Police misconduct 2

[DolfanBob]

Except for the equipment damage to car, etc, I got no problem with that.  And running down with car is likely to be the least lethal method.  The guy was a clear and present danger who had already been shooting.  If a SWAT team was available, would have been better to take him down with a shot from a rifle, but at least this way the guy survived (apparently) and was no longer a danger.

What would have been a better outcome??  Waiting to hear that...   Let him take a few shots at the cops, maybe hitting/killing one of them?  I certainly don't want cops gratuitously killing people like happens way too often, but also don't want people killing cops!!   I guess I just don't want anyone killing anyone else....

Wholly Crap! There is a defense for every Cop related action.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Hippy

Absolutely!!!  Always and forever!


https://www.google.com/search?q=furthur+bus&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=Ys4uVdz8FIK-ggTttITIAQ&ved=0CCsQsAQ&biw=1276&bih=626


Letting my freak flag fly....

[heironymouspasparagus]

Wholly Crap! There is a defense for every Cop related action.

??   Did you read what I wrote?  Like I asked - what would have been a better outcome?  What would have been a better approach?  I would bet the next alternative step would be just to shoot the guy, since he was standing there shooting a gun.  He didn't deserve to die just for what he had been doing... but it could have easily escalated to that point in about 3 thousandth's of a second.


Shouldn't that be "Holy"...??  Well, it could be wholly....

[dbacksfan 2.0]

Personally,  I think he was trying for "Suicide by Cop". He shot once in the air, willing to be the next was going to be aimed at a cop or a civilian and then it would have been a shootout in a residential area. No innocent people were hurt.

[DolfanBob]

I guess my shock was the accelerated speed he decided to hit him at. He could have disarmed him at 15 to 20 miles an hour. But I'm sure he was fearing for his and other officers, citizens etc, etc lives. At the moment he hit drag strip speed.

[patric]

I guess my shock was the accelerated speed he decided to hit him at. He could have disarmed him at 15 to 20 miles an hour. But I'm sure he was fearing for his and other officers, citizens etc, etc lives. At the moment he hit drag strip speed.

He must have "slipped" into another reality...

[heironymouspasparagus]

I guess my shock was the accelerated speed he decided to hit him at. He could have disarmed him at 15 to 20 miles an hour. But I'm sure he was fearing for his and other officers, citizens etc, etc lives. At the moment he hit drag strip speed.

I wouldn't go so far as to say the cop evaluated the situation analytically - he could have done the same thing a little slower - but I know I would have been worrying about the guy turning and taking a shot before I got there, so I probably would have tried to go faster, too!

[Vashta Nerada]

Died from crushed trachea, spinal injury, after alleged beating inside a Baltimore police van:

[cannon_fodder]

Except for the equipment damage to car, etc, I got no problem with that.  And running down with car is likely to be the least lethal method.  The guy was a clear and present danger who had already been shooting. 

I have many problems with it.

Discharging a firearm inside city limits is a misdemeanor with a maximum sentence of 6 months in the city lockup:

Tulsa City Ordinance, 27 s. 1507
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/media/50504/title_27_s20.pdf

And no carry license for 6 months...
21 OS 1364
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=69854

That is a pretty low level crime. in the same section, it appears to be the same level of crime as being a hobo (riding a railroad without permission). It is the exact same penalty ascribed to a person who steels a candy bar from QT (or anything worse less than $500).

21 OS 1704
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=70062

So - in order to stop the crime which we have deemed comparable to steeling a candy bar, we're cool with running the guy over? Can the QT clerk shoot the guy steeling the Snickers?

Sure, confronting a man with a gun certainly can be dangerous. Luckily, we have entire groups of people we pay high salaries to and train extensively to do just that. If the solution to every suspicious person with a weapon was to just attempt to kill them, we wouldn't need a man worth $100,000 a year to deal with the situation. Hell, 50% (or better) of Oklahomans could just run the guy over or shoot him.

If the guy presents a danger of severe injury to death to others, then police are forced to act. This man created a scary situation (shooting a gun into the air in the city) and may have presented a threat in the future, so a police officer decided to try and kill him (intentionally running into a pedestrian with your car is attempted murder if you or I do it).  That's a decidedly low standard for the authorized use of deadly force.

Once again, doing something stupid does not carry the death sentence.

[DolfanBob]

BOOM! There you have it. Thank you CF. The pay these guy's make should warrant the actions they are trained to perform. Very well put.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I have many problems with it.

Discharging a firearm inside city limits is a misdemeanor with a maximum sentence of 6 months in the city lockup:

Tulsa City Ordinance, 27 s. 1507
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/media/50504/title_27_s20.pdf

And no carry license for 6 months...
21 OS 1364
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=69854

That is a pretty low level crime. in the same section, it appears to be the same level of crime as being a hobo (riding a railroad without permission). It is the exact same penalty ascribed to a person who steels a candy bar from QT (or anything worse less than $500).

21 OS 1704
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=70062

So - in order to stop the crime which we have deemed comparable to steeling a candy bar, we're cool with running the guy over? Can the QT clerk shoot the guy steeling the Snickers?

Sure, confronting a man with a gun certainly can be dangerous. Luckily, we have entire groups of people we pay high salaries to and train extensively to do just that. If the solution to every suspicious person with a weapon was to just attempt to kill them, we wouldn't need a man worth $100,000 a year to deal with the situation. Hell, 50% (or better) of Oklahomans could just run the guy over or shoot him.

