly out of his hand as the crown Vic nails him.
I was reminded of the same one.
Here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj4SEu1ScuE
Excessive force my ass! I think they showed great judgment in dealing with the perp. Throwing the car into reverse and taking another run at the perp - now that would be excessive...
Very true.
SeriousStudent
04-15-15, 22:27
"I will see your 930 foot-pounds of muzzle energy, and raise you eleventy million foot-pounds of CVPI."
"I will see your 930 foot-pounds of muzzle energy, and raise you eleventy million foot-pounds of CVPI."
I think at the point we're talking hitting someone with a CVPI, "knockdown power" is finally an appropriate term.
SeriousStudent
04-15-15, 22:43
I think at the point we're talking hitting someone with a CVPI, "knockdown power" is finally an appropriate term.
Truff.
eightmillimeter
04-16-15, 00:43
I think at the point we're talking hitting someone with a CVPI, "knockdown power" is finally an appropriate term.
Assuming an impact speed of 40mph a loaded CVPI has about 235,000 ft-lbs of energy!
I'll bet he sues and gets a fat check. I already saw his lawyer saying "excessive force "
Only in America.
I'll bet he sues and gets a fat check. I already saw his lawyer saying "excessive force "
Only in America.
If he was shot, he could sue for that as well.
This is why there needs to be civil law that covers this. In my opinion, if you are injured anywhere in the U.S. while committing a felony, you should not have the ability to file a lawsuit.
Eurodriver
04-16-15, 03:55
I was reminded of the same one.
Here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj4SEu1ScuE
That's it! Thanks for sharing.
Agree with others that suing LE for UOF while resisting should not be legal.
I'll bet he sues and gets a fat check. I already saw his lawyer saying "excessive force "
Only in America.
He already crossed lethal force thresholds, hopefully the judge will tell him to get the **** out of Dodge with that bullshit and fine his lawyer court costs.
ThirdWatcher
04-16-15, 04:50
... This is why there needs to be civil law that covers this. In my opinion, if you are injured anywhere in the U.S. while committing a felony, you should not have the ability to file a lawsuit.
+1 This country is in desperate need of tort reform.
Moose-Knuckle
04-16-15, 06:55
If he was shot, he could sue for that as well.
This is why there needs to be civil law that covers this. In my opinion, if you are injured anywhere in the U.S. while committing a felony, you should not have the ability to file a lawsuit.
Yeah when a society permits an oxygen thief to sue a home owner for a broken leg sustained from falling through a sky light in a botched burglary or sue a rape victim for custody of a child spawned from the offense that society's expiration date is in sight.
skijunkie55
04-16-15, 07:56
Yeah when a society permits an oxygen thief to sue a home owner for a broken leg sustained from falling through a sky light in a botched burglary or sue a rape victim for custody of a child spawned from the offense that society's expiration date is in sight.
"but we're progressive!"
If he was shot, he could sue for that as well.
This is why there needs to be civil law that covers this. In my opinion, if you are injured anywhere in the U.S. while committing a felony, you should not have the ability to file a lawsuit.
Agree 100%, but I'd make it even more far reaching. Injury or death resulting during the commission of any crime = no civil case by the criminal, their survivors of anyone on their behalf. Criminal action for excessive force or other violations that resulted in said injury is OK. For example. You jay walk and squished = tough shit for you. No suing the driver cause you shouldn't have been here in the first place. Break into a home and have the home owner melt your testicles off with an iron while he waits for the cops to show = tough shit for you and your family as far as civil suit, but homeowner goes to jail for whatever that charge would be.
People who chose to live and act outside the law should be treated as such.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-16-15, 08:45
Kind of puts the 9mm vs 45ACP into context.....
+1 This country is in desperate need of tort reform.
Only problem is that most of congress, and pretty much all judges are lawyers........ So yeah, we're kinda effed there.
Imagine a tort reformed America..... How wonderful would that be.
I've been seeing this video making the rounds on all sorts of social media with a lot of high five-ing and chest thumping going on. Before I say the next statement please believe that I have many close friends in LE and I respect what they do and am often the first one to defend them against those who hate the uniform often because they can't exercise self control in an effort to keep from breaking the law. Was this really the best way to resolve the situation? When I look at this video my first reaction was: what if there was someone else within about a 25-30' path that car just bashed through? A small child playing in the front yard or some other innocent person who was hiding in fear when they heard the gun shots, perhaps laying under a vehicle or behind the wall or something. Then what? We still all chest thumping if his actions killed three people? I can live with a stray bullet from a firearm because that's a more effective method of dealing with such problems. You train regularly using firearms with this exact situation in mind. He effectively used a rocket launcher to dispatch a fly and in this case there was no collateral damage as a result so the explosion is entertaining but if there had been collateral damage... then what? Let's be realistic, it's hard to control a 5,000lb car at that speed and if there had been an innocent nearby he couldn't have simply swerved to avoid them if they were in the direct path of that car. As soon as he left the road at that speed he was no longer in control and anyone who says he was would have just as much luck convincing me he could have bent the bullet after firing it to avoid innocent bystanders. I'm glad it all worked out for everyone (after the not-so-small tab of damages is paid by tax payers) but this could have very easily had a gruesome result and I don't think people would have been so gung ho on his actions. In this day & age of cop hating reporting I'm VERY glad for everyone involved and everyone who wears a badge that this worked out but had it not it would have been yet another black eye on the profession and I'm not sure how that would have swung the pendulum in light of recent events. I guess I'm saying that the more I see it the less I support the actions of that officer. In fact, the immediate reaction from the to p radio chatter of the officer in charge of the scene seem to echo this same sentiment. I'm just not sure this is the best example of police control for those bringing it into question right now.
NCPatrolAR
04-16-15, 12:29
so people wouldnt be in danger if the officers had started shooting at the suspect or simply allowed him to go about his way?
so people wouldnt be in danger if the officers had started shooting at the suspect or simply allowed him to go about his way?
Debatable. Was he shooting AT these people? All I saw was him discharge it into the air in the video. Were people in danger? Yes. Was using his car to run up onto a yard in a neighborhood at 50mph the best course of action? Front what I've seen I don't think it was. I think it was reckless and more harm than good could have been done than had someone taken a shot with a firearm.
I never said they should let him go about his way so don't put words into my mouth to try to validate your point.
NCPatrolAR
04-16-15, 13:35
Debatable. Was he shooting AT these people? All I saw was him discharge it into the air in the video. Were people in danger? Yes. Was using his car to run up onto a yard in a neighborhood at 50mph the best course of action? Front what I've seen I don't think it was. I think it was reckless and more harm than good could have been done than had someone taken a shot with a firearm.
I never said they should let him go about his way so don't put words into my mouth to try to validate your point.
So which course stands a better chance of bringing the suspect's actions (day long crime spree) to an end with the least chance of hurting people? Hitting him with the car (where there's a chance someone might be struck by the vehicle but they'd have to be in the immediate area of the vehicle) or getting into a gunfight with the suspect (where multiple rounds are going to be traveling a lot faster and are harder to avoid than a car)?
And waiting for this perfect "sniper shot" is allowing the suspect to go about his way
skijunkie55
04-16-15, 13:43
Firearm safety 101...
Always be sure of your target and what is beyond it.
Beyond the suspect in the direction of travel of where the cops guns would have been pointed are what looks like a small business, a large office building, lots of parked cars... Probably lots of people as well...
And let's be honest, these are cops with hand guns we are talking about. Not Delta SEAL marine force recon snipers with their MK12 MOD1 precision rifles ready to go.
So which course stands a better chance of bringing the suspect's actions (day long crime spree) to an end with the least chance of hurting people? Hitting him with the car (where there's a chance someone might be struck by the vehicle but they'd have to be in the immediate area of the vehicle) or getting into a gunfight with the suspect (where multiple rounds are going to be traveling a lot faster and are harder to avoid than a car)?
And waiting for this perfect "sniper shot" is allowing the suspect to go about his way
If I was an on scene officer, who knew of his multiple felonies that day, I'd sure be concerned about him taking a quick left turn into one of those small homes/businesses (whatever they were on his left side). Now you have a home invasion type of scenario.
If I was an on scene officer, who knew of his multiple felonies that day, I'd sure be concerned about him taking a quick left turn into one of those small homes/businesses (whatever they were on his left side). Now you have a home invasion type of scenario.
Exactly. Given the known sequence of events; including the reckless discharge of a firearm it's not unreasonable to conclude that the guy was a clear threat to those around him. It's also not unreasonable to suspect that if he gains access to one of those homes or other populated areas he would pose an immediate threat to life and limb. As such; the guy needed to be subdued ASAFP. To achieve that goal the officers had to make a choice. Put a dozen or so supersonic projectiles into the air or go to ramming speed. While not so common place I don't think the officer chose poorly. What has more potential for collateral damage: dozens of rounds going down range or a car? Given the propensity for misses during a stressful event, the lack of a realistic one shot stop, possibility of pass through, ricochets and all sorts of other means by which a projectile can end up in someone other than this POS; I think the car was less dangerous.
So aiming a firearm (that you've qualified extensively with) at your intended target to neutralize a threat is reckless but ramming them with your car at 50mph onto front yards is not.
All those liberals have finally got to guys I'm afraid.
Eurodriver
04-16-15, 17:32
so people wouldnt be in danger if the officers had started shooting at the suspect or simply allowed him to go about his way?
You need to get out of here with that voodoo logic that criminals commit crime and police officers arrest criminals!
M4C GD Policy states only LEOs are criminals. Everyone else is just misunderstood, man.
NCPatrolAR
04-16-15, 18:32
So aiming a firearm (that you've qualified extensively with) at your intended target to neutralize a threat is reckless but ramming them with your car at 50mph onto front yards is not.
All those liberals have finally got to guys I'm afraid.
I have yet to say either option is reckless. You do have to weigh all the mitigating and aggravating factors (in a fraction of a second) and go with the less shitty choice
I have yet to say either option is reckless. You do have to weigh all the mitigating and aggravating factors (in a fraction of a second) and go with the less shitty choice
My point is the for several reasons I feel as though shooting is a less shitty choice. I won't say it's substantially better but from a control standpoint it is & in a residential area that better be a high priority.
so people wouldnt be in danger if the officers had started shooting at the suspect or simply allowed him to go about his way?
Based on what we know about the incident, I believe that shooting at the suspect would have posed a greater danger to the public. A stray round can travel a great distance.
Officer who struck the perp was involved in an excessive force lawsuit while employed as police officer in NY. Charges were dropped.
Officer Michael Rapiejko was with the New York Police Department from 2003 to 2006. Two years after he left, he was one of the defendants in a suit filed by a man who alleged that Rapiejko pointed a gun and threatened to shoot him and handcuffed and choked him in front of his family during a 2005 arrest.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/16/us/arizona-police-run-over-suspect/index.html
7.62 -The case settled for 20,000, kind of an indication there was not much merit to it.
The City of Marana is 30,000+ so I'd be willing to bet they had patrol rifles. That would create less danger than a handgun, and an almost certainty of death to the subject. In this case the subject survived, although the force used was almost certainly not chosen to accomplish incapacitation without serious injury or death.
Jer - This was a rapidly evolving situation, the man had (reportedly) already threatened officers by pointing the weapon at them, he was approaching a business area where the likelihood of injury to bystanders would increase. He could easily have walked into a business and taken hostages or injured or killed occupants. Given the same fact situation, a rational calculation of the likelihood of this guy killing someone in the next 10 - 20 seconds (the minimum time it would take to the unit with a patrol rifle, take position and fire a well-aimed immediately incapacitating shot) is high.
Based on that, the most immediate way of ending this threat was the action this officer took. Granted he hit a fence, and there could have been someone by it, but with all the siren activity and units on the street, that was not very likely.
The courts have been cautious in second-guessing the actions of officers in rapidly evolving situations like this, in fact in the case of Graham v. Connor, the SCOTUS gives specific instructions as to how such cases are to be judged - from the perspective of the officer at the scene, having only the knowledge that the officer had at the time, not using 20/20 hindsight to judge the objective reasonableness of the officers actions.
It is also necessary to remind ourselves that this man had 1) robbed a 7-11; 2) committed aggravated arson by setting an occupied church on fire; 3) broken into a house and stolen a vehicle by force; 4) stolen a weapon, by force, from a Wal-Mart; 5) aimed said weapon at a police officer and then fired rounds into the air. He may be mentally disturbed, but that is a moot point, his clearly escalating actions give any sane person probable cause to believe he poses an immediate threat of death or great bodily harm unless he is arrested (seized) without delay. In such cases lethal force has always been justified.
Just my 'expert' opinion.
One thing to consider is that if the officers decide in this instance to engage with firearms they are not likely to be the only ones shooting. The felon is armed with his rifle, and on a 360 degree range likely cares very little about his backdrop. If none of the officers have a rifle or shotgun immediately available, handgun rounds are not likely to immediately incapacitate the suspect, and this will allow the suspect to potentially spray rifle rounds all over.
