The way that other cop looks at the shooter instead of aiming at the perp makes it seem as if he's thinking "whoa, are we really allowed to shoot in this situation?"
They weren't. The level of force allowed has to be proportional and reasonable with the totality of circumstances. They could make an argument that he was a public danger due to the armed robbery allegations, but it would be hard to argue that he was an immanent threat to the public since they didn't even positively ID him and the only thing they had at that moment was "one man fleeing an attempted detainment." If he had aimed the car or bike at an officer or shown a weapon then they could easily justify use of lethal force against the armed suspect. Most court rulings have held that officers can't shoot a suspect that is just fleeing. Plus the officers shot toward structures at a fleeing suspect from a distance that a 9mm handgun's accuracy is significantly lower. An argument that the officer just unreasonably endangered others can easily be made. Make no mistake: I do not support criminals or going light on them. However I do support that everyone has rights and that the standards of law should be upheld equally across the board. You either believe in equal Rights or you don't. This officer's choice of an escalated response may have cost them the case against the suspect.
@@Cas_Vael It looked to me like they could have also got him on reckless driving and endangerment. But yeah I don't think he should have been shot in the back for that.
@@sandollorThe original comment was probably meant for all the smarties who believe that giving criminals hugs and multiple chances to re-offend, will make things better.
@@wildboar7473 They're not allowed to shoot to disable a vehicle - they can get a reprimand for that. They're not even allowed to shoot to disable a human - they're trained that they shoot to kill, or don't shoot at all. Look it up.
@@ruffadamsthegreat.2662 I wont and doubt, aware despite some practice they often do kill shots at close range. Seen some hit tires, but head is prefered :)
Whenever the issue of firearm control comes up, and the media presents with statistics on firearm violence, I always question how many of the incidents are police related.
Better question is how many are suicides. Police shootings seem like a lot because of the news, but considering there are 330,000,000 people in this country, it’s not as big of a number as you’d think.
@@michelerenem I think you are missing the point of the question and besides, what difference does it make to you? I didnt mean there are zero police related incidents. I meant the total number of incidents presented by the media, statistically. You're not very bright are you?
If a non police officer shoots a man in the back, i.e. they're no danger to the shooter, then they're charged with second degree attempted murder. If a cop does it, eh no big deal.
Exactly. Why if they play stupid game we are both getting stupid prizes and I'm not a criminal, got a license to carry, no record, pay taxes, did my time etc. Father to their kids blah blah, still not playing there acorn games
@@benfrank1583 The difference between you and a cop. If a criminal runs away from you, IT'S NOT YOUR JOB TO CHASE THEM. You can use your weapon to defend yourself, not to capture dangerous criminals. Don't pretend you should be able to do what police officers do because you "pay your taxes" lmfao you sound so dumb.
Right we’re told we can’t use force if the criminals are leaving only if your life is in danger . I do believe the police should be held to the same standards as everyone else
“Officer safety” Nothing like a potential crossfire situation for your fellow officers. Know your target and what’s beyond. Firing officer was more dangerous than the suspect.
the car thief that is known criminal activity rammed how many cars... SMH, to avoid justice how many more would he actually wipe out on that motorcycle. he split second turned when seeing the second officer.
Exactly did you see that officer's partner look at him, as if to say "what the hell are you doing?"! Unless a fleeing person points a gun at an officer while doing so, a police officer should never be allowed to shoot someone that is fleeing, especially if they know who the person is they can always find him! And even if they don't know who it is, to me there's no legal reason to shoot a person in the back while they are fleeing! The officer should be charged with attempted murder!
@ker I agree, I would not have not taken that shot in that situation. Too much confusion about what is downrange. I was taught to never shoot somewhere where I couldn't see where the bullet was going, or what was downrange out of sight. The policeman needs time off and a reprimand, and if he is a SGT, a demotion.
I often wonder what makes anyone believe that one man is allowed to do this or that and another is not? Or that one mans life is so much worth more than another.
💯 was going to ask the same question!! Play stupid games win stupid prizes now they have lost a child prob due to the lifestyle they were living and one of them is paralyzed as a direct result of a series of HORRIBLE decisions 😔
yea yea yea... its all yippy and hu rahs, until the lunatic cop pulls you over, then its.... this cant go on, we need to live in a society of laws and not lawlessness, im a the vicitim now and since its now me who its affected everyone better pay attention.
I often comment about police brutally and wrongfully arrests. But the way that this suspect disregarded all police commands to stop and continously put innocent lives at risk trying to escape, justified the officer using any force at his disposal to stop him. The suspect is just a habitual criminal that put himself before the safety of the community and ultimately payed the price.
So.. they could not have pulled back? Police can say that they feel like they were in danger for an Acorn nowadays... Police are not always right and shot him in the back... Unarmed and running away... If we did this to a thief we would go to jail but here you are saying it is Okay for Police to shoot someone who is running away.... Never turned around with a gun... The police are not supposed to use their gun becuae they are too old and slow to do the Job.... Maybe retire and let the young guys who are more capable enforce the law... I would not want to get pulled over by this cop
Hey doofus how’s the boot taste going down the back of your throat? What threat was happening at the time the motorcycle man was driving away from officers? The threat of him in the vehicle had ended, there isn’t some GTA game where you earned your deadly force even after you’re no longer a threat. Are you dumb? Or just stupid? Has to be one or the other.
are you an idiot he was headed to the woods an no one else was there, so where was the danger, the cop was the danger, he had the gun and firing it without thinking, but the sargent didn't shoot he actually look back athe cop firing from behind him, wtf
The problem with this case is the officer who is closer to guy on motorcycle doesn't fire but the officer who did is 20ft behind that cop and the motorcycle guy is not heading towards him. So at the time there was no threat to either officer. And the cop shots as the motorcycle went on as adjacent property over 50 ft and moving away from officers. Was the guy a criminal they shot maybe but the cops statement is bogus. As he is firing from position behind door . The guy they shot is going to sue and the folks of pierce county will end up paying this criminal.
The US Constitution. Are you prepared to rip it up? If no, then stop walking all over it. If yes, then many of us in the states would consider you an enemy.
All I need to know is he armed, and his actions posed a danger to the public. Some innocent people could have been killed and they are worried about this guy? There used to be laws on the books in some states (and they may still exist) that if a law enforcement officer or even private citizen witnessed a felony, they could use deadly force to stop that offender from fleeing.
@@richcheckmaker If you were to make some sense that would be great, but making up nonsense does nothing for either of us. When you have something valid to say, i would love to hear it, until then try thinking before you say ignorant things
@@yourbigheadcousin5434 Pretty clear from the video stills they showed that it was the same guy. Same guy who also slammed into at least two cars as he sped away from the cops, with zero regard for anyone's safety. We know that much for certain.
