Arizona Police Cruiser Runs Over Suspect At 50 mph

[specsaregood]

/.

 

[The Northbreather]

We should definitely give these guys more tanks......

 

[Root]

Meh...NJ.

The love of cops there is on a level that is almost clinical.

I know, I know. I'm trying to get out as fast as I can.

 

[SeanTX]

Reminds me of a story I saw here a couple of years ago, I think from Las Vegas, where a cop ran down a dog with his cruiser, claiming it was to protect some kids that were nearby.

 

[Weston White]

So then, idiots that fire their guns into the air during Fourth of July and on New Year’s should be ran over or shot without any warning by police or their neighbors?

Using a vehicle to mow somebody down is an improper use of force, period.

Surely, one of those units had something less-lethal with them.

The problemsI have with this incident is: (1) all of his crimes, so far that I am aware, were mostly property related, he never actually physically harmed others, aside from emotional harm, (2) his actions indicate he was likely unaware of his actions being either under the influence or suffering mental issues, (3) the police never provided him any forewarning or gave him an option to peacefully surrender, (4) the aggressing unit ignored the radio commands of the primary officer, and (5) the aggressing unit lacked concern for other’s private property, taxpayer’s public property, and the life of a man who was at that point merely walking away from the holding a supposed loaded firearm (i.e., at this point, were they even aware that this specific man was involved in the other possibly related crimes that day, including the robbery, arson, and shot or shots fired into the air?)

This incident--amongst a myriad of similar ones--serves to prove that public officials are mostly incapable of setting aside their emotions and justly apprehend habitual offenders. And that police seek out opportunities to administer curbside-justice as a means of adjusting the disagreeable attitudes of others they strenuously disfavor.

 

[Red Green]

So then, idiots that fire their guns into the air during Fourth of July and on New Year’s should be ran over or shot without any warning by police or their neighbors?

That's a stupid comparison. If someone commits a few strong-armed robberies, and armed robberies and threatens people with a weapon just before firing it off in the air, then yeah.

Using a vehicle to mow somebody down is an improper use of force, period.

Surely, one of those units had something less-lethal with them.

The guy is on a violent crime spree, appears to be unstable and is armed with a loaded 30-30. Are you going to be the one to walk up and taze him? As it turns out, ramming this jackwad with a cruiser was less-than-lethal.

Seriously, some of the justifications given by people here for finding fault in this cop's actions sound as contrived and idiotic as the justifications some cops give for shooting unarmed people. Really, just get real already.

The problemsI have with this incident is: (1) all of his crimes, so far that I am aware, were mostly property related, he never actually physically harmed others, aside from emotional harm, (2) his actions indicate he was likely unaware of his actions being either under the influence or suffering mental issues, (3) the police never provided him any forewarning or gave him an option to peacefully surrender, (4) the aggressing unit ignored the radio commands of the primary officer, and (5) the aggressing unit lacked concern for other’s private property, taxpayer’s public property, and the life of a man who was at that point merely walking away from the holding a supposed loaded firearm (i.e., at this point, were they even aware that this specific man was involved in the other possibly related crimes that day, including the robbery, arson, and shot or shots fired into the air?)

So you want to wait for the guy to actually shoot someone? You don't care that he's stolen property, committed strong-arm robberies and is now walking towards a business with a loaded 30-30?

In the end the guy lived (with some rather minor injuries considering what he had done) and there was some minimal property damage. I don't like cops but I consider this a win.

 

[Weston White]

That's a stupid comparison. If someone commits a few strong-armed robberies, and armed robberies and threatens people with a weapon just before firing it off in the air, then yeah.

No, it is a just comparison. Being suspected of violent crimes is not justification for the use of lethal force for that reason alone.

How many people that fire off weapons during such celebrations have been convicted of prior crimes and felonies and/or were drunk or high at the time?
Is not the act of firing a weapon within city limits without justification not a crime in itself that endangers others and their property?
How many stray bullets fired off during such celebrations have injured or killed innocent bystanders?

The guy is on a violent crime spree, appears to be unstable and is armed with a loaded 30-30.

