Marana, Az. Police Officer Slams Car Into Rifle Carrying Idiot.
 

Watch both videos.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=...CEFC79E1FD9856

Hard to tell who's the bigger idiot.

Dunno, seems the best option to disarm the guy in view of public safety. Without the gun is another scenario.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Kind of like "Rock, Scissors, Paper".

"My car beats your gun.":p

Well...the guy discharged it and had it tucked under his chin. Certainly a threat to self or others. I kinda doubt the training protocol is to run him down though.

Rick did it in "The Walking Dead".

Maybe that's where he got the idea.

The training protocol is to eliminate the threat, as swiftly as may occur, with as little public safety concerns or property damage as possible.

Property damage is always preferred to human collateral, save for the offender. That person is the cause for the entire mess.

Have to agree here.
Mental cdx or no, the equation changed with the acquisition of a loaded firearm.


Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Don't bring a gun to a car fight.

I have family history with a mentally impaired family member being essentially tortured to death on camera while in custody. This effects how I view and evaluate stuff like this.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Same here.

Apparently it was a 30-30.

That's a bit old school, but it's no pea shooter.

It's got way more range and penetration potential than a pistol.

You can't be taking a chance of someone shooting that off in what appears to be a residential neighborhood.

My problem is the Police shooting an unarmed man in the back for a brake light being out. Or an unarmed teenager for stealing cigars, or a 95 year old invalid in a nursing home with a shoehorn.

None of those guys received what they earned for the issues you offer.

Frankly, there's little difference between them and this guy who -- deservedly -- got run over.

1. There was a threat to an officer or public.
2. The officer neutralized that threat.

That you find one threat more aesthetically pleasing than another is merely weak thinking.

I have a personal and professional history of taking folks into custody who -- for whatever reason -- did not want to go. (It might impact my evaluation.)

1. What they want(ed) doesn't matter.
2. Once you put me here, I win. PERIOD.

But once you're in custody? You're my responsibility. Custody begins once you're handcuffed and secure in a vehicle. Prior to that you're still a violence or escape risk.

How TF do you presume to know jack shit about any protocols on the Marana, AZ police department?

No difference between this suicidal maniac and John Wrana. You really are an idiot.

Yep, no difference in the threat level between a 36 year old dude with a loaded 30-30 rifle and a 95 year old dude with a shoehorn. :rolleyes:

Take the smallest potential threat you can imagine.

Now take 1 MILLIONTH of that threat level. Is that enough to justify an officer killing a person? Absolutely, if the officer says it is.

He gets to decide. You don't. "That's the job," and no other considerations matter. So speaketh Zeke.

Back to the article, I find it ironic that this cop was able to subdue a suspect armed with a high powered rifle without killing him, while so many other cops feel the need to kill unarmed suspects.

So says the training and the law.

Argue with those, not what they bring.

You presume based in outcome.

Typical with lack of knowledge.

I am pleased to be convinced that your word is not law.

FYI, the cop (who calls himself "Robocop") has a bit of a history.

http://www.abc15.com/news/region-cen...onduct-in-2008

Not much there tho.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

There's nothing there but a nuisance suit designed to make it cheaper to settle than defend.