If the guy presents a danger of severe injury to death to others, then police are forced to act. This man created a scary situation (shooting a gun into the air in the city) and may have presented a threat in the future, so a police officer decided to try and kill him (intentionally running into a pedestrian with your car is attempted murder if you or I do it).  That's a decidedly low standard for the authorized use of deadly force.

Once again, doing something stupid does not carry the death sentence.

Just viewing the way he was doing it - repeatedly at seemingly different directions/orientations....wouldn't that raise it to an endangerment level?  Or something more serious?  Seems like careless repetition should be more serious than just a one-off discharge event.

There appear to be houses nearby, presumably people also close - well within range of the shots.  At what point does this become an attempted assault?  Does he have to hit a door jamb on the house where people are located?  And if he does "accidentally" hit someone, does that then become the more serious event (I know it should in my little world).  There have been times when people have shot at targets, missed, and the bullet traveled long distances and hit people.  Does it have to hit someone to be considered a more serious thing?  (According to our statutes, it would appear so.)

At what point does intent escalate - 'cause even if he was drunk, depressed, or whatever condition it seems like one shot would at least be differentiated from multiple shots by some kind of intent.  One shot could be "oops"...two or more is on purpose for whatever reason.


I guess I feel like this should be a much more serious event than just an accidental discharge, and should escalate very quickly in law....like with the second shot...to felony.  Our laws are like you said, treating it like stealing a candy bar.  Not even as much as a first time DUI.  Both firing indiscriminately and drunk driving can have consequences much more dire than the laws seem to treat them.

[cannon_fodder]

Other crimes you eluded to require an alement of intent: if he was trying to shoot prolerty, homes, or people there are various other charges. There are also charges for wreckless endangerment etc. But, generally, shooting into the air is viewed as a discharge offense unless something else comes into play (a shotgun, for instance, is much more likely to come down in the immediate area and cause problems).

However, as you point out, the mans actions *could* harm people. As we k ow, accidentally discharging a firearm causing death can be negligent homicide. If this man accidentally killed someone while firing in the air, it would likely be a level above that (manslaughter perhaps). It is also worth noting there can he add on offenses: felon in possession, illegal transport, noise violation. Trust me, they can get creative when needed.

However, the point is this man's actions *could* have caused harm to other people and officers *might* have been at risk if they confronted him - but running him down with a car certainly DID cause harm to a person and to property. I dare say if a person would have been behind that cinder block wall the cop destroyed we would have another officer charged.

Thean with the gun was wrong. Crazy? Drugged? Just a criminal? I don't know. But the police officer also did wrong, and he's the one who is supposed to know better.

[Vashta Nerada]

Supreme Court: Cops can't hold suspects to wait for drug-sniffing dog


The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Tuesday that the Constitution forbids police from holding a suspect without probable cause, even for fewer than 10 extra minutes.

Writing on behalf of the court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg declared that the constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure prevent police from extending an otherwise completed traffic stop to allow for a drug-sniffing dog to arrive.

The case, Rodriguez v. United States, was brought by a man who was pulled over for driving on the shoulder of a Nebraska highway. After the police pulled him over, checked his license and issued a warning for his erratic driving, the officer asked whether he could walk his drug-sniffing dog around the vehicle.

The driver refused. However, the officer nonetheless detained him for "seven or eight minutes" until a backup officer arrived with a dog of his own.
After sniffing around the car, the dog "detected drugs," and Rodriguez was indicted for possession. In all, the stop lasted less than 30 minutes.

According to the Supreme Court, though, that search was illegal, and the evidence gathered in it should not be used at trial. While officers may use a dog to sniff around a car during the course of a routine traffic stop, they cannot extend the length of the stop in order to carry it out.

"[T]he tolerable duration of police inquiries in the traffic-stop context is determined by the seizure's 'mission' — to address the traffic violation that warranted the stop," Ginsburg ruled. "Authority for the seizure thus ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are — or reasonably should have been — completed."

http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/239513-court-rules-cops-cant-hold-suspects-to-wait-for-dog


The most common method for unconstitutionally holding someone is a tactic known as "Rolling No" questions:

"Oh do you mind if I ask you some questions?"
"Do you have anything illegal in your car?"
"Any Marijuana?"  "Any Cocaine?" "Any heroin?"  "Any large amounts of cash?"  "Any weapons?" " 
The officer rattles off a laundry list of questions the motorist automatically answers no to, including eventually "Do you mind if I search your car?"

Courts have said "drug dogs" that alert their owners qualify as probable cause to search, but dashcam video has revealed that the dogs are often merely responding to verbal or hand cues at times when they allegedly "discover" contraband.

[Vashta Nerada]

Died from crushed trachea, spinal injury, after alleged beating inside a Baltimore police van:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_B1yQ6bPlU

We have all that here, too, minus the outrage:
https://vimeo.com/125537095

[dbacksfan 2.0]

Arizona state law, discharge of a weapon into the air is a class six felony, regardless of intent. also known as Shannon's Law

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/03107.htm

Also known as Shannon's Law:

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2015/01/30/tragedy-father-led-crusade-shannons-law/22570107/

This was on top of the four or five felonies he had already committed that day.

Then he watched the Feb. 19 encounter a few more times. And he learned that the suspect, Mario Valencia, had been mowed down while in the middle of an alleged crime spree that included the robbery of a 7-Eleven, an arson at a church, the burglary of a home, and the theft of a car and a rifle. And he learned that the suspect had allegedly shot into the air as officers approached him in a residential neighborhood.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/creative-or-excessive-cops-ramming-gunman-sparks-debate-n342281