[dcmacdaddy]

The title says it all. Under what circumstances do you think lethal force is and is not acceptable for law enforcement officers carrying out their duties?

(Thanks to Zimphy for suggesting this thread.)

[Tomchu]

I just read the thread about the teen idiots, and I'm with you 100% on it. Everyone else is being an apologist.

I have a friend whose dad is an RCMP officer, and he says that the moment an officer's life is put in danger by someone else, he is authorized to do anything within his power to try to alleviate that situation. Consider the following perspective: If the idiot driver was willing to run over the police officer, he would have been willing to run a red light, and willing to run any other pedestrian over. The decision to shoot into the car was the correct one, because there is no telling how many other lives could have been lost that night.

That's the assumption that is made by a police officer when situations like these arise.

[hickey]

when the officers life is threatened due to the suspect.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Tomchu

I just read the thread about the teen idiots, and I'm with you 100% on it. Everyone else is being an apologist.

I have a friend whose dad is an RCMP officer, and he says that the moment an officer's life is put in danger by someone else, he is authorized to do anything within his power to try to alleviate that situation. Consider the following perspective: If the idiot driver was willing to run over the police officer, he would have been willing to run a red light, and willing to run any other pedestrian over. The decision to shoot into the car was the correct one, because there is no telling how many other lives could have been lost that night.

That's the assumption that is made by a police officer when situations like these arise.

Yeah, I know a number of people in law enforcement. Everyone of them I have ever asked have said essentially the same thing: The gun doesn't come out unless you think a life is in danger are ready and willing to use it to kill someone to protect that life, whether it be your own or someone else's life.

A buddy of mine who moved away was a US Park Police officer here in DC. He was a few seconds away from shooting a teenage kid who had a gun pointed at another Park Police officer when the kids gun jammed and he immediately threw it down. He was ready to shoot that kid too. But that scenario had him freaked out for weeks afterwards, knowing he was going to shoot a kid--had to shoot a kid--to do his job.

Sure, there are plenty of bad cops out there--especially on the DC police force--but there are far more good cops. And we ask them all, good and bad, to be in these horrible situations and make these horrible last-second decisions and then complain if we don't like the decision they made.

[Kevin]

Lethal force AKA shooting a gun at someone should only be done when someone else's life is at stake.

In the instance that caused this thread, that was not the case.

You don't kill someone for not paying at the iHop.

[Spliffdaddy]

The officer made a bad decision.

This is apparent because his life was not in danger. If his life HAD been in danger, he would have been hit by the vehicle. Remember, he shot a passenger, not the driver. Obviously, his intent was to disable the driver in order to keep from getting run over by the vehicle. The driver was not shot and yet the vehicle never struck the officer - so the officer made a bad decision. Common logic dictates that shooting the driver was not required in order to prevent injury to the officer. Ironically, had the officer actually shot the individual he was firing at - the driverless vehicle would likely have struck the officer and any number of innocent people in the vicinity.

I also question the intelligence of an officer who puts himself in front of a moving vehicle - endangering his own life - and blaming the circumstance on the driver of the vehicle. How insanely stupid is that? Besides that, the crimes in question were simple misdemeanors (petty theft, simple possession, and DUI) - these were not violent felonies - and the officer was aware of that fact at the time.

There's no possible way the officer in question will avoid losing a civil lawsuit - and there's every reason to believe he will face criminal charges. He was not on-duty and he senselessy killed someone that may or may not have committed a insignificant misdemeanor offense.

I'm willing to donate money to the victim's family in order to help pay for legal fees associated with bringing a wrongful death civil suit against the officer.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Kevin

You don't kill someone for not paying at the iHop.

But you DO kill someone for trying to run down a police officer with a car.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

But you DO kill someone because your stepped right in front of their car.

Fixed to apply to the situation.

They were not aiming for the officer. The officer walked in front of the car. The officer could have stepped out of the way probably more easily than the driver could have stopped, and he definitely could have run away as easily as shot at them.

To directly answer the question: Lethal force is acceptable when any other course would result in death to an innocent party.

[James L]

I can't believe usually intelligent people are still thinking this is:

dine and dash == get shot.

Would these kids have been shot if they had paid their bill? No.

Would they have been shot if they didn't enter the vehicle? No.

Would they have been shot if they simply ran off on foot? No.

The person who died in this incident did not get shot because they stole a meal.

He got shot because the driver of the vehicle apparently attempted to commit vehicular homicide on a police officer.

The officer in turn apparently used a lethal level of force to defend himself.

People are all wrapped up on the comment "the officer stepped in front of the vehicle".

Which, to be fair, we don't even know if that happened or not. If you trust all news articles regarding incidents such as this, there is a bridge in NYC for sale you might also be interested in.

For every person who says the cop could have jumped out of the way, there is someone who says the driver could have stopped the vehicle, or at the least not aimed it at a police officer.

The bottom line is that no one on this forum knows what happened, and are making MASSIVE assumptions based on a news article that may not even be accurate.

...

Innocent before guilty? Isn't that a fundamental principle in the American legal system?

And yet, many have already condemned this officer, with absolutely NO idea of what really happened.

Even more funny is that some of the people that routinely suggest carpet bombing thousands of innocents in foreign lands are all up in arms about the death of this American person.

I wonder if those people even realize how hypocritical they are?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by James L

He got shot because the driver of the vehicle apparently attempted to commit vehicular homicide on a police officer.

The officer in turn apparently used a lethal level of force to defend himself.

Actually, it's pretty apparent the police officer walked in front of a vehicle driven by someone with impaired reactions who was probably already panicked.

Originally Posted by James L

People are all wrapped up on the comment "the officer stepped in front of the vehicle".

Which, to be fair, we don't even know if that happened or not.

Actually, that's what it sounded like even before the article actually said so. Why? Because the boys were clearly trying to escape. It's massively more likely that the police officer ran into the road ahead of them than that he was standing by the building and they decided to ram the wall behind him. All the evidence we have seems to point that way.

Originally Posted by James L

If you trust all news articles regarding incidents such as this, there is a bridge in NYC for sale you might also be interested in.

If you think that's a legitimate argument, I've got one in Frisco for you.

Originally Posted by James L

at the least not aimed it at a police officer.

No evidence I've seen indicates they purposely aimed the car at anyone. At most, they weren't averse to hitting someone in their way, but I've seen no evidence that hitting anyone was their goal. If you have some, please produce it.

Originally Posted by James L

Innocent before guilty? Isn't that a fundamental principle in the American legal system?

Yeah. So you agree he should be put on trial?

Originally Posted by James L

And yet, many have already condemned this officer, with absolutely NO idea of what really happened.

Even more funny is [blah blah ad hominem-cakes]

It's pretty hard to see the situation in a light that doesn't make him look bad. And you certainly seem to be taking a stance on how it looks too — why is the evidence suddenly insufficient when I comment on it?

[Spliffdaddy]

Typical cop.

[James L]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

It's pretty hard to see the situation in a light that doesn't make him look bad. And you certainly seem to be taking a stance on how it looks too — why is the evidence suddenly insufficient when I comment on it?

Actually, if you read my comments in the original thread, and in this one, I have not passed judgement at all. Here are some of my comments in case you missed them:

If the vehicle was departing the parking lot in a direction that did not threaten the officer attempting to stop them, then I fully believe that this was a bad shooting, and the officer should be held liable.

If the vehicle was departing the parking lot in a direction and speed that posed a DIRECT threat to the officer attempting to stop them, then he met force with force to defend himself. This would be a justified shooting. It would not be a case of someone getting shot for stealing a meal... it would be a case of someone getting shot for trying to run over a police officer. If this is the case, the officer had every right to defend himself. If this was the way it played out, you have been watching too much tv to think that you can take down, and recall, a license plate number of a vehicle bearing down directly on you at a high rate of speed.

I won't make judgment based on internet article that offered little in the way of information on what really happened. I wasn't there.

Well, the article is still a little unclear, imho. I am involved often in calls that end up in the media, and rarely are they reported correctly... by a reporter that was not there and is often going on conjecture and third party accounts.

This article, for example, says at one point that the driver, under the influence, tried to run the officer over. It later says that the officer purposely steps in the way. Odds are the truth lies somewhere in between.

