Now THAT'S how you take down an armed suspect..

[C_Dave45]

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/arizona-police-officer-uses-cruiser-to-ram-armed-robbery-suspect-1.2327682


Police descended on the 36-year-old Valencia after he allegedly stole a rifle and box of ammunition from a Tucson Walmart at 9 a.m. Feb. 19. It was part of a rampage that began with Valencia's robbery — wearing only underwear — at a 7-Eleven,then breaking into a church and setting it on fire followed by a home invasion and then boosting a car, Marana police said.

Valencia, rifle in hand and at times pointing the barrel under his own chin, can be seen walking down an empty street with a police cruiser following at a distance, its dashcam recording the man firing off a shot into the air.....And Valencia, who pointed the loaded rifle at a cop during the standoff, was headed toward the Coca Cola Bottling facility, Rozema said.





6zMaW435UPw

[LadyLuck]

"Jesus Christ, man down!"

Epic takedown!

[JRSC00LUDE]

Holy hell! :eek:

[lilmira]

Guilty as charged

[FixedGear]

cops in Tucson don't fuck around. :bigpimp:

[revelations]

..... that was serious :eek: (but justified)


Meanwhile, all the sissies and ninnies are crying cop abuse again :rolleyes:

[CompletelyNumb]

:eek:

That was awesome.

[rx7boi]

Damn that's a crazy takedown.

Wonder which page of the play book that's from hahaha

ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED

[Lex350]

Wow!!

[eglove]

Well done!

[G-ZUS]

:eek: :thumbsup: to that police officer!

[Sugarphreak]

....

[ICEBERG]

Why was the officer telling them to stand off or stay off? Because, the cop behind him was like F@ck this sh!t. Move out of the way... Full throttle and bang... Job done..:rofl: :rofl:

[E46..sTyLez]

Really, it's better than the alternative, which would be shooting him in the chest. Unorthodox as it may be, it probably saved the guys life in the end.

[lilmira]

Originally posted by ICEBERG
Why was the officer telling them to stand off or stay off? Because, the cop behind him was like F@ck this sh!t. Move out of the way... Full throttle and bang... Job done..:rofl: :rofl:

Ice was waiting for the freaking tone.

[Traffic_Cop]

Reminds me of this in Toronto

https://youtu.be/L9DR4yz7Q0Y

[C_Dave45]

Originally posted by Traffic_Cop
Reminds me of this in Toronto

https://youtu.be/L9DR4yz7Q0Y

See how "polite" the Canadian cops are? That first little love tap just gave him a bit of a joy ride. Even the final attempt and the guy didn't drop the knife until he did so voluntarily. If a guy has a knife, he can cut you. If he can cut you, you can bleed, if you can bleed, you can die.
I like the US cops method better.

[Go4Long]

I hope this guy tries to sue and gets told he had it coming...that would make this all the better. But knowing the US legal system, he'll sue and win some ridiculous settlement.

[NoPulp]

Well done.

Insured the safety of the public and prevented a potential police shoot out. Also served some instant justice.

[Masked Bandit]

That's some serious GTA action right there. Bitch down!

[GorG]

That was well done

[AndyL]

False flag!!!!

This is ford obviously testing out its new roo bar for the 2015 crown Vic. And that's a CIA shill.

Nothing to see here move along :)

[codetrap]

.

[AndyL]

Originally posted by codetrap
Jesus beyond needs a like button.. lol

Except I forgot to work in sheeple...

I'll do gooder next time.

[killramos]

^ And mention that ford is run by the Rothschilds and Koch Brothers :rofl:

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by AndyL


Except I forgot to work in sheeple...

I'll do gooder next time.

You're the sheeple, for thinking this is Ford and CIA, when it's obviously the Rand Corporation, in conjunction with the saucer people -- under the supervision of the reverse vampires.

[AndyL]

Oh that needs not be said - its in the tos after all
:rofl:

[revelations]

Originally posted by Traffic_Cop
Reminds me of this in Toronto

https://youtu.be/L9DR4yz7Q0Y


What the hell was wrong with the OC can spray at the end? More like OC mist .... lol

[Thales of Miletus]

This is suicide prevention in America.

