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

[liljim]

Can someone direct me to where I can see the part where he throws the brick, I have gone through the links provided, and I am either blind or stupid, but cannot see it or am missing it somehow? Thank you

first post, youtube link

 

[Harmony 2]

Snark and personalized posts need to stop. Baiting, extraneous topics, and personal attacks have made the thread veer off the tracks.

Time outs will be issued if this continues.

 

[al66pine]

ATM - not quite a story here at link. More or less photo w caption.
http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2015/02/21/3421417_shooting-protesters-rally-in-pasco.html?rh=1

A few paragraphs at this link.
"A group protesting a police shooting in Pasco, Washington, temporarily took over a bridge crossing the Columbia River.
....more than 50 people were in the group as night fell Saturday. The bridge connects Pasco to Kennewick.The newspaper says the demonstrators shut down traffic along the cable bridge as they slowly marched south toward Kennewick." bbm sbm

http://www.stltoday.com/news/nation...cle_b4d1bddd-fe05-54c9-91db-9146654577f9.html May run into a 2 question survey but not a paywall here.

Maybe someone else will find link w more info. Thx in adv.

 

[al66pine]

Once again, Atty Benjamin Crump speaks up.

"Slain Mexican man's family views body, seeks 'justice'
"The high-profile attorney who represented the family of Michael Brown, a black man killed by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, said he'll represent Zambrano-Montes' family. Benjamin Crump was in Pasco meeting with the family Monday.
"At the heart of the matter is what's going on with what we see on that video — is it appropriate or not?" Crump, who is based in Florida, told The Associated Press.
"The No. 1 thing they said is, 'We don't want them to say that the police acted appropriately," said Crump, who represented the family of Trayvon Martin, the black teenager killed in a confrontation with neighborhood watch leader George Zimmerman."
....
" Meanwhile, another attorney who says he's representing Zambrano-Montes' family says he wants to temporarily withdraw a $25 million claim filed by Zambrano-Montes' widow and two daughters against the city after the shooting. Attorney Charles Herrmann of Tacoma said Monday the claim was premature."
http://centurylink.net/news/read/ca...er_to_spike_25_million_claim_in_washington-ap Feb 23

 

[SStarr33]

Once again, Atty Benjamin Crump speaks up.

"Slain Mexican man's family views body, seeks 'justice'
"The high-profile attorney who represented the family of Michael Brown, a black man killed by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, said he'll represent Zambrano-Montes' family. Benjamin Crump was in Pasco meeting with the family Monday.
"At the heart of the matter is what's going on with what we see on that video — is it appropriate or not?" Crump, who is based in Florida, told The Associated Press.
"The No. 1 thing they said is, 'We don't want them to say that the police acted appropriately," said Crump, who represented the family of Trayvon Martin, the black teenager killed in a confrontation with neighborhood watch leader George Zimmerman."
....
" Meanwhile, another attorney who says he's representing Zambrano-Montes' family says he wants to temporarily withdraw a $25 million claim filed by Zambrano-Montes' widow and two daughters against the city after the shooting. Attorney Charles Herrmann of Tacoma said Monday the claim was premature."
http://centurylink.net/news/read/ca...er_to_spike_25_million_claim_in_washington-ap Feb 23

It is my experience that the truth is the opposite of what Crump says.

 

[sherbetjello]

He threw a rock at the window of an officer car 41), but there was an officer in front of him prior to the rock being thrown then steps out of the way before the rock is thrown. Man runs off and police start shooting (into traffic) at the fleeing subject 45). Five shots are fired by at least two officers. At :56 the suspect and all three officers are now across the street. :56-:59 It seems suspect is running up the sidewalk. At :59 the suspect turns around and puts his hands up, some say it's to throw something else, and then is shot 7 times, at least, by all three officers. Suspect was around a few feet away (4-5 feet, tops).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlQnjr3ff_0&spfreload=10

Since the debate was brought here, it is interesting to hear what people there that day think and feel about what happened. Their voices are clearly audible in this youtube video. It also shows many different angles.