As a matter of fact it turns out that he was suicidal, clearly this was very well his cry for help or an attempt at suicide-by-cop, for which law enforcement receives special training and does not at all involve the use of vehicles, but does instruct to be mindful of unnecessary use of force:

“Everything in the video seems to point towards an obvious excessive use of force. It is miraculous that my client isn't dead,” Valencia’s attorney, Michelle Cohen-Metzger, told CNN. She said Valencia was clearly in crisis and suicidal. … “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.”

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/cri...nman-ramming-police-cruiser-article-1.2185534

Are you going to be the one to walk up and taze him?

There are other non-lethal options available aside from a Taser (e.g., K9; OC canister; Taser X12 shotgun; pepperball gun; beanbag, rubber, or foam rounds; gas launcher; X26 Taser (which has up to a 20ft distance); etc.) As there are procedures for setting a perimeter, making contact, establishing negotiations, and escalating force. And most certainly, running people down with vehicles, choking them out, hanging them from nooses, and shooting them along with their hostage 300-600 times is not any part of those procedures.

Heck, he was not really even paying mind to the fact that he was being surrounded by police, indicating that several units could have probably walked alongside a moving SUV for cover while approaching him from the rear to charge and tackle him (also using less-lethal first if available), and securing the rifle, while 1-2 units parallel on foot holding a line-of-fire, shooting only if he attempts aiming his rifle.

As it turns out, ramming this jackwad with a cruiser was less-than-lethal.

The ends do not justify the means—not even when the resolution happens to turn out favorably. Ergo, two wrongs do not make a right.

Seriously, some of the justifications given by people here for finding fault in this cop's actions sound as contrived and idiotic as the justifications some cops give for shooting unarmed people.

An Arizona police officer, Rapiejko formerly with NYPD, who calls himself “Robocop” and “Michael Wolfhunter”, put into context with his unconstitutional actions, well that about sums it up for me.

So you want to wait for the guy to actually shoot someone?

Not at all, I want the use of lethal force to be an absolute last resort—which would be indicated right around the time that he begins raising the rifle at another individual while his finger is making contact with the trigger (including if it visibly discernible that the safety is off).

You don't care that he's stolen property, committed strong-arm robberies and is now walking towards a business with a loaded 30-30?

None of that has relevance to situation of him walking down the street brandishing a rifle at his own head. The police were surrounding him so the fact that he was walking towards one of the several buildings in the area is moot. However, what is not moot is that at no time did the police ever make any PA announcements or provide any instructions to anybody outside of themselves—and neither did any unit drive ahead to the business to contact the employees there and make haste in securing the safety of both the business and its employees.

And how many businesses did he pass while walking from Walmart to when he was unjustly stuck down by the police? (Which is a fairly good indicator that he was only passing through the area to reach an intended destination or awaiting suicide-by-cop.)

As to what I have been made aware there has been no indication the police were aware this individual was the same person involved in the earlier crime sprees that began at 6:45am with Valencia only wearing underwear, then concluding a few hours later with him driving a vehicle that he had stolen to Walmart, and finally making contact with police at 9:00am.

Ergo, so far as the police were aware this was a either a suicide attempt or someone that was looking to “go postal” at an unknown location.

In the end the guy lived (with some rather minor injuries considering what he had done) and there was some minimal property damage. I don't like cops but I consider this a win.

I rest my case:

Dan Bongino, a former Secret Service agent, told Cooper the suspect had to be stopped but not with a vehicle running into him.

“I have to question this tactic a bit,” he said. “I think setting up a secure perimeter and at least making some attempt to negotiate may have been far more efficient.”

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

 

[Red Green]

No, it is a just comparison. Being suspected of violent crimes is not justification for the use of lethal force for that reason alone.

It is if there is a reasonable suspicion that the suspect will commit acts leading to grievous bodily injury or imminent death to another individual. Any reasonable person would probably conclude that this guy fell into that category.

many people that fire off weapons during such celebrations have been convicted of prior crimes and felonies and/or were drunk or high at the time?
Is not the act of firing a weapon within city limits without justification not a crime in itself that endangers others and their property?
How many stray bullets fired off during such celebrations have injured or killed innocent bystanders?

