Agthatbuilds said:

---

BrazosDog02 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

I'd say you don't tase unless a threat, but I don't really know the law.

---

Don't feel bad. The cops don't know the law either. This cop made a really bad decision and while the suspect wasn't making any better decisions, I hope the officer is removed from duty. That kind of poor 'quick thinking' is what gets good people killed as well.

---

Good to know you think one must only run to avoid a cop

---

I knew on old Ag who was a farmer. One day in the 1960s when he was out driving a tractor while wearing a big straw hat and well tanned from all the sun, the Border Patrol pulled up. So he stopped the tractor, jumped off, and ran into the corn near where he was plowing.

The Border Patrol chased him down. When they caught him, they saw that he wasn't from Mexico and demanded to know why he ran. His answer was that it was his farm and he could run any time he wanted.

The local farmers didn't think too highly of the Border Patrol because it seemed that all they wanted to do is haul some of their best farm workers off and dump then across the border.

Okay

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Quote:

---

A taser isn't deadly force,

---

A tazer isn't deadly force,

but use of a tazer on a suspect in the main lanes of I-25 at night when the tazee is at risk of being run over by oncoming traffic at rises to the level of deadly force.

Also it looked like the traffic stop occurred on the service road and the suspect jumped the jersey barrier and ran into the main lanes of traffic at night.

So while use of non-deadly force was appropriate to effect a lawful arrest during the initial traffic stop, giving pursuit and tazing the suspect in the main lanes of I-25 was not.

The officers life wasn't in danger by a fleeing suspect and there was no imminent risk to the public because this incident occurred on a remote stretch of interstate.

---

If the criminal hoodrat didn't want ro get tased in the middle of I-25 at night, than he should not have ran there in evasion of his crimes against the public. What a concept.

---

But thats also the type of administration of justice that led to the burning of cities in 1992 and again in 2020.

---

There was next to no administration of justice during the 2020 summer of love. This guy had a badge. The rioters were not the same. Please clarify your point.

---

This is a Catherine O'Leary cir. 1871 situation.

Clarification is that excessive use of force by police initiated massive riots in 1992 and again in 2020.

Trigger06 said:

---

I mostly feel bad for the driver that ran him over.

---

Yep

His alignment is definitely off kilter now.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

You're not the only one. Very weird. I can't imagine myself not being able to avoid running that guy over at full speed from that far out. They had to have been distracted or impaired.

---

Heavens you are insane. Suppose you can stop in fifty feet? At 50 to 70 MPH?

Not the cop's fault under the law.

You want to change the law? talk to SCOTUS.

---

"Fifty feet"??? LOLOL

And I actually commend the cop btw.

Obey the law. Don't run from the law. Consequences, good or bad, nothing us.

AlabamaAg2010 said:

---

I'm a cop and that was a bad tase. You're responsible for that person when they are immobile. He should not have done that.

---

What case law are you looking at?

This isn't a guy standing on the edge of a dock, or a bridge, when the cop walks up. This is a dynamic situation in which the suspect took off. When the cop caught up with him, he was on the ground, got up and entered the roadway in less than one second ie. a split second. Those terms should sound familiar to you just like the fact that using the benefit of 20/20 hindsight is not objective.

Cops actions were well within the range of reasonableness. They didn't need to be perfect.


edit to add: from the investigation...

When interviewed later, Lujan said it was his intention to prevent Thompson from entering I-25 because that posed a risk to Thompson and others on the highway.

Data from Lujan's Taser showed the trigger was activated just before Thompson ran onto the interstate and was active until 0.6 seconds before the vehicle hit Thompson.

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

You're not the only one. Very weird. I can't imagine myself not being able to avoid running that guy over at full speed from that far out. They had to have been distracted or impaired.

---

Heavens you are insane. Suppose you can stop in fifty feet? At 50 to 70 MPH?

Not the cop's fault under the law.

You want to change the law? talk to SCOTUS.

---

"Fifty feet"??? LOLOL

And I actually commend the cop btw.

---

Dude was at least an eighth of a mile out if not more. And there she goes again chastising people for things they didn't say or even imply.

Critical Incident Briefing. DA's Use of Force Review, including all the investigation findings, are linked in the 2nd paragraph.

https://www.larimer.gov/spotlights/2023/07/26/critical-incident-briefing-february-18-cirt-case

As I previously stated, fentanyl is a helluva drug.

