He had a deadly weapon in his hand and had already threatened someone with it. He was a danger to the public. He was justified in having the firearm ready the position. Until the guy was in position to throw it low ready would have been better, but that's just me. From the moment the guy went to the position to throw the brick shooting was justified.
Are there plenty of other things that might have been tried according the the armchair squad. Of course they could have called animal control and used their tranquilizer guy and net.
Well, I actually agree that there were many other options, but that’s the thing with law enforcement is that there are many right answers as well as many wrong answers or solutions to each scenario. For example, I think those officers should have cut him off using their vehicles. Box him in but goodness sake, keep the cruiser between you and this guy.
I would have chosen different tactics for sure, but that doesn’t make the decision to use deadly force to confront a person armed with a deadly weapon that has already committed felonious assault.
What’s funny is watching
@Joshuaace @Via Heeto make complete asses of themselves and watching heeto come unraveled is like watching a train wreck. You feel awful for continuing to gawk at the carnage, but you can’t look away.
Josh has contradicted himself several times and stupidly bolstered my argument thinking he was refuting me. He claims the officers purposely baited Vargas into throwing the brick or attacking with the brick just so they could shoot him because that’s what they wanted to do.
He also claimed that Vargas threw the brick in self defense because the officers illegally and against policy had guns drawn and he must have feared for his own life, which is why he threw the brick. I guess that female caller must have caused him to fear for his own life as well since he threatened her with the brick.
He also claimed the officers violated department and state policies by not de-escalating the situation, but when I proved him wrong, he fell back on “well, he probably doesn’t speak or understand English.” So I guess a guy living in this country where the majority of people speak English even though we have no official language, had never heard the word “stop” and didn’t comprender(Spanish for comprehend) or entiendo (Spanish for understand). And he definitely, because not knowing English, didn’t comprehend the drawn guns pointed at him in a universal language of “don’t fucking attack us or we will shoot you.”
Josh also claims that the officers were required to use less lethal options before drawing guns. That’s assuming they had those options on them, but even if they did, in no way does an officer have to first try less lethal when dealing with a violent person armed with a deadly weapon.
Then he also claimed that a brick was not a deadly weapon. When I posted three brick fatality cases, he claimed I had to search long and hard to find those. Nope, wrong. It took me about two mins to search and pick the first three I came across. It took me longer to post the links than it did to find them. He also claimed that I could only find three and I had to use other parts of the world. Wrong again. I had to rule some out because they were thrown bricks at moving vehicles. I know of one I didn’t even use where the brick went through the windshield and killed the person but there are also incidents of the brick through the window caused people to crash and die. And the best part is I don’t even have to search for murders caused by bricks. All I had to do to justify the use of firearms is to point out that getting hit with a brick can cause serious injury, which is part of the definition of deadly force, which is any force that can cause serious injury or death. How do police officers respond to someone with a weapon that can cause serious injury or death? By using their own deadly force options. I cited Supreme Court cases but he continues to say that I am wrong and department policy supersedes Supreme Court case law:
Then there’s heeto. He is losing so badly that he has accused me of planting evidence, putting people in jail to rot, violating rights, was forced to retire because of misconduct, terrorized my community, claims I hated my community, and the kicker is that he believes that I have murdered people in the past.
