I really don’t think anyone here Martin included feel that the punishment for pancake theft should or even realistically could result in death. The big question is the intervening time and the exact actions fo the kids and the officer since both could have brought significant factors to the unfortunate result.
Oh really? Have you read the entire thread? How about this jewel–
Search this thread for his posts and get back to us.
However, he has stated on several occasions that the world is a better place when pancake thieves die. A small distinction.
pancakes, of course are a rare and valuable resource, unlike, say, taxes.
Based on current reports from the Washington Post, it’s looking more and more like the shooting was unjustified. The wounds on the kid are on his side, under his arm. It appears that the off-duty policeman was not in any danger. I withdraw my earlier agnosticism.
Interesting to say the very least. Assume that if you try to run someone down. You would be facing straight ahead, wouldn’t you? After all, car seats face forward.
I don’t suppose you’d mind linking this most current report, please?
Yeah, it would be interesting to know where the information came from. The only candidate i came up with on a Google news search was this Washington Post article, which says:
It’s not clear whether that final sentence, which gives the location of the bullet strike, comes from Brown, or whether the Post reporter is detailing facts given to him by another source.
It would be good to know what a ballistics report says -
1 How many shots were fired
2 Where they hit the vehicle
3 What angle they hit the vehicle at
Where they hit and at what angle would tell the story.
Actually, my point was that there were six people in the SUV. Only three are accused of theft. Even if the cop were aiming at one of the ones that were guilty, that still wouldn’t mitigate his actions. Furthermore, since I don’t see how he could have known in what we’re assuming must have been a short amount of time (and a difficulty to see inside the vehicle?), wouldn’t it be even more (or just as likely) that he killed someone not even involved?
I can envision plenty of scenarios where the young man would not only be totally innocent of the crime, but perhaps completely unaware of any of what was going on. Does this particular line of reasoning make sense to anyone else but me?
Yes, except that if the kid who was shot wasn’t even involved in the theft, I can’t possibly imagine why none of his friends wouldn’t have mentioned that. The article linked today says that (according to police) he and five friends left the IHOP without paying. His mom talked to him by cellphone, and he said he was at IHOP. One of the kids who was there details how they all left the restaurant sequentially. And nobody would be saying “All this was over 26 dollars worth of food” if he hadn’t eaten anything.
He was there.
But only three are accused of skipping out without payment and what are the odds that the cop actually hit one of the ones who were guilty? Especially since he was in the back and in the middle.
Although I do concede that it seems unlikely that it wouldn’t have already been mentioned otherwise. I just have a hard time imagining that he was shot (pretty much?) randomly and yet it was only a 50/50 chance of “getting one of the right ones.”
It seems completely bizarre given all the circumstances.
Fuck. That should read: "It seems completely bizarre given all the circumstances and information that we have at this point.
Need. more. Coca. Cola. before posting. Sorry.
::: sigh :::
It’s possible that perhaps some of the kids left, thinking their friends were going to take care of the bill, only to have said friends come running out without paying-is that what you’re saying?
The whole thing is pretty bizarre. Where are you getting that only three people are accused of leaving without paying, though?
I had thought of this as well, but I couldn’t think of a clear way to put it. If it happened, that would really be a tragic situation, and I can’t imagine the kids who have to live with it.
Thank you guys. That’s exactly what I’ve been trying to say in my much muddled way of typing. Regardless of whether he was or wasn’t, I don’t see how it’s possible that said cop actually aimed and hit one of the perpetrators. And if he just went hog as wild, without being ‘potentially run over,’ then it’s all the more horrible. :mad:
Because I’m sure we’ve all been metaphorically along for the ride when our dipstick friends did something that either we weren’t aware of or at least not until later/the last minute. I agree with Guin in that he might’ve been just been sitting there while others ate and then walked on out before they finished, assuming they’d pay for their own. Considering I’ve done that a million times because I couldn’t afford to eat then, it wouldn’t have ever crossed my mind that those finishing up behind wouldn’t pay.
And yes, I believe in the original article that it said only three were involved in not paying.
From here:
An IHOP employee had told the officer that Brown and three friends left the restaurant without paying.
And I apologize for getting the exact number correct. :smack: It seems it was four out of the six. I suppose I just picked up on the last part of that sentence. 
Still though, I can see it happening the ways described above. Anyone else?
and especially given the amount ($26). I took my son and his g/f out to IHOP, total bill for the three of us was $30.
Well the article confirms he was there (i.e. not just sitting in the car). Don’t you think if he was just sitting there while the others ate, that one of his vocal friends would have said something like “He didn’t even eat anything!”? I do. Not that that rules out Guin’s scenario.
I don’t even know that much of this is relevant. As has been mentioned, if you commit a crime, and then, when you’re being apprehended, you pose a life-threatening danger to police, you should not be surprised when they act to defend themselves. The question at hand is whether one of the people in the car put the police officer in life-threatening danger, and if so, whether the cop followed policy in shooting at the car.
IF the answer to both of those questions is yes, I can’t find the cop at fault no matter who in the car he hit. The difference between hitting the driver and the center backseat passenger (if you’re in front of the car) could be less than a foot, and that’s assuming a stationary vehicle. It’s sad, yes, he didn’t deserve to die, no, the policy may need to be changed, sure.
Either way, if Guin’s scenario is what actually happened, I can’t imagine the kids having to live with that.
You know, thinking about this further, perhaps the others would be even less likely to say something because of the guilt. I mean the only ones who would know for sure are the ones who did eat and their waitstaff. Maybe you’d be so overcome with horror that you’d all agree he was involved simply because the alternative would be too hideous.
And I’m sorry if this seems like I’m nitpicking. It just comes across as such a huge possibility that he wasn’t, maybe, a thief (for lack of a better word). Which is tearing me up inside.
No, you’re probably undoubtedly right. But if the cop wasn’t in danger (which if the articles are to be believed, it sounds as if the shooting was either in passing or from behind), then he did fire randomly. Then I’m back to what I’m hypothesizing above.
But if the answer is in part no? I mean, technically he’d be in the clear if they were a threat (due to what you propose), but in a stationary situation where others are at risk, do/will the police fire into a crowd or near innocent bystanders? Because I really don’t know. Although plenty of TV seems to indicate that they won’t.
Agreed and even more so if he wasn’t and they claim he was.
Thanks for at least engaging me over this. I was beginning to think I was the only one, or invisible.
It was Shrove Tuesday. In some regions, that’s Pancake Day. In others, it’s Doughnut Day. In still others, it’s Mardi Gras. Anyway, IHOP was giving a free short stack to all customers.