Paul Barnard

He sounds like a swell guy.

https://www.newschannel10.com/2021/0...-arizona-race/

John E

Lock him up for a long time, preferably for life, and revoke his driver's license permanently. This is attempted murder, DUI or not.

UniChris

That's a rather problematic characterization of events, as in sane jurisdictions, shooting at a fleeing person is attempted murder.

Under the 4th ammendment, authorization of deadly force requires a specific threat to a specific person, not a vague allegation of future dangerousness to the populous in general.

See the case law.

​​​​

SClaraPokeman

UniChris,

I get as upset as anyone about police shootings that I think are gratitious or just plain wrong, but I believe that this felon deliberately tried to kill several cyclists and was still in command of a large truck and presumably willing to do more damage. Unless there's video of him attempting to comply with officer's commands here, I think shooting him to stop him is justified. It's not like he was being pursued for selling marijuana from his truck.

UniChris

That's not how the law works.

If there's a potential victim in front of the truck (sadly, including even an officer who put themselves in that position specifically to create a conflict, resulting in the shooting of fully innocent drivers who paniced when a cop erroneously suspecting them of wrongdoing jumped on their hood) they can use that as a basis.

But if someone is merely running or driving away while presenting a vague possibility of future danger, then no. You're trying to resurrect a bit of common law that is rightfully deceased under modern case law.

And "lack of compliance" is not justification for deadly force, full stop.

Alas, a characterization of events can usually be crafted to twist it into something that on paper is.

A few years back police (coworkers in fact of those who escorted a ride I'd been on that morning) where engaged in a car chase. The suspect crashed, crawled out of the car on fire and there's video of an officer kicking him in the head.

Nevermind that wouldn't be legal even if they had the right guy. Problem is, they didn't. They kicked in the head the innocent, burning driver of a car their suspect had crashed into.

That kind of mistake is why we don't allow police to take violent action on hunches in situations that don't present specific imminent risk.

Allow police to shoot at a perpetrator fleeing vehicular homicide, and inevitably they're occasionally going to shoot an uninvolved party who stepped on it when they heard gunshots behind them. Or not infrequently, miss their accurately or mistakenly intended target entirely and hit a stationary bystander - accuracy in the heat of the moment is well documented to be low.
​​​​​

alo

Many people think, I am good, and he is bad, so let him suffer.

One day you might be involved in an accident, and in many people's minds, you are bad, so you should suffer.

From the information above, it seems like he had an alcohol problem. He was probably very drunk from the night before.

Bald Paul

So, the police are supposed to, in an instant, determine if a person who just plowed into a group of innocent people, backed up, and fled that area presents a 'vague possibility' of running his vehicle into someone else? Should they just wait to see if he does before taking whatever steps they felt necessary to prevent that from happening?

It's funny how people worry about how the law is to be applied to protect the rights of criminals after they have committed a terrible act, while the law did absolutely nothing to protect the victims of that act.

Bald Paul

So all he should suffer is a hangover?

indyfabz

Ignore the .

UniChris

No. You've just described a situation where shooting at the fleeing person would be attempted murder.

You didnt even think about what you quoted - you're wondering how they decide if someone prevents a vague threat, and the whole point is that they don't get to shoot at vague threats.

You're overlooking a basic fact which is where most of constitutional civil rights law originates: the police don't get to decide who is a criminal.

Allow them to label someone a criminal and disregard that person's rights, and you put everyone in danger.

livedarklions

From the sound of things, he was shot some distance from the scene of the incident, and the police have not yet released their version of how the shooting occurred (I believe it was behind a pharmacy by the released very sketchy account). Suffice it to say that we don't yet know whether he was driving his truck towards somebody at the time he was shot. I do believe that had he continued fleeing down the road in the same vehicle he had apparently driven intentionally into a crowd then took a close drive towards again would not simply be a question of whether deadly force could be used to stop a fleeing felon. In this case, the vehicle was the deadly weapon, and by continuing to drive it where other people are, he is, in essence, still brandishing it in a threatening manner. A reasonable police officer could determine that the use of deadly force was necessary to stop the threat to others.

Also, keep in mind this guy was driving in a truck with a smashed bicycle stuck in its grill--I don't think there was much of a chance of mistaken identity.

I'm very familiar with the case law that determined the fleeing felon rule is unconstitutional, but there's nothing in that that would indicate that the police are required to allow someone who appears to be on a "let's hit people" spree to get away. Seriously, there's nothing vague about the threat he posed. If it turns out to be a situation where he got out of the truck and started running, you'd have a point, but as long as he was still driving the truck, he posed a very clear and present threat to anyone he would be driving near.

I also think the discussion of justified use of deadly force is far more appropriate for P&R as it has very little to do with cycling.

UniChris

If you look at my posts you'll see that I was responding to the characterizations of the police shooting at a fleeing felon posted by those who do not understand that doing so is illegal.

I don't know what happened.

The point is that the things in those characterizations of possible situations they think justify shooting, legally don't.

With many of these cases, the legality / illegality depends a lot on how the events are characterized.

They'll be very careful not to say they shot someone for fleeing, they'll talk about the specific imminent threat they needed to halt.

Or at least they will after they receive advice on how to describe it..

Ballenxj

Please, let us not persecute the police that caught this guy!
Doesn't anybody believe in justice anymore?

livedarklions

​​​​​​

I agree that people should be aware that the fleeing felon rule is unconstitutional. They should probably also be aware that the number of cops being shot went down significantly after that rule went away--and a fair amount of that was cops mistakenly shooting other cops.

