Argh! The freaking pancakes aren’t the issue here. It doesn’t matter who the police officer thought was in the vehicle. What matters is that when the police officer arrived in the parking lot, A VEHICLE CAME AT HIM. That’s the issue. That’s the sole legitimate issue.
Not every place has that kind of topography.
If a passenger had time to scream “oh my god you’re going to run him over” wouldn’t “he” have time to move? (once again I would ask the question about a security guard versues a police officer - I may “ignore” a gurad if I reasonably expect him to have time to move, I would’t dare do this to an officer)
Well, the report indicates the officer did act appropriately. It also mentioned, didn’t it, that anyone faced with that situation would be justified in defending themselves.
I won’t imply that. I will imply that far, far too often, when an asshole cop screws up, even the non-assholes close ranks to protect one of their own.
I’ve read the report (finally); it is very thorough, and exonerates Officer Crowe from criminal (but not necessarily departmental) charges. For the PD’s sake, I hope that the report stands up to all scrutiny of witnesses (no “I didn’t say that” or “That’s not what I meant”).
(Working from memory), the report exonerates Officer Crowe from only criminal charges, and made no claims regarding police procedures. My understanding is that, given the circumstances, anyone in lawful possession of a firearm would have been cleared of drawing and firing. However, the PD may have more stringent rules around the discharge of a firearm, which may still be reviewed.
It’s bullshit. If there was not enough time for him to react and stop shooting then there was also not sufficient time for him to rotate his body 90 degrees to continue firing at the car.
Of course. I know a little about tort law. It’s called preponderance of the evidence.
The distinction between O.J. and the IHOP shooting case is that the people had a very, very strong case against The Juice. The people don’t have a case against the police officer/security guard.
If you’re an expert in the field, feel free to post some cites. Otherwise I’ll believe the people who actually know what they’re talking about.
Seriously, what is up with all the morons in this thread who think they’re experts in police policy, chain restaurant policy, reaction time, human psychology and on and on and on. I knew we had people with diverse career experience on this board, but this is ridiculous. There is an actual expert in the field of police work who has researched this with cites to reports and everything, and the collective response isn’t reasoned thought with cites to the contrary, it’s “bullshit!” Real convincing.
Not all bullets struck the side of the vehicle. If a cop is attempting to apprehend a suspected dangerous criminal, in this case one who has attempted murder (according the the officer) he does not simply let them go to wreck havoc amongst society. His duty to society is to retard this criminal at all costs, self defense or no.
You’ve been around, I know you know the meaning of the word “cite.”
I’m not taking your word for it that “if he had time to turn his body he had time to stop shooting.” If you want me (or anyone with half-a-brain and respect for research) to believe that, you’re going to need to find some evidence for it. I disagree with you. In my experience, turning to face a threat when it is on a nearly straight-line requires almost no thought. Assessing whether something is no longer a threat requires continuous thinking and analysis of the situation. Performing a repetitive action takes almost no thought. Stopping that repetitive action on a signal given takes reaction time (as the prosecutor’s cites show), and that’s when the signal is known in advance.
Deadly force for pancake bandits? Not appropriate in any scenario I can imagine.
I don’t have any law enforcement training, but I can’t imagine that unloading a gun in an IHOP parking lot is a good idea unless the shootees are posing more of a threat than the stray bullets from my gun. The jury is still out on that, but on the face of it, it sounds like the security guard transformed a misdemeanor into a deadly situation all on his own.
Unless there’s some massive conspiracy going on here between the police and the attorney’s office, i really think that the evidence produced in the report of this incident shows quite clearly that the cop did not start shooting because of some pancakes. Furthermore, even the statements by some of the passengers in the car clearly support the assertion that the car was being driven in the direction of the officer. Also, the physical evidence section notes that the distance between the car and the cop was no more than about 40 feet (probably less) when he started firing, and that the car was travelling around 25mph at the time, meaning that it was less than 1.5 seconds from hitting him.
There is more than enough evidence here to support the assertion that the cop feared for his life, and that he thought that shooting at the oncoming vehicle was the only appropriate response.
Look, when this story first came to light, my first reaction was that the cop had fucked up, and that his use of his gun was unreasonable. Despite the fact that my stepfather’s a retired cop, and my mother worked for the police force in a civilian capacity, i have no desire to see crooked or incompetent cops get a pass, and i think that plenty of people have good reason for not trusting the police. I also think that, in many situations, the “blue wall” is a very real problem, and that even good cops get roped into protecting bad ones out of fear of being marginalized by their colleagues.
I’m also strongly opposed to police officers using their guns more than necessary. I thought the cops who shot Amadou Diallo should have been kicked off the force and convicted of manslaughter or murder. And the recent spate of shootings by police in LA, with dozens of shots fired by multiple officers (70 in the latest incident, IIRC) suggests a lack discipline and a lack of concern for the safety of other citizens.
But can people please read the report and at least address its arguments before continuing to spout the bullshit that this was a shooting over some pancakes?
Believe it or not, not everyone who is familiar with the facts comes to the same conclusions as you. Hence the CONTROVERSY. I’ve read the reports. My opinion is still the same.
Had these kids done something truly nefarious, such as harming someone, and then tried to escape, then I’d support the officer 100%. He couldn’t allow potentially dangerous criminals to drive out into society because it puts innocent people at risk.
But in this case, the crime was a non-violent MISDEMEANOR. Hurling his body in front of the van over stolen pancakes was stupid and needlessly dangerous. And then to shoot 5 bullets into the van because he “feared for his life” is a ridiculous rationalization for a horrific over-reaction. He’s lucky he wasn’t killed. The driver could have swerved and hit another innocent bystander. The bullets could have deflected and hit another customer.
No matter how you look at it, this officer single-handedly ESCALATED the situation. His job was to DEFUSE it.