Missing pregnant Shanann Watts and her two daughter's bodies found, husband arrested
Join the latest discussion

WA - Pasco police shoot man after he threw rocks at cars and at them, resisted, fled

Discussion in 'Up to the Minute' started by liljim, Feb 12, 2015.

  1. liljim

    liljim Former Member

    Messages:
    1,509
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2015/02/11/3405116_man-shot-by-pasco-police-identified.html?rh=1

    Zambrano-Montes was throwing rocks at cars about 5 p.m. Tuesday near Fiesta Foods when police were called. He hit two officers with rocks and refused to listen to commands, Police Chief Bob Metzger said.

    Police gave him orders to surrender and unsuccessfully tried using a Taser. The officers chased him across the intersection of 10th Avenue and Lewis Street and eventually shot him in front of a business on Lewis Street.

    Read more here: http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2015/...sco-police-identified.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy

    the shooting;

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-0uqFTBclo
     
  2. liljim

    liljim Former Member

    Messages:
    1,509
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    video is troubling but the man was clearly acting like he was out of his mind or on something, i dont think the officers will face any consequences as i think this will be found to be a legal shooting, but i would still like to think that it didnt have to end like that. (not blaming them, not implying anything)
     
  3. Woodland

    Woodland Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,216
    Likes Received:
    196
    Trophy Points:
    63
    While the world, or at least that area, is better off with one less meth addict imo, not sure cops chasing, then shooting an unarmed person, once again, was the right thing for them to do.

    Where was the imminent danger to LE or people walking the streets? It's my understanding, imminent danger is a criteria for LE to shoot someone. A few too many shots imo for LE chasing someone - a bystander could have taken one of LE's bullets.

    The person being chased and shot will not always be a meth addict - mental health issues could be at play the next time - how did LE know what was at play?

    Just wondering. Trust no consequences will be forth coming to the officers involved. Maybe right, maybe wrong. Rocks can harm moving vehicles big time - no question.
     
  4. JLSChook

    JLSChook Fin's Pet

    Messages:
    3,502
    Likes Received:
    100
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Assaulting police officers several times with rocks (or any weapon, including HANDS) is a felony.

    LE is allowed to shoot at UNARMED fleeing felons if "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

    (TN vs Garner)

    Rocks are weapons.
     
  5. al66pine

    al66pine New Member

    Messages:
    4,346
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The following things tells me something, but what?

    -His sig-other's filing for protection order, because he phys. abused her, threatened many times to kill her, pulled knife & gun on her;
    -his hitting walking around hitting cars w broom;
    -his conviction for assault involving throwing rocking chair & mailbox at LEO, & trying to grab LEO gun away from his holster;
    -his self-reported meth use;
    -his throwing rocks at cars, hitting 2 LEOs w rocks, failure to follow LEO commands, running from LEOs, etc.*

    Possible mental health issue(s)? IDK.
    Family says - they weren’t "aware of any mental health issues."
    Alternatively, do they ack - he committed multiple criminal acts over a period of years?

    I am not arguing his actions - based on this MSM rpt - justifies LEOs' shooting him this week.
    This post is about the family's stmts about him.
    Just saying family's assessment about him is different from mine. Seems like:
    denial about either his mental health, or perhaps low expectations about acceptable private & publc behavior. Or both.
    JM2cts.

    _______________________________________________________________________________________________
    * Details from OP's link: http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2015/...sco-police-identified.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy:
    "In 2006, Teresa D. Meraz Ruiz filed -
    for a protection order for herself and the couple’s two young daughters due to Zambrano-Montes’ “volatile behavior,”
    according to court documents.
    She said he threatened to kill her many times, physically abused her, and
    pulled a knife and gun on her during their nine-year relationship. The daughters live in California with their mom.
    " bbm

    Jan 16, 2014
    "Police had been called to ... at 10:49 p.m. ... for reports of a man walking around and hitting cars with a broom.
    Zambrano-Montes was found “making a commotion” on the front porch of a ... home, according to court documents.
    He picked up a rocking chair and tried to throw it at Officer Adam Brewster,
    then grabbed a mailbox and post and threw those.
    Brewster had to duck to avoid being hit in the head.
    Zambrano-Montes ran from Brewster and Officer Jeffrey Cobb, then turned around,
    grabbed onto Brewster’s belt and put his hand around the officer’s service pistol, documents said.
    Brewster tried head-butting Zambrano-Montes in the right temple to incapacitate him, but it had no visible effect.
    Zambrano-Montes was taken to the ground and continued to struggle with the two officers while grabbing onto Brewster’s pistol in an attempt to get it out of the holster, documents said. Cobb then shot him with a Taser and they were able to handcuff him
    ." bbm sbm

    Per court documents
    - He had "a history of erratic behavior,... He was convicted of assault in 2014
    after a confrontation with Pasco police, who tried to stop him from hitting cars with a broom.
    He threw a rocking chair and tried to grab an officer’s gun from his belt while under the influence of methamphetamine."

