I won’t argue with what you say here in itself, but I still question how it’s relevant to what I actually said originally, which is that there seemed to be no foolproof nonlethal ways to control the guy available and this action led to a surprisingly good outcome. You have to remember that the subject wasn’t only suicidal, he was also very much potentially homicidal, in a situation where he wasn’t under control or screened off in any way from civilians who could happen by at any second. What other, better options were there, given the volatility of the situation? Maybe there were some, but at least say what they were. Neutron said it wasn’t a simple case, I agreed, that’s all. I didn’t say the choice was inescapable, or perfect, I didn’t say this should be policy, I only said what I said. I didn’t run the guy down, and I didn’t steal a gun, rob a store, set fire to a church, break into a home and car, or walk down the street firing a gun around. So I don’t see that your beef is with me, frankly.
I think this is kind of a red herring that deflects the larger discussion of police using deadly force on people who are NOT wanted for violent felonies, or who are at least not armed. People who are wanted for broken tailights, child support, stealing stuff from convenience stores. AZ situation was not overkill. It’s OK for police to use their cars as weapons. Police cant always apply the perfect amount of force when taking an armed crazy into custody, and if we make it about that we are not going to root the enormous problem facing America: cops who think they are Judge Dredd, using deadly force to clean up the riffraff. Cops who think it’s it’s illegal to be different, whether gay, dark, poor or whatever. Cops who illegally confiscate cell phones. Power freaks. We want out police to obey the law and enforce the law, not enforce what they and their buddies think people should look like, not prey on the disadvantaged.
Yes sometimes cops can take the risk to talk a suicidal person out of killing themselves but that was not all that was going on here: " Valencia had stolen a gun from a Walmart after allegedly robbing a convenience store, setting fire to a church, and breaking into a home and a car." The cop in the car not ramming the young man hears a shot. After a shot in that situation whether fired by the suspect or another cop is customarily that the suspect perishes under a hail of bullets. So the cop with the car may have judged it was a slim chance of life for guy if he rammed him versus no chance if he didn’t.
I understand that he committed crimes and I agree he needed to be arrested. However, I disagree that the cop needs to ram him with his vehicle. Was he a threat? Sure. Is it the police officers job to disarm and arrest him? Of course. However, it is not the police officers job to attempt to kill or maim him in that arrest. Not to mention that the police officer made that decision without informing his other colleagues. In my opinion, it was reckless and the officer is lucky it didn’t turn out worse for him and the suspect. You’re welcome to disagree.