Shocking moment orchard worker, 35, was gunned down by police for 'throwing rocks'

dailymail.co.uk ^ | February 2015 | Associated Press Reporter

[Rabin]

Jan. 26 death death of Jessica Hernandez's who was shot by dead by police was ruled a homicide (deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another;), Fourty seven shots were fired, Jessica a 17-year-old Colorado girl, was unarmed.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/death-denver-teen-jessica-hernandez-killed-police-ruled-homicide-n314771

Antonio Zambrano-Montes, 35-year-old Washington orchard worker (Mex) in had thrown rock at (moving) cars. Tonio was fired upon 17 times by Pasco police from less than five yards...

[Jack Hydrazine]

Muzzies stone women to death. Muzzies have killed Jews in Israel with rocks.

If you attack a cop with a rock don’t expect him/her to just stand there and take it.

[Jack Hydrazine]

If the Mexicans in eastern Washington keep attacking Americans the locals are going to make them feel very unwelcome soon.

[mass55th]

He was throwing softball sized rocks at the cops, and reports say he hit two of them. That's assault, and in the case of assaulting a police officer, it's considered a felony. He refused several orders to stop, and cops say they tried using a Taser, but it failed. Police have the authority to use deadly physical force when they believe they are in danger of their lives.

It's always easy to second-guess the cops especially if you've never worked a day as one. I never worked a day as a cop, but I spent 25 years in uniform behind bars, and had to occasionally deal with split-second decisions. No officer wants to have to fire their weapon unless they absolutely have to. It opens up a whole bureaucratic can of worms. The paperwork alone will drive you crazy. The bottom line is that officers have the right to protect themselves and others, as long as their actions are within the guidelines and training of the police department they work for.

[raybbr]

..., then of course the cop can escalate and escalate and escalate until there is nothing left to do but end my life.

Oh, goody. Summary executions. I see.

[raybbr]

He was throwing softball sized rocks at the cops, and reports say he hit two of them. That's assault, and in the case of assaulting a police officer, it's considered a felony.

I didn't see any rocks in his hand. Are you saying that, after the fact, they get to kill him? Isn't that the same thing as saying, "He tried to stab me but missed. Then he dropped the knife and ran. I still shot him though, because ten minutes ago he tried to stab me"?

[Lurkina.n.Learnin]

ROTFLMAO

[mass55th]

"I didn't see any rocks in his hand."

So you were there? I hope you're not relying on some phone video, which more than likely didn't capture the whole incident from the beginning. I'm surprised that with all the half-fact reporting, by the media, including comments by so-called bystanders, which are usually turned around once the real facts of the case are reported, that there's still people who have gut reactions to this stuff.

[mass55th]

I just viewed the video at the article link, and if you can’t tell that he’s throwing something at the cops, then you need to get your eyes examined. He’d run, stop, turn around, throw the alleged rocks, turn and run again, then stop, turn around and throw another one. It’s pretty clear to me he was throwing rocks at the cops, and refusing to stop.

[LibWhacker]

What’s the point of having laws that aren’t enforced? Anarchy forever, survival of the strongest. Wonderful.

[raybbr]

What’s the point of having laws that aren’t enforced?

We do. We have one set of laws for the cops and another set for the proletariat. The cops get to enforce their laws at the point of a gun.

[moehoward]

Here in WA state the left is desperate for any cause to have their own Ferguson. This POS has been a public nuisance long enough.

"Zambrano-Montes did have a history of erratic behavior, according to court documents. 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."

[Jeff Chandler]

Oh, I see what's going on: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3263028/posts.

[21twelve]

Here in the state of Washington, the citizen has even MORE rights than a cop in the use of force. But here it is for a cop. Several of these particulars could be used to find that the cops were justified.

RCW 9A.16.040
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:

(a) When a public officer is acting in obedience to the judgment of a competent court; or

(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.

(c) When necessarily used by a peace officer or person acting under the officer’s command and in the officer’s aid:

(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;

(ii) To prevent the escape of a person from a federal or state correctional facility or in retaking a person who escapes from such a facility; or

(iii) To prevent the escape of a person from a county or city jail or holding facility if the person has been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of a felony; or

(iv) To lawfully suppress a riot if the actor or another participant is armed with a deadly weapon.

(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.

(4) This section shall not be construed as:

(a) Affecting the permissible use of force by a person acting under the authority of RCW 9A.16.020 or 9A.16.050; or

(b) Preventing a law enforcement agency from adopting standards pertaining to its use of deadly force that are more restrictive than this section.

[1986 c 209 § 2; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.16.040.]

Notes:
Legislative recognition: “The legislature recognizes that RCW 9A.16.040 establishes a dual standard with respect to the use of deadly force by peace officers and private citizens, and further recognizes that private citizens’ permissible use of deadly force under the authority of RCW 9.01.200, 9A.16.020, or 9A.16.050 is not restricted and remains broader than the limitations imposed on peace officers.” [1986 c 209 § 3.]

[dennisw]

File under____ Brain fried fr drugs