    In the past week -
    "Zambrano-Montes was arrested ... on a warrant for failing to pay his fine and court costs
    for his 2014 assault case, appearing Monday in Franklin County Superior Court."
    sbm

    Tuesday
    "Zambrano-Montes was throwing rocks at cars about 5 p.m. Tuesday near Fiesta Foods when police were called.
    He hit two officers with rocks and refused to listen to commands, Police Chief Bob Metzger said.
    Police gave him orders to surrender and unsuccessfully tried using a Taser. The officers chased him
    ..." (meaning he ran from LEOs.)

     
  6. Woodland

    Woodland Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,216
    Likes Received:
    196
    Trophy Points:
    63
    With all due respect - not seeing how the above commentary justifies LE shooting this guy - other than one less meth addict is a good thing all around, imo.

    Has LE been given a license to 'take out' anyone they suspect of being a meth addict? Is that what a majority of US citizens want LE to do on their behalf? If a majority thinks that is the right thing for LE to do in the spur of the moment, then so be it. If not, then the debate continues. Jmo.
     
  7. liljim

    liljim Former Member

    Messages:
    1,509
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    nobody was shot because they were a meth addict, lets not get too far off course here.

    he was shot because he was throwing rocks at cars, then throwing and hitting multiple police officers with rocks (one very large rock can be seen thrown in video that could have caused significant harm and can definitely be deemed life threatening), resisting arrest, fleeing, and acting completely insane.

    its a tough video to watch, im still cautious of forming any strong opinions on it. but he was not shot because he was suspected of being a meth addict.
     
  8. katydid23

    katydid23 Verified Juanette

    Messages:
    47,871
    Likes Received:
    3,998
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He was shot because he was a fleeing felon that posed an immediate threat to the public and to the cops. JMO
     
  9. Woodland

    Woodland Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,216
    Likes Received:
    196
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I agree LE had no idea he was a meth addict at the time they shot him. LE shot him because he was running after throwing rocks at cars and apparently at LE. Good for LE? Don't know. Is the public at large better off now that LE shot this guy? Don't know. Not sure how any one individual or LE at the scene can decide that at this point. Not to say anyone cannot comment as they please though.

    Imo, LE will harass and kill citizens with a blank cheque to do so - the blank cheque consisting of people saying everything LE does is OK.

    That blank cheque will turn against everyone signing it in the short term - ie public backlash. Jmo. Looking forward to who wins. Hopefully with minimal damage.
     
  10. katydid23

    katydid23 Verified Juanette

    Messages:
    47,871
    Likes Received:
    3,998
    Trophy Points:
    113
    BBM

    Are you saying the public at large is not better off? A violent meth addict that was throwing large rocks at traffic, hoping to cause an injury or an accident. Why wouldn't they be better off? He was full of rage and hatred and wanted to hurt strangers. Why would the cops allow him to run away, knowing he would try and harm someone else. That would be their fault if he assaulted the next person he saw.

    You said that in your opinion, cops will 'harass and kill 'again. Are you saying the cops harassed this guy?

    As for public backlash, I think so far the public is backing and supporting the cops. There is a loud and active minority that claims to speak for the public. but they are a very small percentage, imo.
     
  11. Lulu14

    Lulu14 New Member

    Messages:
    698
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sharon Budd would say yes, the public is better off now that one individual - sick or just stupid - isn't throwing rocks at cars anymore.
     
  12. Woodland

    Woodland Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,216
    Likes Received:
    196
    Trophy Points:
    63
    He needed to be taken out by LE apparently - don't see anyone disagreeing. Who will be next?
     
  13. Lulu14

    Lulu14 New Member

    Messages:
    698
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Whomever endangers the general public and the police.
     
  14. al66pine

    al66pine New Member

    Messages:
    4,346
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    sbm bbm

    Who said he was meth addict? MSM* stated ct docs stated - he had "history of erratic behavior" and
    while in Jan 2014, while under influence of meth, he assaulted LEO, for which he was later convicted.* Meth addict, IDK.

    Is it possible every single member of that PD could recognize him on sight as an LEO assaulter --- because
    well, after all, in 2014 he assaulted LEO (while on meth) & had been convicted of same, maybe LEOs thought he was not citizen of the year?
    Not saying LEOs 'had it in for him' or were looking for an excuse to fire weapon.
    Just saying LEOs had reason to be hyper-vigilant about him, whetherunder meth influence, meth addict, or drug & alcohol free.

    With or without that knowledge, LEOs faced a man who that night hit two officers with rocks, refused to listen to commands,
    per Police Chief, a man who refused orders to surrender, was not rendered compliant by Taser,
    a man who presented threat of further serious physical harm to LEOs & others, and who tried to escape.

