Vallejo man tasered, arrested | Napa Valley Register

A Vallejo man was shot with a Taser Sunday after he allegedly resisted police trying to arrest him for spinning “doughnuts” on Highway 29 while intoxicated.

James Rivera Vironchi, 34, was reported as a reckless driver on Highway 29, according to American Canyon police. A caller said he was spinning doughnuts in the center median of the highway in heavy commute traffic at about 6 p.m.

His 1963 Chevy Nova broke down after he slid from the northbound lanes into the southbound lanes, police said.

Officers contacted him and found he was showing signs of being under the influence of alcohol. He refused to cooperate, so police tased him and placed him under arrest, police said.

He was booked at the Napa County Department of Corrections on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol, resisting arrest and driving on a suspended license, all misdemeanors.

Correction: The original headline on this article misstated the reason offices Tasered Vironchi.

21 comment(s)

Baraki wrote on Oct 7, 2009 6:46 AM:

" Bad headline -- dude didn't get tased for spinning donuts. Sounds like he got tased while fighting the po-po... Silly Vallejan. Good thing he was in American Canyon. Do that with Vallejo PD and he might've ended up in the hospital instead of the jail... "

Kathy Concened wrote on Oct 7, 2009 7:05 AM:

" The man was not arrested for spinning doughnuts. The fool was arrested for resisting the Police. Get it straight Register. "

since1976 wrote on Oct 7, 2009 7:22 AM:

" The title of this article is very misleading and suggests negativity toward law enforcement, in my opinion. At the end of the article the real reason for the man being tasered is given. He was tasered because he resisted arrest and it sounds to me like he was creating a dangerous situation for the public. I am not in law enforcement nor is anyone in my family, but I get kind of sick of the spins the Register puts on articles like this. "

JustMyyOpinion wrote on Oct 7, 2009 7:50 AM:

" Unbelievable! Shouldn't there be a charge for destruction of property? Mr. Vironchi, aren't you just a little old for this kind of behavior? "

napa1984 wrote on Oct 7, 2009 7:54 AM:

" Good job PD! I love it when punks get tased! "

old_napan52 wrote on Oct 7, 2009 8:06 AM:

" I'm surprised...I thought cops and doughnuts went together like bees and honey...maybe he should have tried jelly filled...they might not have tased him. "

Raven wrote on Oct 7, 2009 8:30 AM:

" so he was tasered for resisting arrest, not for spinning doughnuts...not quite what the headline says "

Little Lord Fauntleroy wrote on Oct 7, 2009 8:45 AM:

" Time to grow up.. "

JustAnotherManicMonday wrote on Oct 7, 2009 8:59 AM:

" That is pretty funny... but I thought the Chevy Nova came out in 1964? "

amazed wrote on Oct 7, 2009 9:13 AM:

" Will the car be available at Sheriff's auction? "

chunk wrote on Oct 7, 2009 11:54 AM:

" 1964 was when they got a V8 "

calistoga_tony wrote on Oct 7, 2009 2:16 PM:

" Finally some good news. "

IamBobby wrote on Oct 7, 2009 2:33 PM:

" Hilarious! Really! Whew! I enjoyed that little read! And old_napan52... keep 'em coming that was too funny! Jelly donuts! "

reason-ator wrote on Oct 7, 2009 2:40 PM:

" Novas were first built in 1962. Yes, the V8s were first available in 1964, but it's fairly easy to put a V8 in the 63's ( the oilpan needs to be changed, but otherwise most small-block Chevy V8s fit and it is an easy swap ). My guess is that alot of the surviving '63 Novas have V8s now. And V8 Novas run pretty well with alot of power and light weight. "

Lexme2 wrote on Oct 7, 2009 3:32 PM:

" Wow reason-ator, very impressive. I love the "shoebox Nova's"! "

109823 wrote on Oct 7, 2009 3:59 PM:

" reason-ator, your tech post is more interesting than the article. I wonder if James wants to sell his Nova? "

Baraki wrote on Oct 7, 2009 4:33 PM:

" reason-ator, "And V8 Novas run pretty well with alot of power and light weight." High power to weight means they're especially good for spinning donuts! :)

Thank you, NVR, for adjusting the headline! Original headline was "Man Tasered for Spinning Donuts on 29" or something to that effect -- to put earlier comments in context. "

JJtoob wrote on Oct 7, 2009 7:48 PM:

" Nova in spanish sounds like no-go. After it broke down his Nova no va. "

kdbk wrote on Oct 7, 2009 9:49 PM:

" First of all, Novas ARE WEAK! Second of all, well, no, that's it! "

amazed wrote on Oct 8, 2009 9:02 AM:

" Boooooo, kdbk ... had two Novas, and loved 'em both. "

skeptic wrote on Oct 25, 2009 12:28 PM:

" or , the headline could have been "police departments across america promised electro-shock control of population would only be used for self defense", and then gone on to elaborate how it is really used to force "cooperation".
why not state that the person was charged with resisting arrest instead of refusing to cooperate ?
we all have the right to use force in self defense but we don't have the right to shock people who refuse to cooperate with us . or do we ?
i used to think abuse of tasers was rare but now there are people being killed every day by them and many stories proved on you tube about police tasering paralyzed people who refused to cooperate by standing up. one guy was tased 27 times because he refused to stand up after falling from a bridge . he had a compound fracture of the foot and other medical reasons that he couldn't "cooperate".
remember the kid who got tased for asking john kerry about his membership with bush in a secret society ? he posed no physical threat to anyone. he agreed he broke a rule but no law and some applauded .
i'm ignorant of the difference between resisting and failure to cooperate and would appreciate it if one of our knowlegable contributors knows the legal difference . i thought resisting involved physically moving in such a way as to avoid handcuffs being put on , fighting, or threatening an officer's safety. at least they used to teach that to police at napa college.
of course they needed to arrest him , but details such as the immediate threat of physical harm or other details would make the story more clear. "

Join the conversation

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Create an account

Comment Guidelines

The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.

What gets your comment posted?

• Staying on topic

• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less

• Avoiding name-calling

• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger

What gets your comment deleted?

• Personal attacks

• Derogatory remarks

• Name-calling of any sort

• Going off-topic

• Hate speech

• Racially-insensitive comments

• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict

• Posting e-mail addresses

• Posting comments of a commercial nature

• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS

• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.

The fine print

- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.

- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.

- Comments may take several hours to be posted.

- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.

- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.

- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.

Search: