Cop murders a guy in a rascal scooter, shooting him in the back nine times from close range

[dcar00 13861]

1 hour ago, WillUSAF said:

Thats just disgusting. I hope that guy goes to jail for a LONG time. Real tough guy unloading his clip into a dude in a fucking wheelchair.....

he should be in jail forever...

 

[4th and 5 4903]

ALL THIS CLIP TALK IS MAKING ME ITCHY

[4th and 5 4903]

I'll just leave this here now, will look at later

https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/police/general-orders/2000USE_OF_FORCE.pdf

[shadow_operative 15931]

2 hours ago, Porterhouse said:

Exactly. And this department did the exact opposite, but tried to intentionally word so as not to exacerbate inevitable litigation. It’s a pretty easy concept for even the most emotional poster to understand. 

"so as not to exacerbate inevitable litigation"?  their cop shot a cripple in the back eight times, paused, shot him again, then jumped on top of his dead body and cuffed him, on video. how in the hell would morally denouncing what their cop did "exacerbate litigation"? give me a break.

Edited December 2, 2021 by shadow_operative

[South Austin 51409]

8 minutes ago, 4th and 5 said:

I'll just leave this here now, will look at later

https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/police/general-orders/2000USE_OF_FORCE.pdf

Some relevant provisions after a quick glance.

Officers shall not point a firearm at an individual unless they reasonably believe it is necessary to
protect against a potential use of force. Unholstering or displaying a firearm, including at a low-
ready position without pointing it at a person, does not require a use of force report. Firearms
shall be secured or holstered as soon as possible after the perceived threat has ended.

Deadly force is authorized when an officer reasonably perceives an imminent threat of serious
physical injury or death to the officer or another person. Deadly force is a measure to be
employed only in the most extreme circumstances when less-lethal means of force have failed or
could not reasonably be employed.

Officers shall, whenever possible, identify themselves as police officers and issue a verbal
warning prior to using deadly force, unless such identification and warning would jeopardize their
safety or the safety of another person.

Officers shall not discharge a weapon:

 As a warning shot;
 At a moving vehicle;
 From a moving vehicle.

[WillUSAF 226]

52 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

he should be in jail forever...

 

agree 1000%

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, shadow_operative said:

"so as not to exacerbate inevitable litigation"?  their cop shot a cripple in the back eight times, paused, shot him again, then jumped on top of his dead body and cuffed him, on video. how in the hell would morally denouncing what their cop did "exacerbate litigation"? give me a break.

It would implicate the department as knowingly hiring evil criminals. You’d never make a statement like what you suggested. What they said was strong enough. 

The family is deservingly getting paid. The officer will serve many years in jail. No need to let your anger on the matter extend to posters here. 

[burntorangebongos 10641]

The officer made no attempt to stop the scooter when he was in the parking lot, away from a lot of people. But thinks he needs to use deadly force when he is at Lowes door. What is different when he gets in the Lowes? He is still an off duty cop and he called for back up that had just arrived. Why not use the back up cop to help him stop the old and arrest him? Funny how even the back up cop's first reaction was to draw her gun at the geezer. I dont know but looks to me like Tuscon has lots of shitty LEOs.

[dcar00 13861]

all the cops had to do was get one in front of the guy and one in back and clear out the people standing near the Lowes entrance. tell them to clear out to the back.

I get that you might not know how ambulatory the guy actually is who has a knife and has apparently threatened some folks but damn dude.  get in front of him, clear people out and if he tries to get up with the knife to come at you, then maybe you have to do something.  or fucking just tip the thing over from behind.

what a fucking idiot.

 

[shadow_operative 15931]

3 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

It would implicate the department as knowingly hiring evil criminals.

on what planet? i'm gonna need one of you to explain for me, specifically, and in detail, exactly what sort of litigious problems a police department might face for morally admonishing their officer after he over-murdered an old man in a rascal scooter; for simply stating that what the cop did was wrong. give. me. a. break.

[burntorangebongos 10641]

6 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

 No need to let your anger on the matter extend to posters here. 

That is rich coming from you Rex/Beeper.

[dcar00 13861]

3 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

The officer made no attempt to stop the scooter when he was in the parking lot, away from a lot of people. But thinks he needs to use deadly force when he is at Lowes door. What is different when he gets in the Lowes? He is still an off duty cop and he called for back up that had just arrived. Why not use the back up cop to help him stop the old and arrest him? Funny how even the back up cop's first reaction was to draw her gun at the geezer. I dont know but looks to me like Tuscon has lots of shitty LEOs.

there was a lowes worker near the door who probably didn't know the situation but its still fucking stupid.  I can see that you might have no idea if the guy could or couldn;t stand up and attack someone but jesus get in front of the dude going .5miles an hour.

[Steel Shank 9325]

Maybe the cop thought the dude in the wheelchair was someone else by mistake?

[Pato del Muerto 51914]

3 hours ago, hookemATL said:

Christ, just realized his name is Officer Remington. 

Surprised it isn’t Tackleberry

[blacklab 11806]

1 hour ago, South Austin said:

Officers shall not discharge a weapon:

 As a warning shot;
 At a moving vehicle;
 From a moving vehicle.

Does the rascal count as a moving vehicle?

[MissingInAction 24262]

15 minutes ago, blacklab said:

Does the rascal count as a moving vehicle?

My rascal sure does... wait wut

[Guest]

1 hour ago, shadow_operative said:

on what planet? i'm gonna need one of you to explain for me, specifically, and in detail, exactly what sort of litigious problems a police department might face for morally admonishing their officer after he over-murdered an old man in a rascal scooter; for simply stating that what the cop did was wrong. give. me. a. break.

Someone else can explain it to you. Edit: and they clearly already stated what he did was wrong in a few different ways. 

Edited December 2, 2021 by Porterhouse

[RollLeft 5038]

1 hour ago, dcar00 said:

all the cops had to do was...

 

in order of dumb ass options

shoot the assailant

shoot out tire of assailant

throw road spikes of assailant scooter

ram/tip over assailant scooter with another scooter

tase assailant

bean bag assailant

unplug scooter battery

use a water gun on assailants face

throw blanket over assailant

let assailant ride like OJ until battery dies

...lets go with A for assasinate Alex!!!

[High Plains Drifter 10914]

 

This is going to be the cops' defense:

 

He had shown himself to be dangerous by pulling a knife. Maybe he was concealing a gun. The officers didn't have any way of knowing. They wanted to stop him from entering a store where he could take hostages. He ignored their lawful order to stop, leaving them with the only option to protect the public-- lethal force.

 

(Before I get neg-stomped, this is not my opinion, this is my prediction of the defense strategy).

 

 

[52-80 18962]

24 minutes ago, RollLeft said:

in order of dumb ass options

shoot the assailant

shoot out tire of assailant

throw road spikes of assailant scooter

ram/tip over assailant scooter with another scooter

tase assailant

bean bag assailant

unplug scooter battery

use a water gun on assailants face

throw blanket over assailant

let assailant ride like OJ until battery dies

...lets go with A for assasinate Alex!!!

there's also option Z

 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

54 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

This is going to be the cops' defense:

 

He had shown himself to be dangerous by pulling a knife. Maybe he was concealing a gun. The officers didn't have any way of knowing. They wanted to stop him from entering a store where he could take hostages. He ignored their lawful order to stop, leaving them with the only option to protect the public-- lethal force.

 

(Before I get neg-stomped, this is not my opinion, this is my prediction of the defense strategy).

 

 

He will have a defense just like pretty much every murderer does.  It won't work here.

[Guest Lobo]

Yeah, the "He was headed for a crowded store where he could do harm to the public" is the course of action for the defense.  Right up until the prosecution says, "Wait, this guy right here on the scooter?  The guy going 1/3rd of one mile per hour.  Let me demonstrate how slow that is for the jury (arrives back at table 3 minutes later).  In that time, there wasn't anything else to do to stop him besides emptying all 9 rounds?"  

Remington, "Look, Reports were he had a knife.  That much we knew.  We also thought he could have a gun on him for all we knew!"  

Prosecutor, "Even if had that knife...even if he a had a gun...wanna know how we know those weren't a threat to the public at that time  and you could have easily subdued his hands with any number of non-lethal options?"

Remington, "You don't know about his hands.  They could have been anywhere doing anything, cocking the gun to fire for all we knew!" 

Prosecutor, "Dude, his hands can't use a fucking weapon because it takes 'em both to drive the fucking Scooter!  I'm looking right at both of 'em on the 'handlebars' or whatever the fuck they're called.  I don't know what you beat you walk in Tucson where seniors using walkers can also somehow hold a handgun or bowie knife, but this guy's hands weren't an issue.  You can't read a situation to save your life, and because of that...you took somebody's life for no reason.  You could have easily accidentally shot several people in that Lowe's."

His defense isn't bad right up until the scooter crosses over onto the sidewalk in front of Lowe's.  Then it falls to pieces.  Officer Remington should think real long and hard about a plea deal because during his time in Tucson he made a number of drug busts on IH-19 coming out of Nogales---an hour to the South.  He's ruined a lot of business for that cartel enclave over the years.  It'll take all of day #2 inside for them to get to him in an Arizona penitentiary.  And it won't be quick.  

[OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys 2054]

i think officers should receive training that people fleeing in a rascal should be immobilized by a PIT maneuver from another rascal.

[dcar00 13861]

2 minutes ago, OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys said:

i think officers should receive training that people fleeing in a rascal should be immobilized by a PIT maneuver from another rascal.

thats what I was thinking.  simple PIT from a Lime scooter.

[deadshank 24644]

2 hours ago, RollLeft said:

in order of dumb ass options

shoot the assailant

shoot out tire of assailant

throw road spikes of assailant scooter

ram/tip over assailant scooter with another scooter

tase assailant

bean bag assailant

unplug scooter battery

use a water gun on assailants face

throw blanket over assailant

let assailant ride like OJ until battery dies

...lets go with A for assasinate Alex!!!

You forgot throw a stick in the spokes. 

[4th and 5 4903]

3 hours ago, blacklab said:

Does the rascal count as a moving vehicle?

It does if the cops charge you with Evading Detention or Arrest in a Motor Vehicle, which makes it a felony. This is a legal joke, but I know many ADAs would would try.

 

Again the use of force or deadly force has to be justified to defend one's self, another, property, or make an arrest or prevent escape. Four justifications. We can eliminate property. As the dude is going away from the shooter or other cop, I see no justification for self or the other officer. So that leaves us with to arrest or prevent escape.  

The leading case is Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) 

which is used to claim that the use of deadly force against a fleeing suspect who has committed a felony was necessary to prevent the escape and 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, which is essentially codified in all state penal codes to conform to the minimum standards in Garner to be constitutional.

In Texas, that is Texas Penal Code 9.51.

Below is Arizona's version - 13-410. Justification; use of deadly physical force in law enforcement

C. The use of deadly force by a peace officer against another is justified pursuant to section 13-409 only when the peace officer reasonably believes that it is necessary:

1. To defend himself or a third person from what the peace officer reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force.

2. To effect an arrest or prevent the escape from custody of a person whom the peace officer reasonably believes:

(a) Has committed, attempted to commit, is committing or is attempting to commit a felony involving the use or a threatened use of a deadly weapon. (here: felony aggravated assault of the employee or cop working security)

(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon.

(c) Through past or present conduct of the person which is known by the peace officer that the person is likely to endanger human life or inflict serious bodily injury to another unless apprehended without delay.

(d) Is necessary to lawfully suppress a riot if the person or another person participating in the riot is armed with a deadly weapon.

D. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, a peace officer is justified in threatening to use deadly physical force when and to the extent a reasonable officer believes it necessary to protect himself against another's potential use of physical force or deadly physical force.

 

[MissingInAction 24262]

1 hour ago, OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys said:

i think officers should receive training that people fleeing in a rascal should be immobilized by a PIT maneuver from another rascal.

If prop A had been for funding an APD fleet of rascals,  I may have voted differently. 

[USNALonghorn 4964]

Fuck those idiots. Life in prison minimum.

They could’ve stopped him by tipping the damn scooter over. 

[Brisketexan 103141]

Fuck those idiots. Life in prison minimum.
They could’ve stopped him by tipping the damn scooter over. 

You clearly don’t back the blue and want them to make it home safe to their families. And if the old man had just complied, he’d still be alive, so it’s his fault.

There are more people who think that way than you’d ever like to think.

[USNALonghorn 4964]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You clearly don’t back the blue and want them to make it home safe to their families. And if the old man had just complied, he’d still be alive, so it’s his fault.

There are more people who think that way than you’d ever like to think.

There aren’t many “reasonable” people left in modern society, so I’m not surprised.

[Enchubben 5492]

To be fair to the cop, who isn’t annoyed by slow people on fucking rascals in grocery store aisles taking up all the space

[Murfdogg21 4394]

12 hours ago, Porterhouse said:

The family is deservingly getting paid. The officer will serve many years in jail. No need to let your anger on the matter extend to posters here. 

But will the family have to pay Walmart back for the VCR he stole?