@@CartarioTheFarmerThe "criminal act" that determines probable cause for police to shoot MUST OCCUR within the previous 3 minutes if it's in a vehicle. He didn't hit people on his motorcycle.
@@wizkaqueefa9003 You're making stuff up, my dude. Or you're getting information from jailbirds. That is not the law in Washington. If you really want to claim that it is, then you''ll have to show me the RCW.
@@CartarioTheFarmer Show me where in the law it says a criminal slamming into a car during a police chase warrants deadly force by police? I've seen 3-4 cops chase a stolen car & not shoot due to backstop concerns.
@@christianmccaffrey7113oh yeah? What deadly threat or threat of even ANY bodily harm existed for him to fire 3 times? Nothing. That’s why the other officer looked DUMBFOUNDED. 😂 goofy.
@PhrontDoor The dude who crashed into innocent people and fled. He's lucky and should repent. The officers were keeping him from harming others. If he would've stopped, it wouldn't happen.
@@gingermcgarvey7773 Yeah and if that girl didnt wear that skimpy dress..., right? The cowardly criminal gang members you are defending committed an obviously worse crime than the one they were trying to stop, making you an willfully ignorant indoctrinated m o r o n for tying to defend criminal actions by police
@shroompicn-shrooman It works both ways I don't disagree, but cops have lost a tremendous amount of support not to my surprise. I feel bad for the good one's that are still out there.
1Majorities of both black and white Americans say black people are treated less fairly than whites in dealing with the police and by the criminal justice system as a whole.
He was a dangerous person. He was smashing cars around... regardless of life and also had stolen other cars previously, and then he was trying to get away. So, hit and run recklessly and only God knows what else.
@@bigyoshi4696 Yeah indeed, lot of these sick folks so afraid they agree on all Authority behaviors, no identification of Suspect nor any weapon, he tried to escape in car with aimed gun at him and then again with motorcycle. Crying about getting away when they were pretty sure who he was.
Tennessee V Gardner Supreme Court Case law allows a law enforcement officer to use deadly force on a suspect if the suspect is an active threat to either the officer or the general public. Look at the totality of the circumstances and watch the video. Dude was actively resisting, colliding into multiple vehicles he obviously wasn't stopping. Theres a reason it was deemed justified. Put responsibility on the criminal who actively committed multiple felonies and was terrorizing the community. @@bigyoshi4696
Brian shouldn't have been a maniac dangerous driver trying to run over anyone in his path... He will not be (RUNNING or WALKING) from the police anymore...
😮 they have courts and a crooket justice system for that wrong doing but not MURDER (any human shot in back while running away is murdered) especially a person who is fully trained 👎👎👎 BS
His girlfriend losing the baby even if from stress is on him and not the cops. Don't go along for a joyride and evasion with your criminal boyfriend if you're worried about your baby.
She probably lost it when he rammed into that truck and trailer. Or when he jumped out leaving the car in gear to continue to roll with her in. He caused all of this and should be in prison.
How when he was not charged for any crime prior to this. They did not charge him with the officers shooting earlier because they didn’t have the evidence against him😊
So you idiots would be ok with him taking off on the motorcycle and possibly killing someone? He showed earlier that he had no regard for anyone else when he rammed the car into the other vehicles. What if they had a newborn and the car being slammed into caused the baby injury or killed it? Why take the risk? It's on him. He ran, and he assaulted people with 2000+ pounds of metal. He kept running. The cops didn't make him do that. Stop taking up for criminals.
@@Mexican_Marauder"Possibly" and "what if" aren't lawful things for police to shoot at somebody. If they are, police could shoot everyone without consequences, because we all could possibly kill someone one day and what if we one day murder someone. You see now how stupid you reasons are and how they can't stand at any court? Police can't go with possibilities and what if, they must go with FACTS and EVIDENCES. That's why this suspect was never charged, because if any criminal judge saw this video at criminal court, he/she would dissmis charges, because there was no reason for shooting him. Police is allowed to shoot someone only if suspect is immediate deadly threat to them or to public. At point of this shooting, suspect was fleeing, he was removing himself from the police and there was nobody else around him so he wasn't threat to anyone at that point. Period. That's a FACT and Video is EVIDENCE of that. He was shooting because he didn't want to chase him anymore. Only idiot here is you, because you don't know basics of law, just like this cop. And please try not to deepthroat whole boot.
What if this guy had just broke into your house and you shot him fleeing? What would happen to us the regular citizen? We probably would have ended up in jail Would it be justified?
they do its called "felony evading" and would be an extra charge on top of all the others and would have added years to his sentence if convicted of it
Cop should have never fired his gun. The other cop who was on foot at the scene and closer than every other cop never ever fired or attempted to fire his weapon. This cop should be charged n place before the federal judge.
@@TheEMC99- Thank you for that, but if you go back about ten seconds from there, it's clear that the reporter is saying he was never charged in the shooting of an off-duty police officer that occurred about a year earlier.
Because they put their thumb on the scales of justice to protect cops. It happens on a daily basis because the idea "nobody is above the law" is a myth. Cops are almost always above the law.
So the police is now judge, jury and persecutioner, he committed crimes yes but your job is to ketch the criminal not to kill them if your life is not in immediate danger
So a gang is chasing you and you wouldn’t run they catch up and you still get it the worse thing is that this gang can hurt or kill you without repercussions unless your husband is a cop then kind of biased do you think
And just think, if the guy had not done all of the illegal things he did in the first place, he would have never been shot! What a concept I know, but I’ve been pulled over several times by law enforcement and not once did I run and not once was I ever shot at! Amazing I know, but it’s the truth.
Another ignoramus 😂😂😂he didnt commit any crimes you fool its all speculation and hear say there was no proof whats so ever he committed any crimes you not know how to comprehend 😂😂😂😂
Dear Fox 13 Seattle. It's not WHERE you shoot someone (e.g. in the back) it's WHY. An officer may shoot a fleeing felon if the need to stop them and protect the public outweighs NOT shooting them. It seems the crux of this case depends solely on this, and it's not perfectly clear if this is the case or not. One thing I am concerned about is the need for a news channel to prominently display that a deputy shot someone in the back, to generate clicks on their channel.
It is also where. Theres no way you can sit here and pretend that "he was shot in the back as he fled" isn't going to be addressed in the case. The fact that he was shoot in the back means he wasnt an active threat to the officer, they then have to prove hes a danger to others, which depends on what ifs. This officer had little reason to discharge his firearm and it's gonna cost you your tax money
@@Timshot100 He's only an active threat to civilians if they know he's armed at the moment and headed toward those civilians. Given the direction he had taken and the lack of this knowledge makes it pretty clear that they are trying to be creative after the fact to sweep it under the rug.
I get it the public has been fed false information from police departments and the media. But every pd in the US has a policy that says you can't shoot someone you haven't identified. The legal standard is called the graham factors. This case doesn't meet them imo and the city will pay millions. The only thing I needed to see was the cop who was actively following him didn't shoot and was like me asking wtf?
Thank goodness Sweeney opened his dumb mouth to a reporter. He said that the shooting wasn’t justified but then he found out that the person “may” have been connected to someone involved in a shooting of an off-duty officer days earlier and now he believes it was justified. He clearly bases his “expert”opinion on feelings and not law. He has now discredited himself from any future testimony he may give. Brilliant.
So when someone changes their mind based on new evidence that is discrediting themselves and not, I don't know, changing their stance based on new evidence? Wild.
Galiano sounds like a lifetime criminal and he could have killed someone droving recklessly. He got shot committing a crime, that's a risk he faced in his chosen line of work. The police were just doing their job.
Right, but what about the Constitution? Why are people so quick to shit on it and everything America stands for? I fought for this country to help preserve people's rights, not so cops can run around executing people. We are either a country of laws, based on the idea of natural rights, which are guaranteed by the US Constitution, or we are not.
That's why you don't run from Police and threaten other citizens with a vehicle. Did he know if there were people in those vehicles? And now their insurance goes up and vehicles have to be fixed, if they can be. So does the outcome fit the crime??? Shouldn't have run bottom line. Or should police give him another chance to commit an even worse crime? Tangled web.
Was he a danger to the officers or the community? He proved he was a danger when he drove dangerously through other vehicles. He was no doubt a danger if he had been allowed to escape!
True, his actions were the whole ordeal, not just moment by moment. I can't stand the armchair idiots who defend a dangerous criminal with ideas that the whole event not be taken into account.
I remember seeing this a while ago... Not sure how the guy on a motorcycle was more of a danger to the public/officers than when he was in the car. Shooting in the backyard surrounded by houses is probably the worst place he could have taken a shot.
When it comes to law enforcement shootings we need to ask ourselves, if this wasn't a law enforcement involved shooting & it was a privet citizen, would that citizen be getting arrested & charged with at least assault with a deadly weapon? In WA, the answer is yes he would, so since law enforcement isn't above the law, the officer should be charge accordantly
Jason how about doing some research before embarrassing yourself. Cops aren't subject to the same limitations on the use of force as everyone else. The local district attorney confirmed that by not pressing charges, and clearing use of force. I won't respond or read anything else from you so don't try and respond with passive aggressive snide remarks. Next topic.
@@jellylight3358 You really need to go back to school & relearn reading comprehension. Again, if this wasn't a law enforcement shooting situation & it was a citizen involved shooting situation, would that individual be charged with at least assault with a deadly weapon? In WA, the answer to that is yes, there for the officer should be charged accordingly. So, take your snotty attitude & Shove it.
I have to agree with the Deputy, they knew the guy had a gun, he has a previous record and also shot a Deputy in the past. I suppose Mendoza will not be getting into anymore trouble. I'm sure he's thinking about the error of his way!!!
It is never legal to shoot anyone in the back, because if he's running away, he is not a threat. If you notice, the other police officer had his gun out and did NOT shoot. See that? Not only that, there is a warehouse in the distance, and the shot could have killed an innocent.
Actually, you are incorrect in this particular instance. If a person has just robbed you and is in the process of leaving the scene, then you would be correct. But this particular person was using his vehicle to hit innocent civilians in an effort to get away. He was now on a motorcycle, which can get to higher speeds in less time, and is basically a knife that can cut into a car at high speed. He was a threat to society and could have easily caused loss of life to a civilian. Take that and the fact he is known for having a weapon, and the understanding that he is connected to a cop shooting and put it all together. That equals a justified use of force. So you can believe what you want, but that doesn't mean you are correct. In other words, never say never.
No, they aren't lol, the police are law enforcement... LAW enforcement. Which means they are the arbiters of enforcing the laws. Which means they need to also FOLLOW THE FUCKING LAWS.
You can't just shoot people in the back. Judge, jury and executioner is not what police are. They are supposed to take "suspects" into the court to find them guilty. Cops can't just shoot people in the back .
So you got a bad guy off the streets who has been victimizing people for who knows how long, and now you want to reward him because he got shot in the act of a crime?!? I wonder how many of his victims think a reward is warranted? I wonder how many future victims were spared because this guy is no longer on the street? I may not agree with how he was stopped but I agree that he was stopped and there is one less victimized on the streets victimized law abiding citizens! If you make stupid choices you need to live with the consequences of your action! An honorable judge would throw this case out! But we don't have very many honorable judges anymore and even far less prosecutors!
Death penalty for fleeing. Is that in the law books? Clearly this guy needed to be arrested, but it would have just been a matter of time, you can't hide for long in society. I mean they found at where he lived so they were one step away from ID'ing him. The officers were behaving emotionally rather than methodically and rationally, which isn't in the job description.
@mba2ceo So you say that a cop needs to accept responsibility as judge and executioner in a matter of seconds. Luckily cops don't suffer the bias and emotional confusion under stress that yield unfortunate and inappropriate responses that don't hold up under scrutiny later with more information. Whew, life is so simple when you put it like that. Thanks for your wisdom.
It's hard to believe this is considered justified. The other cop was just going to let him go. He was driving away. Back the Blue until it happens to you. Speculation rules the day.
@@steffansmith3601 Neither. There are good cops and bad cops. I'm willing to bet there are a lot more good than bad. Unfortunately, human nature makes the bad stand out. Also, the society we have built requires police. Humans are stacked on top of each other and hoped up on chemicals. Makes them behave irrationally. This man was driving a stolen vehicle recklessly and then attempted to flee on a motorcycle. A vehicle, when used recklessly, becomes a weapon. Police are justified in holding this man, who made poor decisions and broke the law, accountable for his actions. In this case, he got shot. In my mind, it's much better to stop the person by any means necessary than allow them to potentially kill innocent bystanders. Imagine a mother or father gets killed because this dude launches his motorcycle through their front windshield at 140 miles per hour. This cop seems justified in his actions. I've watched a lot of cop videos like this and I will always call out when the cop screws up. This wasn't one of those times.
Attempted murder without a doubt shooting someone in the back is cowardly and he put any bystanders at risk every time he missed totally unprofessional.
In the FX series "Justified", U.S. Deputy Marshal Raylan Givens shoots a fleeing felon in the back. When he approaches the downed thug and rolls him over, the thug says "You shot me in the back"! Raylin says "If you wanted me to shoot you in the front, you should have been running AT me"...
This cop will get away with it .his chief will stand bye him and the ag will put this under the rug.cop should be charged he is a killer .the man may still be alive but the life he lived is dead so yes he is a killer
You can see the first cop looking at the shooting cop like wtf
Also how quickly he holstered his weapon, too
Yeah I noticed that right away!! The cop who shot him couldn't have known what was going on!!
Did you see the expression on his face. He couldn’t believe it!
I noticed that.
Yep 💯
The way that other cop looks at the shooter instead of aiming at the perp makes it seem as if he's thinking "whoa, are we really allowed to shoot in this situation?"
exactly that look alone tells everything about the situation because the other cop knows what just happened was wrong
They weren't. The level of force allowed has to be proportional and reasonable with the totality of circumstances. They could make an argument that he was a public danger due to the armed robbery allegations, but it would be hard to argue that he was an immanent threat to the public since they didn't even positively ID him and the only thing they had at that moment was "one man fleeing an attempted detainment."
If he had aimed the car or bike at an officer or shown a weapon then they could easily justify use of lethal force against the armed suspect. Most court rulings have held that officers can't shoot a suspect that is just fleeing. Plus the officers shot toward structures at a fleeing suspect from a distance that a 9mm handgun's accuracy is significantly lower. An argument that the officer just unreasonably endangered others can easily be made.
Make no mistake: I do not support criminals or going light on them. However I do support that everyone has rights and that the standards of law should be upheld equally across the board. You either believe in equal Rights or you don't.
This officer's choice of an escalated response may have cost them the case against the suspect.
They're allowed to shoot us in the back! That's what I get from this!
Understandable considering it looks residential.
@@Cas_Vael It looked to me like they could have also got him on reckless driving and endangerment. But yeah I don't think he should have been shot in the back for that.
What happened to the two bullets he fired against a backdrop full of houses?
They don't care
Neighbor's dog
It’s never brought up
Almost struck innocent bystanders
I guess the cops don't care about any innocent people that might be around. Shameful and so reckless.
Until it is as dangerous to be a criminal as it is to be a law abiding citizen, crime will continue to be out of control.
Is it against the law to shoot an individual the back? What does the law say about this my fellow American citizen
Yes it is @catdaddy2643
LOL you think so? So, what are you, a sociologist? Yeah, didn't think so. Stay in school kids.
@@sandollorThe original comment was probably meant for all the smarties who believe that giving criminals hugs and multiple chances to re-offend, will make things better.
@@catdaddy2643 unless they pose a danger to the public at large read a little more federal laws
Me: "You just shot that man in the back!"
Sgt Roberts: "His back was to me."
Yeah and still Some dudes find it dandy, killer cop lovers, no show of Robber gun if he had one somewhere, sure was not aiming on his motorcycle.
@@wildboar7473
They're not allowed to shoot to disable a vehicle - they can get a reprimand for that.
They're not even allowed to shoot to disable a human - they're trained that they shoot to kill, or don't shoot at all.
Look it up.
@@ruffadamsthegreat.2662 I wont and doubt, aware despite some practice they often do kill shots at close range. Seen some hit tires, but head is prefered :)
I just realized, that I'm talking to a FUCKING BOT.😳
So that makes it justified that the cop shot him in the back for stealing a car! I wonder what the cop thinks the penalty for killing someone is!
Was the motorcycle OK?
I think he shot the bike a few times once he got to it... He claims the motor was still running and he felt it was gonna getaway 😞🤦🤦 Police 👎👎
So this will make it difficult for him to commit crime and victimize other people. Yeah that sucks!
Exactly!
Whenever the issue of firearm control comes up, and the media presents with statistics on firearm violence, I always question how many of the incidents are police related.
Better question is how many are suicides. Police shootings seem like a lot because of the news, but considering there are 330,000,000 people in this country, it’s not as big of a number as you’d think.
Zero
@@MarcGarza-x5e You are not the brightest, are you???
@@michelerenem I think you are missing the point of the question and besides, what difference does it make to you? I didnt mean there are zero police related incidents. I meant the total number of incidents presented by the media, statistically. You're not very bright are you?
@@Jeremiah-f8hway more than 330 million people here more likely 400-425 million including the 10-15 million ole joe let in
Gee whiz.......why didnt he just stop and talk to the police?
@babskaz74 I might agree with you except for the number of death defying stunts he performed to escape the police.
@@wadedavies3924Im not stopping to have a conversation with an armed criminal.
Finally a voice of reason.
If a non police officer shoots a man in the back, i.e. they're no danger to the shooter, then they're charged with second degree attempted murder. If a cop does it, eh no big deal.
Exactly. Why if they play stupid game we are both getting stupid prizes and I'm not a criminal, got a license to carry, no record, pay taxes, did my time etc. Father to their kids blah blah, still not playing there acorn games
Don't sympathize with a thief
Maybe you should learn the law and why that is. Being ignorant and spewing comments does nothing.
@@benfrank1583 The difference between you and a cop. If a criminal runs away from you, IT'S NOT YOUR JOB TO CHASE THEM. You can use your weapon to defend yourself, not to capture dangerous criminals. Don't pretend you should be able to do what police officers do because you "pay your taxes" lmfao you sound so dumb.
@benfrank1583
Thank you, Perry Mason you have solved another hard criminal case...
If a citizen did this they would be charged with murder.
Attempted murder
Right we’re told we can’t use force if the criminals are leaving only if your life is in danger . I do believe the police should be held to the same standards as everyone else
but but but he is a cop
@@user-zb6ke7gy7e Its crazy how many people still have that mentality though
@@clinttrost5743they should be held to an even higher standard than that. They have authority we don’t therefore their standards should be higher
Mommy never told him NO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Who are you speaking of? The runner or the cop. Lol.
He's referring to the criminal of the guy shot@@DaisyMae439
@@DaisyMae439probably the cop
yeah, the cops mommy never told him no.
Wait until you see how a cop acts when he's told no.
“Officer safety”
Nothing like a potential crossfire situation for your fellow officers.
Know your target and what’s beyond.
Firing officer was more dangerous than the suspect.
That wasn't a crossfire at all. the angle was wrong for that.
the car thief that is known criminal activity rammed how many cars... SMH, to avoid justice how many more would he actually wipe out on that motorcycle. he split second turned when seeing the second officer.
