Sorry, the guy had been involved in violent crimes, was armed with a high powered rifle, fired the rifle in the air, pointed it at police, and one of the officers took a chance in taking him down before he hurt himself or others.

People don't understand that they could have simply shot him as soon as he pointed the gun at a cop, with just cause. The fact that the guy lived, and will most likely use this to sue the city and make out like a bandit, is pretty much a win win for him. His lawyer is just blowing it up to make more bank in the lawsuit.

Copy pasta of salient facts, remember, these are in addition to shooting the rifle and pointing it at a cop.

At 6:45 a.m., Valencia robbed a 7-Eleven in Tucson with a metal object in his hand. Authorities said he was dressed only in his underwear. He was charged with theft.

A little more than an hour later, police said, Valencia set a fire at a church for which he was charged with arson of an occupied structure.

Just after that he entered a home and stole a car, police said.

Authorities said he drove to a Walmart where he stole a .30-30 rifle and ammunition. He fled the store with Walmart employees in pursuit.

First I've heard he pointed it at the police, that's not in any of the videos I've seen. He only pointed it at himself on video. Where did you read that?
He apparently fired because the Walmart employee was yelling to the cop that the gun had a trigger lock and was harmless, and he seemed to be proving it wasn't by firing directly up.
He seemed to be having a serious mental issue, it seemed the first cop understood that and was acting accordingly. Because they could shoot him doesn't mean that trying to kill him is the only, or best solution.
He was involved in multiple crimes, but it wasn't reported he was violent with anyone until your post. Where did you get your info, and who was he violent against?
almost dupeof, but at least...
*related=http://videosift.com/video/Cop-Goes-Into-GTA-Mode-And-Runs-Down-Suspect

Today on C.G.W.-Cop Goes Into GTA Mode And Runs Down Suspect has been added as a related post - related requested by newtboy.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by blackfox42.

All the information I referred to or copied was from the link to the CNN article in the link the sifter provided above.

Crimes in which violence is the means to an end, such as robbery, are violent crimes. Violent crimes may, or may not, be committed with weapons. He robbed a store, committed arson on an occupied structure, committed breaking and entering upon a private home, stole the car at said home which is GTA, then committed another robbery at the walmart when he took the gun.

CNN stated that the person was also accused of pointing the rifle at the police, firing it in the air, and then later pointing it at himself. The man clearly has some mental issues, but he was a threat to society in the condition he was in. His rights do not trump the rights of his fellow citizens to be protected from his mental illness.

There are lots of ways that this could have been handled differently, but there are also lots of ways this could have went worse. We could be discussing why the police didn't do more before this guy shot an innocent bystander.

From the interview that I saw on CNN of the police chief, lethal force had been authorized if needed. I think this officer saw an opportunity and took it, perhaps over zealously, to end the situation without harm to innocents.

Ahh, I see, the police CLAIMED he pointed it at them during the moment the camera wasn't pointed at him, eh? I'm not sure I can take the word of an officer as fact these days....sadly.
You call it robbery, he was only charged with theft. He had a metal object in his hand, but didn't try to use it on anyone. You call it breaking and entering, but there's no indication the home was closed or that he broke anything, he did enter (trespassing), and did steal a car (not carjacked, so still GTA?), and later a gun (again, only petty theft). My point was it was not reported he threatened or injured anyone (beyond himself) during any of these crimes, so they may not have been violent at all. He was certainly having mental issues. You seem to be saying ANY crime is violent, which you're free to believe, but I'm free to disagree.
No one was seen in danger at the time they ran him over, certainly not in the camera range. In America we aren't supposed to try to kill people for what they MIGHT do sometime in the future, right?
True, they could have handled it worse in many ways, that doesn't mean I can't still see, and exclaim, that they handled it terribly.

I think you said it all in your last paragraph. Deadly force was authorized IF NEEDED, the officer saw an OPPORTUNITY (not a necessity) and took it.

If he truly pointed the gun at someone, it changes my opinion, but unfortunately I can't take a cop's word on that...."he grabbed my taser" (and the hundreds of other lies caught on camera) blows it for every claim they make. Now, if it's not on camera, it didn't happen. Their word is worth less than nothing at this point. They better buy those body cameras quick, because I don't think I'm alone thinking that way.

I am not 'calling' it anything. By legal definition some of his crimes are considered violent crimes and he would have been charged/will be charged as such when he appears before a court.

Robbing a store with a finger in your pocket is the same as robbing it with a gun or piece of metal per the eyes of the law.

Setting fire to an OCCUPIED structure is a violent crime. Committing Arson even on an empty structure can be considered a violent crime depending on who could be hurt if the fire spreads or explosions occur from the contents of the building.