First off, you are really reaching here. There are a string of connected incidents here. Were not talking about prior bad acts from the distant past, we're talking about a continuing situation that was evolving to become more and more dangerous and someone who was becoming more and more violent and dangerous. This IS NOT SIMPLY ABOUT SOMEONE DISCHARGING A FIREARM INTO THE AIR. You have to put it into context which is something you are going though mental gymnastics to not do. It's like saying the act of saying "I'm going to kick your ass" should always be taken the same way, regardless of if it's said in joking by your girlfriend or if it's some biker dude in a bar you don't know right after you bumped into him and spilled his beer. You're just being obtuse at this point.

As a matter of fact it turns out that he was suicidal, clearly this was very well his cry for help or an attempt at suicide-by-cop, for which law enforcement receives special training and does not at all involve the use of vehicles, but does instruct to be mindful of unnecessary use of force:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/cri...nman-ramming-police-cruiser-article-1.2185534

Great, well if a suicidal guy with a loaded 30-30 came towards my business, I would probably down him before he got too close and therefore I can't fault anyone for using a strong level of force on the guy, especially when it turned out as well as this situation turned out.

There are other non-lethal options available aside from a Taser (e.g., K9; OC canister; Taser X12 shotgun; pepperball gun; beanbag, rubber, or foam rounds; gas launcher; X26 Taser (which has up to a 20ft distance); etc.) As there are procedures for setting a perimeter, making contact, establishing negotiations, and escalating force. And most certainly, running people down with vehicles, choking them out, hanging them from nooses, and shooting them along with their hostage 300-600 times is not any part of those procedures.

If the guy was holed up in his house, then yes I agree. But in this case the guy was moving towards populated areas and someone had to stop him. I for one think the cop actually did the right thing.

Heck, he was not really even paying mind to the fact that he was being surrounded by police, indicating that several units could have probably walked alongside a moving SUV for cover while approaching him from the rear to charge and tackle him (also using less-lethal first if available), and securing the rifle, while 1-2 units parallel on foot holding a line-of-fire, shooting only if he attempts aiming his rifle.

Seriously dude? Sorry, but if you ever came on my property with a 30-30 acting like this guy did, I would just dump a couple of rounds in you and call it good. You might be willing to put yourself in harms way for a violent suicidal idiot, but I sure ain't and i can't fault anyone for not being willing to either.

The ends do not justify the means—not even when the resolution happens to turn out favorably. Ergo, two wrongs do not make a right.

The level of force applied was justified in my mind. There was one wrong and that was the idiot with the 30-30.

Not at all, I want the use of lethal force to be an absolute last resort—which would be indicated right around the time that he begins raising the rifle at another individual while his finger is making contact with the trigger (including if it visibly discernible that the safety is off).

OK Rambo, you go then. As for me, I'm not risking myself for anyone like this jackwad and don't expect others to either. Given the fact that a gun can be pulled pretty quickly (finger on the trigger - really?) I wouldn't want to wait for whatever the last second is. You expectations are beyond realistic.

 

[Weston White]

It is if there is a reasonable suspicion that the suspect will commit acts leading to grievous bodily injury or imminent death to another individual. Any reasonable person would probably conclude that this guy fell into that category.

Gee, could your justification be made any more ambiguous? So how many people did Valencia maim or kill that day? Was it zero?

Regardless, every indication in that video depicts a suicidal subject crying out for help. He did not fire at police or people, he offered no verbal queues, but supposedly fired a round into the air (And just as likely that was done unintentionally—I am curious as to why the initial confrontation was not included along with the rest of the video made public, e.g., did any of that actually happen or is a cover story to justify the use of force?), while indicating that he was considering offing himself. People who are truly suicidal commit to the act with little drama or hesitation; people who are truly homicidal do not parade around putting on a show, they commit to the act with lots of preplanning and little hesitation, usually until either they are forcibly stopped or ready to off themself.

Police are trained observers, they should have instantly recognized the underlying issues going on with Valencia that day and addressed them accordingly—and reacting a game of Frogger with him should never have played no part of that.

Police hold a higher duty to protect people, including people experiencing personal crises.

First off, you are really reaching here. There are a string of connected incidents here.

