Should Cops Be Allowed to Kill for Throwing Stones?

[Skip8282]

MSNBC asking if this is the next Ferguson.   

You can watch the grainy video at the link below.  He was definitely running away after throwing the rocks and appeared to maybe be surrendering, but it's hard to tell.

Tough call for the cops involved.



________________________ ________________________ _______

Hundreds protest against police after orchard worker was shot dead while 'running away' from cops he threw stones at
     ·Antonio Zambrano-Montes, 35, shot dead by police on Tuesday evening
     ·Officers say he refused to stop throwing rocks and a Taser did not work
     ·But multiple witnesses claim he was running away when he was killed
     ·Now, county coroner in southeastern Washington has declared he will order inquest into shooting in bid to defuse rising community tensions
     ·Fourth fatal shooting involving Tri-City officer in Pasco in last 6 months
     ·Officers have been cleared of any wrongdoing in all three previous cases


Hundreds of demonstrators have taken to the streets to protest against the police after officers shot a man dead because he threw stones at them.

Residents marched and staged 'die-ins' throughout Pasco, Washington, days after Antonio Zambrano-Montes, an orchard worker who was born in Mexico, was caught on a witness's cellphone being gunned down by officers at a busy intersection.

The 35-year-old's death last Tuesday has sparked outrage across the United States and Mexico with many claiming he was moving away from cops when he was shot multiple times.

It is the fourth fatal shooting by police in the city in the last six months and has caused heightened tensions within the community.

According to police, he had refused to stop hurling rocks - one of which was 'softball-sized' - at officers, despite having struck two of them. An attempt to Taser the man had apparently failed.

However, multiple witnesses have argued that Zambrano-Montes - who was not armed with either a gun or a knife - was running away from officers and had his back to them when he was killed at 5pm.

On Friday, the man's family filed a $25 million claim with the city of Pasco. It came as the president of Mexico reiterated his country's condemnation of the violence against a Mexican citizen.

Now, a county coroner in southeastern Washington has declared he will order an inquest into the shooting in a bid to defuse friction within the community.

Franklin County Coroner Dan Blasdel said his decision to proceed with an inquest - which will be open to the public - is intended to calm 'some of the fears and outrage of the community'.

On Wednesday, around 100 protesters marched outside Pasco City Hall, with some chanting 'It was only a rock,' according to KEPR. Later that day, more demonstrators gathered at the intersection.

'It's a stressful time for anybody who wears a badge,' said Sgt. Ken Lattin of Kennewick Police, spokesman for a group of outside police agencies investigating the shooting on Tuesday.

More at:

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2954492/Hundreds-protest-against-police-orchard-worker-shot-dead-running-away-threw-stones-cop.html#ixzz3S8J7f0Fo

[Dos Equis]

I say yes, if he (and it will almost certainly be a knucklehead dude) is throwing softball sized rocks. 

[polychronopolous]

Yes.

I personally don't want to live in a society where people are running around doing stupid shit like that.

[Soul Crusher]

Who is stupid enough to throw rocks at cops?  Honestly - if it wasn't this - this type of idiot

[Dos Equis]

Who is stupid enough to throw rocks at cops?  Honestly - if it wasn't this - this type of idiot

Probably the same kind of person who gets high, robs a store, assaults a cop, tries to take a cop's gun, then charges a cop. 

[Skip8282]

I say yes, if he (and it will almost certainly be a knucklehead dude) is throwing softball sized rocks. 

I'm trying to reason it out.  If some jackass was throwing stones at me would a cop use deadly force to protect me?

If the guy had lived, would the charge be attempted murder or along the lines of aggravated assault.

I think we can all agree that even smaller rocks could be lethal if you get it upside the head.

And, from the video, once he turns around, his arms go out.  So the cops only got a fraction of a second to make a decision.

[Archer77]

In the name of full disclosure, the man had been recently released from jail for threatening cops with a gun.

[Soul Crusher]

If only he was offered a job, health care, a free phone, and his balls washed courtesy of the USa taxpayer . . . . . . 

[Straw Man]

I'm trying to reason it out.  If some jackass was throwing stones at me would a cop use deadly force to protect me?

If the guy had lived, would the charge be attempted murder or along the lines of aggravated assault.

I think we can all agree that even smaller rocks could be lethal if you get it upside the head.