He got shot because the driver of the vehicle apparently attempted to commit vehicular homicide on a police officer.

The officer in turn apparently used a lethal level of force to defend himself.

People are all wrapped up on the comment "the officer stepped in front of the vehicle".

Which, to be fair, we don't even know if that happened or not. If you trust all news articles regarding incidents such as this, there is a bridge in NYC for sale you might also be interested in.

For every person who says the cop could have jumped out of the way, there is someone who says the driver could have stopped the vehicle, or at the least not aimed it at a police officer.

The bottom line is that no one on this forum knows what happened, and are making MASSIVE assumptions based on a news article that may not even be accurate.

So no, I am not taking a stance. Quite the contrary, I am doing the exact opposite.

I am saying that we do not know the facts, and therefore it is stupid to condemn the cop for his actions at this point.

I have actually said that repeatedly.

You called the newspaper article "evidence". In my experience, nothing could be further from the truth.

I have worked emergency services for a long time. I have personally been involved with dozens of calls where something happened a certain way, my patients injuries were of a certain type, a patient died or did not die, etc..... only to go home and watch the nightly news report completely wrong information about the event, and then wake up to read the morning paper and see they have done the same.

I have learned, through ample personal experience, that the paper is not evidence.

I am also of the opinion that 99% of the population have absolutely NO idea what the day to day life of a cop is, and that the same 99% could not do the job if they had too.

They enjoy the ability to armchair quarterback what the cops should have, or shouldn't have, done in a situation, all the while making their armchair quarterback comments from the safety of their own home, with the benefit of hindsight.

I will wait to pass judgment. I may never have enough of the real facts to be able to do so. Until I do, I will refrain my condemning a police officer, who gets a shitty paycheck to do a difficult job.

That whole innocent before guilty thing again.

[Spliffdaddy]

Actually, I have quite a lot of first-hand experience with cops. In my estimation, fully three-quarters of them are liars and would probably shoot someone unjustly.

And I'm a reasonable person.

[OreoCookie]

I don't think it's that easy. In addition to `life being at stake' I think it is absolutely necessary that the law enforcement officer has no other choice. For example assume that a police officer is attacked by a suspect with a knife: in this case lethal force is not automatically justified, one could disable the suspect by shooting his shoulder or his leg instead.

This case is different still: the person in question was a police officer, but he was not on duty and working as a security guard. He did not have the same kind of authority than when he was on duty (as a police man). Yes, he should have the right to protect his life, but shooting at a car which runs at him just isn't it. Memorizing the licence plate and calling the police is.

[Millennium]

If the officers have legitimate reason to fear for their lives, or the lives of bystanders, then lethal force should be an option. Not at any other time.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

I don't think it's that easy. In addition to `life being at stake' I think it is absolutely necessary that the law enforcement officer has no other choice. For example assume that a police officer is attacked by a suspect with a knife: in this case lethal force is not automatically justified, one could disable the suspect by shooting his shoulder or his leg instead.

Permanently crippling someone as opposed to killing them could be considered a form of cruel and unusual punishment, though. It certainly wouldn't be allowed as a judicial sentence, even for the gravest of crimes; given that, should officers be trained to do it when there hasn't even been a trial yet?

Also, although I agree with you that the officer should only use lethal force when there is no other choice, I think we have to be careful not to unfairly apply hindsight to that. When a car is coming at you, you typically have less than a second to decide what to do. Given the close quarters, it's perfectly reasonable for the officer to have decided that he didn't have time to get out of the way of the car before it hit him, and he may or may not have been right about that. Should he have simply allowed the car to hit him?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

But you DO kill someone for trying to run down a police officer with a car.

Um he stepped in front of it. He was in the wrong plain and simple. He didn't even try to stop the person of the car he stood in front of.

He doesn't need his badge back.

You only use force when you have NO OTHER CHOICE. The officer had other choices. He just choose poorly.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Kevin

In the instance that caused this thread, that was not the case.

What ist that instance?