What is needed is a solution that provides a high likelihood of immediate incapacitation with a low chance of failure. By employing the cruiser, the officer used the vehicle to effect a tackle, so to speak, on the suspect. Now obviously, if you are going to tackle with a cruiser you have to meet the requirements for the use of deadly force. The cruiser offered a relatively high degree of protection for the officer and a low likelihood of missing due to the relative size of the cruiser compared to the intended target.
Would a single CNS shot provide the same effect? Absolutely. But if the officer misses, the situation escalates to a shootout. In this case, the vehicle strike likely stuns the suspect and the impact likely separates him from the weapon as well, removing his ability to engage officers.
And yes, I have had officers on my watch use vehicles against suspects with effective results.
Moose-Knuckle
04-16-15, 23:11
Officer Rapiejko took decisive action and brought about a successful conclusion to a dynamic and fluid situation. Instead of holding back and "containing" and armed felon who just shot a round off, threatened suicide, and committed various felonious offenses the Officer took action to neutralize the subject so he could not duck into the business that were close by full of people and take hostages or commit an active shooter style attack.
I guess he was supposed to "hold back" and let the bastard enter one of those places and take hostages; maybe hours or even days later he would have thrown in the towel. What bewilders me is that folks are okay with the LEOs shooting the perp but not running him down with a squad car.
If you apply the same standard to the use of the car as you do to a weapon, he had no idea what was behind that wall when he attempted to drive the car (and the bad guy) though it.
I'm not entirely convinced that the same thing couldn't have been accomplished at less than 30 miles per hour, while hitting the brakes as the vehicle hit the guy.
I think it's easy to criticize this event after the fact. I'm in the should have shot the guy camp. But, we don't know if they had rifles. Plus that could have not worked out and ended in a gun fight.
However, this time, the officers decision worked brilliantly. Who knows what was happening at the time during the action. Maybe the cop knew someone that lived on that street and said to himself, He IS NOT going further, this ends here.
OODA loop and associated theory says agility and maneuvering wins.
Shooting from a vehicle is hard. I've done it chasing pests on the farm. I've only done it from a truck. Best hope is rifle across your lap, turn at a 45 to the right, stop use the mirror our brace you arm and window sill. I imagine a car should be harder given less elevation to start with. Your 5-10 seconds to do this.
I'd say the this was this event ended in success, perp was subdued. Was it safe? Life is unsafe in general in my opinion. Agility and fast decision making wins the day, again. Violence of action is a quality all of its own.
Sucks for the guy who got his driveway wrecked. But better than a front yard shoot out, home invasion, and god knows what else this time.
I love how because I question the chosen method immediately people put words in my mouth about not acting at all and letting him continue his plans as if that's what I'm saying. I'm merely saying that using his vehicle as he did in that situation wasn't the wisest of decisions. Using your car in a similar manner on a highway or large parking lot is a different story. This is a residential area we're talking about with 20' set-backs from the street. If you've ever been in a vehicle that left the roadway at highway speeds you know that there is ZERO control involved and you are quite literally at the mercy of momentum & physics. To say that deploying firearms of ANY kind is more reckless than hurtling your car out of control TOWARDS homes and unknown backgrounds is parroting what anti-gun people have been selling about firearms and I refuse to believe this is in any way more effective in this situation. It just isn't. If your argument about not using firearms is the background and yet somehow this magically is a non-issue when accelerating your cruiser to highway speeds at the threat in the exact same scenario then something is very wrong here.
In today's anti-LE political climate, tell me what would have been the headline had there been two little girls coloring with chalk in the driveway the other side of that wall who were hiding behind that wall when the shots rang out. How would that exact same scenario have played out in the court of public opinion. God forbid they were girls of an ethnic race because it would have been unreal.
Now that you are actually thinking about what could have happened, tell me the exact actions of the officer and the precautions he took that prevented that from happening. If you can't and it was all based on luck that's entirely too high a price to put in the hands of dumb luck.
That's my point.
NCPatrolAR
04-17-15, 11:45
People are giving you grief due to your repeated use of "reckless" to describe actions taken
People are giving you grief due to your repeated use of "reckless" to describe actions taken
"reck·less
ˈrekləs/Submit
adjective
(of a person or their actions) without thinking or caring about the consequences of an action."
Given he didn't know what was on the other side of that wall or when his vehicle (which was aimed at homes) would have come to a stop, you tell me what that choice was.
You can't argue with results! Job got done, innocent people didn't get hurt, and there wasn't any drawn out standoff endangering officers/citizens. What officer coulda/shudda done or what happens because of it, he got the job done. And I'm thankful for it.... The funny vid of low life getting run over is icing on the cake.
I have no issue with this but as a member of the tax paying society I am pissed off. Damage to the car, private property, who knows what else. And very bad PR. If he was that much of a threat I would just shoot and call it a day. But it is a judgment call and it worked.
Maybe that is why I am not an LEO...... ;)
I think it was a good, yet surprising, call by the cop. I don't think there is any question on this one. That's why I'm not a LEO either.
One more comment. I think it was a good call, but a bit risky. If the perp had turned in time the officer would have been a boxed target. That makes me think the Officer was taking a bit of an unnecessary risk given the situation. Again, it was bold and worked out fine, but he might be getting some coaching from leadership.
if you watched the video from the news article
they were stopping him from going into the coca cola bottling company where they were afraid of hostage situation
if you notice the dash cam footage there were gates to the next entry just after he crashes through the wall if he had jumped those it might have been hard to get him before he was in a place with tons of people and they were afraid of a hostage or worse situation
I say good way to take down folks who wont comply who just shot a gun and are on a public street ! to bad he was not between the wall and cruiser then under the cruiser :)
NCPatrolAR
04-17-15, 12:42
"reck·less
ˈrekləs/Submit
adjective
(of a person or their actions) without thinking or caring about the consequences of an action."
Given he didn't know what was on the other side of that wall or when his vehicle (which was aimed at homes) would have come to a stop, you tell me what that choice was.
So putting high velocity projectiles in the air in an environment where people are running around wouldn't meet the same definition (going by your standards)?
"reck·less
ˈrekləs/Submit
adjective
(of a person or their actions) without thinking or caring about the consequences of an action."
Given he didn't know what was on the other side of that wall or when his vehicle (which was aimed at homes) would have come to a stop, you tell me what that choice was.
I think I'm misunderstanding your stance. As I understand your posts; you are suggesting that shooting this guy would have been a better choice than running him over. If my interpretation is accurate please explain to me in REALISTIC terms how multiple projectiles in the air are less likely to cause collateral damage than the ramming thingie. Nothing about what is behind the target changes whether you're shooting the guy or ramming hike, expect maybe that your viewing angle expands as you get closer. In theory the driver could have changed course if someone came into view. Not so much for the shooter. Realistically how many reliable 1 shot stops have police or anyone executed with a hand gun? This is neither Call of Duty not are these cops Delta/DevGru super ninjas capable of putting a head shot on a moving target. The argument that they could have stopped and put a round between the guys eyes to immediately stop him is as valid as the they should have shot him in the arm.
The guy needed to be stopped and was without any collateral damage aside from some inanimate objects that nobody gives a shit about. Why we are fixated with his the guy was stopped is behind me. Next we are going to worry when a homeowner uses a bat to defend themselves. Maybe they should have used a 3 wood instead.
I think I'm misunderstanding your stance. As I understand your posts; you are suggesting that shooting this guy would have been a better choice than running him over. If my interpretation is accurate please explain to me in REALISTIC terms how multiple projectiles in the air are less likely to cause collateral damage than the ramming thingie. Nothing about what is behind the target changes whether you're shooting the guy or ramming hike, expect maybe that your viewing angle expands as you get closer. In theory the driver could have changed course if someone came into view. Not so much for the shooter. Realistically how many reliable 1 shot stops have police or anyone executed with a hand gun? This is neither Call of Duty not are these cops Delta/DevGru super ninjas capable of putting a head shot on a moving target. The argument that they could have stopped and put a round between the guys eyes to immediately stop him is as valid as the they should have shot him in the arm.
The guy needed to be stopped and was without any collateral damage aside from some inanimate objects that nobody gives a shit about. Why we are fixated with his the guy was stopped is behind me. Next we are going to worry when a homeowner uses a bat to defend themselves. Maybe they should have used a 3 wood instead.
