|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
AZ: Videos show Arizona police cruiser ramming armed robbery suspect
Submitted by:
Anonymous
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"Dashcam videos released Tuesday show an Arizona police officer using his cruiser to slam into an armed robbery suspect who was walking down a street while holding a rifle and firing it in the air."
"Police in Marana, Ariz., a suburb of Phoenix, are defending the officer's action, saying the suspect was a danger to himself and others. But the suspect's lawyer is arguing police used excessive force, reports CNN."
"'Everything in the video seems to point toward an obvious excessive use of force. It is miraculous that my client isn't dead,' lawyer Michelle Cohen-Metzger said." ...
-------
Editor's Note: I suppose the lawyer would have preferred it if the officer had just shot him? |
| Comment by:
kangpc
(4/15/2015)
|
Excellent police work!
Give that officer an extra week of paid vacation. |
| Comment by:
Mike the Limey
(4/15/2015)
|
Good drills that cop.
Plenty of alternative actions could have ended worse, either for the armed felon or some poor cop who got shot whilst trying to talk the guy into giving himself up.
The guy should be thankful he isn't in the morgue with multiple gunshot holes. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
