Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety
Reload this Page >

Arizona Hit-and-Run Injures Seven in Arizona

Notices
Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

Arizona Hit-and-Run Injures Seven in Arizona

Old 06-21-21, 06:23 PM
  #26  
Paul Barnard
For The Fun of It
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Louisissippi Coast
Posts: 5,204

Bikes: Lynskey GR300, Lynskey Backroad, Litespeed T6, Lynskey MT29, Burley Duet

Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1748 Post(s)
Liked 1,057 Times in 543 Posts
He sounds like a swell guy.

https://www.newschannel10.com/2021/0...-arizona-race/
Paul Barnard is offline  
Likes For Paul Barnard:
Old 06-21-21, 06:40 PM
  #27  
John E
feros ferio
 
John E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: www.ci.encinitas.ca.us
Posts: 20,919

Bikes: 1959 Capo Modell Campagnolo; 1960 Capo Sieger (2); 1962 Carlton Franco Suisse; 1970 Peugeot UO-8; 1982 Bianchi Campione d'Italia; 1988 Schwinn Project KOM-10;

Mentioned: 39 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1133 Post(s)
Liked 670 Times in 473 Posts
Originally Posted by Paul Barnard View Post
Lock him up for a long time, preferably for life, and revoke his driver's license permanently. This is attempted murder, DUI or not.
__________________
"Far and away the best prize that life offers is the chance to work hard at work worth doing." --Theodore Roosevelt
Capo: 1959 Modell Campagnolo, S/N 40324; 1960 Sieger (2), S/N 42624, 42597
Carlton: 1962 Franco Suisse, S/N K7911
Peugeot: 1970 UO-8, S/N 0010468
Bianchi: 1982 Campione d'Italia, S/N 1.M9914
Schwinn: 1988 Project KOM-10, S/N F804069
John E is offline  
Old 06-21-21, 11:13 PM
  #28  
UniChris
Senior Member
 
UniChris's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Northampton, MA
Posts: 1,767

Bikes: 36" Unicycle, winter knock-around hybrid bike

Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 860 Post(s)
Liked 351 Times in 256 Posts
Originally Posted by Rick View Post
The police shot a dangerous fleeing felon.
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.

​​​​

Last edited by UniChris; 06-21-21 at 11:30 PM.
UniChris is offline  
Old 06-21-21, 11:37 PM
  #29  
SClaraPokeman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 300
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked 11 Times in 11 Posts
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.
SClaraPokeman is offline  
Likes For SClaraPokeman:
Old 06-21-21, 11:52 PM
  #30  
UniChris
Senior Member
 
UniChris's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Northampton, MA
Posts: 1,767

Bikes: 36" Unicycle, winter knock-around hybrid bike

Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 860 Post(s)
Liked 351 Times in 256 Posts
Originally Posted by SClaraPokeman View Post
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.
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.
​​​​​

Last edited by UniChris; 06-22-21 at 12:36 AM.
UniChris is offline  
Old 06-22-21, 04:03 AM
  #31  
alo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Posts: 1,060
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 529 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 254 Times in 185 Posts
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.
alo is offline  
Old 06-22-21, 04:10 AM
  #32  
Bald Paul
Senior Member
 
Bald Paul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Upstate SC
Posts: 776
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 367 Post(s)
Liked 672 Times in 317 Posts
Originally Posted by UniChris View Post
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.​​​​​
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 is offline  
Likes For Bald Paul:
Old 06-22-21, 04:13 AM
  #33  
Bald Paul
Senior Member
 
Bald Paul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Upstate SC
Posts: 776
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 367 Post(s)
Liked 672 Times in 317 Posts
Originally Posted by alo View Post
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.
So all he should suffer is a hangover?
Bald Paul is offline  
Likes For Bald Paul:
Old 06-22-21, 05:05 AM
  #34  
indyfabz
Senior Member
 
indyfabz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 33,692
Mentioned: 202 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15294 Post(s)
Liked 9,045 Times in 4,469 Posts
Originally Posted by Bald Paul View Post
So all he should suffer is a hangover?
Ignore the .
indyfabz is online now  
Old 06-22-21, 07:30 AM
  #35  
UniChris
Senior Member
 
UniChris's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Northampton, MA
Posts: 1,767

Bikes: 36" Unicycle, winter knock-around hybrid bike

Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 860 Post(s)
Liked 351 Times in 256 Posts
Originally Posted by Bald Paul View Post
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?
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.

it's funny how people worry about how the law is to be applied to protect the rights of criminals
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.

Last edited by UniChris; 06-22-21 at 07:35 AM.
UniChris is offline  
Old 06-22-21, 07:33 AM
  #36  
livedarklions
High Performance Noodler
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 12,318

Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM

Mentioned: 56 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6438 Post(s)
Liked 6,086 Times in 3,435 Posts
Originally Posted by UniChris View Post
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.
​​​​​

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.
livedarklions is online now  
Likes For livedarklions:
Old 06-22-21, 07:41 AM
  #37  
UniChris
Senior Member
 
UniChris's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Northampton, MA
Posts: 1,767

Bikes: 36" Unicycle, winter knock-around hybrid bike

Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 860 Post(s)
Liked 351 Times in 256 Posts
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..