And, from the video, once he turns around, his arms go out.  So the cops only got a fraction of a second to make a decision.

or would you be allowed to use deadly force to protect yourself

I assume the answer is yes in certain states like FL where apparently all you have to do is feel your life is in danger to use deadly force

anyway, pretty fucking stupid to throw rocks at people with guns, especially cops

[Erik C]

 Fortunately, no one of any value to the human race died.

[Dos Equis]

I'm trying to reason it out.  If some jackass was throwing stones at me would a cop use deadly force to protect me?

If the guy had lived, would the charge be attempted murder or along the lines of aggravated assault.

I think we can all agree that even smaller rocks could be lethal if you get it upside the head.

And, from the video, once he turns around, his arms go out.  So the cops only got a fraction of a second to make a decision.

I think the standard pretty much everywhere is you can use deadly force if there is a reasonable belief that you're about to suffer death or serious bodily injury.  Rocks qualify in my book.

At a minimum, I'd shoot him in the kneecap just for being an idiot.  (They aren't trained to shoot to wound.) 

[Skip8282]

I think the standard pretty much everywhere is you can use deadly force if there is a reasonable belief that you're about to suffer death or serious bodily injury.  Rocks qualify in my book.

At a minimum, I'd shoot him in the kneecap just for being an idiot.  (They aren't trained to shoot to wound.) 

So you think with 3-4 of them chasing him down, that they were truly afraid for their lives?  I'm hesitant, but want to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I forget exactly what my bro told me, but I think they play games with the 'shoot to wound' shit.  It was something along the lines of they shoot to injure or maim or neutralize, not kill.  But, they shoot at center body mass.  The fact that all the vital organs are at center body mass is just tough shit.  Typical 4 yr old stuff, IMO.



Straw:

Yes, good point.  If I shot and killed somebody for throwing rocks at me, would a jury put me away for life?

[240 is Back]

If you watch the video -

It seems like a case of "okay, we're justified, shoot the fccker!" as opposed to "he's out of rocks, but I feel he's still a threat to life". 

If you or me shot this dude, we're going to jail.  Period.  Toss in the fact this man was out of rocks lol, turning back and/or surrendering...

They felt they had put up with enough, and they used bullets as PUNISHMENT, not as a means of keeping people safe.  They knew what they were doing.  Anyone here that truly believes "yeah, they were scared the unarmed man who was running after throwing rocks was a lethal danger...", well, one day reality will kick you in the fccking teeth lol. 

There are 2 kinds of shoots... those where the cops really have to do it (most of them) and some where the cops figure the bad guy has passed a threshold where they can legally shoot him as punishment.  This feels like that.

[Dos Equis]

So you think with 3-4 of them chasing him down, that they were truly afraid for their lives?  I'm hesitant, but want to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I forget exactly what my bro told me, but I think they play games with the 'shoot to wound' shit.  It was something along the lines of they shoot to injure or maim or neutralize, not kill.  But, they shoot at center body mass.  The fact that all the vital organs are at center body mass is just tough shit.  Typical 4 yr old stuff, IMO.



Straw:

Yes, good point.  If I shot and killed somebody for throwing rocks at me, would a jury put me away for life?

They don't have to be afraid for their lives.  It's death or seriously bodily injury.  That said, no I don't think they had a reasonable belief they were going to suffer serious bodily injury if the guy was running away while he was shot. 

I don't really have a problem with how law enforcement (and the military) are trained to use deadly force.  I don't think it's reasonable to try and train rank and file to shoot people in the leg, or anywhere other than center mass.  And your brother is right that they are trained to aim for center mass, and to shoot until the threat is disabled.  Pretty standard.  Makes sense to me.   

[Archer77]

They don't have to be afraid for their lives.  It's death or seriously bodily injury.  That said, no I don't think they had a reasonable belief they were going to suffer serious bodily injury if the guy was running away while he was shot.  

I don't really have a problem with how law enforcement (and the military) are trained to use deadly force.  I don't think it's reasonable to try and train rank and file to shoot people in the leg, or anywhere other than center mass.  And your brother is right that they are trained to aim for center mass, and to shoot until the threat is disabled.  Pretty standard.  Makes sense to me.  

He has threatened cops with a gun before.  Whether the police new that or not I don't know.

[LurkerNoMore]

Look at the money we saved on film since he won't be needing  mug shot.

[Dos Equis]

He has threatened cops with a gun before.  Whether the police new that or not I don't know.