Meanwhile cops fired 600 rounds into a vehicle containing a hostage.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/11/stockton-bank-robbery-hostage-killed-by-police/13918327/

[revelations]

Originally posted by Thales of Miletus
This is suicide prevention in America.

Meanwhile cops fired 600 rounds into a vehicle containing a hostage.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/11/stockton-bank-robbery-hostage-killed-by-police/13918327/


uuuuh .... because they fired at the cops first with a semi-automatic rifle of some kind? (AR-15?)

Absolutely tragic, but the cops had little choice once they were fired upon.



The chief defended the officers' actions, saying the suspects had fired on them with a semiautomatic rifle and that they had no choice but to return fire. Hundreds of bulletholes were found in 14 police vehicles, citizens' cars, homes and businesses along the route of the hour-long chase through Stockton and neighboring communities about 80 miles east of San Francisc

[r3ccOs]

so shill, the zionists yet injuring another harmless free man of the land

[mr2mike]

2hr stand off or this.
"... lets hit the Dunkin' Doughnuts boys".

[btimbit]

That is just proper.

I really hope the sentence 20 seconds beforehand was "Hold my coffee, I got this"

If they hit him with a taser there would have been a massive uproar, so this is fucking brilliant.

[sexualbanana]

While I agree that he posed an immediate danger and needed to be taken down, hitting him with a car going (if I had to guess) 50kmh, is about the same as firing his gun.

I'm inclined to think the actions of the officer was reckless, although not excessive. At the end of the day, he caused a fair amount of property damage (private property and damage to the car). The only rationalization I can think of is if the pursuing officer didn't feel like he could get close enough to the suspect to get an accurate shot without provoking him.

[theken]

perhaps he did not want to get shot at and smashed him with his car.

[ryder_23]

Originally posted by sexualbanana
While I agree that he posed an immediate danger and needed to be taken down, hitting him with a car going (if I had to guess) 50kmh, is about the same as firing his gun.

I'm inclined to think the actions of the officer was reckless, although not excessive. At the end of the day, he caused a fair amount of property damage (private property and damage to the car). The only rationalization I can think of is if the pursuing officer didn't feel like he could get close enough to the suspect to get an accurate shot without provoking him.

:rofl: Property damage...really? Exchange of gunfire would of ended up with way more property damage and a loss of life.

Guy showing no fucks given, crime spree, shooting in front of cops. He wanted to die, and not having bullets flying around is the best for everyone.

RIP Interceptor and concrete wall.

[gogreen]

Looks like something Riggs would attempt, followed by being hauled into the captain's office and berated for being reckless and/or a loose cannon.

[01RedDX]

.

[sexualbanana]

Originally posted by ryder_23


:rofl: Property damage...really? Exchange of gunfire would of ended up with way more property damage and a loss of life.

Guy showing no fucks given, crime spree, shooting in front of cops. He wanted to die, and not having bullets flying around is the best for everyone.

RIP Interceptor and concrete wall.

Would it be an exchange of gun fire? He had his back turned and walking away from the officer (albeit with a gun). While I don't advocate officers shooting someone in the back, I'm not forgetting this guy was armed and posed a threat to the public and the situation needed to end.

What I'm saying is, wouldn't a couple shots in the back result in far less collateral damage? Also, the first officer on the scene was telling other officers not to approach and this guy came screaming in without giving a fuck given for those orders. I'm not going to pretend like I know what protocol for this type of situation is, but I would think that the first person to respond to a scene would be in control until a higher-ranked officer takes control (disclaimer: pure assumption). If someone proves me wrong, then I'll happily rescind that, but logically it makes sense. Playing the what-if game, what if the suspect turns around and sees the car coming? He'd either shoot into the cabin of the car (where the officer is a sitting duck) or he gets out of the way and now the officer is in a very vulnerable position in close proximity to an extremely agitated and unstable suspect.

Like I said, I'm not saying it's excessive. I'm saying it's reckless.

[C_Dave45]

Originally posted by sexualbanana


Would it be an exchange of gun fire? He had his back turned and walking away from the officer (albeit with a gun). While I don't advocate officers shooting someone in the back, I'm not forgetting this guy was armed and posed a threat to the public and the situation needed to end.