[Kevin]

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?t=287125

[OldManMac]

I don't see where it specifically states that the officer was standing in the path of the Jeep. It does say that the teen attempted to drive over the officer. Maybe he was on his way out to investigate and the teen turned his vehicle towards the officer; big difference. There simply isn't enough information in that short article for all the guessing that's gone on here.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Permanently crippling someone as opposed to killing them could be considered a form of cruel and unusual punishment, though. It certainly wouldn't be allowed as a judicial sentence, even for the gravest of crimes; given that, should officers be trained to do it when there hasn't even been a trial yet?

Beats killing any day. `Putting him out of his misery' is not cruel?
I hope you don't argue it's better to kill right away instead of risking permanent damage. (In Germany, AFAIK police officers are trained to disable a person first, so I guess if done properly, you can minimize the risk of permanent disability.)

Originally Posted by Millennium

Also, although I agree with you that the officer should only use lethal force when there is no other choice, I think we have to be careful not to unfairly apply hindsight to that. When a car is coming at you, you typically have less than a second to decide what to do. Given the close quarters, it's perfectly reasonable for the officer to have decided that he didn't have time to get out of the way of the car before it hit him, and he may or may not have been right about that. Should he have simply allowed the car to hit him?

First of all, the guy was not working as a police officer at that time which makes a big difference.

Also, if a car comes running at you, the only thing you should do is get out of the way. I also don't think that there was really no possibility to evade (since the shooting happened in a parking lot). There should be plenty of space between or even on top of other cars. What are you trying to accomplish by shooting at the car instead of getting the hell out of the way? Even if the driver is killed or disabled, chances are good that the car will continue straight on for some time. And hit the guy in the process. Road pizza.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Um he stepped in front of it. He was in the wrong plain and simple. He didn't even try to stop the person of the car he stood in front of.

He doesn't need his badge back.

You only use force when you have NO OTHER CHOICE. The officer had other choices. He just choose poorly.

I agree with you. (Maybe we should both bookmark this thread )
Stepping in front of a car in a parking lot (i. e. even if the driver wanted to, there is no way to evade) is not the shmartest thing to do.

[James L]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

For example assume that a police officer is attacked by a suspect with a knife: in this case lethal force is not automatically justified, one could disable the suspect by shooting his shoulder or his leg instead.

WRONG!

A person with a knife who has the strong intent to use it can cross 21 feet in 1.5 seconds, and make a lethal strike.

This reactionary gap is commonly taught in law enforcement and military organizations, and has been accepted by the courts many times over.

This means that an officer, when confronted with an assailant with a knife who charges with intent, has 1.5 seconds to unholster their weapon, take the safety off, aim, and fire a strike to stop the attack.

A center mass strike is taught. You have obviously never fired a weapon at a moving target, but try aiming for a moving arm and leg, especially when that person is charging you to kill you, in 1.5 seconds, when most of that time was spent drawing the weapon and taking the safety off.

Center mass shots are taught for a reason.

Even then, I have seen a person take 3 shots and keep attacking (the person was under the influence). He did die later, but was not immediately dropped.

Now, does the 21 foot reactionary gap mean the officer can shoot anyone who has a knife and is standing 20 feet away? Of course not. It is definite justification, however, for that officer to draw his weapon and aim. If the suspect choses to charge the officer, the officer has every right to answer the threat with lethal force.

[Kevin]

The cop had an itchy trigger finger and wasn't using his head. This is obvious because he shot the passenger and not the driver.

The guy was "barny fifing" it and over-reacted. Hopefully they wont put him back on the streets.

He has proven himself to be unfit.

[Sky Captain]

How about the officer that shot the airman after he was told to get up.
All the training in the world can't overcome stupidity.

[Kevin]

And how about the Canadians that was shot by American troops because they were told to stop?

I wonder how many of you were saying it was the troops fault there, but was the kids fault here even though the troops clearly had more reason to shoot than the cop did.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

How about the officer that shot the airman after he was told to get up.
All the training in the world can't overcome stupidity.

Originally Posted by Kevin

And how about the Canadians that was shot by American troops because they were told to stop?

I wonder how many of you were saying it was the troops fault there, but was the kids fault here even though the troops clearly had more reason to shoot than the cop did.

References please.

[Sky Captain]

This cop should be fired.
And charged with attempted murder.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Kevin

The cop had an itchy trigger finger and wasn't using his head. This is obvious because he shot the passenger and not the driver.

The guy was "barny fifing" it and over-reacted. Hopefully they wont put him back on the streets.

He has proven himself to be unfit.

Ain't that the truth.

[Tomchu]

This thread is frighteningly funny. The lot of you are passing judgement on the cop before any conclusive evidence has even been presented. Most of you would make crappy lawyers and judges.

Many of you have also ignored this perspective (pasted from my first post up top):

If the idiot driver was willing to run over the police officer, he would have been willing to run a red light, and willing to run any other pedestrian over. The decision to shoot into the car was the correct one, because there is no telling how many other lives could have been lost that night.

[dcmacdaddy]

For those of you interested in the continuing news coverage. Here is the latest from today's Washington Post.


Friends Hurt, Family Haunted After Va. Teen Is Slain by Officer
By Michelle Boorstein and Steven Ginsberg
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, February 27, 2006; B01

Aaron Brown's music textbook, "The Grateful Dead: Annotated Lyrics," still lay yesterday on the living room coffee table, where the 18-year-old college student had left it. Photos of the grinning, long-haired Eagle Scout were on nearly every surface of his family's small, single-story Springfield home, with images of a shirtless Aaron on stage with his guitar, a tuxedoed Aaron at the prom, Aaron posing with his parents.

And everywhere were the regrets.

"We are devastated," Jeff Brown said last night. "We can't believe our beautiful son is dead over a stupid check."

Aaron Brown was shot about 3:40 a.m. Saturday by an off-duty Alexandria police officer in the parking lot of an International House of Pancakes on Duke Street near Landmark Mall. An IHOP employee had told the officer that Brown and three friends left the restaurant without paying.

The officer, who was in uniform and working security at the restaurant, tried to stop their 1995 Jeep Grand Cherokee and said it was threatening to hit him when he fired, according to police.

"The car was coming toward him, and he was in fear for his life," Amy Bertsch, an Alexandria police spokeswoman, said yesterday.

The driver, Stephen J. Smith, 19, of Alexandria, was later charged with driving while intoxicated and possession of marijuana.

As Brown's fellow graduates from Annandale High School railed against the unidentified officer and Smith yesterday, Jeff and Cheri Brown set a more conciliatory tone. They said they were more haunted than angry that "such a lovable soul" could be gone so quickly.

"As far as the officer feeling threatened, that's what he said he felt; we weren't there," said Jeff Brown, who has the same long, brown hair, round face and warm brown eyes as his son.

Cheri Brown said she hadn't spoken with Smith, a friend of her son's since middle school and the one at the wheel of Jeff Brown's Cherokee when the officer shot. "But I'm sure he's going through a tough time," she said.

There was a very different reaction earlier in front of the dreary, pink stucco building that houses the restaurant and a Comfort Inn. Brunch-goers passed a makeshift memorial of photos of Brown and bunches of roses flapping in the frigid wind.

"The cop is to blame. I want his badge," said Susan Rauch, 19. She attended Northern Virginia Community College with Brown, traveled to Germany with him last summer with the Annandale high school choir and had gone to the prom with him and a group of other students.

"You step in front of a car, and obviously, you are going to feel in danger," she said. "That cop just ended what would have been an amazing future."

Rauch and Katie Burton, 18, another Annandale graduate, seethed as they looked at the memorial. They questioned the statement by police that the young men had left the restaurant without paying. One theory circulating yesterday among family and friends was that the four had left the money on the table instead of paying at the register.

"Aaron was one of those guys you'll never find again," Rauch said as Burton nodded. They described him as constantly cracking jokes, dancing, laughing down the school's hallways. They said he was handsome, an amazing guitarist and the kind of friend you could come to if you were having a "little breakdown."

"He was one of those guys that if you were a girl, you'd be lucky to date," Rauch said. "He had long hair, so people thought of him as a rocker, but everyone loved him: the preps, the rockers -- everyone."

Bertsch, the police spokeswoman, wouldn't go into much detail about the shooting, saying the department is conducting a criminal investigation as well as an internal one. The case will be reviewed by the FBI for possible civil rights violations, something she said is standard for deadly force or other high-profile cases.

"Obviously, the officer is under investigation, and a young man is dead," Bertsch said. "To be fair, we would never discuss eyewitness accounts."

As about 20 friends and relatives clung to one another at the Brown home last night and sobbed, his parents spoke calmly about wanting people to donate money to a charity, Guitars Not Guns, instead of giving flowers. The group gives music lessons to at-risk youngsters.

The Browns said, however, that they will pursue unanswered questions.

They said that they were not told promptly about the location of their son's body and that they believe he would have liked to donate his organs. Police also told them that four or five bullets hit the car, including one in the driver's side rear door and one on a rear quarter-panel.

"How could that happen if the vehicle was coming straight at him?" Jeff Brown asked.

They said they would await the investigation but were inclined to view the shooting as an overreaction.

"If their policy in a situation like this is to throw themselves in front of a moving vehicle and then use deadly force, maybe that policy needs to be reviewed," Jeff Brown said.

Dozens of people debated the question of responsibility on the Web site for WJLA (Channel 7), with some defending the officer and others questioning the use of force. Some said they were simply in mourning.

"A lot of it just doesn't make sense," said Colin Agnew, 20. "All I know is one of my best friends is dead."

Agnew said he and Brown became blood brothers at a scouting event last year, when they were throwing away some crab claws.

"He cut the back of his hand, and he cut my palm," Agnew said. "He grabbed my hand and slapped it down on his. It was just something really personal and an intimate moment between us. No matter what happens now, part of him is with me."

Agnew said he met Brown when they were students at North Springfield Elementary School. They were in Eagle Scouts together for a year before Brown sat next to Agnew one day on the bus and said: "Hi, my name's Aaron. What troop are you in?" Agnew recalled yesterday. "I said, 'We've been in the same troop for a year, you moron.' "

The friendship was sealed. Agnew said Brown didn't have "a bad bone in him. He wouldn't say anything bad about anybody unless it was a celebrity he didn't like. There wasn't a way you couldn't like him."

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Tomchu

This thread is frighteningly funny. The lot of you are passing judgement on the cop before any conclusive evidence has even been presented. Most of you would make crappy lawyers and judges.

Do you see me in a a courtroom? Do you see me trying to be a lawyer or a judge? Or do you see me as a commentator on a Web forum saying that this should be brought to a courtroom and properly tried because it definitely looks bad?

Originally Posted by Tomchu

Many of you have also ignored this perspective (pasted from my first post up top):

If the idiot driver was willing to run over the police officer, he would have been willing to run a red light, and willing to run any other pedestrian over. The decision to shoot into the car was the correct one, because there is no telling how many other lives could have been lost that night.

There's no telling if the kid was Jesus Christ in disguise. If ifs buts were candy and nuts, it would be Christmas every day. It is most likely that if the officer had not stood in front of the car and shot, nobody would have died. It's possible somebody would have died anyway, but that would have been the path most likely to end well.

[Sky Captain]

How many here were taught not to run from a policeman?
I'm betting the driver thought he could flee.
A complete lack of respect for authority.
A failure to accept responsibility of being part of a working society.
Too bad his passanger paid for his actions(the driver's) with his life.

[Chuckit]

I've also been taught not to give lip to a gangster, but he's not justified in shooting me either.

[Sky Captain]

Give lip?

[Chuckit]

Er…it's an expression meaning "be impudent."

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

How many here were taught not to run from a policeman?
I'm betting the driver thought he could flee.
A complete lack of respect for authority.
A failure to accept responsibility of being part of a working society.
Too bad his passanger paid for his actions(the driver's) with his life.

The man who shot was not a police officer at the time nor was he identifiable as one. He was wearing the uniform of a security guard and working as one.

Your post is tantamount to bitter cynism. Even if they did not pay and tried to get away with it, the force a security guard (or a police man) is allowed to use is proportional to the crime. Unless the driver specifically took aim at the security guard (with an SUV in a parking lot).

[Sky Captain]

I'm saying, no matter what, the driver should have stopped. Period.
I was under the understand he was in his duty uniform.