If they did it would certainly play a factor in their use of force IMO. 

[Archer77]

If they did it would certainly play a factor in their use of force IMO. 

I don't know if they did or not.  He was released from jail a few days prior to the shooting.  I don't have an opinion either way.  I'm waiting for more info.

[240 is Back]

Yeah, if they had shot him WHILE he had a softball-sized rock in his hand, I'd say it's a good shoot.   

BUT the videos clearly show he threw the rocks, and ran, and was half-surrendering, half-trotting away, with zero rocks in his hands.   

He was shot as PUNISHMENT for hurling rocks at them earlier.  He was not shot to stop him from killing/injuring someone.  He was shot because they felt they had crossed line and were legal to do it.  They wanted to shoot him. 

[Dos Equis]

I don't know if they did or not.  He was released from jail a few days prior to the shooting.  I don't have an opinion either way.  I'm waiting for more info.

I don't really have an opinion about this particular situation either because I haven't read or seen anything, except that in general if a person is throwing rocks at a cop, I think the cop has the right to use deadly force.

[240 is Back]

I don't really have an opinion about this particular situation either because I haven't read or seen anything, except that in general if a person is throwing rocks at a cop, I think the cop has the right to use deadly force.

Watch the video, it's at that link.

He did throw rocks at the cop.  Shooting him then would have been legal.

But then he ran.   He had empty hands when they shot him.  Running from them.  unarmed and fleeing and they emptied magazines into him.  BECAUSE OF SOMETHING HE DID EARLIER.

This is the problem - police connect things.  Suppose they chased him 30 feet, or 300 feet, or 3000 feet... they continue the "our life is in danger" shooting, even though the weapon (in this case a rock) is no longer present. 

[240 is Back]

Tough call for the cops involved.

Nope.   When he has a rock in his hand, it might be a tough call.  They pretty much know they might get a cut, but the chance of this twink killing/injuring them with a rock ain't all that great, and they have him tased already, just not behaving yet.  So *maybe* that's a tough call.. do we waste a guy holding a rock?

Now, once he throws this rock, he's just an unarmed crazy idiot making a run for it.  No need to shoot him.  No judtification to shoot him.  The THREAT that he showed with the rock is no longer present... he's just some punk trying to get away now, he's not raising another lethal rock at them.

This is an EASY call, actually.   They shot him because they were in "shoot this motherfvcker" mode, and didn't turn it off when the "armed assailant" suddenly became an "unarmed assailant attempting to flee".  You can't shoot the latter   And we all know it.  They had ego, emotion, anger and groupthink going on there. 

Sure, people here will defend it, because they could be sodomized with a fcking nightstick and they'd thank the cop for spitting on it first.  But seriously folks, he threw his rock, he was no longer a deadly threat.

[Dos Equis]

Watch the video, it's at that link.

He did throw rocks at the cop.  Shooting him then would have been legal.

But then he ran.   He had empty hands when they shot him.  Running from them.  unarmed and fleeing and they emptied magazines into him.  BECAUSE OF SOMETHING HE DID EARLIER.

This is the problem - police connect things.  Suppose they chased him 30 feet, or 300 feet, or 3000 feet... they continue the "our life is in danger" shooting, even though the weapon (in this case a rock) is no longer present. 

I watched the clip.  They shot him within about a second or two after he threw rocks.  I don't care if he turned to run, because he was already resisting arrest, had assaulted the cops, and it doesn't look like they knew whether or not he had more rocks to throw.  

Hard to form a solid opinion based on 40 seconds of that clip, but at first blush looks ok to me.  

[blacken700]

Watch the video, it's at that link.

He did throw rocks at the cop.  Shooting him then would have been legal.

But then he ran.   He had empty hands when they shot him.  Running from them.  unarmed and fleeing and they emptied magazines into him.  BECAUSE OF SOMETHING HE DID EARLIER.

This is the problem - police connect things.  Suppose they chased him 30 feet, or 300 feet, or 3000 feet... they continue the "our life is in danger" shooting, even though the weapon (in this case a rock) is no longer present. 

the police can shoot to prevent a suspect from escaping, if the officer has probable cause and thinks the suspect has committed a serious violent felony.

[Dos Equis]

the police can shoot to prevent a suspect from escaping, if the officer has probable cause and thinks the suspect has committed a serious violent felony.

If that's the case then this qualifies, because that's what the clip shows.