...and nothing of value was lost. You don't make those decisions with the intention of a long life of good citizenship. Remember when people actually advocated for being contributing members of society instead of made excuses for drug addicts

Ags4DaWin said:

---

BBRex said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

This thread shoudl be done.

Cop did not employ deadly force. Perp died not as a result of the cop's actions.

Does not come close to Graham v. Connor standards for unlawful use of force.

Back when the law for police actually applied. Since Chauvin, the SCOTUS rules apparently do not.

---

Agree on the tasing not being deadly force, but numerous posters are claiming that a fleeing perp is a threat and deadly force can be used to stop him. They claim, for example, he could have been shot and killed simply running away through the field.

That's simply not true.

---

You hadn't even paid enough attention to hear the cop say "you're under arrest."

I doubt you paid attention enough to actually get a feel for what posters on here are actually advocating for.

---

I paid attention to the incorrect nonsense you posted on page one.

---

If you can't see how placing a higher value on criminals' safety than the safety and well being of the general public places citizens in danger and hurts them and society then there is no reasoning with you.

---

The problem is that the officer's actions did put the public at risk. You can't make a blanket statement about what to do when the suspect runs. In this case, the perpetrator would have made it safely to the other side of that section of road without the officer's intervention. If he had waited to tase the guy after he crosses the road, then this is a completely different conversation.

---

Ahhh so you're arguing that if the officers had asked nicely the fleeing suspect would have exited the road and waited patiently on the other side for his arrest......

Ya know....just like the perp did when the officer had attempted to arrest him while the perp was standing beside his vehicle before he fled the first time.

Sounds totally legit.

Your logic is unassailable.

---

Of course not. Maybe if he hadn't tasted the guy then, he would have gotten away. But, in this case, there weren't many places for him to go. And tasing him where he did at night led to a predictable outcome. Sometimes you play the percentages for the greater public safety.

In my wife's hometown, some deputy took a high-speed chase through town, lost control of his car, and crashed into a monument in front of the courthouse. If it hadn't happened at night, he could have killed a few people. Maybe the smartest course of action was to slow down a bit through town.

BBRex said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

BBRex said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

This thread shoudl be done.

Cop did not employ deadly force. Perp died not as a result of the cop's actions.

Does not come close to Graham v. Connor standards for unlawful use of force.

Back when the law for police actually applied. Since Chauvin, the SCOTUS rules apparently do not.

---

Agree on the tasing not being deadly force, but numerous posters are claiming that a fleeing perp is a threat and deadly force can be used to stop him. They claim, for example, he could have been shot and killed simply running away through the field.

That's simply not true.

---

You hadn't even paid enough attention to hear the cop say "you're under arrest."

I doubt you paid attention enough to actually get a feel for what posters on here are actually advocating for.

---

I paid attention to the incorrect nonsense you posted on page one.

---

If you can't see how placing a higher value on criminals' safety than the safety and well being of the general public places citizens in danger and hurts them and society then there is no reasoning with you.

---

The problem is that the officer's actions did put the public at risk. You can't make a blanket statement about what to do when the suspect runs. In this case, the perpetrator would have made it safely to the other side of that section of road without the officer's intervention. If he had waited to tase the guy after he crosses the road, then this is a completely different conversation.

---

Ahhh so you're arguing that if the officers had asked nicely the fleeing suspect would have exited the road and waited patiently on the other side for his arrest......

Ya know....just like the perp did when the officer had attempted to arrest him while the perp was standing beside his vehicle before he fled the first time.

Sounds totally legit.

Your logic is unassailable.

---

Of course not. Maybe if he hadn't tasted the guy then, he would have gotten away. But, in this case, there weren't many places for him to go. And tasing him where he did at night led to a predictable outcome. Sometimes you play the percentages for the greater public safety.

In my wife's hometown, some deputy took a high-speed chase through town, lost control of his car, and crashed into a monument in front of the courthouse. If it hadn't happened at night, he could have killed a few people. Maybe the smartest course of action was to slow down a bit through town.

---

No blame for the criminal driving at high speeds, only the officer trying to stop them. Sounds like more excuses for law breakers.

hard to imagine that is the guys last words- and now he is dead.

over what?

the stupidity of the young generation is literally astounding.

100 years ago the Americans in 1923 were more intelligent and wise about the reality of the actual world around them than they are today

GeographyAg said:

---

A criminal running into traffic is a threat to public safety.

Plus, apparently, to his own safety.

It's too bad the cop wasn't able to tase him while he was on the grass, but I say, "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes."

---

exactly - the cop was trying to get him to stop for 50 yards before they got to the barrier at the highway which slowed the dead guy down

I would imagine that the reason they stopped him was a false name because he had a warrant for his arrest.

LMCane said:

---

hard to imagine that is the guys last words- and now he is dead.

over what?

the stupidity of the young generation is literally astounding.

100 years ago the Americans in 1923 were more intelligent and wise about the reality of the actual world around them than they are today

---

Excellent take. People 100 years ago were intelligent and wise as evidenced by this picture from Yosemite in the early 1900's.

Follow MCCane for more wise assessments on generational wisdom & intelligence.

This has Scott v Harris written all over it.

Decay said:

---

BBRex said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

BBRex said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

This thread shoudl be done.

Cop did not employ deadly force. Perp died not as a result of the cop's actions.

Does not come close to Graham v. Connor standards for unlawful use of force.

Back when the law for police actually applied. Since Chauvin, the SCOTUS rules apparently do not.

---

Agree on the tasing not being deadly force, but numerous posters are claiming that a fleeing perp is a threat and deadly force can be used to stop him. They claim, for example, he could have been shot and killed simply running away through the field.

That's simply not true.

---

You hadn't even paid enough attention to hear the cop say "you're under arrest."

I doubt you paid attention enough to actually get a feel for what posters on here are actually advocating for.

---

I paid attention to the incorrect nonsense you posted on page one.

---

If you can't see how placing a higher value on criminals' safety than the safety and well being of the general public places citizens in danger and hurts them and society then there is no reasoning with you.

---

The problem is that the officer's actions did put the public at risk. You can't make a blanket statement about what to do when the suspect runs. In this case, the perpetrator would have made it safely to the other side of that section of road without the officer's intervention. If he had waited to tase the guy after he crosses the road, then this is a completely different conversation.

---

Ahhh so you're arguing that if the officers had asked nicely the fleeing suspect would have exited the road and waited patiently on the other side for his arrest......

Ya know....just like the perp did when the officer had attempted to arrest him while the perp was standing beside his vehicle before he fled the first time.

Sounds totally legit.

Your logic is unassailable.

---

Of course not. Maybe if he hadn't tasted the guy then, he would have gotten away. But, in this case, there weren't many places for him to go. And tasing him where he did at night led to a predictable outcome. Sometimes you play the percentages for the greater public safety.

In my wife's hometown, some deputy took a high-speed chase through town, lost control of his car, and crashed into a monument in front of the courthouse. If it hadn't happened at night, he could have killed a few people. Maybe the smartest course of action was to slow down a bit through town.

---

No blame for the criminal driving at high speeds, only the officer trying to stop them. Sounds like more excuses for law breakers.

---

Nobody is excusing the criminal of anything. But the criminal already broke the law, proving his decision-making is suspect. And we aren't paying criminals, but we are paying cops from taxpayer dollars, so I think it is fair to have at least some expectations of them.

BBRex said:

---

Nobody is excusing the criminal of anything. But the criminal already broke the law, proving his decision-making is suspect. And we aren't paying criminals, but we are paying cops from taxpayer dollars, so I think it is fair to have at least some expectations of them.

---

The cop saved lives by stopping the perp from harming others. Pin a medal on him.

Quote:

---

The suspect, identified as Brent Thompson, then ran from deputies toward the interstate. A Taser was deployed in an effort to stop him from endangering innocent motorists; unfortunately, Mr. Thompson was struck by a passing vehicle. Despite lifesaving efforts by deputies and EMS personnel, he was pronounced deceased at the hospital.

---

Play stupid games and all but hard to justify tasing someone running away without extenuating circumstances. One of things you're trained on regarding tasing are the surrounding conditions have to be taken into account. If someone is standing at the top of the stairs, tasing could be deadly force.
Hard to see completely when the guy stopped shortly before he started running again and was tased, if he was trying to get a weapon. Maybe the officer saw that.

Logos Stick said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

I'd say you don't tase unless a threat, but I don't really know the law.

---

Hedge with another dumb take.

---

How is my take dumb? I'm not hedge.

---

Sea Speed said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

You're not the only one. Very weird. I can't imagine myself not being able to avoid running that guy over at full speed from that far out. They had to have been distracted or impaired.

---

Heavens you are insane. Suppose you can stop in fifty feet? At 50 to 70 MPH?

Not the cop's fault under the law.

You want to change the law? talk to SCOTUS.

---

"Fifty feet"??? LOLOL

And I actually commend the cop btw.

---

Dude was at least an eighth of a mile out if not more. And there she goes again chastising people for things they didn't say or even imply.

---

Exactly, maybe more. 70 mph is over 100 ft per second. Cop is on the highway waving flash light around for like 8 seconds before the vehicle makes it to them. But even at just a few hundred yards, you should have plenty of time to stop or at least slow down enough to maneuver around.

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

Sea Speed said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

You're not the only one. Very weird. I can't imagine myself not being able to avoid running that guy over at full speed from that far out. They had to have been distracted or impaired.

---

Heavens you are insane. Suppose you can stop in fifty feet? At 50 to 70 MPH?

Not the cop's fault under the law.

You want to change the law? talk to SCOTUS.

---

"Fifty feet"??? LOLOL

And I actually commend the cop btw.

---

Dude was at least an eighth of a mile out if not more. And there she goes again chastising people for things they didn't say or even imply.

---

Exactly, maybe more. 70 mph is over 100 ft per second. Cop is on the highway waving flash light around for like 8 seconds before the vehicle makes it to them. But even at just a few hundred yards, you should have plenty of time to stop or at least slow down enough to maneuver around.

---

Driver who ran the body over did nothing wrong. It was under 5 seconds, dark, with oncoming lights and also pretty blue and red flashy lights off to the right side of the road.

The right course of action for the driver is to continue in a straight path if the object cannot be avoided. If he had swerved, 50/50 they kill the perp and 2 officers and potentially lose control and cause more issues.

Impossibly dumb takes on this thread are impossibly dumb. Congrats.

fka ftc said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

Sea Speed said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

You're not the only one. Very weird. I can't imagine myself not being able to avoid running that guy over at full speed from that far out. They had to have been distracted or impaired.

---

Heavens you are insane. Suppose you can stop in fifty feet? At 50 to 70 MPH?

Not the cop's fault under the law.

You want to change the law? talk to SCOTUS.

---

"Fifty feet"??? LOLOL

And I actually commend the cop btw.

---

Dude was at least an eighth of a mile out if not more. And there she goes again chastising people for things they didn't say or even imply.

---

Exactly, maybe more. 70 mph is over 100 ft per second. Cop is on the highway waving flash light around for like 8 seconds before the vehicle makes it to them. But even at just a few hundred yards, you should have plenty of time to stop or at least slow down enough to maneuver around.

---

Driver who ran the body over did nothing wrong. It was under 5 seconds, dark, with oncoming lights and also pretty blue and red flashy lights off to the right side of the road.

The right course of action for the driver is to continue in a straight path if the object cannot be avoided. If he had swerved, 50/50 they kill the perp and 2 officers and potentially lose control and cause more issues.

Impossibly dumb takes on this thread are impossibly dumb. Congrats.

---

The dumbest take on this entire thread is that they only had 50 ft to stop, which is what I was responding to. I am not saying they did nothing wrong, they probably just weren't paying full attention.

So what happens if the cop didn't' tase him, let him run into the street, and then oncoming traffic hit him anyway, causing an accident that could result in injury or death for the innocent motorist? People would be asking why they didn't get him before he made it to the highway.

It's the perp's fault. Almost always is. It isn't hard to have a legal license and obey.

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

Sea Speed said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

You're not the only one. Very weird. I can't imagine myself not being able to avoid running that guy over at full speed from that far out. They had to have been distracted or impaired.

---

Heavens you are insane. Suppose you can stop in fifty feet? At 50 to 70 MPH?

Not the cop's fault under the law.

You want to change the law? talk to SCOTUS.

---

"Fifty feet"??? LOLOL

And I actually commend the cop btw.

---

Dude was at least an eighth of a mile out if not more. And there she goes again chastising people for things they didn't say or even imply.

---

Exactly, maybe more. 70 mph is over 100 ft per second. Cop is on the highway waving flash light around for like 8 seconds before the vehicle makes it to them. But even at just a few hundred yards, you should have plenty of time to stop or at least slow down enough to maneuver around.

---

Driver who ran the body over did nothing wrong. It was under 5 seconds, dark, with oncoming lights and also pretty blue and red flashy lights off to the right side of the road.

The right course of action for the driver is to continue in a straight path if the object cannot be avoided. If he had swerved, 50/50 they kill the perp and 2 officers and potentially lose control and cause more issues.

Impossibly dumb takes on this thread are impossibly dumb. Congrats.

---

The dumbest take on this entire thread is that they only had 50 ft to stop, which is what I was responding to. I am not saying they did nothing wrong, they probably just weren't paying full attention.

---

Exactly. The facts are that they had a fair amount if room to stop. They didn't. That is the end of the discussion. There was no assignment of blame implied or otherwise. People still getting up in arms over arguments not made.

Who will pay for the damage to the car? Will the owner owe his deductible?

Good thing he's White, so there won't be any riots over this incident.

Sea Speed said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

The dumbest take on this entire thread is that they only had 50 ft to stop, which is what I was responding to. I am not saying they did nothing wrong, they probably just weren't paying full attention.

---

Exactly. The facts are that they had a fair amount if room to stop. They didn't. That is the end of the discussion. There was no assignment of blame implied or otherwise. People still getting up in arms over arguments not made.

---

So we are not assigning any blame to the driver just criticizing from the Monday morning armchair that they had room / time to stop and avoid hitting the perp laying in the road.

There are plenty of reasonable, rationale explanations for the car not stopping or braking sooner. I imagine the driver was interviewed and questioned.

And to focus on a random "50ft" comment seems equally bizarre, particularly when people spout misinformation about how many seconds there was to react to the body in road (hint: its a bit less than 5) and whether the suspect was fleeing arrest (hint: he was under arrest the moment the officer told him such).

THE 50 FEET IS THE ENTIRE REASON FOR THE COMMENT SO OF COURSE THAT IS WHAT WE FOCUS ON. Jfc. That lady belittled others for their comments when what she says has no basis in reality anyways. At 5 seconds and 70 mph that is over 500 feet. 10 times what she was claiming the stopping distance was. Then she loves to bash people for arguments they didn't make. BCC never mentioned the cop and she goes off about going to Supreme Court. She was probably more impaired than the driver. That is the entire reason for my post and I dont care to get in some further lissing match with you over it.

Sea Speed said:

---

THE 50 FEET IS THE ENTIRE REASON FOR THE COMMENT SO OF COURSE THAT IS WHAT WE FOCUS ON. Jfc. That lady belittled others for their comments when what she says has no basis in reality anyways. At 5 seconds and 70 mph that is over 500 feet. 10 times what she was claiming the stopping distance was. Then she loves to bash people for arguments they didn't make. BCC never mentioned the cop and she goes off about going to Supreme Court. She was probably more impaired than the driver. That is the entire reason for my post and I dont care to get in some further lissing match with you over it.

---

I think you mistook what she was saying for whatever bizarre reason, but Hawg is more than capable of defending herself.

In the meantime...

I dont think I mistook anything. She has a habit of going on these weird rants at night and accuses others of making arguments they aren't making. It has happened time and again and often times staff cleans it up by the morning. It would be funny if it wasn't so absurd. The fact that staff regularly cleans it up kind of disproves your point though.

Sea Speed said:

---

I dont think I mistook anything. She has a habit of going on these weird rants at night and accuses others of making arguments they aren't making. It has happened time and again and often times staff cleans it up by the morning. It would be funny if it wasn't so absurd. The fact that staff regularly cleans it up kind of disproves your point though.

---

And if you even wonder if she could possibly be one of Barnes' socks..



But you can make this claim about just about any other poster with impunity.

She's averaged over 26 posts/day for 13 years. Hard to imagine thats a sock account. But I'll admit Barnes was before my time. Still funny.

Why did the criminal cross the road?

He didn't, he got tased and run over.

This is a perfect example of how democrats use to lead our nation...... unintentional consequences. Today however, it isn't such a good example.