Exactly did you see that officer's partner look at him, as if to say "what the hell are you doing?"! Unless a fleeing person points a gun at an officer while doing so, a police officer should never be allowed to shoot someone that is fleeing, especially if they know who the person is they can always find him! And even if they don't know who it is, to me there's no legal reason to shoot a person in the back while they are fleeing! The officer should be charged with attempted murder!
@@mt3311There was no crossfire, but that idiot cop shot into houses behind the suspect.
@ker I agree, I would not have not taken that shot in that situation. Too much confusion about what is downrange. I was taught to never shoot somewhere where I couldn't see where the bullet was going, or what was downrange out of sight. The policeman needs time off and a reprimand, and if he is a SGT, a demotion.
Fact is the man displayed erratic, violent tendencies, and frankly, it was more dangerous to allow him to escape than it was to kill him.
I often wonder what makes anyone believe that one man is allowed to do this or that and another is not? Or that one mans life is so much worth more than another.
Easy. Context
Ask a Criminal.
It's not
@@drshoe8744
Same answer.
Both are crooks
@@And-Not-Do-What-I-say Next time you need help, don't call the Police, call your friendly, neighborhood drug dealer, and or user.
And the girlfriend lost the baby "due to stress" of stealing cars? Or just from being a total POS?
My guess is he was gangfisted and they pulled it out. She seems the type.
The baby aborted itself seeing as its future was not viable.
@@ironbowtieyou are horrible
😮😅@@ironbowtie
💯 was going to ask the same question!! Play stupid games win stupid prizes now they have lost a child prob due to the lifestyle they were living and one of them is paralyzed as a direct result of a series of HORRIBLE decisions 😔
He is no longer a car thief. Dude was a threat to the public.
What threat? Car assurance demands? Way too aggressive.
are you stupid ?
@wildboar7473 you wouldn't care if he was white,you're racist af
You reap what you sow
Cops are a threat to the public as well. Why can't we all be held to the same standard?
Play stupid games......
You all say the same thing on
on UA-cam.
yea yea yea... its all yippy and hu rahs, until the lunatic cop pulls you over, then its.... this cant go on, we need to live in a society of laws and not lawlessness, im a the vicitim now and since its now me who its affected everyone better pay attention.
Willful ignorance or indoctrination?
Yup, and win a BIG ASS LAWSUIT PAID FOR BY US
Like Ashli Babbit
I often comment about police brutally and wrongfully arrests. But the way that this suspect disregarded all police commands to stop and continously put innocent lives at risk trying to escape, justified the officer using any force at his disposal to stop him. The suspect is just a habitual criminal that put himself before the safety of the community and ultimately payed the price.
Willful ignorance or indoctrination?
So.. they could not have pulled back?
Police can say that they feel like they were in danger for an Acorn nowadays...
Police are not always right and shot him in the back...
Unarmed and running away...
If we did this to a thief we would go to jail but here you are saying it is Okay for Police to shoot someone who is running away....
Never turned around with a gun...
The police are not supposed to use their gun becuae they are too old and slow to do the Job....
Maybe retire and let the young guys who are more capable enforce the law...
I would not want to get pulled over by this cop
Hey doofus how’s the boot taste going down the back of your throat? What threat was happening at the time the motorcycle man was driving away from officers? The threat of him in the vehicle had ended, there isn’t some GTA game where you earned your deadly force even after you’re no longer a threat. Are you dumb? Or just stupid? Has to be one or the other.
Then why did the cop lie about what happened?
are you an idiot he was headed to the woods an no one else was there, so where was the danger, the cop was the danger, he had the gun and firing it without thinking, but the sargent didn't shoot he actually look back athe cop firing from behind him, wtf
The problem with this case is the officer who is closer to guy on motorcycle doesn't fire but the officer who did is 20ft behind that cop and the motorcycle guy is not heading towards him. So at the time there was no threat to either officer. And the cop shots as the motorcycle went on as adjacent property over 50 ft and moving away from officers. Was the guy a criminal they shot maybe but the cops statement is bogus. As he is firing from position behind door . The guy they shot is going to sue and the folks of pierce county will end up paying this criminal.
Depends on many factors
Why must we play games with dangerous career criminals?
The US Constitution. Are you prepared to rip it up? If no, then stop walking all over it. If yes, then many of us in the states would consider you an enemy.
You think of the Constitution as a game?
Because our society praises criminals, and laws are "racist" now. When people are used to preferential treatment, equality feels like racism.
@@YedolfWesler The only criminals that our society praises are cops and politicians.
@@christopheraaron8299 it is a treatise of tyranny .
I dunno in my mind the young lad fkd around and found out. It's unfortunate & being shot in the back isn't cool.
so what your saying is youre cool with it.
@@tubewearwolf😂
All I need to know is he armed, and his actions posed a danger to the public. Some innocent people could have been killed and they are worried about this guy? There used to be laws on the books in some states (and they may still exist) that if a law enforcement officer or even private citizen witnessed a felony, they could use deadly force to stop that offender from fleeing.
Tennessee Vs Garner
Willful ignorance or indoctrination?
@@steffansmith3601 I ask you the same question as you are the one willfully ignorant or indoctrinated.
@@richcheckmaker If you were to make some sense that would be great, but making up nonsense does nothing for either of us. When you have something valid to say, i would love to hear it, until then try thinking before you say ignorant things
Cop is a liar as usual
all i know is its hard to steal cars when you are confined to a wheel chair.
You understand the point us he was "SUSPECTED" of car theft.
@@yourbigheadcousin5434 Pretty clear from the video stills they showed that it was the same guy. Same guy who also slammed into at least two cars as he sped away from the cops, with zero regard for anyone's safety. We know that much for certain.
@@CartarioTheFarmerThe "criminal act" that determines probable cause for police to shoot MUST OCCUR within the previous 3 minutes if it's in a vehicle. He didn't hit people on his motorcycle.
@@wizkaqueefa9003 You're making stuff up, my dude. Or you're getting information from jailbirds. That is not the law in Washington. If you really want to claim that it is, then you''ll have to show me the RCW.
@@CartarioTheFarmer Show me where in the law it says a criminal slamming into a car during a police chase warrants deadly force by police? I've seen 3-4 cops chase a stolen car & not shoot due to backstop concerns.
Escaping and causing harm.to innocent bystanders..state of Emergency
Nice commie-bot English fail there. State-Of-Emergency isn't a status used for policing.
You do understand what a state of emergency actually means to people’s civil rights, right..? 🤔
Gallianna Mendoza....an illegal immigrant?
Is that a death sentence?
This dude was running like a wild animal, he did not care who or what was in his way.
So hit him in the back like a coward ?
Cop p g jbtp
HIS VICTIMS CAN SUE HIM FOR MULTIPLE REASONS...... ESPECIALLY IF HE GETS MONEY
What victims?
You need to watch the full video he will not win a law suit
What did I just read?
@@christianmccaffrey7113oh yeah? What deadly threat or threat of even ANY bodily harm existed for him to fire 3 times? Nothing. That’s why the other officer looked DUMBFOUNDED. 😂 goofy.
Wut??
This dude was a danger to the community and police. 🤷♀️❤️🤍💙
That's why his badge should be revoked and he should be in jail.
@PhrontDoor The dude who crashed into innocent people and fled. He's lucky and should repent. The officers were keeping him from harming others. If he would've stopped, it wouldn't happen.
@@gingermcgarvey7773 Yeah and if that girl didnt wear that skimpy dress..., right? The cowardly criminal gang members you are defending committed an obviously worse crime than the one they were trying to stop, making you an willfully ignorant indoctrinated m o r o n for tying to defend criminal actions by police
And now he’s going to get rich
Harming others? At that moment, he wasn't. You don't shoot someone in the back
The officer lied. The Sergeant who was there seconds before and didn't mag dump. He was NOT near any LEO, he was running on a motorcycle!
BECAUSE COPS DON'T BECOME PSYCHOPATHS PSYCHOPATHS BECOME COPS
Nobody "mag dumped" it was 3 shots unless I misread what you wrote. There's 15+1 in the chamber and I didn't hear 15 or 16 shots
@shroompicn-shrooman It works both ways I don't disagree, but cops have lost a tremendous amount of support not to my surprise. I feel bad for the good one's that are still out there.
1Majorities of both black and white Americans say black people are treated less fairly than whites in dealing with the police and by the criminal justice system as a whole.
and junkies stay junkies and felons are always felons.@@shroompicn-shrooman
He was a dangerous person. He was smashing cars around... regardless of life and also had stolen other cars previously, and then he was trying to get away. So, hit and run recklessly and only God knows what else.
So that justifies being killed? On a motorcycle?
@@bigyoshi4696 Yeah indeed, lot of these sick folks so afraid they agree on all Authority behaviors, no identification of Suspect nor any weapon, he tried to escape in car with aimed gun at him and then again with motorcycle.
Crying about getting away when they were pretty sure who he was.
yep@@bigyoshi4696
Tennessee V Gardner Supreme Court Case law allows a law enforcement officer to use deadly force on a suspect if the suspect is an active threat to either the officer or the general public. Look at the totality of the circumstances and watch the video. Dude was actively resisting, colliding into multiple vehicles he obviously wasn't stopping. Theres a reason it was deemed justified. Put responsibility on the criminal who actively committed multiple felonies and was terrorizing the community. @@bigyoshi4696
You're talking about the pig, I'm assuming.
Brian shouldn't have been a maniac dangerous driver trying to run over anyone in his path... He will not be (RUNNING or WALKING) from the police anymore...
😮 they have courts and a crooket justice system for that wrong doing but not MURDER (any human shot in back while running away is murdered) especially a person who is fully trained 👎👎👎 BS
He was clearly a danger to the public. What's the issue here?
The officer was in "fear for his life" as the suspect ran away from him. Back the thin blue line.
His girlfriend losing the baby even if from stress is on him and not the cops. Don't go along for a joyride and evasion with your criminal boyfriend if you're worried about your baby.
Yeah she needs to blame her boyfriend for doing a bunch of crap that caused her to stress out. Legit
She probably lost it when he rammed into that truck and trailer. Or when he jumped out leaving the car in gear to continue to roll with her in. He caused all of this and should be in prison.
The reporter clearly said She was in the home, she was not in any car, No joyride here
So does that mean cops who on the Brady list should be treated the same. Stop the threat before they hurt anyone more citizens right?
Welp, he was a danger during the run not just running.
Willful ignorance or indoctrination?
It's sad when you have know intelligence to interpret What is truth and what is wrong
your moral Compass....
How when he was not charged for any crime prior to this. They did not charge him with the officers shooting earlier because they didn’t have the evidence against him😊
So you idiots would be ok with him taking off on the motorcycle and possibly killing someone? He showed earlier that he had no regard for anyone else when he rammed the car into the other vehicles. What if they had a newborn and the car being slammed into caused the baby injury or killed it? Why take the risk? It's on him. He ran, and he assaulted people with 2000+ pounds of metal. He kept running. The cops didn't make him do that. Stop taking up for criminals.
@@Mexican_Marauder"Possibly" and "what if" aren't lawful things for police to shoot at somebody. If they are, police could shoot everyone without consequences, because we all could possibly kill someone one day and what if we one day murder someone. You see now how stupid you reasons are and how they can't stand at any court? Police can't go with possibilities and what if, they must go with FACTS and EVIDENCES. That's why this suspect was never charged, because if any criminal judge saw this video at criminal court, he/she would dissmis charges, because there was no reason for shooting him. Police is allowed to shoot someone only if suspect is immediate deadly threat to them or to public. At point of this shooting, suspect was fleeing, he was removing himself from the police and there was nobody else around him so he wasn't threat to anyone at that point. Period. That's a FACT and Video is EVIDENCE of that. He was shooting because he didn't want to chase him anymore. Only idiot here is you, because you don't know basics of law, just like this cop. And please try not to deepthroat whole boot.
What if this guy had just broke into your house and you shot him fleeing?
What would happen to us the regular citizen?
We probably would have ended up in jail
Would it be justified?
The guy was out of control. What if we give people extra long sentences for running.
Well HE ain't runnin anywhere. Not anymore lol.
they do its called "felony evading" and would be an extra charge on top of all the others and would have added years to his sentence if convicted of it
The only thing you get years for anymore in the U.S. are supporting the "America First" agenda.
Something about fleeing felons.
Looks like Mendoza is gonna need a new roll model. Roll model.
😄
😅
😂
So they are supposed to just let him ride off on the bike??? WTF is wrong with these people?
Is anyone surprised when a DA puts their thumb on the Scale of Justice to protect one of their fellow LE brethren from accountability?
not i
Happens every day.
Why do people defend the Criminal? He is breaking the law and we don’t need that in our world!
Very easy don't steal and never would of happened
Cop should have never fired his gun. The other cop who was on foot at the scene and closer than every other cop never ever fired or attempted to fire his weapon. This cop should be charged n place before the federal judge.