[South Austin 51409]

8 hours ago, Enchubben said:

To be fair to the cop, who isn’t annoyed by slow people on fucking rascals in grocery store aisles taking up all the space

Most of them weigh 300 pounds and at least avoid the fresh produce section.

[MissingInAction 24262]

3 hours ago, South Austin said:

Most of them weigh 300 pounds and at least avoid the fresh produce section.

Your average rascal pilot would have shrugged off those nine rounds like a whale shaking off barnacles. 

[Elvis 3342]

"the controls malfunctioned, so I couldn't comply" defence strategy?

[Updawg 2239]

Rascal driver shouldn’t have made furtive movements

[crash_davis 23038]

tasers were made for situations like this. going out on a limb but i'm guessing he skipped a few steps in escalation protocols.

[atomheartbevo 88750]

1 hour ago, crash_davis said:

tasers were made for situations like this. going out on a limb but i'm guessing he skipped a few steps in escalation protocols.

So were bags of potting soil that were laying around there. Could have used them not only to trap the scooter, but looking at how scrawny that due was, could have thrown a bag in his lap and it would have incapacitated him.  If not killed him.

Cop coulda have been all "didn't want to get my hands dirty, but somebody had to!"

[South Austin 51409]

I mean, given how slow the deceased was scootering, the cop could've raced ahead of him into Lowes, grabbed a bunch of 2x4s in the lumber aisle, and constructed a blockade in the store entrance, securing the premises until the SWAT team and all other available units could arrive on the scene. 

Of course, that takes longer than nine shots, and the cost of lumber these days . . .

[TexasEd 8011]

On 12/1/2021 at 7:49 AM, Enchubben said:

When I imagine this guy scooting towards me with a knife that Austin powers scene comes to mind:

I prefer this one

 

 

[Braff Zacklin 13284]

3 hours ago, South Austin said:

I mean, given how slow the deceased was scootering, the cop could've raced ahead of him into Lowes, grabbed a bunch of 2x4s in the lumber aisle, and constructed a blockade in the store entrance, securing the premises until the SWAT team and all other available units could arrive on the scene. 

Of course, that takes longer than nine shots, and the cost of lumber these days . . .

If only Tad from Asspen had been around.

[cabowabo 4379]

If only Handiman could have intervened. 

 

[atomheartbevo 88750]

55 minutes ago, cabowabo said:

If only Handiman could have intervened. 

I remember when that aired, and it was cringe-worthy then, but I laughed my ass off (I'm an asshole).

But Handyman is not good with confrontations.

 

[DDD Dad 14060]

17 hours ago, TexasEd said:

I prefer this one

 

 

 

 

Edited December 4, 2021 by DDD Dad

[shadow_operative 15931]

alright, jumping back into this discussion here, re: police admonishing their own in the aftermath of events like this one. here is what makes me angry and incredulous:

a mom at a HS girls basketball game didn't like a play that happened, so she yelled out to her daughter, "you better hit her for that!", after which her daughter sucker punched another girl, giving ghat girl a concussion. i read today that the mom is now being charged as well (as she should be). here is what the DA had to say on the matter:

"It is unconscionable that a parent would encourage her child to engage in violence during a sporting event,” Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer said in a statement. “Youth sports are invaluable in teaching our children discipline, teamwork, and sportsmanship. But a win at all costs mentality that is completely devoid of fair play, respect, and civility is disgusting. We as parents have the fundamental responsibility to raise our children to be good human beings who treat others with kindness and humanity.”

so- a mom at a HS basketball game tells her daughter to punch someone, and the DA comes out with, "this is unconscionable, this is disgusting, this is devoid of respect and civility, we need to be good, kind people."

but when a cop inexplicably and psychotically  just unloads his gun into the back of a fat, old, disabled man, completely unprovoked, we get, "this breaks department rules." you guys keep telling me that it's fucking laughable to expect anything else, to expect the police to just say "this was clearly fucking wrong", for legal reasons. i personally don't buy it. i personally think you guys are totally full of it. but if i'm wrong, and if police departments can't say "that was wrong" when one of their own callously and soullessly murders someone, then that's an insane indictment on the state of policing and litigation in "the greatest country in the world."