What I'm saying is, wouldn't a couple shots in the back result in far less collateral damage? Also, the first officer on the scene was telling other officers not to approach and this guy came screaming in without giving a fuck given for those orders. I'm not going to pretend like I know what protocol for this type of situation is, but I would think that the first person to respond to a scene would be in control until a higher-ranked officer takes control (disclaimer: pure assumption). If someone proves me wrong, then I'll happily rescind that, but logically it makes sense. Playing the what-if game, what if the suspect turns around and sees the car coming? He'd either shoot into the cabin of the car (where the officer is a sitting duck) or he gets out of the way and now the officer is in a very vulnerable position in close proximity to an extremely agitated and unstable suspect.

Like I said, I'm not saying it's excessive. I'm saying it's reckless.

Well experts in the field, with far more experience in these situations than anyone here on beyond, together with all of the facts in hand, have deemed it was a proper take-down. Can't get much more proof than that.
:dunno:


Rapiejko was put on a standard administrative leave, but is back on regular duty after the Pima County Attorney's Office cleared him of any wrongdoing.

[Tik-Tok]

http://i.imgur.com/wDm1AOC.jpg

[sexualbanana]

Originally posted by C_Dave45


Well experts in the field, with far more experience in these situations than anyone here on beyond, together with all of the facts in hand, have deemed it was a proper take-down. Can't get much more proof than that.
:dunno:




Then in that case i will delete all my posts and make it sound like i was never wrong.

Cool. I retract my previous statements. I believe it may have been reckless but since experts with way more knowledge than i will ever have in this area say it's legit. Then it's legit.

it'd kinda suck to be the guy who owned the wall though. :D

[clem24]

Originally posted by sexualbanana

What I'm saying is, wouldn't a couple shots in the back result in far less collateral damage?

This was addressed by the chief or the guy talking to the media... You've got the luxury of hindsight and sitting behind the computer and not having your life on the line. Anyway, the gist is that sure they COULD'VE tried to shoot him but had they missed, the guy can turn around and pound off a few shots and do some real damage.

Just so many what-if's that could've happened, but didn't because he was taken out in the best manner possible.

Police did nothing wrong. He had it coming to him (or possibly wanted to be shot). Don't want to get hit by a police cruiser? Don't walk down the street with a gun.

[Arash Boodagh]

Didnt read thread.
Suge Night ran over and killed people, they call it murder. So the "pro cops action" members here should have no problem with a drone shooting a missile at this perp.
No warning to surrender.

[googe]

Originally posted by revelations

uuuuh .... because they fired at the cops first with a semi-automatic rifle of some kind? (AR-15?)

Absolutely tragic, but the cops had little choice once they were fired upon.


The cops had the obvious choice, which would have caused no deaths.

Don't chase.

Yeah, bank robbers will get away. Not worth killing the hostages over.

Stupid decision really.

[Mibz]

Originally posted by googe
The cops had the obvious choice, which would have caused no deaths.

Don't chase.

Yeah, bank robbers will get away. Not worth killing the hostages over.

Stupid decision really. Are we still talking about the guy who just burned down a church?

[rage2]

Originally posted by Mibz
Are we still talking about the guy who just burned down a church?
He's talking about the other news story posted where the suspect shot the cops and the cops shot back and killed the hostage along with the shooter.

[msommers]

Fucking. Sweet. :thumbsup:

[zieg]

https://youtu.be/BdjaZPeY_hc

[rob the knob]

Originally posted by ZiG-87
https://youtu.be/BdjaZPeY_hc

BdjaZPeY_hc

[Traffic_Cop]

Originally posted by ZiG-87
https://youtu.be/BdjaZPeY_hc

LMAO!!! thats awesome.....welcome to internet policing.

Great post:thumbsup:

[zieg]

Originally posted by rob the knob
[B]


heh thanks.

[Mibz]

Originally posted by rage2

He's talking about the other news story posted where the suspect shot the cops and the cops shot back and killed the hostage along with the shooter. Ah, yeah, that makes more sense.

[revelations]

Originally posted by googe


The cops had the obvious choice, which would have caused no deaths.

Don't chase.

Yeah, bank robbers will get away. Not worth killing the hostages over.

Stupid decision really.

If the cops didn't chase, they would've been castigated by the family of the victim for not doing so - sure they could've let a helicopter follow the vehicle instead but how long from the time of the robbery to the time the suspects started shooting at the police?