Burglary (also called breaking and entering and sometimes housebreaking) is a crime, the essence of which is illegal entry into a building for the purposes of committing an offence. Usually that offence will be theft, but most jurisdictions specify others which fall within the ambit of burglary. Trespassing is typically entering a section of land that has been marked.

Motor vehicle theft (sometimes referred to as grand theft auto by the media and police departments in the US) is the criminal act of stealing or attempting to steal a car. This can happen in many ways, but they all fall under this description.

As far as the gun theft, still falls under the definition of burglary. He stole a weapon and tussled with the store employees to escape. I personally would call it a violent crime, but I don't know for sure if it legally is considered one or if it would be relegated more to shoplifting.

Yeah, I am taking the word of the police that he pointed the gun at them. Maybe I shouldn't because out of the thousands of arrests and incidents that happen daily across the country, we have a few videos that show spurious methods used by a few officers. I mean, I get that right now the public trust in officers is at an all time low for good reason, but given the sheer number of things that this guy already did that day, I have to assume that they might not be lying in this case.

As far as the officer, like I said, maybe he overreacted. But I would rather we risk the death of a clearly severely mentally ill person than read about the 11 year old he shot because he was crazy and had a gun.

In the end, you have the right to see and feel about the incident any way you see fit. You don't have to agree with a single thing I say. But I posted what I posted because I felt that just the video alone is not a clear picture of what was going on in this situation. I merely shared some of the facts that were printed by a major media outlet so that people could have the additional information to make up their minds about the video.

Yes, that's why they charged him with THEFT, not robbery. He didn't USE the piece of metal in his hand to threaten.
The arson part, that can be considered 'violent', you're right there.
No, ROBBERY is violent, burglary is sneaky. Y ou might note he was not charged with breaking and entering, robbery, OR burglary. Trespass is what it's called when you enter an OPEN building or home, burglary if you did it intending to steal, robbery if you came armed and used that arm in any way against a human.
No, I'm fairly certain auto theft and GRAND THEFT AUTO are different charges, like petty theft and grand theft are different.
No one ever mentioned a "tussel" with store employees, they are instructed to allow him to walk away, they would lose their job if they tried to stop him, because the gun was under $500, petty theft.
You are welcome to believe police when it comes to them excusing their violence. I am free to not believe them. Their recent actions have shown them to be untrustworthy, so I feel proper not trusting them.
Wait, so because a guy actually committed crimes, you will believe cops? Huh? They guy shot in the back did more violence than this guy, he actually tussled with the cop.
You know those aren't the only two options, right? Kill him or let him free to kill 11 year olds?
Videos have proven time and time again to be a far better picture of what actually happened than the officers accounts. If I could trust an officer to tell the truth, I could be there with you. Unfortunately, they have proven at every turn that they are not trustworthy, so I think any rational person would stop trusting them and require they PROVE their contentions, and ignore anything they claim without proof. That's where I am.

What they charge him with and what the DA charges him with are two different things. The quotes I provided are the simple definitions of his actions. Burglary while possessing what 'could' be described as a weapon is considered armed robbery. Burglary of a home is considered breaking and entering. GTA covers multiple types of auto theft, feel free to look it up. The article clearly mentions that the store employees were chasing after him.

Of course I realize that there are more options, but when you add options, you also add possible outcomes because you are extending the situation. Assuming that the police did attempt other methods with the suspect and something bad happened to either a cop or innocent, would you still be blaming the cops for doing their jobs wrong?

Again, videos show bad cops. They ABSOLUTELY do exist and in far too large of a quantity. However, videos also show decent cops and outstanding ones, like the one who validated the rights of the people protesting TSA searches. You are perfectly welcome to your distrust of the police, I admit I don't trust them nearly as much as I used to, but a rational person would be willing to realize that you can't stereotype them as all untrustworthy or bad.

True, but the charges rarely go UP in severity from cop to DA, they go down. The cops usually charge the worst they can, the DA charges what's possible to convict on. In this case as I read it, the cops charged him with the lesser crimes, indicating even they didn't think he was being violent in the previous crimes (excepting arson).

It depends on what they tried, when, and how. If they reasonably try to diffuse a situation rather than escalate it, I will always support them, no matter the outcome. I rarely see or hear of cops trying that anymore, today it's all about using force to gain absolute control at any cost, IMO.

Because they ALL seem to stand with the obvious criminals, I can reasonably paint them all with one color until that situation changes. The few exceptions to that rule are becoming fewer and farther between, with a quieter voice than previously, usually silent. In my mind, that makes them all accessories after the fact to whatever crime the cop they support committed, a charge they must defend themselves from with evidence they did their best to stop/arrest/charge the offending cops (not hyperbole, not baseless statements, not "if" (something untrue) "then they're justified" logic) showing that I'm wrong if they wish to change my mind.

Moving this video to Buttle's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.