GTA, motherfucker!

The cop has been cleared of all criminal charges, sending the message that if you're threatening to commit suicide, the cops will be glad to oblige and try to kill you and suffer no consequence for (attempted) homicide whatsoever.
Also sending the message that running down a human being at full throttle is an acceptable police tactic against a suspect that's already surrounded rather than trying ANY less lethal method.

New video shows that the man was holding the gun to his own chin, and newly released information shows that he didn't use the gun to commit crimes, he stole the gun at Walmart right before the video and only fired it into the air once (perhaps to unload it? More likely to prove it's loaded.).

It's getting really old, Mr. Po-po, and turnabout's considered fair play. You might think about that, and the fact that 10% of Americans are armed and have severe impulse control issues.

Wow, that's completely different than what I envisioned after reading about this in the news. I thought it would be something semi-reasonable; not this, wtf.

What does that mean...turnabout is fair play?

As for the nutcase depicted, did the cops have information that he was trying to commit suicide-by-cop? Or did they just have information that he was the suspect in a crime spree including a home invasion, the theft of a gun and the discharge of same in a public place?

If he was walking toward some people with a gun and what the cops believe to be criminal intent or being out of control with the gun, then they are justified in using lethal force to stop him and protect innocent lives.

I don't know too many people who would be willing to just approach the guy and give him a pamphlet of mental health resources in the county.

On the other hand, we did have a dispatcher who would have offered to give him a hug.

Really, you don't understand that phrase? It means what you do may be done back to you, and you can't complain. That's not good when part of what you do is kill people.

Which nutcase do you mean, the actually violent nutcase with a gun, or the suspect?

Yes, they had that information because 30 seconds before he had the gun to his own head, and they broadcast that info on the radio.

There were no people near where he was walking, the cops had the block surrounded. He had already walked by a number of people in the area without incident, and none can bee seen on either video in the direction he was going.

No surprise you have to be informed that there is a middle, rational ground between walking right up to the armed suspect and running him over at over 40mph with enough force to blast through a cement wall.
You know those things called Tasers...there's a reason cops have them...same with bean bag bullets. Those are tools meant to be used, or at least TRIED, not ignored or dismissed because they don't work 100% of the time...if that's the standard, bullets don't work 100% of the time either so why ever use them?

How about I arm myself with a rifle, then you come at me with a taser?

Also, if I walk down the street firing rounds from a rifle, I would expect the cops to take drastic measures to stop me, so...okay, turnabout.

I've heard of cops going nutso and other cops come and take them out. So...turnabout.

Also, can you guarantee that someone wanting to commit suicide will not attempt to take another person's life? If so, then I suppose they could predict exactly what reaction this perp will have.

That must be one powerful 8-ball you have there.

Holy fuckin jesus man, how do you not get that this is unacceptable behavior? In no way was this conduct justified. If the suspect ended up pointing the gun in the cops direction then you may have an argument for the cops using force on this person. This was completely the result of person that had no ability to reason how to handle the situation. (the cop by the way in case you wanted to try and turn this statement into a pithy reply) That is their JOB. Having the ability to reason when faced with unreasonable situations.

If you are indeed affiliated with law enforcement, YOU are the reason people should be justifiably suspicious of the ability of law enforcement personnel to make reasoned decisions.

As long as my 15 friends with rifles, shotguns, and pistols pointed at your head come with me, and the instant you start to point the rifle at a person they get to fire, then fine, name the date and place, I'll be there with bells on to get to taser you and 'detain' you afterwards. This guy only pointed his weapon at himself, and only fired a single shot directly up....like a warning shot...a thing cops have apparently forgotten exists.
If you need 100% guarantee of safety in your duty, you should NEVER be a cop, or even be in public.
It's funny you always take that position that cops should be able to kill with impunity instead of taking the slightest risk to their own safety, for instance you often say they should never even try tasers even with massive backup because tasers MIGHT not stop the person, so they should just shoot to kill instead if there's ANY risk to themselves (or if they think they can make up a risk...'he grabbed my taser' comes to mind), and you also take the position that cops have this incredibly dangerous job and are all 'brave little soldiers' we should look up to...which is it?

Cops should be able to kill with impunity? That's a pretty ridiculous statement, which I never said, in fact if I did, please quote me here.

Also, I never said what this cop did was right. But you have this general tendency to weave fanciful flights of hyperbole and ascribe them to me.

I'm only bringing up what I think are some other considerations. Of course, the cop had just a minute to decide, you have...how much time?

Have you ever gone to your local police department and read the daily log? Why don't you go down there and talk to some of these monsters, maybe you can talk some sense into them.

Also, I conceded many moons ago that there are many jobs more dangerous than being a cop. Construction is one job that is. My point was that cops put their lives on the line to protect innocent people, which makes their sacrifice a little more selfless.

i don't expect you to look up to cops, especially since you only observe from the sidelines...where it is nice and safe.

What you have done is excuse each and every instance where a cop blatantly goes overboard and hurts or kills a citizen, and supported the lack of prosecution, and said that how they are treated is proper, not being prosecuted, or being allowed to kill with impunity. You never strung the exact words together, only the sentiment.

No, what you do is say "if" some ridiculous thing that isn't true "then they are justified." That's your MO, and how you excuse the inexcusable every time.

