None of the articles says the SUV was moving, only the alleged unnamed witness.
Sorry, not enough facts in evidence yet here to make any conclusions. It could still go either way. Or right in the middle.
It’s foolish to get all het up over scenarios that are existing only in one’s own mind thus far.
the “alleged unnamed witness” was Capt. John Crawford, a police spokesman:
A vehicle that is not moving does not have a “path”.
I don’t know a damn thing about the case in question, but how’s this? Kids leave resturant, get in their car, and start to back out of their parking space. Cop notices and runs out into the parking lot as the SUV finishes making it’s backwards turn into the traffic lane of the parking lot. Cop raises his hand and yells “STOP!”. Teen driving panics, and in a moment of lunacy, shifts into drive tromps on the gas petal, jumping the Jeep at the cop. Cop draws gun and fires. Now, even in that scenerio it seems likely that the prudent thing for the cop to have done is to jump back out of the way, but it’s not an unreasonable sequence of events. Of course, I have no idea if this is even close to what atually happened, but it seems to be a scenerio where the cop firing at the car is reasonable.
I do have one question on this. Two of the articles stated that the police officer was in uniform while working off duty as a security officer. Am I misreading this or is it allowed ?
Thanks,
Tannim
One possible scenario, since that portion is paraphrased, is that Crawford said the officer stepped in the way of where the vehicle would need to go. It is, by all accounts, a small parking lot, and therefore could very well have a single entrance and exit. I could easily see how a journalist could paraphrase and end up with the article’s phrasing.
Not saying it DID happen, just a possibility. On preview, I’d say Weirddave has created a much more likely possibility.
Possible, but why would you presume it to be more likely? Doesn’t this betray the same bias in favor of the cop that made **nyctea scandiaca ** an “asshole” when shown against the cop?
More likely than mine, not more likely in general.
I’ve got no clue what happened in general, especially since I don’t know the layout of the parking lot, where the vehicle was, I don’t know the kids or the cop in question. I don’t know what’s more likely than anything else. I just don’t see why some people feel like giving more weight to the kids’ side of the story (you know, the only ones who, by all accounts, we already know absolutely broke the law. . .) than the cop’s. I’m not saying anyone should blindly accept the cop’s side either, I’m just wondering why statements like “I hope the cop gets charged with murder,” “Just sounds like they want to keep it out of the media to avoid making the officer look worse,” and " this guy either has the most inflated sense of duty ever, or he was just itching to shoot somone," to name a few, get thrown around while the fact that at least one of the kids had alcohol in his system, had marijuana, and they all skipped out on their check apparently make them “by all accounts. . .not bad kids.”
Not that I’ve read any of the articles but, why would you shoot at an SUV to get it to stop if it’s not moving? He feared for his safety because the SUV was stationary??? 
Some people are arguing that he stepped into the path of the SUV and shot it, all while it was moving. Others are saying that perhaps he stepped into the path of where it was going to go (e.g. between it and the exit) before it started moving, and only shot after it began moving toward him. Clear?
When I’m a resident inspector on construction work, the officers always wear their uniforms, and I’ll see them in banks in uniform as well. It may vary between states or cities, but I’m guessing it isn’t unusual. Some police departments require their officers to carry their guns at all times, whether on duty or detail, or not. It’s a bit odd to see some guy mowing his front lawn with a gun strapped on, though…
I’d have to say that the parents come off as a class act in the second linked article.
Where does it say he was a witness? He is described as a spokesman, just reporting what (is alleged to have) happened.
Please do me a favor and never purchase a firearm. If you believe you might ever even simply brandish a firearm when you’re not in control of your emotions and capable of making a rational judgment, you are quite unsuited to firearm ownership.
Those of us who are responsible gun owners really, really dislike people who think like that. You folks are a roadblock to rational thought about firearms and their social implications. It’s persons with thought patterns identical to yours that are fodder for the dishonest emotional appeals of the anti-gun crowd.
I didn’t call him a witness, kidchameleon did. I just pointed out that the source of all of our facts was not an “alleged unnamed witness”, but the official police spokesman, a source of considerable more weight than kidchameleon alluded to.
No, from the third story:
A car in a parking spot usually only has one way to go. One might call that its “path”.
Hey, it’s just my interpretation of the situation, asshole.
Feel free to have your own interpretation. :dubious:
From: http://www.nbc4.com/newsarchive/7497311/detail.html
You can watch a video of a news broadcast on the site showing the parking lot. It also shows the myspace page of the passenger who gave the above quote, although you can’t see what his screenname is…
What are you talking about? I worked for five years with half a dozen off-duty cops and they all mocked the idea of practicing quick drawing. If they think they’re going to need a gun, they draw it beforehand. You’re thinking of cowboys.
Are you still maintaining that “by all accounts these were not bad kids”?
I’d really like you to address that statement, coupled with the accounts that at least one had marijuana, had alcohol in his system, and now, from your link, that it was an intentional attempt to steal their food.
(note for the overreactionaries: it ought to go without saying that none of that justifies the death. Duh. But for some of you it wouldn’t so I’ve said it.)
If petty theft, smoking pot (or associating with someone who does), and drinking alcohol (or associating with someone who does) makes him a “bad kid,” despite all his other talents and accomplishments, then I bet a huge majority of American 18-year-olds are “bad kids.”