I don't think it's helpful, though, for you to make overstatements about the car needing to actually be aimed at someone before the cops can use deadly force. This guy drove into a group of people, apparently intentionally, ran into a light pole, backed up and at least gestured another run at the same group of people, then fled the scene in the truck, complete with extensive damage from the light pole and a smashed bike sticking out of the grill. There is no way that this guy continuing to drive anywhere is not a threat to anyone who he happens by, and waiting until the vehicle is actually in the process of running down yet another person is obviously a ridiculous standard as it would almost certainly be too late to protect that person.

UniChris

I really appreciate a lot of what you recognized about the defunct fleeing fellon idea.
​
But sorry, the later part is just false in terms of both law and logic.
​​​​
Someone who has committed a crime still being in possession of a motor vehicle does not by itself make them shoot - on - sight dangerous absent a specific victim in their chosen path. Every driver is brandishing such a deadly weapon. For that matter, in the language of typical police reports trying to justify beat down situations, every bipedal human is brandishing a pair of deadly weapons.

And don't overplay the certainty, either. Even if there's physical evidence it's the right car, how certain can you be the driver is alone? Plenty of innocent passengers get shot in vehicles actually driving towards someone - some of them young children hard to see . There has to be an actual risk of the specific vehicle movement not a suspicion of possible future actions to balance that. Continuing down the MUP or through the outdoor holiday market? There's something specific. Headed for the highway ramp? Not by itself.

In the end, there's a reason we empower the police only to take the most absolutely necessary actions to stabilize a situation so that it can be dragged into court to be actually sorted out. "Getting away" is now well recognized to not be a situation of urgency

livedarklions

It's not the job of the police to dole out "justice" by shooting people. That's basically lynching.
I don't think we know enough to have an informed opinion on whether this shooting was justified or not.

livedarklions

You're doing a great job of taking very sound principles to absurd conclusions. Getting away is obviously urgent when the man has already demonstrated his eagerness to plow through people. He has overtly committed the act of a spree killer, he's still in control of the instrument he used for that act, and you're talking about him like he's fleeing from a speeding ticket. I actually know a lot about the law and logic in this area, and I think you're way off-base.

I think everything you say is ridiculous when applied to this very concrete example of a person acting like a complete homicidal maniac in control of a fast-moving heavy vehicle, but this really isn't the forum to debate this, so I'm bowing out.

UniChris

No, it's not.

Taking another threat pass and fleeing are distinct actions invoking distinct rules of response.

Your mistake is in putting the person in a blanket category and leaving them there even as their behaviour changes.

The actual law concerns their actions at the specific time.

Driving away after doing something does not authorize police to pass and enact a death sentance.

It's presenting a specific in-the-moment threat where deadly force to stop that specific, immediate threat can be weighed against their due process rights.

Put simply, they can shoot at a vehicle driving towards someone, but not at one driving away.
​​​​​
The standards of "towards" tend in practice to be rather generous and easily satisfied after the fact.

But they're going to have to argue a specific and imminent threat, not that he could have found another group of cyclists half an hour later on the other side of town.

CliffordK

Can we please keep this thread related to the crash, the cyclist victims, and details related to the cause of the crash or state of mind of the driver.

Please move any discussion about the police shooting to Politics & Religion. Read the FAQ at the top of the forum for access.

CliffordK

At the bottom of the page, June 2020, it says he had been 30 months sober.

But, that was a year ago, and as we all know, a lot of water under the bridge since then.

Unfortunately, may alcoholics who are sober for years, or even decades consider themselves lifelong alcoholics, and know how easy it is for their situation to spin out of control. It may only take a seemingly small trigger.

I have to wonder how a person who has had 3 DUI charges is still on the road.

We will have to await the toxicology report for this incident. And, no doubt there will be a battle over any evidence collected while the driver was unconscious.

livedarklions

I know I said I was out, but really....

The specific and imminent threat is going to be towards anyone who happens to be on or near the roads that the maniac is driving, and he will always be heading "towards" someone. Your mistake is in assuming he is only going after cyclists. No one reasonable is going to assume that all he's doing is trying to get himself out of the situation by fleeing His actions went far beyond any benefit of that doubt. He's the guy running away with the semiautomatic he just sprayed a crowd with. You do not wait for him to get set up again.

You're really using the wrong example--you want to go after abuse of deadly force on the roads, look at the way cops are using PIT maneuvers to stop people "fleeing": from traffic stops. This ain't that.

Ballenxj

Unless you were there, you have no basis to refer to this as a lynching or execution.
Most cops are good people that are just trying to protect you. Are there bad ones? Probably, but these caught a bad guy in a hurry.

livedarklions

I didn't actually do that. Police shooting people for "justice" would be that, but that was your words, not the cops.

I was criticizing your post, not what the cops did.

Rick

[QUOTE][[color=#222222]Unless you were there, you have no basis to refer to this as a lynching or execution.
Most cops are good people that are just trying to protect you. Are there bad ones? Probably, but these caught a bad guy in a hurry. [/QUOTE]

I agree with you. This Mental ************ about all the ways the authorities may have incorrectly put a stop to this perp with murderous intent, is the sign of a sick society. Grievous bodily harm was dished out by this individual. The possibility of more people being attacked was high at this point. When someone becomes this deranged they are TSTBA.

BillyD

This thread is proving to be too hot to trot. Closing.