[Guest]

1 hour ago, shadow_operative said:

alright, jumping back into this discussion here, re: police admonishing their own in the aftermath of events like this one. here is what makes me angry and incredulous:

a mom at a HS girls basketball game didn't like a play that happened, so she yelled out to her daughter, "you better hit her for that!", after which her daughter sucker punched another girl, giving ghat girl a concussion. i read today that the mom is now being charged as well (as she should be). here is what the DA had to say on the matter:

"It is unconscionable that a parent would encourage her child to engage in violence during a sporting event,” Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer said in a statement. “Youth sports are invaluable in teaching our children discipline, teamwork, and sportsmanship. But a win at all costs mentality that is completely devoid of fair play, respect, and civility is disgusting. We as parents have the fundamental responsibility to raise our children to be good human beings who treat others with kindness and humanity.”

so- a mom at a HS basketball game tells her daughter to punch someone, and the DA comes out with, "this is unconscionable, this is disgusting, this is devoid of respect and civility, we need to be good, kind people."

but when a cop inexplicably and psychotically  just unloads his gun into the back of a fat, old, disabled man, completely unprovoked, we get, "this breaks department rules." you guys keep telling me that it's fucking laughable to expect anything else, to expect the police to just say "this was clearly fucking wrong", for legal reasons. i personally don't buy it. i personally think you guys are totally full of it. but if i'm wrong, and if police departments can't say "that was wrong" when one of their own callously and soullessly murders someone, then that's an insane indictment on the state of policing and litigation in "the greatest country in the world."

Your comparison is flawed because the mother and her daughter are not employees of the DA. Apples and oranges. And again, they did say they were wrong in their comments. They just didn’t go as far as you wanted, which would’ve been emotionally idiotic. 

[shadow_operative 15931]

54 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

Your comparison is flawed because the mother and her daughter are not employees of the DA. Apples and oranges. And again, they did say they were wrong in their comments. They just didn’t go as far as you wanted, which would’ve been emotionally idiotic. 

no snark, i'm being totally honest here- maybe you don't know me, but i'm derka, and hyperbole is kind of my shtick. with anyone who is familiar with me it's understood that i don't actually expect the police to use the clearly over-the-top verbiage that i used. that's why i've repeated myself several times since then without the hyperbole, trying to make it clear that what i'm looking for is basic human compassion and some authentic moral admonishment whenever one of these gunslingers fills an innocent person with holes. i'm the one who linked/quoted the department's response, so if they said something outside what i posted and i just haven't seen it then that's what's up. but again, in the link/quotes i posted, the killer cop was only reprimanded for violating departmental rules. ive read nothing here that explains what kind of supposed litigious trouble the police department could find themselves in morally admonishing the officer, and letting the public know that they are just as outraged as we are.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, shadow_operative said:

no snark, i'm being totally honest here- maybe you don't know me, but i'm derka, and hyperbole is kind of my shtick. with anyone who is familiar with me it's understood that i don't actually expect the police to use the clearly over-the-top verbiage that i used. that's why i've repeated myself several times since then without the hyperbole, trying to make it clear that what i'm looking for is basic human compassion and some authentic moral admonishment whenever one of these gunslingers fills an innocent person with holes. i'm the one who linked/quoted the department's response, so if they said something outside what i posted and i just haven't seen it then that's what's up. but again, in the link/quotes i posted, the killer cop was only reprimanded for violating departmental rules. ive read nothing here that explains what kind of supposed litigious trouble the police department could find themselves in morally admonishing the officer, and letting the public know that they are just as outraged as we are.

Dude: "To be very clear, I am deeply disturbed and troubled by Officer Remington's actions. His use of deadly force in this incident is a clear violation of department policy and directly contradicts multiple aspects of our use of force and training," Magnus said. 

[Captainant 26861]

12 hours ago, Porterhouse said:

Dude: "To be very clear, I am deeply disturbed and troubled by Officer Remington's actions. His use of deadly force in this incident is a clear violation of department policy and directly contradicts multiple aspects of our use of force and training," Magnus said. 

He fucking murdered a guy on a rascal and they can't even use stronger language than "violated department procedures". An arrest or charges are typically in order after a crime, not a strongly worded letter

Edited December 12, 2021 by Captainant

[Hammerin Hank 1207]

I realize the chief can’t make comments as strong as some of us would like, but Shadow Operative has a point and I think Captain Ant makes the point well. Also, the DA’s office is still reviewing the incident  🙄. Anyone else shoots someone like that and they’ll at least be arrested before the full investigation has been completed 

 

https://www.kold.com/2021/12/10/pima-county-attorneys-office-reviewing-incident-which-off-duty-police-officer-fatally-shot-man-mobility-scooter/