[Chuckit]

Certainly, the driver should have stopped. But the officer was much more in control of the situation than the kid was at that point.

[Sky Captain]

The kid was wrong for running.
The policeman was wrong for pulling the trigger.
Hindsight is 20/20. A simple taking and calling in the plate numbers would have sufficed.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Beats killing any day. `Putting him out of his misery' is not cruel?

I would argue that no, it's not inherently cruel. Certainly it can be made cruel, if the person suffers needlessly, but this does not have to be the case.

I hope you don't argue it's better to kill right away instead of risking permanent damage.

Actually, I do argue this. When you choose to harm a law enforcement officer -or, indeed, anybody- you accept certain risks. I don't see this as a bad thing.

(In Germany, AFAIK police officers are trained to disable a person first, so I guess if done properly, you can minimize the risk of permanent disability.)

With multiple years of training of a sort that I doubt even Germany can truly provide, yes. But even then, it only works under ideal circumstances which cannot be relied on.

First of all, the guy was not working as a police officer at that time which makes a big difference.

Actually, I'm not sure it does.

Also, if a car comes running at you, the only thing you should do is get out of the way. I also don't think that there was really no possibility to evade (since the shooting happened in a parking lot). There should be plenty of space between or even on top of other cars.

There was likely plenty of space, but in close quarters such as the ones being described, the issue isn't space; the issue is time. You can have all the space in the world to either side of the vehicle, but if you can't get out of the way fast enough it won't do you any good.

[James L]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

"As far as the officer feeling threatened, that's what he said he felt; we weren't there," said Jeff Brown, who has the same long, brown hair, round face and warm brown eyes as his son.

Weird. The father of the boy who lost his life is willing to wait and see what happens with the investigation.

But dozens of internet people with absolutely no confirmed evidence whatsoever have already made up their minds.

Hmmm... who is being more rational?

[Y3a]

Young boys running from responsibilities!! OMG.

While that guy lost his life because of a friend running from a bill, friends were watching as 4 townhouses went up in flames early Sunday morning a few miles away in Reston VA. The four 20 year olds ran from their burning rented townhouse, didn't call the police or fire dept, and were running because they had been stupid enough to put their ciggy butts into a plastic milk bottle on the wooden deck. with the winds that night and no warnings the fire became advanced enough to ruin 4 houses. The neighbors had warned the morons many times on how stupid they were with putting the butts into a plastic jug. Why is it there are so many cowards?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

A simple taking and calling in the plate numbers would have sufficed.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by James L

If you trust all news articles regarding incidents such as this, there is a bridge in NYC for sale you might also be interested in.

Yup, and for only $1 it can be yours, as long as you can move the thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willis_Avenue_Bridge

[James L]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

Yup, and for only $1 it can be yours, as long as you can move the thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willis_Avenue_Bridge

[dcmacdaddy]

Latest updates from the Washington Post. I find it interesting the kid's lawyer wouldn't let him discuss anything about what happened before they were in the car. So, he couldn't discuss the dine-n-dash or whether he might have been drinking and/or getting high along with the legally intoxicated driver who had dope on him.



Police Account in Teen's Shooting Disputed
Officer Was Not in Front Of SUV, Passenger Says
By Carol Morello and Jamie Stockwell
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, March 1, 2006; A01

A passenger yesterday disputed the initial police account of the fatal shooting of a teenager in the parking lot of a pancake restaurant over the weekend, saying the off-duty Alexandria police officer was not directly in front of their Jeep when he began firing.

Aaron Daughtrey, one of six teenagers in the SUV, said the Jeep was turning around the corner of a row of parked cars when the officer first opened fire from a distance that Daughtrey estimated was 20 to 30 feet.

The officer fired "first to the side, then head-on," said Daughtrey, 18, who was sitting in the hatch of the Jeep on a box that he said was pierced by a bullet about 3:40 a.m. Saturday. One of the shots shattered the rear side window, striking and killing his friend Aaron R. Brown, 18, of Springfield, who was seated behind the driver.

Daughtrey's account was the first offered by one of the passengers in the vehicle. He spoke to reporters outside his parents' home in Burke with his attorney by his side. Police would not comment on Daughtrey's statements because they have not determined what happened.