The issue I have with your argument Jer is reflected in this prior post " So aiming a firearm (that you've qualified extensively with)." Most LE are have basic state requirements, they are pretty low requirements. It is kinda of like term mil spec it is the lowest acceptable. And a lot of LE still have problems quilfying. There are a lot of them that shoot maybe five times a year or less, most do less. Most qualification ranges with a pistol are 25 yards only. Maybe 2% percent practice at greater distances. Most guys with patrol rifles qualify once a year and don't shoot more then that. Several others are not aloud RDS on said rifles. So you have a target with a rifle at ranges greater then 25 yards who is moving the stress of the situation all factors that would need to be considered. I just think using the office on wheels was the best he had at the time.
This is the internet, which gives everyone free reign to post their opinion. If you have not been involved in at least 2 violent encounters with an armed individual, I would like for you to review what you posted.
In my humble opinion, you can place a value on private property, such as a squad car or fence, but not human life be it innocent civilians or LEO.
A properly trained LEO will use all available resources at his/her disposal in a confrontation. The loss of private property, such as a squad car, is miniscule compared to the loss of life of a citizen or responding LEO.
Example: Some limp dick admin personnel at my agency had a young officer concerned over damage to his assigned squad car. He and a local officer were fighting with a person who had committed a felony and the right rear view mirror was broken off his squad car. He was truly concerned about disciplinary action and suspension due to comments from some command personnel.
I stepped in on behalf of the junior officer with the higher ranking personnel who were concerned about how the incident would look at a Crash Review Board hearing. I pointed out that the incident did not involve a traffic crash, that the mirror was broken off the squad car while our officer and an officer from another agency were making an arrest and taking steps to properly defend themselves. After consulting with upper command, they determined they were not acting in the officer's or public's best interest. They were not happy.
I arranged for the officer to help me relay his squad car to the low bid dealership that was going to repair his assigned vehicle roughly one week after the incident occurred. I asked the young officer if a supervisor at any time had asked if he had been injured during the physical encounter and he told me that I was the first person to ask. I advised him that I spoke with upper command and it was determined that his vehicle damage was not the result of a crash and that he did not have to worry about facing a Crash Review Board. I told him it was the cost of doing business and that the State's Attorney was going to request the judge order reimbursement for the repair of the vehicle.
Anyone who thinks that placing an officer in a position where they risk great bodily harm or death to avoid damaging a squad car or private property should rethink their position. Anyone who thinks that stray rounds leaving the area of a firefight with an armed suspect is more acceptable than crashing a squad car and fence should take another look at the incident. Anyone who says that no officer ever missed a shot at an armed suspect is dead wrong or they have their heads in the sand. I will buy a steak dinner and enough alcohol for them to pass out for anyone who can confirm that they have never in their entire life missed a shot on an armed subject who posed a threat to them.
I have fired my volley, so fire away and fall back.
This is the internet, which gives everyone free reign to post their opinion. If you have not been involved in at least 2 violent encounters with an armed individual, I would like for you to review what you posted.
In my humble opinion, you can place a value on private property, such as a squad car or fence, but not human life be it innocent civilians or LEO.
A properly trained LEO will use all available resources at his/her disposal in a confrontation. The loss of private property, such as a squad car, is miniscule compared to the loss of life of a citizen or responding LEO.
Example: Some limp dick admin personnel at my agency had a young officer concerned over damage to his assigned squad car. He and a local officer were fighting with a person who had committed a felony and the right rear view mirror was broken off his squad car. He was truly concerned about disciplinary action and suspension due to comments from some command personnel.
I stepped in on behalf of the junior officer with the higher ranking personnel who were concerned about how the incident would look at a Crash Review Board hearing. I pointed out that the incident did not involve a traffic crash, that the mirror was broken off the squad car while our officer and an officer from another agency were making an arrest and taking steps to properly defend themselves. After consulting with upper command, they determined they were not acting in the officer's or public's best interest. They were not happy.
I arranged for the officer to help me relay his squad car to the low bid dealership that was going to repair his assigned vehicle roughly one week after the incident occurred. I asked the young officer if a supervisor at any time had asked if he had been injured during the physical encounter and he told me that I was the first person to ask. I advised him that I spoke with upper command and it was determined that his vehicle damage was not the result of a crash and that he did not have to worry about facing a Crash Review Board. I told him it was the cost of doing business and that the State's Attorney was going to request the judge order reimbursement for the repair of the vehicle.
Anyone who thinks that placing an officer in a position where they risk great bodily harm or death to avoid damaging a squad car or private property should rethink their position. Anyone who thinks that stray rounds leaving the area of a firefight with an armed suspect is more acceptable than crashing a squad car and fence should take another look at the incident. Anyone who says that no officer ever missed a shot at an armed suspect is dead wrong or they have their heads in the sand. I will buy a steak dinner and enough alcohol for them to pass out for anyone who can confirm that they have never in their entire life missed a shot on an armed subject who posed a threat to them.
I have fired my volley, so fire away and fall back.
Cool story bro.
I don't recall giving a hobo's turd about the squad car or the cost associated w/fixing said vehicle or wall.
Let the record also show (once again) that I give equal feces sum about the idiot with a death wish.
None of this is anything I have questioned. Please stop putting words in my mouth to bolster your side of the discussion.
I never thought I would have to argue the effectiveness of deploying firearms against violent threats on a firearm forum of all places. People talking about stray bullets & how dangerous firearms are in the hands of trained professionals should be ashamed of the stance they've taken in this conversation. You're no better than the hippies who use the same idiotic logic to take our guns from us.
It's clear nobody here is open to discussing the complex idea of using a hammer to drive nails & a tree shredder for felled trees. You clearly can't comprehend the complexity of selecting the right tool for the job. If I can't even get you to consider that possibility then the intricacies of innocent human lives that weren't considered is a pipe dream. Cops can do no wrong & anyone who would ever question anything any one of them has ever done in a effort to save innocent lives moving forward is clearly a tinfoil hat wearing anti-government conspiracy theorist who's worthy if ridicule.
You can have your thread.
Moose-Knuckle
04-17-15, 23:21
if you watched the video from the news article
they were stopping him from going into the coca cola bottling company where they were afraid of hostage situation
if you notice the dash cam footage there were gates to the next entry just after he crashes through the wall if he had jumped those it might have been hard to get him before he was in a place with tons of people and they were afraid of a hostage or worse situation
I say good way to take down folks who wont comply who just shot a gun and are on a public street ! to bad he was not between the wall and cruiser then under the cruiser :)
This coincides with my view of the situation after initially watching the video I posted.
The Officer that struck the perp had a different view, you can see his dash board cam view from the video I linked. He could see that there were no friendlies and they were not in a residential area. To me from the video it looked like an industrial part of town. Hence the near by business that he could duck into from the sidewalk that he was on. I don't think this Officer would have used the same tactic had the guy been walking through a school zone on a school day with kids waiting for the crossing guard. He could clearly see that no one was around except the suspect. Also lets not forget that people called this guy in, lots of cop cars running code, shot fired, etc. Who in the hell would be walking their dog with all that going on?
Averageman
04-18-15, 10:00
You have a split second to make a decison that you will carry with you the rest of your life.
All the shoulda, coulda, woulda the rest of us might have as armchair Quarterbacks means a hill of beans to this guy and it appears that his Boss doesn't have an issue with it.
I think he did the best he could with what was readily available at the moment.
SilverBullet432
04-18-15, 11:45
Who will pay for the collateral damage? :sarcastic:
NCPatrolAR
04-18-15, 12:02
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7090496
Seems the officer did some option weighing prior to using the car
To me the disturbing fact is that from now on the public will be using video clips to observe and then judge l.e. procedures carried out during emergency/crisis situations. Administrators--regardless of the organization--are often chicken shit by nature and make decisions based on helping their career. I predict the evolution of some really stupid police tactics/procedures that will endanger cops and citizens because of fear of internet user opinion to video.
So I read that huff post article. And this meme sums how I feel about the part where the perps lawyer says he wasn't a threat...
http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/wtf-is-this-shit.jpg
To me the disturbing fact is that from now on the public will be using video clips to observe and then judge l.e. procedures carried out during emergency/crisis situations. Administrators--regardless of the organization--are often chicken shit by nature and make decisions based on helping their career. I predict the evolution of some really stupid police tactics/procedures that will endanger cops and citizens because of fear of internet user opinion to video.
This has been going on since the incident involving Rodney King and LAPD in 1991. The difference in this day and age is that the recording devices are much smaller and more high tech.
I have been video-recorded several times while effecting an arrest and been second guessed twice. It's the lay of the land in these times. If you are LEO acting in a manner that you would not want videotaped, then there is a bigger issue at hand than the video-recording device. No matter how the video looks, if you act within the guidelines of the law and common sense you should be in a good position to justify your actions.
If a community activist or plaintiff's attorney wants to make an issue about an arrest you made, videotape is good evidence in your defense.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.