Pasco police kill man for throwing rocks

[ANZAC]

I agree this looks like a bad shoot.

BUT

The RCWs say

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/Rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.040

"(1) Homicide or the use of deadly force is justifiable in the following cases:

....
(c) When necessarily used by a peace officer or person acting under the officer's command and in the officer's aid:

(i) To arrest or apprehend a person who the officer reasonably believes has committed, has attempted to commit, is committing, or is attempting to commit a felony;"

If the guy had already committed some kind of felony assault on the cops, it could be argued it was justified.

[TechnoWeenie]

I agree this looks like a bad shoot.

BUT

The RCWs say

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/Rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.040

"(1) Homicide or the use of deadly force is justifiable in the following cases:

....
(c) When necessarily used by a peace officer or person acting under the officer's command and in the officer's aid:

(i) To arrest or apprehend a person who the officer reasonably believes has committed, has attempted to commit, is committing, or is attempting to commit a felony;"

If the guy had already committed some kind of felony assault on the cops, it could be argued it was justified.

You missed that key word there, I'll underline it for you.. :D

and you cut out a very relevant portion....

(2) In considering whether to use deadly force under subsection (1)(c) of this section, to arrest or apprehend any person for the commission of any crime, the peace officer must have probable cause to believe that the suspect, if not apprehended, poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer or a threat of serious physical harm to others. Among the circumstances which may be considered by peace officers as a "threat of serious physical harm" are the following:

(a) The suspect threatens a peace officer with a weapon or displays a weapon in a manner that could reasonably be construed as threatening; or

(b) There is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed any crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm.

I still think it's a bad shoot. The guy looks like he's putting out his arms, as if to lower himself to the ground.... the hands are visible for a second before shooting starts...

[ANZAC]

Right - they'll also claim this:

"the peace officer must have probable cause to believe that the suspect, if not apprehended, poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer or a threat of serious physical harm to others. "

We didn't see what happened before the video started shooting. Like I said I agree it doesn't look too good, but then we weren't there.

Anytime I see the word "unarmed" in a headline it usually tells me there is some bias in the coverage.

[TechnoWeenie]

We can all agree that dipshit was being a dipshit, and was probably doing some shit that could get someone hurt...

The question is, were all other options exhausted when deadly force was used? Deadly force is the last option.

[TINCANBANDIT]

in school we had to memorize the definition of necessary regarding the use of force

RCW 9A.16.010: "Necessary means that no reasonable. effective alternative to the use of force appeared to exist at the time and the amount of force used was reasonable to effect the lawful purpose intended..."

[ANZAC]

We can all agree that dipshit was being a dipshit, and was probably doing some shit that could get someone hurt...

The question is, were all other options exhausted when deadly force was used? Deadly force is the last option.

Can we all agree that you could be killed or seriously injured by a rock of reasonable size thrown at a reasonable speed?
The guy was not "unarmed". He may not have had a firearm.

I don't know if you read the article, but they tried a Taser and it didn't have any effect.
In the video, that is probably the guy with the light.

[finster]

We can all agree that dipshit was being a dipshit, and was probably doing some shit that could get someone hurt...

The question is, were all other options exhausted when deadly force was used? Deadly force is the last option.

Can we all agree that you could be killed or seriously injured by a rock of reasonable size thrown at a reasonable speed?
The guy was not "unarmed". He may not have had a firearm.

I don't know if you read the article, but they tried a Taser and it didn't have any effect.
In the video, that is probably the guy with the light.

I do not agree. I have been hit square in side of the head from 20 yards with a full can of pop and I barely flinched even though I didn't see it coming. I agree that a rock could possibly kill someone if they had multiple shots and got very lucky.......but the chances of someone actually getting seriously injured? Almost nil. Have you ever tried running and throwing things at a target? Especially rocks with an uneven spin? Unless Randy Johnson shrank and had a bunch of melanin pumped into him than I would have felt very safe being those officers. How many people have been hit with a 90+ fastball and lived? That's right all of them but one in 1920.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Chapman

[old11bravo]

I do not agree. I have been hit square in side of the head from 20 yards with a full can of pop and I barely flinched even though I didn't see it coming. I agree that a rock could possibly kill someone if they had multiple shots and got very lucky.......but the chances of someone actually getting seriously injured? Almost nil. Have you ever tried running and throwing things at a target? Especially rocks with an uneven spin? Unless Randy Johnson shrank and had a bunch of melanin pumped into him than I would have felt very safe being those officers. How many people have been hit with a 90+ fastball and lived? That's right all of them but one in 1920.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Chapman

That can of pop hit might explain a few things but I digress.

I knew a fellow grunt that was killed by a rock throw when I was stationed at Ft. Irwin in the 80's. We used to fuck around and have rock fights, because it was the intelligent thing to do when you were bored out in the field. I wasn't present when it happened but he was hit in the head by a rather small rock. The problem was that he had an undiagnosed tumor that was ruptured when the rock struck him. He died pretty instantly. The command cracked down hard on our little fuck fuck games after that. True story though. Rocks can indeed be deadly.

Check out this link for rock throw fatalities:
http://www.idfblog.com/blog/2013/03/18/rocks-can-kill/

[finster]

I do not agree. I have been hit square in side of the head from 20 yards with a full can of pop and I barely flinched even though I didn't see it coming. I agree that a rock could possibly kill someone if they had multiple shots and got very lucky.......but the chances of someone actually getting seriously injured? Almost nil. Have you ever tried running and throwing things at a target? Especially rocks with an uneven spin? Unless Randy Johnson shrank and had a bunch of melanin pumped into him than I would have felt very safe being those officers. How many people have been hit with a 90+ fastball and lived? That's right all of them but one in 1920.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Chapman

That can of pop hit might explain a few things but I digress.

I knew a fellow grunt that was killed by a rock throw when I was stationed at Ft. Irwin in the 80's. We used to fuck around and have rock fights, because it was the intelligent thing to do when you were bored out in the field. I wasn't present when it happened but he was hit in the head by a rather small rock. The problem was that he had an undiagnosed tumor that was ruptured when the rock struck him. He died pretty instantly. The command cracked down hard on our little fuck fuck games after that. True story though. Rocks can indeed be deadly.

That was over 15 years ago but thanks for the nice words.....since then somehow UW let this retard into their school but I digress.

This example doesn't really work since the person died of a ruptured brain tumor. This doesn't disprove what I said since I included the possibility of a lucky shot or in your case an unlucky shot. I'm sorry to hear what happened but that is about as unlucky a shot as you can get. Would you mind answering what other serious injuries there had been during your rock fights prior to this incident?

[kf7mjf]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/14/us/washin ... index.html

[Benja455]

Wow.

[os2firefox]

... I think?

[lionhrt]

Meanwhile, the Mexican consul in Seattle, Eduardo Baca, wrote a letter Thursday to Police Chief Robert Metzger expressing "deep concern over the unwarranted use of lethal force against an unarmed Mexican national by police officers."

They should clean their own back yard before pointing at others

[Massivedesign]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/14/us/washington-police-shooting/index.html

Threads merged...


Also, maybe one should WAIT until the investigation is complete until a lawsuit is filed..

[kf7mjf]

Meanwhile, the Mexican consul in Seattle, Eduardo Baca, wrote a letter Thursday to Police Chief Robert Metzger expressing "deep concern over the unwarranted use of lethal force against an unarmed Mexican national by police officers."

They should clean their own back yard before pointing at others

The consulate is basically doing their job. He's got no control over cartels or illegal immigration, but his job is watching out for Mexican Nationals inside of the US. And since I'm not seeing the "illegal" card bandied about, I'm guessing this person was here legally?