1. Events where only property was taken or damaged, nobody was seriously injured or killed in the process.
2. There is no indication that police were at the time aware that Valencia was involved in those earlier incidents, only the theft of a rifle and ammunition from Walmart.
3. You are in-effect justifying (as per your stated definitions and reasoning) that police may summarily kill a suspected murderer, robber, rapist, arsonist, or other such career criminal upon confrontation with them in the aftermath of their criminality even in cases where they are not directing grievous violence towards others.

You have to put it into context which is something you are going though mental gymnastics to not do. It's like saying the act of saying "I'm going to kick your ass" should always be taken the same way, regardless of if it's said in joking by your girlfriend or if it's some biker dude in a bar you don't know right after you bumped into him and spilled his beer. You're just being obtuse at this point.

Really, I do not think so. I feel that you’re trying to superimpose hindsight with the whole of fact involving Valencia’s actions throughout that day in order to justify the police’s matter-of-fact excessive force.

Again, he fired a shot into the air, not at the police or at others. We walked by several businesses, not into them, he stole a rifle and ammunition from Walmart and them walked out, he did not load the weapon and begin taking out employees and shoppers. Meanwhile, he pointed the rifle at his own head while walking away from tailing police vehicles.

Actions speak louder than words; it is simply a matter of interpreting them correctly.

Great, well if a suicidal guy with a loaded 30-30 came towards my business, I would probably down him before he got too close and therefore I can't fault anyone for using a strong level of force on the guy, especially when it turned out as well as this situation turned out.

You are taking the scenario out of context now. We are not speaking to private parties and private property, but police and their moral obligations to the public—which includes criminals, the deranged, and the sick.

However, your scenario all depends upon which state you live in, for example, in Texas you not be criminally liable, but in California you would very likely be—that is a man walking around your premise with a gun to his own head would not be an imminent threat to you, but himself (although further noting that in both Texas and California you may be held civilly liable). Ergo, you are not ethically justified in killing a suicidal person to save them from the act of killing themself.

Law enforcement professionals should be held to a higher standard than the general public.

The run down with the high-speed vehicle could have easily ended very differently, Valencia could have just as well gotten his feet caught under the bumper and ran over along the curb, Valencia could have gotten stuck on the bumper-guard and drove straight into the wall severing or crushing-out his legs, Valencia head could have been lobbed-off or critically smashed by the windshield or its framing, etc.

If the guy was holed up in his house, then yes I agree. But in this case the guy was moving towards populated areas and someone had to stop him. I for one think the cop actually did the right thing.

Less-lethal devices are readily applicable tools regardless of the target’s whereabouts (that is presuming a clear path is first able to be established). The only thing relevant is the realized effectiveness of the less-lethal device with respect to the use of last resort lethal force on a per individual basis—and that either level of force is legally justifiable given the totality of circumstances at the time.

You conveniently overlook that he had just left from one of the most populated places while armed and without committing a single act of serious aggression, i.e., leaving from Walmart, and had walked past many other populated businesses as well at the time.

The issue is that the police didn’t even bother to first invest in any serious efforts in stopping him prior to committing such lethal acts against him, using an utterly unorthodox, unsanctioned, and costly method that resulted in many thousands of dollars in (private and public) property damage and medical expenses.

Seriously dude? Sorry, but if you ever came on my property with a 30-30 acting like this guy did, I would just dump a couple of rounds in you and call it good. You might be willing to put yourself in harms way for a violent suicidal idiot, but I sure ain't and i can't fault anyone for not being willing to either.

There are proper ways to handle given situations, what happened that day was no way where within the realm of properness.

Walking around with a firearm while in public is generally not illegal in itself, some states allow for constitutional carry weapons to be loaded, while others do not. Some states permit property owners to shoot trespassers on site, while others do not. Regardless, outright shooting a suicidal person that is displaying directing hostility only at themselves is at the very minimum and act of immoral conduct.

(And this is aside from the fact that the individual could have opted to sniped you, getting at least one shot without you even noticing them, but chose instead to make visible contact with you speaks volumes in itself.)

The level of force applied was justified in my mind. There was one wrong and that was the idiot with the 30-30.

Many others would disagree—and they would be right for doing so.

OK Rambo, you go then. As for me, I'm not risking myself for anyone like this jackwad and don't expect others to either. Given the fact that a gun can be pulled pretty quickly (finger on the trigger - really?) I wouldn't want to wait for whatever the last second is. You expectations are beyond realistic.

Actually, the name of my alter ego is: “Wolverine”.

Well, isn’t that what police are always bragging about, them putting their own lives on the line each and every day?

That is why it is the best practice for one officer to take command and establish a dialog with the target individual, while other officers setup a perimeter and line-of-fire from relatively safe cover, remaining in the ready position.

Guns do not fire on their own, so if the person is indexed on their firearm (i.e., no fingers are making contact with the trigger or trigger-guard, with one’s trigger finger placed along the frame), or if the safety is on, or it is known to either be unloaded or safety-locked, even while being brandished, it is not an imminent threat to anybody.

I do not expect to be the target of an armed individual until they begin exerting an effort to line me (or others) up in their sights, which is to be taken into context with their physical demeanor and verbal statements. Pulling a trigger quickly does not provide accuracy in striking an intended target and that is not unrealistic.

 

[Weston White]

And guess what "Wolfhunter" the workout guru, "Robocop", is a hothead:


Cop who rammed Arizona man accused of misconduct in past

The Arizona police officer who used his cruiser to ram into an armed suspect has been accused of using excessive force in the past, resulting in a $20,000 settlement for a man who said the officer pointed a gun at him and choked him. ... Colon said Rapiejko pointed a gun at him, ordered him to get back in the car and threatened to shoot him. He later pulled Colon out of the car, handcuffed him and choked him, the complaint states.

 

[Red Green]

Gee, could your justification be made any more ambiguous? So how many people did Valencia maim or kill that day? Was it zero?

Actually, that was almost verbatim the law in AZ regarding the justification of the use of lethal force, at least for us mundanes. I have taken concealed carry courses here a couple of times. No, you do not need to wait until someone shoots someone, you just need a 'reasonable fear' of grievous bodily injury or imminent death to you or someone else as a justification to use lethal force. That's the law and actually it's not ambiguous. And yeah, if you put me on a jury and I have to determine if someone should have had a reasonable fear, I'm a "yea" on that account.

Regardless, every indication in that video depicts a suicidal subject crying out for help. He did not fire at police or people, he offered no verbal queues, but supposedly fired a round into the air (And just as likely that was done unintentionally—I am curious as to why the initial confrontation was not included along with the rest of the video made public, e.g., did any of that actually happen or is a cover story to justify the use of force?), while indicating that he was considering offing himself. People who are truly suicidal commit to the act with little drama or hesitation; people who are truly homicidal do not parade around putting on a show, they commit to the act with lots of preplanning and little hesitation, usually until either they are forcibly stopped or ready to off themself.

But the guy had already committed strong arm robberies and his violence level was escalating and, by your own admission, the guy was in public, armed and unstable. If there is ever a case for using as much force as necessary, this is it.

Police are trained observers, they should have instantly recognized the underlying issues going on with Valencia that day and addressed them accordingly—and reacting a game of Frogger with him should never have played no part of that.

Police hold a higher duty to protect people, including people experiencing personal crises.

I disagree. People who are not wandering around robbing people, threatening people, and behaving violently are the ones who really need to be protected. "Protecting" this guy should not have even been on their list of considerations. If this guy had continued, then at some time they would have had to shoot and if there were not carrying non-lethal rounds, the only thing they could have shot him with likely would have killed him. Ramming him with a vehicle was a much safer tactic to use.

1. Events where only property was taken or damaged, nobody was seriously injured or killed in the process.
2. There is no indication that police were at the time aware that Valencia was involved in those earlier incidents, only the theft of a rifle and ammunition from Walmart.
3. You are in-effect justifying (as per your stated definitions and reasoning) that police may summarily kill a suspected murderer, robber, rapist, arsonist, or other such career criminal upon confrontation with them in the aftermath of their criminality even in cases where they are not directing grievous violence towards others.

No, I go back to the AZ law where lethal force is deemed legal. If this guy had come up to my property with me knowing everything the cops knew at that point, I would have shot him dead after maybe one verbal command to stop. And here in AZ, I would have most likely not been prosecuted. I think this was a scary situation and the outcome was the best outcome that could have been hoped for. I think you are just unrealistic in believing that situations like this can be handled without any force whatsoever.

Really, I do not think so. I feel that you’re trying to superimpose hindsight with the whole of fact involving Valencia’s actions throughout that day in order to justify the police’s matter-of-fact excessive force.



Again, he fired a shot into the air, not at the police or at others. We walked by several businesses, not into them, he stole a rifle and ammunition from Walmart and them walked out, he did not load the weapon and begin taking out employees and shoppers. Meanwhile, he pointed the rifle at his own head while walking away from tailing police vehicles.

Actions speak louder than words; it is simply a matter of interpreting them correctly.

Again, the guy lived, no one else was killed and he was armed and dangerous and a criminal. I'll fault cops all day long for escalating the violence of a situation needlessly but in this case, yeah take the guy down. Sure, if they had some less that lethal rounds and wanted to give that a shot, go ahead, but given the guy has a 30-30 they have no cover from using a cop car. If the guy decides to fire back, the rounds will go through the car.

You are taking the scenario out of context now. We are not speaking to private parties and private property, but police and their moral obligations to the public—which includes criminals, the deranged, and the sick.

My concern is about the private property that was all around this guy and if he decides to dart into one of those businesses and turn it into a hostage or mass shooting event. You claim that because he has not done that, we should just assume he won't. Really? An unstable guy with a 30-30 is walking towards businesses and you just want to assume he's only crying for help? F-that, if I am a business owner I want that fucker taken out. How would you feel if that jackwad had run into one of those businesses while the cops were trying to establish a perimeter and turned it into a murder-suicide? I don't see any reason to take that chance with this stupid fuck. If he gets killed, BFD - according to you he was suicidal anyway.

You conveniently overlook that he had just left from one of the most populated places while armed and without committing a single act of serious aggression, i.e., leaving from Walmart, and had walked past many other populated businesses as well at the time.

Great, we should have had you there so you could walk up to him and have a talk with him to just get him to turn himself in.

His actions were that of an unstable individual. Instability means you just don't know what this fuck is going to do next. And he was VIOLENT, which is something you seem to gloss over.

 

[brushfire]

You can clearly here the first cop on scene telling the other one to stand down.

It seemed to me that he was telling the other officer to stand down because the suspect was armed - as though the suspect was a threat.

I find the firearm to be a better weapon than a car though - that is every bit as unusual to me, as a man who draws and fires in the air without looking.

Very strange...

 

[Weston White]

This has become circular; I have already stated all that I needed to on the subject. I would only further include the below, being that you keep harping on the fact that everything ended up peachy keen for all involved. Although, as shown in the several below examples, the entire situation could have ended very differently for Valencia:

Marlon Brown Dash Cam Video Being Run Over By Police | TRUTH REVEALED: Marlon Brown Dash-Cam (Run Over By Cop)

DeLand Police Statement:

"The actions taken by Officer Harris [who was immediately fired, criminally cleared of any wrongdoing, Brown's family accepted a settlement offer from the city] that night are not consistent with our department's training, directives, or acccepted practices..."

Over the course of the last decade 123 law enforcement personnel have died from being struck by passing vehicles: Officer Fatalities

Police officer hits, kills pedestrian

Pedestrian Killed During Wild San Francisco Police Chase

Pedestrian killed in crash involving Wheeling officer, 'wanted to succeed...help our family'

Family of man run over by Dallas police speak out on officer's firings

Innocent bystander hurt in South Bend police chase threatens to sue city

Video Points To NYPD Cover-Up After Cop Fatally Ran Over Pedestrian

College Lacrosse Player Lying in Road Killed by Cop Car on New Year's

City Will Pay $1.24 Million To Man Paralyzed After Arrest His Lawsuit Said He Was In A Police Van That Stopped Short, Sending Him Crashing Into A Wall In The Vehicle.

Family Wins Record $10 Million Dollars When Cop Slams Innocent Man Causing Coma!

Alabama Cop Arrested for Takedown That Left Indian Man Partially Paralyzed

 

[charrob]

Final Result: Impunity

Final Result? Impunity...

​

 

[TheTexan]

That was some pretty good tactical driving. Do they teach that at the academy, or is that something you can only learn with experience?

 

[Weston White]

Arizona Cop Who Rammed Suspect With Car Says He Had No Choice​

ETA: Bollocks!