"The case remains under investigation, and our policy is not to comment on ongoing investigations," Amy Bertsch, a police spokeswoman, said last night.

"We said the vehicle was moving toward him. . . . Whether that was at an angle or straight on or what, we can't get into that. We're looking at the evidence, reviewing everything, to determine what happened."

Alexandria Mayor William D. Euille (D) did not return calls for comment last night. A spokesman for the city, Steve Mason, said officials "will not comment about the case at all until the police investigation is complete."

Officer Carl Stowe, a 13-year member of the force, was working security part time at the International House of Pancakes on Duke Street, police said. He told police that he had followed the teenagers out of the restaurant after they left without paying their bill.

Capt. John Crawford, a police spokesman, said on the day of the shooting that Stowe stepped into the path of the vehicle, and, "fearing for his safety," shot at it.

Alexandria police officers are allowed to shoot at a moving vehicle if they feel their lives are in danger and no bystanders are at risk -- but only if they have exhausted all other means of defense, according to the department's use-of-force policy.

Daughtrey and Breklyn Paulitzky, another passenger in the SUV, described a chaotic scene. They said the six friends were unaware of any orders to stop. Daughtrey said they could not have heard anything Crowe might have shouted because the windows were up and they were listening to music.

"I didn't hear him say 'Stop.' Nothing. No hand held up. Nothing," said Daughtrey, whose attorney would not permit him to answer questions about anything that happened before the friends got into the Jeep.

Daughtrey said the driver, Stephen J. Smith, 19, of Alexandria, swerved to avoid striking the officer and collided with a parked car.

"Steve-o tried to dodge the bullets at first," Daughtrey said. "He tried to swerve around the officer. He cut it far to the left. Then he cut right and hit the other vehicle. . . . He swerved to miss the cop, and he hit the vehicle."

Paulitzky, 18, who was seated in the back seat, next to the right side window, said Brown slumped behind her and Daughtrey's twin brother, Adam. Brown was gagging, she said, and his friends did not initially realize he had been shot. Adam Daughtrey was performing CPR on Brown when he died, said Kimberly J. Phillips, Aaron Daughtrey's attorney.

Smith was charged with driving while intoxicated and possession of marijuana. He was released on bond and could not be reached for comment.

According to court records, Smith failed field sobriety tests and registered a blood alcohol level of 0.02 more than two hours after the shooting. Virginia law allows officers to charge anyone younger than 21 -- the state's legal drinking age -- with drunken driving if a trace amount of alcohol is found.

The other four teenagers were not told that Brown had died until after they made statements to police, Aaron Daughtrey said. Stowe could not be located for comment yesterday.

As part of their investigation, officials said, detectives will rely on ballistics tests, a reconstruction of the crash scene and witness accounts to determine how the incident unfolded.

The case will then be forwarded to Alexandria Commonwealth's Attorney S. Randolph Sengel, who will decide whether criminal charges are warranted. He declined to comment until he makes a determination.

Debbie Weierman, an FBI spokeswoman, said investigators began a "preliminary review of the circumstances surrounding the shooting to determine whether or not to open an FBI investigation."

Aaron Daughtrey said he believes it was unnecessary to open fire on the Jeep. "I don't know why he opened fire on a vehicle full of kids when what he should have been doing was taking tags down."

According to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, a group that records the slaying of every U.S. police officer and etches the officers' names on a memorial at Judiciary Square in Washington, 143 officers were killed by a vehicle from 1995 through 2004. In 2004, the last year for which statistics are available, 13 officers were killed in that manner.

In February 2005, Pentagon police officer James M. Feltis III died five weeks after he was hit by a suspected carjacker who sped across the Pentagon parking lot toward a traffic booth where Feltis was working. He tried to stop the car, but the driver accelerated into him before crashing into a guardrail.

Staff writer Allan Lengel contributed to this report.


© 2006 The Washington Post Company

[Kevin]

This just goes to re-affirm what I have said. The Cop was Barney Fifing it. He should have been made to carry his ammunition in his shirt pocket.

What a sad story.

[OreoCookie]

@Kevin: what's `Barney Fifing'?

[Kevin]