The cop in front had the same amount of time to decide and the best view of anyone, and decided backing off was clearly proper...he can be heard instructing the other cop to do just that...but demolition man decided he knew better from behind....so....

Hmmm...why don't you go down to the local crack house alone and unarmed and tell them how to act? The local crack heads have more patience, sense, restraint, and will listen better.

My point is cops no longer 'put their lives on the line to protect innocent people', they put innocent people's lines on the line to protect themselves these days, and that's the problem. 10 people killed by cops for every cop killed by citizens says it all.
(drops mic)

10 people killed versus one cop killed.

I imagine you would prefer those stats to be reversed, considering your animus toward cops.

The reason that stat is correct is because cops are called into dangerous situations with dangerous people, the cops have training and the responsibility to use deadly force.

If the cop does something wrong, he has to answer to his local prosecutor up to and including the attorney general of the United States and the resources of the entire Dept of Justice...which, by the way, was used on Darren Wilson, and Darren Wilson was found to have acted correctly.

You would prefer the criminal get the upper hand, which puts you well out of the mainstream of normal people.

Why is that?

You really need to use some critical thinking instead of just taking a statistic and trying to draw a conclusion from it. Especially when that conclusion is so blatantly specious.

Obviously not, I would prefer people didn't kill each other. Failing that, I wish things were more balanced overall. You seem to believe it's either 10 to 1 or 1 to 10. How about 1 to 1 like the rest of us?
Crime is down across the board, but that disgusting ratio continues to climb...meaning the less crime there is, the more violently police are reacting to it. You can argue about why, I'm just saying those statistics are telling and terrible, on all levels.

Police work daily with the DA, and are rarely prosecuted even when there is video that's clear and complete, while private citizens don't get the same treatment by far. You know this well.

Nothing I said would give suspected criminals (innocent until proven guilty, remember) the upper hand in any way. Reasonably TRYING less lethal methods is not walking into a hail of gunfire to try a billy club.
I would prefer that police put safety first, and not just their own safety, and certainly not police control over a citizens safety. I would prefer that police would go back to trying to de-escalate situations instead of trying to gain full control at all cost. I would really prefer that police caught acting badly were not supported and defended by other cops (sound familiar?), and were prosecuted by special prosecutors more often and more harshly than normal citizens. Since it's their job to uphold the law and the peace it's up to them to be better than 'normal' citizens, breaking the law as a lawman is doubly bad and should be punished as such.

But I'm sure you'll misread this, ridiculously misstate some of it, and make up a new straw man to argue about, and I'm already sorry I fell off the wagon and engaged again. Bad newt.

Protecting and serving by automobile has been added as a related post - related requested by newtboy on that post.

I wonder that this event will get the victim from the suicidal state of mind to a desire to live again. As bad as this looks it might be a good thing.

As for the speeding cop. Should he have gone 2MPH - 10 MPH 20 40?

Should they have created a standoff at which point they would have shot at him at first sign of danger? Then have suicide by cop.

The kid is alive. Messed up but alive.

From the cops perspective the actions seems within reason, all be it a (visually ) odd way of achieving a safe resolution.

So...what should the cops have done?

And don't give give me that newtboy logic...give me some newtMAN logic lol

Talk (officer one was just starting to try this)....then Taser/pepper spray....then shotgun bean bag/rubber bullets....THEN deadly force.
That simple.

As I see it, the intent was obviously NOT to just injure him, it was to kill him with the vehicle. No question in my mind.
From the first cop's perspective, the action is NOT reasonable in the least...just listen to him on the radio, flabbergasted and disgusted at the second cop's actions.
This was FAR from a "safe resolution", it's only by chance that the man wasn't caught between the car and the cement wall it crashed all the way through....and crushing him to death certainly seemed to be the intent.
EDIT: If a citizen rolled his car towards a cop at 1/20 the speed seen here, he would almost certainly be shot and charged with attempted vehicular homicide...we've actually seen exactly that happen in other videos just because the brake lights went off, and the cops were "justified" in that case.

Anyone else find it odd that those who constantly rail against the overreaching powers of government are the same one's who consistently defend overtly violent cops as if they aren't the governmental enforcers? Can you say "disconnect"?

Talk...I like that...the guy just robbed a place in his underwear, set a church on fire, broke into a home, saunters down the street firing off shots, and Officer Newtboy is going to approach him and say 'excuse me, sir, but you seem to be having a bad day. Care to talk about it?'

Okay, I guess that's one way to do it.

Also, the cop didn't sound all that flabbergasted and disgusted to me. The first cop hesitated, the 2nd cop decided what action to take and took it, ending the threat, and the prosecutor decided not to charge him with anything. Now, not all prosecutors may feel the same way, but there it is.

Cops can't always convene a commission to decide what to do to end an imminent threat.

But I appreciate that you are so protective of a guy who robbed a place, set a church on fire, did a home invasion, stole a car and walked down the street firing rounds. Perhaps your true calling would be defense attorney or ACLU lawyer.

The intent was to stop the gunman.

He lived right. Sounds like his lucky day. He cheated death.

And he has a real story to tell his friends with video to boot.


I don't find this overreaching , as I think you are implying.

lol bob

Perhaps we're not giving newtboy enough credit...he apparently has the cajones to approach a nutcase with a rifle while armed with pepper spray

maybe we can make a warrior out of him after all