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

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

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

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.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

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.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

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

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.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by Zeke

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.

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

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by Zeke

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.

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

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

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.

[donquixote99]

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.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

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.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

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.

So says the training and the law.

Argue with those, not what they bring.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

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.

You presume based in outcome.

Typical with lack of knowledge.