    Not saying whether it was justified shooting, saying it's possible. JM2cts.

    ________________________________________________________________________________________
    * http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2015/02/11/3405116_man-shot-by-pasco-police-identified.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy.
    Per court documents. -
    He had "a history oferratic behavior,... He was convicted of assault in 2014
    after a confrontation with Pasco police, who tried to stop him from hitting cars with a broom.
    He threw a rocking chair and tried to grab an officerÂ’s gun from his belt while under the influence of methamphetamine."



    ETA to add link & WA St. law re LE use of force.
     
  15. al66pine

    al66pine New Member

    Messages:
    4,346
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    sbm bbm

    Respectfully, despite shooting the man leading to his death, cops did not "play judge, jury & executioner."
    LEOs were acting as peace officers, and issue is whether their actions were justifiable under this Washington law, imo.


    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.16&full=true#9A.16.040. 9A.16.040 (below bbm sbm)
    Justifiable homicide or use of deadly force by public officer, peace officer, person aiding.

    1) Homicide or the use of deadly force is justifiable in the following cases:
    ....(b) When necessarily used by a peace officer to overcome actual resistance to the execution of the legal process, mandate, or order of a court or officer, or in the discharge of a legal duty.
    (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;....

    (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.
    Under these circumstances deadly force may also be used if necessary to prevent escape from the officer, where, if feasible, some warning is given.

    (3) A public officer or peace officer shall not be held criminally liable for using deadly force without malice and with a good faith belief that such act is justifiable pursuant to this section.



     
  16. al66pine

    al66pine New Member

    Messages:
    4,346
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not speaking for Woodland or anyone else here.
    Depending on type of 'disadvantage,' as a broad generalization (although disadvantaged kids group could be in any area),
    personally I w/hesitate, perhaps be scared, to regularly go to crime-ridden areas and perhaps of some of the kids themselves.

    Thanks, katy, for your time & effort in doing that.
     
  17. Portabella

    Portabella Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,351
    Likes Received:
    1,384
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Is there footage of what he was doing prior to the shooting? I watched the You Tube above, and I am not convinced this is justified, meth addict, mental health issues, or just a moron, I would have to see more to make a true judgement, but what I see during the shooting is a man running, then turning (possibly to surrender) facing several officers with guns drawn, and turning to run again (adrenaline and fear work against both officer and suspect when you get that adrenaline dump). Can someone guide me to said footage if there is any? Thank you in advance...IMHO
     
  18. TrackerSam

    TrackerSam New Member

    Messages:
    4,278
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree. He was out numbered. They could have rushed him. They could've chosen to shoot him non-fatally once. They didn't have to blow him away like that. IMO.
     
  19. liljim

    liljim Former Member

    Messages:
    1,509
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    there is no police protocol for shooting just once to injure. if that is an option then you shouldnt be shooting at all.
     
  20. al66pine

    al66pine New Member

    Messages:
    4,346
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    From Tracker Sam post #21, "....They could've chosen to shoot him non-fatally once...."

    IIUC about LE use of force laws & policies generally in US, shooting 'to warn' or 'just once' is not app.
    liljim's response about 'shooting just once to injure ' is accurate.

    As this happened in WA st. w Pasco PD, I'm looking to that state's law, excerpted in my post #18.Below = sbm rbm.
    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.16&full=true#9A.16.040. 9A.16.040 (below bbm sbm)

    "(1)Homicide or the use of deadly force is justifiable in the following cases:
    ....(b) When necessarily used by a peace officer to overcome actual resistance to the
    execution of the legal process, mandate, or order of a court or officer, or in the discharge of a legal duty."*


    It's difficult for LEO to determine when his use of force has "overcome actual resistance" of the suspect.
    After one shot, LEO tries to assess whether that bullet incapacitated the suspect sufficiently to the point where no further use of force in required.
    How long does it take for LEO to make that assessment? Nano second, half second, one second, two, three, ten seconds?
    If suspect is still coming at LEO after first shot & officer determines suspect is still resisting, then LEO may continue using deadly force.
    Rinse and repeat.

    Difficult w single LEO, and extraordinarily difficult w multiple LEOs, imo.

    Does each officer have the right to employ WA use of force/self defense statute? ITS.
    Can LEOs determine which of three or four officers this suspect will attack or continue attacking first? IDTS.
    Do LEOs have time to play Rock-Scissors-Paper among themselves, to determine 'designated shooter' to use force, to fire weapon? IDTS.

    Some ppl condemn these situations as cluster-clucks, but I don't see that LEOs can always avoid.
    I see ways for suspects - generally and this one in particular - to avoid LE's use of force. Comply w LE orders; offer no resistance.
    Why? Because WA law state allows LEOs to use deadly force in given circumstances (and ignorance of law is no excuse).

    JM2cts.

    If someone can link Pasco PD's Use of Force policy that may enlighten us further.
     

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice