JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
I guess it depends on if you look at this as one incident: He threw rocks so deadly force was justified. Or as three separate interactions: 1) Antonio Zambrano failed to comply with commands and throws rocks at the first two officers who attempt to taze him, an appropriate use of force. 2) The third officer shows up as Zambrano keeps throwing rocks. The third officer goes right to a lethal response by firing 3-4 shots causing Zambrano to stop throwing rocks and the second officer off camera fires once or twice as Zambrano is running away. Yes, justified.

I think this is where we disagree. Antonio Zambrano had ended his attack, had been hit with one or more bullets and retreated across five lanes of traffic. In the various videos additional police cars can be seen approaching from the north on 10th and the west on Lewis. The three officers run across Lewis Street to capture him, which they should since a crazy person throwing rocks is a danger to the community, however Zambrano had ended his attack and now in my opinion the three officers have lost the ability to claim self defense against the one fleeing suspect. Zambrano slows down and they have him contained as it looks like he is turning to surrender. 3) The three officers fire 12-14 shots into him. They did not have to start shooting him the second time. The only thing that saves the cop's bacon is the independent video analysis by KEPR showing a possible rock being dropped from Zambrano's hand.

<broken link removed>

Add in the benefit of doubt due to adrenaline, tunnel vision and as some of you have stated he was just a POS illegal, and you get no charges filed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner

I'm not up to date on the ORS, but you can generally shoot a fleeing violent felon in America. Once public safety gets thrown in the mix, the whole recipe changes. Police are allowed to go on the offensive, at that point, and shots to the back are A-OK to stop a lunatic from escaping and harming more/other people.
 
Here's the ORS (just FYI):

161.239 Use of deadly physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape. (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.235, a peace officer may use deadly physical force only when the peace officer reasonably believes that:

(a) The crime committed by the person was a felony or an attempt to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or

(b) The crime committed by the person was kidnapping, arson, escape in the first degree, burglary in the first degree or any attempt to commit such a crime; or

(c) Regardless of the particular offense which is the subject of the arrest or attempted escape, the use of deadly physical force is necessary to defend the peace officer or another person from the use or threatened imminent use of deadly physical force; or

(d) The crime committed by the person was a felony or an attempt to commit a felony and under the totality of the circumstances existing at the time and place, the use of such force is necessary; or

(e) The officer's life or personal safety is endangered in the particular circumstances involved.

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section constitutes justification for reckless or criminally negligent conduct by a peace officer amounting to an offense against or with respect to innocent persons whom the peace officer is not seeking to arrest or retain in custody. [1971 c.743 §28]

And here's the RCW (which applies in this case):

RCW 9A.16.040
Justifiable homicide or use of deadly force by public officer, peace officer, person aiding.
(1) Homicide or the use of deadly force is justifiable in the following cases:

(a) When a public officer is acting in obedience to the judgment of a competent court; or

(b) When necessarily used by a peace officer to overcome actual resistance to the execution of the legal process, mandate, or order of a court or officer, or in the discharge of a legal duty.

(c) When necessarily used by a peace officer or person acting under the officer's command and in the officer's aid:

(i) To arrest or apprehend a person who the officer reasonably believes has committed, has attempted to commit, is committing, or is attempting to commit a felony;

(ii) To prevent the escape of a person from a federal or state correctional facility or in retaking a person who escapes from such a facility; or

(iii) To prevent the escape of a person from a county or city jail or holding facility if the person has been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of a felony; or

(iv) To lawfully suppress a riot if the actor or another participant is armed with a deadly weapon.

(2) In considering whether to use deadly force under subsection (1)(c) of this section, to arrest or apprehend any person for the commission of any crime, the peace officer must have probable cause to believe that the suspect, if not apprehended, poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer or a threat of serious physical harm to others. Among the circumstances which may be considered by peace officers as a "threat of serious physical harm" are the following:

(a) The suspect threatens a peace officer with a weapon or displays a weapon in a manner that could reasonably be construed as threatening; or

(b) There is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed any crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm.

Under these circumstances deadly force may also be used if necessary to prevent escape from the officer, where, if feasible, some warning is given.

(3) A public officer or peace officer shall not be held criminally liable for using deadly force without malice and with a good faith belief that such act is justifiable pursuant to this section.

(4) This section shall not be construed as:

(a) Affecting the permissible use of force by a person acting under the authority of RCW 9A.16.020 or 9A.16.050; or

(b) Preventing a law enforcement agency from adopting standards pertaining to its use of deadly force that are more restrictive than this section.


[1986 c 209 § 2; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.16.040.]
 
Plenty of arguments can and have been made that police not only are allowed to shoot fleeing violent felons, but in fact have a DUTY to do so, to protect the public. 'Course, thanks to SCOTUS, it's only an ethical duty, not a legal one.
 
One officer recognized that this was a 5150 "suicide by cop" situation, the other went right to deadly force then continued it once the threat was no longer imminent.

The "fleeing felon" argument does not hold water, because as I stated before where is he going to go? Three able bodied cops gaining on one wounded crazy person. A police car coming in the direction he was fleeing, and another police car on a perpendicular road behind him.

Of course none of this would have happened if he was deported after his first arrest.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top