Those saying "Rocks are dangerous weapons! He deserved it! He was a threat!" should go ahead and start that video at 5:11.

 

[al66pine]

....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlQnjr3ff_0&spfreload=10
Since the debate was brought here, it is interesting to hearwhat people there that day think and feel about what happened. Their voices are clearly audible in this youtube video. It also shows many different angles. ...

bbm sbm

Do ppl there that day who expressed their feelings immed'ly
have a more accurate view & insightful analysis of situation than those of us seeing vids from multiple angles later?

~5:55 Man in Seahawks hoodie & woman w him both stated on cam- "They could have tased him."
Yes, LE could have tased him. Or pelted him w wet noodles, or spit paper wads at him.

~4:45, reporter said "A man I spoke w said he saw the whole thing." (my bolding)
~4:50 man w no face on cam, said: "All I saw was this poor guy was running from the cops, and I saw him go down. I saw the cops shooting at him. I didn't see no gun. No reason."

His stmt re man running - nothing about what preceded that - does not show he saw "the whole thing," instead suggests to me he did not see the whole thing.

Not saying this was justified shooting.
Just saying random observers' comments do not persuade me that it was not justified.
JM2cts.

 

[al66pine]

. ....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlQnjr3ff_0&spfreload=10
Those saying "Rocks are dangerous weapons! He deserved it! He was a threat!" should go ahead and start that video at 5:11.

sbm

Anyone?
What specifically at/after 5:11 negates thinking that "Rocks are dangerous weapons."
Anyone?

 

[imnotheonlyone]

Here is a video of BEFORE the shooting
https://youtu.be/gZ0T5pVkFAc

 

[popsicle]

[h=1]Huge trove of videos, files released from Pasco shooting probe[/h]
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/...ased-from-Pasco-shooting-probe-311288301.html

Link to all the files and videos: http://siu15-05491.com/dirlisting.php

 

[Nova]

He was shot because he was a fleeing felon that posed an immediate threat to the public and to the cops. JMO

When did fleeing constitute a capital crime?

Actually, if you watch the end of the visit. The victim has stopped running and turned to face the police. If he threatened them further, I can't see it, but doing so might change my opinion that this was a "bad shoot".

 

[Nova]

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.

Well saidl The problem with shooting a fleeing suspect is that in a melee LE may lose track of the perp(s). What if I'm running away just to avoid being beaten? The cops may mistake me for a perp and murder me.

 

[Nova]

Whomever endangers the general public and the police.

It's "whoever" because it is the object of the clause, "whoever endangers the general public and police."

"Whom" is the object of the action. "It seems that LE may now kill whomever they find annoying."

It gets a little trickier when the object is a clause, hence: "It seems that LE may now kill whoever endangers the general public...." It sounds like it should be "whomever", but actually the entire clause is the object and "whoever" is the correct subject of the clause.

You're welcome.

Oh, and by the way, throwing a rock or two is not a capital crime.

 

[al66pine]

Popsicle

Thanks for finding this.
Link to all the files and videos: http://siu15-05491.com/dirlisting.php
Appreciate your bloodhound/pitbull tenacious tracking skills.

If everyone else has read the 596 page Special Investigations Unit, Supplemental Police Report, dated May 28, 2015, I'm waaaaaaay behind.

No matter what our personal initial opinions were about the shooting, we're all bound to learn more from these files.

 

[KaaBoom]

there is no police protocol for shooting just once to injure. if that is an option then you shouldnt be shooting at all.

There should be protocol for that. Shooting someone once to incapacitate them, could be considered self-defense (although in this case I think even that would be excessive). Unloading a weapon into them after they are down to make sure they are dead, is just murder.

No way was that amount of force necessary to stop that guy from throwing rocks.

