More twists in the Walter Scott shooting case

[Citizen]

a picture is worth a thousand words isn't it!!

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

and LE say intentionally running over the suspect 'saved lives'...

and the chief said that with a straight face!!! scary, truly scary!!
ipse

I saw that video yesterday on a different site. I was completely outraged.

However, the article you link hints at something: that the thief was suicidal. I don't buy that justifies running the guy down. And, the spokesman justification that vehicular lethal force saved a few hundred people working a little further along the road doesn't hold water, either. There was already a patrol car approaching from the other direction who could interpose himself.

Mas Ayoob, in his books on police shootings, points out that a person who is suicidal is dangerous--if he is suicidal, he is by definition, homicidal. Ayoob relates stories where the suicidal person abruptly shifted mental gears and turned his self-homicidal impulse on the cops. Extreme caution was Ayoob's recommendation. I can agree with that.

However, notice Ayoob did not say, "take him out at the first opportunity."

Even if the Arizona man was suicidal, there was still time to attempt to work with him. He fired the rifle into air, for all we can tell negligently. But, he did not turn and fire it at the patrol car behind him which was within easy rifle shot. No need at all to run him down at the point it was done to him.

 

[solus]

uh, WW, et al., why am i truly confused...

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.

sorry suspect is quote: charged with theft, within an hour + charged with arson, shortly there after commits daylight B/E to steal a vehicle, so he can drive to walmart to steal a LG & ammo (side note: how did he get inside the Wally world LG case and into the ammo to steal it?? i can't find anybody to let me get that done on a good day!!!) unquote.

YET the suspect is still walking the streets with numerous LE(s) following? something is wrong with the story here...i do not see any nice LE stopping and chatting with him about the prior events, no where do i see where anybody, news or LE, state the suspect was clearly agitated or incoherent or antagonistic or, or, or...

no the nice patrolman out of the blue w/o even saying to his buddies following, sped up, ran up on the curb, and flat out ran over the suspect.

all in the mistaken belief...we saved lives with this advanced LE submission maneuver!!

sorry, i'm truly not sure the officer didn't run him over to cover up the officer's lack of properly handling a theft, arsonist, etc.? (sarcasm off)

ipse

citizen, the suspect's lawyer raises the suicide aspect...so, oh the officers are now capable of determining the suspect's mental status w/o talking to him...good heavens they had two face to face conversations with him earlier in the day and he is still on the streets doing a daylight B/E, etc.

finally, it was 30.06 whose capacity is what 3-5 cartridges at most and one has already been discharged...hundreds dying? really from a 30.06?

ipse

 

[Citizen]

uh, WW, et al., why am i truly confused...(entire post)

I'm a little uncertain. I seems like you support the vehicular lethal force. If that is not the case, please disregard the rest of this post.

If you support the vehicular lethal force, you're saying in so many words that police don't have to take risks. Is it possible they might have got shot at if they had attempted closer contact and communication? Sure. Is it possible the police might have got shot at if they had tried bean-bag rounds, etc? Sure. No where does it say policing has no risks.

But, as far as I can tell so far, even though his colleagues were refraining from lethal force, bulldozer cop decided to run the guy down.

 

[The Truth]

I know this is off topic and we should probably start a new thread for the vehicular assault case, but that's a tough one. One on hand you've got a psycho cop willing to mow someone down with his car. On the other hand, the guy was apparently a very dangerous, violent, armed individual who was also likely a psycho. Even in this thread we have covered how TN v. Garner allows deadly force when apprehending a suspect who basically fits this guy's description to a T. Personally, I don't feel good about the fact that this is acceptable - and it seems cruel and unusual, but legally is it really a crime?

Would the alternative have been safer or more humane - the alternative probably being gunfight in a residential area? It's just hard for me to lump in the vehicular assault case with these unarmed people being shot to death. Is it disturbing nonetheless? Absolutely.

Also, if the guy was thinking of killing people and likely police officers, how did this not save lives?

Just trying to play devil's advocate here since I usually take such a hard line on these issues.

 

[WalkingWolf]

I am not patting the officer on the back, I am only pointing out that his use of the vehicle was justified legally. Maybe USER can pop in and help us with this.

 

[Citizen]

I know this is off topic and we should probably start a new thread for the vehicular assault case, but that's a tough one. One on hand you've got a psycho cop willing to mow someone down with his car. On the other hand, the guy was apparently a very dangerous, violent, armed individual who was also likely a psycho. Even in this thread we have covered how TN v. Garner allows deadly force when apprehending a suspect who basically fits this guy's description to a T. Personally, I don't feel good about the fact that this is acceptable - and it seems cruel and unusual, but legally is it really a crime?

Would the alternative have been safer or more humane - the alternative probably being gunfight in a residential area? It's just hard for me to lump in the vehicular assault case with these unarmed people being shot to death. Is it disturbing nonetheless? Absolutely.

Also, if the guy was thinking of killing people and likely police officers, how did this not save lives?

Just trying to play devil's advocate here since I usually take such a hard line on these issues.

Except Valencia didn't seem to be trying all that hard to escape. "We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others." TN v Garner.

The more I think about it, the more I wonder. Valencia is accused of x,y,z crimes. In Garner the officer witnessed--sort of--young Garner burgling. Did bulldozer cop witness Valencia committing any felonies? How far do the unproven allegations of other victims contribute to a cop being able to use lethal force later? Did bulldozer cop personally have probable cause to believe Valencia committed the earlier offenses? Does bulldozer cop need personal probable cause, or can he rely on the shared-knowledge doctrine? How much reliance can he place on that for lethal force?

Separately, some posters are making, I think, a mistake in their thinking. Being dangerous does not equate to danger. Every CCer and OCer is dangerous, but that does not make him or her a danger. Valencia was clearly dangerous, but that does not mean he definitely would not just lay down the gun when confronted with overwhelming force.

Basically, I am now a little concerned that instead of cops drawing to low-ready, and demanding compliance from a suspect, we might be sliding down a slippery slope where police can just shoot an armed suspect without even demanding compliance. From there it is only one small step to shooting the suspect who might be armed. All in the name of officer and public safety of course.

 

[The Truth]

Except Valencia didn't seem to be trying all that hard to escape. "We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others." TN v Garner.

The more I think about it, the more I wonder. Valencia is accused of x,y,z crimes. In Garner the officer witnessed--sort of--young Garner burgling. Did bulldozer cop witness Valencia committing any felonies? How far do the unproven allegations of other victims contribute to a cop being able to use lethal force later? Did bulldozer cop personally have probable cause to believe Valencia committed the earlier offenses? Does bulldozer cop need personal probable cause, or can he rely on the shared-knowledge doctrine? How much reliance can he place on that for lethal force?

Separately, some posters are making, I think, a mistake in their thinking. Being dangerous does not equate to danger. Every CCer and OCer is dangerous, but that does not make him or her a danger. Valencia was clearly dangerous, but that does not mean he definitely would not just lay down the gun when confronted with overwhelming force.

Basically, I am now a little concerned that instead of cops drawing to low-ready, and demanding compliance from a suspect, we might be sliding down a slippery slope where police can just shoot an armed suspect without even demanding compliance. From there it is only one small step to shooting the suspect who might be armed. All in the name of officer and public safety of course.

All good points. I'm glad we are having this discussion.

 

[deepdiver]

Separately, some posters are making, I think, a mistake in their thinking. Being dangerous does not equate to danger. Every CCer and OCer is dangerous, but that does not make him or her a danger. Valencia was clearly dangerous, but that does not mean he definitely would not just lay down the gun when confronted with overwhelming force.

Basically, I am now a little concerned that instead of cops drawing to low-ready, and demanding compliance from a suspect, we might be sliding down a slippery slope where police can just shoot an armed suspect without even demanding compliance. From there it is only one small step to shooting the suspect who might be armed. All in the name of officer and public safety of course.

I would quibble with your position of semantics of dangerous/danger, but will instead yield to your larger point that words do matter when having these type of discussions. The English language is amazing in having more words available than any previous language in history allowing modern English to be extremely precise. Instead, too many, especially those who make their living from wordsmithing, fail to discriminate on such matters.

I too worry about the slippery slope with LEO. There was certainly a time when they were instead peace officers and we all would accept that the bad guy got hit by the car because he was an idiot bad guy doing idiot bad things that could have gotten innocent people hurt. The public wasn't much outraged when Bonnie and Clyde were finally ambushed and shot to pieces. Their sheen of hipster had faded to a murderous red shimmer by that time. Criminals were typically executed in weeks or months not years and decades. But then at that time we, the citizen, felt we still had some semblance of control of our own government. So, while my gut reaction to seeing the idiot stolen rifle shooting thief get bumped by a cop car instead of being shot to pieces is, good, that seems reasonable. But the intervening years between peace officers and LEO (along with a much perspective, discussion and thoughtfulness here and other forums) cause me to then readily recognize Citizen's slippery slope argument as sadly reasonable and concerning.

 

[Citizen]

Valencia didn't seem to be trying all that hard to escape. "We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others." TN v Garner.

I just realized something else.

TN v Garner requires lethal force to be necessary. Not "the lowest risk", nor "the quickest way to end a situation that might become but is not yet a danger". Even if one argues Valencia was escaping by walking, I am not at all convinced lethal force had become necessary.

Wasn't there a time in this country when lethal force was a last resort?

 

[deepdiver]

Even if one argues Valencia was escaping by walking, I am not at all convinced lethal force had become necessary.

Wasn't there a time in this country when lethal force was a last resort?

I think most share your doubts about the necessity of lethal force, hence the massive condemnation from all corners when the video was released.

As to the last question, no, I don't think so. Probably was in 50-60s suburbia, but I think in hard scrabble and urban crime ridden areas there has always been a meet-force-with-force dynamic between BGs and the law.

 

[solus]

I know this is off topic and we should probably start a new thread for the vehicular assault case, but that's a tough one. One on hand you've got a psycho cop willing to mow someone down with his car. On the other hand, the guy was apparently a very dangerous, violent, armed individual who was also likely a psycho. Even in this thread we have covered how TN v. Garner allows deadly force when apprehending a suspect who basically fits this guy's description to a T. Personally, I don't feel good about the fact that this is acceptable - and it seems cruel and unusual, but legally is it really a crime?

Would the alternative have been safer or more humane - the alternative probably being gunfight in a residential area? It's just hard for me to lump in the vehicular assault case with these unarmed people being shot to death. Is it disturbing nonetheless? Absolutely.

Also, if the guy was thinking of killing people and likely police officers, how did this not save lives?

Just trying to play devil's advocate here since I usually take such a hard line on these issues.

the Tucson LE had interacted with the suspect, two times the same day...he is a meth head as he was in the hospital the night before, and had not injured anybody before being run over. again, the rifle he took from wally world only has 3-5 cartridges so the carnage of hundreds is missing...

i'll take the bullets in the back instead of being run down by a speeding jpolice cruiser.

and the officers have been cleared of wrong doing!!!

citizen...no I am against the continued passion by some for imposing or in this case trying to impose the death penalty for non violent crimes.

ipse

 

[Citizen]

Heien v NC Rears Its Ugly Head!

Oh! My! God!

ETA: The data in the article linked below is incorrect. See Post #88 for actual statutes.

Looks like somebody checked out Slager's statement about why he stopped Scott. According to the article linked below, Slager told the driver he was seized because his third brake light was out. Turns out South Carolina law, just like NC law, does not require all three brake lights work; SC law requires only one lamp on the back of the car.

Thus, the Supreme Court decision in Heien kept the door open for Slager to stop Scott.

As to Heien and its new doctrine of "reasonable mistake of law", once is a mistake. Doing it again on something like number of working brake lights is deliberate. There is no way numerous cops across the country didn't look up their state's law on number of working brake lamps in the wake of Heien.

What's needed here is for every civil rights group in the country to demand their local PD publish these things to their officers. This will shut down any "mistakes" as to the law.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...walter_scott_cops_who_don_t_know_the_law.html


I found out about the article at www.fourthamendment.com


ETA: Check out the video at the bottom of the article. Somebody compiled into one video a bunch of dash-cam, security, and phone videos showing numerous police abuses. You'll remember some of them from the recent past.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP But the intervening years between peace officers and LEO (along with a much perspective, discussion and thoughtfulness here and other forums) cause me to then readily recognize Citizen's slippery slope argument as sadly reasonable and concerning.

The video at the bottom of the article I linked in my last post reminded me of an earlier incident--we're already on the slippery slope where cops just up and use lethal force without demanding compliance.

Remember the father carrying an air-rifle in WalMart who was shot dead without so much as a "drop it!" by the police?

 

[OC for ME]

"If we're going to choose between maybe we'll let him go a little bit farther and see what happens, or we're going to take him out now and eliminate any opportunity he has to hurt somebody, you're going to err on the side of, in favor of the innocent people," Police Chief Terry Rozema said. "Without a doubt."

"My client's back was turned and the officer drove right into him," she said. "It isn't that dissimilar to a police officer shooting a fleeing suspect in the back."

The top cop has stated that the cop did good and will not face any further official scrutiny, no charges to be filed. NEXT!!

 

[OC for ME]

Innocence? "To Serve and Protect." (Weell, maybe not.) "Observe, investigate and detain," now judge, jury and executioner.

Innocence is presumed and not decided by a public servant.

There are a number of standards of innocence and proof that depend on the venue. In the state's criminal court, one is presumed innocent until found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of one's peers. In the people's civil court, one may be required to prove one's innocence by the mere preponderance of evidence. In the court of public opinion one may be damned out of hand.

A cop (qua cop) is an officer of the state's court, a public servant (not a peer) without particular public servant rights, but with powers delegated by his public masters.

The cop has a history...NYPD, he quite about the same time a payout was conducted for his egregiously unacceptable unprofessional official behavior.

The Arizona police officer who rammed his car into an armed suspect was previously involved in a lawsuit while working for the New York Police Department.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ng-NYPD-incident-city-paid-20-000-settle.html

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I cannot seem to open up daily UK mail links.

 

[WalkingWolf]

I cannot seem to open up daily UK mail links.

Firefox?

 

[solus]

try using that pesky, outdated, MS cast off IE!!

remember SVG...we're here for ya!!

ipse

 

[WalkingWolf]

NOOOOOO! I hate IE, and so does most. I have loved firefox, and also hate chrome, but some issues have been popping up lately with videos, and certain websites.

 

[WalkingWolf]

With FF? Complain to Mozilla if it is indeed related to Firefox and not your configuration. Try safe mode first.

Thanks, I finally found the hangup. Bluhell firewall will block some video, not sure why it has worked well for a couple years without problems. Unfortunately it only has one setting, on, or off.