Mendoza wont be stealing anymore vehicles either way.
Gotta love how all the charges are dropped! Guess who’s gonna pay?!?! Clue: they’re less than 5 years old!😢
I must have missed that part! Where does it say all the charges were dropped?
@@adamellis6785 4:25 He was never charged.
@@TheEMC99- Thank you for that, but if you go back about ten seconds from there, it's clear that the reporter is saying he was never charged in the shooting of an off-duty police officer that occurred about a year earlier.
Who is less than 5 years old.
I get it AND does Mendoza have any culpability in this deal? His behavior put others in danger that’s for sure
Check out Tennessee vs Garner seems to be unjustified
@@AliMansoor-pk7rx 🤷♂️
Why would the prosecutor say that is lawful?
Because they put their thumb on the scales of justice to protect cops. It happens on a daily basis because the idea "nobody is above the law" is a myth. Cops are almost always above the law.
So the police is now judge, jury and persecutioner, he committed crimes yes but your job is to ketch the criminal not to kill them if your life is not in immediate danger
Conclusion: if police aims guns at you, stop and put your hands up. Seems like some people lack their common sense though.
Oh well, don't run from the police. 😅😂
Willful ignorance or indoctrination?
Evasion is not a crime punishable by death.
Scandalous,what's totally annoying is that they know who geis and where he lives,just outrageous.
Don't ever run from the police, then mistakes like this will not happen.
So a gang is chasing you and you wouldn’t run they catch up and you still get it the worse thing is that this gang can hurt or kill you without repercussions unless your husband is a cop then kind of biased do you think
If a civilian does this going forward, do they get a pass?
And just think, if the guy had not done all of the illegal things he did in the first place, he would have never been shot! What a concept I know, but I’ve been pulled over several times by law enforcement and not once did I run and not once was I ever shot at! Amazing I know, but it’s the truth.
How many armed carjackings has this guy allegedly committed? Dude was a clear and present danger to the community.
In the old west a backshooter IS the worst offense
He was labeled a coward and treated so by the whole town. That reputation followed him his whole life, even if the shooter was a lawman.
This looks like an attempted murder to me.
Guess he won’t be stealing cars no more
Now sue that lawyer and his client for stealing citizens cars and making them lose money by not having transportation as-well .
Another ignoramus 😂😂😂he didnt commit any crimes you fool its all speculation and hear say there was no proof whats so ever he committed any crimes you not know how to comprehend 😂😂😂😂
😂....you might want to research that before you speak. 😂
Oh ya...they could easily be sued...but, you can't squeeze blood out of a turnip.
Dear Fox 13 Seattle. It's not WHERE you shoot someone (e.g. in the back) it's WHY. An officer may shoot a fleeing felon if the need to stop them and protect the public outweighs NOT shooting them. It seems the crux of this case depends solely on this, and it's not perfectly clear if this is the case or not. One thing I am concerned about is the need for a news channel to prominently display that a deputy shot someone in the back, to generate clicks on their channel.
There was no need for him to fire, as his superiors didn’t, and told him to stop
It is also where. Theres no way you can sit here and pretend that "he was shot in the back as he fled" isn't going to be addressed in the case. The fact that he was shoot in the back means he wasnt an active threat to the officer, they then have to prove hes a danger to others, which depends on what ifs.
This officer had little reason to discharge his firearm and it's gonna cost you your tax money
@@kavalogue He was an active threat to Civilians and that makes this a Justification for the Shots rather you like it or not
@@Timshot100 He's only an active threat to civilians if they know he's armed at the moment and headed toward those civilians. Given the direction he had taken and the lack of this knowledge makes it pretty clear that they are trying to be creative after the fact to sweep it under the rug.
I get it the public has been fed false information from police departments and the media. But every pd in the US has a policy that says you can't shoot someone you haven't identified.
The legal standard is called the graham factors. This case doesn't meet them imo and the city will pay millions.
The only thing I needed to see was the cop who was actively following him didn't shoot and was like me asking wtf?
So she is saying the police can be Judge Jury and executioner.
If and when this criminal wins his lawsuit all the people that he perpetrated should sue him. He chose to run he brought this on himself!
Thank goodness Sweeney opened his dumb mouth to a reporter. He said that the shooting wasn’t justified but then he found out that the person “may” have been connected to someone involved in a shooting of an off-duty officer days earlier and now he believes it was justified. He clearly bases his “expert”opinion on feelings and not law. He has now discredited himself from any future testimony he may give. Brilliant.
How old are you? This is why certain folk don't like the cops
I bet you love listening to yourself talk, don’t you?
@@NINJA_INVESTORS back the blue till it happens to you
@@tophercline1 TIll what happens to you? Getting shot in the back after carjacking someone? Guess what, I think I'll be ok.
So when someone changes their mind based on new evidence that is discrediting themselves and not, I don't know, changing their stance based on new evidence? Wild.
Galiano sounds like a lifetime criminal and he could have killed someone droving recklessly. He got shot committing a crime, that's a risk he faced in his chosen line of work. The police were just doing their job.
You wanna play games you get shot multiple times thats your own fault and mistake not the police officers problem
Willful ignorance or indoctrination?
You are nothing more than a poor ignorant who doesn't know what he's talking about.
See if a homeowner shoots someone in the back your going to prison..smh
"I do not want repeat offenders. I want DECEASED offenders." Ted Nugent.
Ted Nugent is a p-do
Right, but what about the Constitution? Why are people so quick to shit on it and everything America stands for? I fought for this country to help preserve people's rights, not so cops can run around executing people. We are either a country of laws, based on the idea of natural rights, which are guaranteed by the US Constitution, or we are not.
Ted Nugent is a very bad example to quote.
@@sandollor Go join the police force buddy
wish Judge Dredd was real@@sandollor
That's why you don't run from Police and threaten other citizens with a vehicle. Did he know if there were people in those vehicles? And now their insurance goes up and vehicles have to be fixed, if they can be. So does the outcome fit the crime??? Shouldn't have run bottom line. Or should police give him another chance to commit an even worse crime? Tangled web.
His partner was looking at him with confusion.
Was he a danger to the officers or the community? He proved he was a danger when he drove dangerously through other vehicles. He was no doubt a danger if he had been allowed to escape!
True, his actions were the whole ordeal, not just moment by moment. I can't stand the armchair idiots who defend a dangerous criminal with ideas that the whole event not be taken into account.
Lol now we gonna call him wheels
I remember seeing this a while ago... Not sure how the guy on a motorcycle was more of a danger to the public/officers than when he was in the car. Shooting in the backyard surrounded by houses is probably the worst place he could have taken a shot.