Last edited by UniChris; 06-22-21 at 08:39 AM.
UniChris is offline  
Likes For UniChris:
Old 06-22-21, 07:43 AM
  #38  
Ballenxj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 986

Bikes: Diamond Back Apex, Mongoose IBOC Aluminum Road Bike, SR road bike

Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 508 Post(s)
Liked 148 Times in 103 Posts
Please, let us not persecute the police that caught this guy!
Doesn't anybody believe in justice anymore?
Ballenxj is offline  
Likes For Ballenxj:
Old 06-22-21, 10:56 AM
  #39  
livedarklions
High Performance Noodler
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 12,318

Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM

Mentioned: 56 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6438 Post(s)
Liked 6,086 Times in 3,435 Posts
Originally Posted by UniChris View Post
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..
​​​​​​

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.
livedarklions is online now  
Likes For livedarklions:
Old 06-22-21, 11:09 AM
  #40  
UniChris
Senior Member
 
UniChris's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Northampton, MA
Posts: 1,767

Bikes: 36" Unicycle, winter knock-around hybrid bike

Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 860 Post(s)
Liked 351 Times in 256 Posts
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

Last edited by UniChris; 06-22-21 at 11:22 AM.
UniChris is offline  
Old 06-22-21, 12:13 PM
  #41  
livedarklions
High Performance Noodler
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 12,318

Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM

Mentioned: 56 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6438 Post(s)
Liked 6,086 Times in 3,435 Posts
Originally Posted by Ballenxj View Post
Please, let us not persecute the police that caught this guy!
Doesn't anybody believe in justice anymore?

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 is online now  
Likes For livedarklions:
Old 06-22-21, 12:36 PM
  #42  
livedarklions
High Performance Noodler
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 12,318

Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM

Mentioned: 56 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6438 Post(s)
Liked 6,086 Times in 3,435 Posts
Originally Posted by UniChris View Post
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
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.
livedarklions is online now  
Likes For livedarklions:
Old 06-22-21, 12:45 PM
  #43  
UniChris
Senior Member
 
UniChris's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Northampton, MA
Posts: 1,767

Bikes: 36" Unicycle, winter knock-around hybrid bike

Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 860 Post(s)
Liked 351 Times in 256 Posts
Originally Posted by livedarklions View Post
Getting away is obviously urgent when the man has already demonstrated his eagerness to plow through people.
No, it's not.

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

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
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.

Last edited by UniChris; 06-22-21 at 01:01 PM.
UniChris is offline  
Old 06-22-21, 01:22 PM
  #44  
CliffordK
Senior Member
 
CliffordK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 26,863
Mentioned: 213 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15625 Post(s)
Liked 3,095 Times in 2,304 Posts
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 is offline  
Old 06-22-21, 01:34 PM
  #45  
CliffordK
Senior Member
 
CliffordK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 26,863
Mentioned: 213 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15625 Post(s)
Liked 3,095 Times in 2,304 Posts
Originally Posted by Paul Barnard View Post
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.
CliffordK is offline  
Likes For CliffordK:
Old 06-22-21, 01:38 PM
  #46  
livedarklions
High Performance Noodler
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 12,318

Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM

Mentioned: 56 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6438 Post(s)
Liked 6,086 Times in 3,435 Posts
Originally Posted by UniChris View Post
​​​​​
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.
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.
livedarklions is online now  
Likes For livedarklions:
Old 06-22-21, 01:42 PM
  #47  
Ballenxj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 986

Bikes: Diamond Back Apex, Mongoose IBOC Aluminum Road Bike, SR road bike

Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 508 Post(s)
Liked 148 Times in 103 Posts
Originally Posted by livedarklions View Post
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.
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.
Ballenxj is offline  
Likes For Ballenxj:
Old 06-22-21, 02:33 PM
  #48  
livedarklions
High Performance Noodler
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 12,318

Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM

Mentioned: 56 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6438 Post(s)
Liked 6,086 Times in 3,435 Posts
Originally Posted by Ballenxj View Post
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.

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.
livedarklions is online now  
Likes For livedarklions:
Old 06-22-21, 02:48 PM
  #49  
Rick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 909
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 383 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 245 Times in 158 Posts
[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.

Last edited by BillyD; 06-22-21 at 04:11 PM.
Rick is offline  
Likes For Rick:
Old 06-22-21, 04:14 PM
  #50  
BillyD
Administrator
 
BillyD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posts: 30,508

Bikes: Merlin Cyrene '04; Bridgestone RB-1 '92

Mentioned: 312 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9953 Post(s)
Liked 3,723 Times in 2,099 Posts
This thread is proving to be too hot to trot. Closing.
__________________
See, this is why we can't have nice things. - - smarkinson
Where else but the internet can a bunch of cyclists go and be the tough guy? - - jdon
BillyD is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.