 

[al66pine]

There should be protocol for that. Shooting someone once to incapacitate them, could be considered self-defense (although in this case I think even that would be excessive). Unloading a weapon into them after they are down to make sure they are dead, is just murder...

sbm

IIUC, ^ post is saying, once protocol or policy allows LEO to begin using deadly force, gen'l LE protocol is "unloading a weapon into them after they are down to make sure they are dead." Or am I misunderstanding (entirely possible). If so, pls adv.

Curious about origin of ^ above phrases allegedly characterizing LE "protocol." A link to LE protocol, general order, policy & procedure manual, LE employee book, use of force policy? Or your belief/interp about what LE protocol is?

IIUC, gen'l LE protocol is not "unloading a weapon into them after they are down to make sure they are dead."
IIUC not "unloading a weapon." IIUC, once protocol or policy allows LEO to use deadly force, protocol is to keep shooting until threat has subsided.
IIUC not making "sure they are dead." IIUC, it is until threat has subsided.
Sorry, no links or time to locate ATM. After I see link supporting your ^post, I'll look for a link re mine.
If I am misunderstanding ^ post, my apologies.

JM2cts, could be all wrong.

 

[Nova]

I don't have a link either, al66pine, but even if the rule is only "until the threat is neutralized", a lot of bullets can be fired at a suspect before his/her weapon drops (particularly if s/he is dead).

I've always understood this is why when you have a group of LE, you can end up with a shooter with six bullets being shot 80 times. It's a PR disaster, but it makes sense if you have 20 officers with their guns drawn. They aren't stopping to think before each shot; they are shooting until the suspect's gun hits the dirt.

I must admit I am sympathetic to such cases. As long as a suspect remains armed, I can understand why LE can't make delicate decision as to whether "the threat is neutralized". And I understand why ALL LE present fire their weapons; a lot of people could die if police officers stood around waiting to see who would shoot first.

But shooting a suspect to death because he threw a rock or two at your car is another matter. That is clearly a disproportionate use of force.

 

[KaaBoom]

I don't have a link either, al66pine, but even if the rule is only "until the threat is neutralized", a lot of bullets can be fired at a suspect before his/her weapon drops (particularly if s/he is dead).

I've always understood this is why when you have a group of LE, you can end up with a shooter with six bullets being shot 80 times. It's a PR disaster, but it makes sense if you have 20 officers with their guns drawn. They aren't stopping to think before each shot; they are shooting until the suspect's gun hits the dirt.

I must admit I am sympathetic to such cases. As long as a suspect remains armed, I can understand why LE can't make delicate decision as to whether "the threat is neutralized". And I understand why ALL LE present fire their weapons; a lot of people could die if police officers stood around waiting to see who would shoot first.

But shooting a suspect to death because he threw a rock or two at your car is another matter. That is clearly a disproportionate use of force.

That is the problem right there. They aren't stopping to think. They aren't thinking at all. They are treating every situation the same. Weather the guy is throwing little bitty rocks, that couldn't seriously hurt anybody or is armed with an AK-47 and actively shooting people, the protocol is the same. Shoot and don't stop shooting until is no chance that he is still alive.

 

[Elley Mae]

I watched the video posted on the first post and the guy that got shot deserved every bullet that entered his body. jmo idk

 

[al66pine]

Link to all the files and videos: http://siu15-05491.com/dirlisting.php
3d file on list is 596 pp. From that file:

p.8. Timetable
(various events, including Taser)
17.12.52 "Object is projected" at LEO W. (my interp =rock or concrete thrown at him)
17.12.53 LEO W. fires 2 rounds
17.12.54 LEO F. fires 3 rounds

p.36. list of rocks & concrete
p.49. weights of ^, in lbs, 1.1; 4.96; 1.51; 15.5; 13.29

p.38 Taser activation, 6 x, no. of sec. listed

To facilitate enlightened discussion, can anyone here bring each of the above pages pls? Should be no copyright issues, imo. (IDK how, quasi-Luddite here. LOL).
Thx in adv.