When it comes to law enforcement shootings we need to ask ourselves, if this wasn't a law enforcement involved shooting & it was a privet citizen, would that citizen be getting arrested & charged with at least assault with a deadly weapon? In WA, the answer is yes he would, so since law enforcement isn't above the law, the officer should be charge accordantly
Is accordingly what you meant to say?
Jason how about doing some research before embarrassing yourself. Cops aren't subject to the same limitations on the use of force as everyone else. The local district attorney confirmed that by not pressing charges, and clearing use of force. I won't respond or read anything else from you so don't try and respond with passive aggressive snide remarks. Next topic.
@@jellylight3358 You really need to go back to school & relearn reading comprehension. Again, if this wasn't a law enforcement shooting situation & it was a citizen involved shooting situation, would that individual be charged with at least assault with a deadly weapon? In WA, the answer to that is yes, there for the officer should be charged accordingly.
So, take your snotty attitude & Shove it.
one man or the public????????// who's more important ?????????????
Maybe Mendoza should stop committing vehicle theft like he's in Grand Theft Auto? Just a thought.
I have to agree with the Deputy, they knew the guy had a gun, he has a previous record and also shot a Deputy in the past. I suppose Mendoza will not be getting into anymore trouble. I'm sure he's thinking about the error of his way!!!
It is never legal to shoot anyone in the back, because if he's running away, he is not a threat. If you notice, the other police officer had his gun out and did NOT shoot. See that? Not only that, there is a warehouse in the distance, and the shot could have killed an innocent.
Actually, you are incorrect in this particular instance.
If a person has just robbed you and is in the process of leaving the scene, then you would be correct.
But this particular person was using his vehicle to hit innocent civilians in an effort to get away. He was now on a motorcycle, which can get to higher speeds in less time, and is basically a knife that can cut into a car at high speed. He was a threat to society and could have easily caused loss of life to a civilian.
Take that and the fact he is known for having a weapon, and the understanding that he is connected to a cop shooting and put it all together. That equals a justified use of force.
So you can believe what you want, but that doesn't mean you are correct. In other words, never say never.
Even the other cop was shook when they guy fired, he didnt even raise his gun fully and lowered when the other pig fired
That other cop looked back at the that cop that shot like what the hell u shooting for
Moral of the story, don’t commit crime, because even a petty crime can get you killed by the cops…
Bryan did it to himself. Bryan is not the arbiter of public Danger, the police are.
No, they aren't lol, the police are law enforcement... LAW enforcement. Which means they are the arbiters of enforcing the laws. Which means they need to also FOLLOW THE FUCKING LAWS.
You can't just shoot people in the back. Judge, jury and executioner is not what police are. They are supposed to take "suspects" into the court to find them guilty. Cops can't just shoot people in the back .
@@sandollorACAB
So you got a bad guy off the streets who has been victimizing people for who knows how long, and now you want to reward him because he got shot in the act of a crime?!?
I wonder how many of his victims think a reward is warranted? I wonder how many future victims were spared because this guy is no longer on the street?
I may not agree with how he was stopped but I agree that he was stopped and there is one less victimized on the streets victimized law abiding citizens!
If you make stupid choices you need to live with the consequences of your action!
An honorable judge would throw this case out!
But we don't have very many honorable judges anymore and even far less prosecutors!
Death penalty for fleeing. Is that in the law books? Clearly this guy needed to be arrested, but it would have just been a matter of time, you can't hide for long in society. I mean they found at where he lived so they were one step away from ID'ing him. The officers were behaving emotionally rather than methodically and rationally, which isn't in the job description.
@mba2ceo So you say that a cop needs to accept responsibility as judge and executioner in a matter of seconds. Luckily cops don't suffer the bias and emotional confusion under stress that yield unfortunate and inappropriate responses that don't hold up under scrutiny later with more information. Whew, life is so simple when you put it like that. Thanks for your wisdom.
FAFO!
Put the lawyer in jail too😳
Sounds like this guy was a one man crime wave.
It's hard to believe this is considered justified. The other cop was just going to let him go. He was driving away. Back the Blue until it happens to you. Speculation rules the day.
I don't plan on running from the Police any time soon, so this will never apply to me.
I agree, other officer was shocked too. It was in the back. I hate criminals, but in the back?
@@Luke_MoonWalker Willful ignorance or indoctrination?
@@steffansmith3601 Neither. There are good cops and bad cops. I'm willing to bet there are a lot more good than bad. Unfortunately, human nature makes the bad stand out. Also, the society we have built requires police. Humans are stacked on top of each other and hoped up on chemicals. Makes them behave irrationally. This man was driving a stolen vehicle recklessly and then attempted to flee on a motorcycle. A vehicle, when used recklessly, becomes a weapon. Police are justified in holding this man, who made poor decisions and broke the law, accountable for his actions. In this case, he got shot. In my mind, it's much better to stop the person by any means necessary than allow them to potentially kill innocent bystanders. Imagine a mother or father gets killed because this dude launches his motorcycle through their front windshield at 140 miles per hour. This cop seems justified in his actions. I've watched a lot of cop videos like this and I will always call out when the cop screws up. This wasn't one of those times.
Why would it happen to me? I follow the law.
Attempted murder without a doubt shooting someone in the back is cowardly and he put any bystanders at risk every time he missed totally unprofessional.
Lawyer: there’s no investigation
Bulletin posted in video before lawyer speaks 😂
So what you're saying is? They had no criminal warrant. And that Law enforcement was taking action based on feelings.
In the FX series "Justified", U.S. Deputy Marshal Raylan Givens shoots a fleeing felon in the back. When he approaches the downed thug and rolls him over, the thug says "You shot me in the back"! Raylin says "If you wanted me to shoot you in the front, you should have been running AT me"...
Are you saying a TV show where the actor got up and walked away, is the same thing?
@@Precious-ex5er I actually feel bad for you, you`re embarrassing yourself.
It's a TV show about a loose cannon, trigger-happy, psycho with a badge. The name is misleading as hell.
@@grantloop9221 Awwwww, did the show trigger you princess?
Justified.
You could see that other cop looking at him like why the hell are you shooting?
Not to mention 3 rounds indiscriminately fired towards homes....
This cop will get away with it .his chief will stand bye him and the ag will put this under the rug.cop should be charged he is a killer .the man may still be alive but the life he lived is dead so yes he is a killer
That was retribution, not justice.
What about the first two bullets ? Did they hit the house. Bad decision to fire wildly like that .
Justified under what legal concept?