This one you gotta love... the officer steps in front of a moving SUV and then, fearing for his life, shoots people in the SUV. How about not stepping in front of a moving vehicle ?! Or maybe that SETS UP the excuse to shoot people.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/25/AR2006022501431.html

"Crawford said the officer, who was in uniform, was told by a restaurant employee that the teenagers had walked out on their bill.

The officer ran out to the parking lot, a tight space shared by IHOP patrons and guests at the Comfort Inn to which the restaurant is attached, and tried to stop the youths from fleeing. He stepped into the path of the 1995 Jeep Grand Cherokee, Crawford said, and, "fearing for his safety," shot at the sport-utility vehicle.

Brown, sitting behind the driver, was struck. It was not immediately known how many shots were fired, Crawford said."

this is sickening. he could have jumped out of the way and yes, jumping in front of a vehicle is increadibly stupid. i hope he gets sued to hell.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

I suppose this idiot cop was one of those brilliant PhD cops? What a fucking idiot! If anyone on this board has the fucking nerve to come out in defense of this stupidity they need to be shot themselves.

I'm going to have to defend the cop here.

Diner food is too good to be stolen and is worth risking lives over. Plus, youths need to witness their friends being summarily executed, in order to grow as people.

In addition, people should know to stop whenever any individual jumps in front of their car with a gun suddenly with no warning, in order to enforce discipline, that they should immediately stop, open the doors, and relinquish the vehicle to whomever it is that has the gun pointed at them, even if it's an MS-13 covered person. That may be an undercover cop trying to stop you from stealing fine foods and services.

Plus, it's a safe bet the youth in question was either stoned or on his way to sell drugs to other youths, as youths often do in this bullet-in-the-head, make-it-or-die county we live in. We need to end this cycle of violence and drug dealing, through simple violence.

Just curious, if the cop was off-duty and worked as a guard there, was he wearing a uniform?

If it were me, I would've caught the bullet in my teeth like that dude did once on Ripley's Believe it or Not. Stay alert, stay alive!

O you are stupid Mr. Hippie Peace, I would duck as low as I could in the car so I could still see, I would try to pull a 180 with the car if theirs room and could turn around, if there is not room I would floor the gas and speed up faster and veer at the last second. I would not hit the person because they could still shoot you from the hood. By going faster and veering it makes it harder to aim and less time to aim. If a car is coming at you full speed it is vary hard to hold your ground with out jumping out of the way.
2nd The cop is a moron why would you step in front of a car. My neighbors do that to tell me to slow down; I stop and let them move to the side of the car and then speed off. When you stand in front of a car you can only hope that the driver stops. The cop like all cops is stupid and did not pass physics class. An object in motion is to remain in motion until acted upon by an equal or opposite force. A bullet will not stop a car not event a police officer could stop a car because they have a lot less mass than a jeep. He could kill the driver and a dead foot could be logged on the gas will not stop the car it will speed it up. A bullet is not an equal force even if you kill the driver and his foot is off the gas the car is still going to roll. Example if you stick a car on a rail road track to stop a train the train will plow into the car and keep rolling.
Standing in front of a car is stupid, I dont car what laws are one the books, you can't argue with the laws of physics.

"I dont car what"

I mean

Care

you can't honestly think my post was serious...

sarcasm: learn it, know it, understand it.

RESton Peace,
  i dont believe in sarcasm, it doesnt exist.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

The sad thing is that the whole group of people were at my party. If they had only stayed with me Aaron would not have been killed. Fuck Da Police

But your party was totally boring, raz. Maybe if you had made things a little more entertaining and had more substances around to abuse, the people would not have left and the shooting would have never happened.

You also may want to consider having more women in the orgy room, because a 6/1 Guy/Girl ratio is kinda gross.

The story still burns me up. Back in the old days the guy would have just taken down the plate number and called the on-duty cops. Since when does dine-n-dash draw bullets?

Here's another article on this

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=709695

If a vehicle is hurtling toward you, isn't jumping out of the way more effective than killing the driver? How stupid is that? Don't police academies have IQ requirements for admission?

Heard about this on the morning news. Needless to say I wasn't entirely surprised that the cop didn't use good judgement and instead of firing at the tires and jumping out of the way, he chooses to shoot at the people inside the vehicle. idiot.

ahem. you guys are idiots! let the cops do their job! obey the law! it's such a hard job and they get no respect and blah blah blah....

sorry, i had to open this up for the dumbass cop enthusiasts out there. fuck them.

Petty crime or not, this will serve as example to think twice before skipping out on high-end restaurants such as IHOP. -§

you cannot believe what the news is saying, i hardly doubt that any of you know the actuall facts about this incident. You have to understand all the facts and understand what actually happened before you can criticize the cop. The media just assumes that what the victims tell them are true. The media can do what ever they want to a story to make it sell. Thats the medias number one goal. Wait the the public police report and than criticize the cop!

If you read the WP piece, these were quotes from Captain John Crawford. So yes, basing criticism of the officer's behavior based on the description of events from a police spokesman is absolutely fair game. And based on many recent stories of the various area police departments, such as the shooting death of a guy suspected of gambling, make this totally believable. Something is awry with either training or hiring practices. I'm sure most area officers do a fine job and aren't stupid enough to jump in front of moving vehicles and say "duh, life in danger, must shoot driver and continue to allow much metal to hurtle towards me... must not jump away in fear because the guys will give me another swirlie for being a wuss." But how do these other ones make it in or get hired?

If someone drives a car onto railroad tracks when a train is coming, says "oh, life in danger" and pulls out a high-powered rifle and starts shooting at the engine, and his friend describes the story in just that way, are you going to then say "let's step back and have a full investigation and hush our criticisms of this guy, because maybe he has a valid self defense argument" or be like the rest of us and question his behavior? Personally, if it is now police department policy and a training point to have officers jump in front of cars to stop them, I want to know about it so I can lobby my government to direct the police not to engage in such dangerous practices.

pgens,
  they jump in front of cars all the time to stop speeders. i agree it's idiotic.

---

it's interesting how they havent listed this on the FCPD news site as they always report any crime or possible crime related deaths.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Barney always kept his only bullet in his shirt pocket because Andy KNEW Barny was an idiot who always was too quick on the trigger. How many times did he shoot his own foot because the pistol got stuck in the holster?

Apparently criminal justice majors are exempt from the general education English requirement.

Disclaimer: I haven't had any interactions with Alexandria Police and I will not judge one officer by the actions of another. Therefore, I am not making a blanket statement regarding the Police.

I understand that one may not act rationally when they perceive a threat to their life. However, I will say that this cop (officer seems like too polite a term) should never have put himself in danger over a couple of pancakes. If the cop was both properly trained and following sound procedure, this never would have happened. That is why we must expect a high level of responsibility from anyone carrying a gun.

I copied FFX County from another post. Since my disclaimer also applies to Alexandria police, I'll just switch the names...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2006 06:49PM by Genevieve.

Gravis: FCPD news probably doesn't have this event listed on their site due to the simple fact this happened in Alexandria and an Alexandria officer shot the dude, not a Fairfax officer.

I agree with everyone when it comes to "jumping in front of a moving car" equals stupid cop but once he made that choice he was kind of commited to it. As far as Trogdor's suggestion of shooting out the tires, well, i guess someone's been watching too many action flicks.

I think the lesson we all need to take from this is the obvious: IHOP is an international corporation with tendrils reaching places of power inconceivable to us rat racing morons. If you cheat them out of cash, they'll find a way to get even... even if it means your end!!!!!

good lord

there are hardly any IHOPS outside the US, seriously, maybe ten in British Columbia, Canada.

Hardly a massive international company, and canada is not the country that comes to mind when I think of "places of power".

REston: WOW!

I guess overexageration and sarcasm used as tools to alleviate tension are lost on some. I was simply trying to paint IHOP as the root of all evil in this tragic case. I guess next time I'll just do the obvious and be a cop hater with the rest of you.

by the way, has anyone ever tried googling "IHOP" + "Kennedy Assasination"? Pretty interesting results.... hmmmmmmm......

Don't forget the driver who wasn't shot, was arrested for DWI and possession of marijuana. Before you sensationalize that the "Alexandria" cop just jumped out in front of a moving car, it is possible the driver did move towards the officer as he stood in the road or shoulder. The driver obviously wasn't using sound judgement either. I'm not saying the officer wasn't completely right, but none of you were there and are basing your statements on the accounts of the Washington Post (who hate police) and your own opinions of police. It is regrettable that the boy was killed, but he and his friends made a decision to run from that tab without paying. Then it is possible that the driver, fearing arrest, swerved towards the officer. The officer reacted as he thought appropriate and fired a found that went through the door of the SUV. The only thing that we all don't know is all the facts. The good thing about Alexandria is the investigation will be reviewed by the city, the feds, and an independant citizin board. The department will not pass judgement. Remember, a car is a deadly weapon also and more people are killed and injured by cars than guns.

What Swweeman said is exactly correct. That was the exact point I was trying to get across. The media can stretch one sentence into a full length story. We all get caught up in moments that can change ones life. But if the kids would have just paid the bill, none of this would have happened. So if you think about it, its the kids fault, and they paid the price for it. Now perhaps the officer could have handled the situation differently, but you have to know all the facts until your opinion can mean anything.

SWweeman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Before you sensationalize that the "Alexandria"
> cop just jumped out in front of a moving car, it
> is possible the driver did move towards the
> officer as he stood in the road or shoulder.

> but none of you were there and
> are basing your statements on the accounts of the
> Washington Post (who hate police) and your own
> opinions of police.

No, we are basing opinions on the _quotes of the police spokesman_ in the WP article I linked. I will reprint it here:

---------
He stepped into the path of the 1995 Jeep Grand Cherokee, Crawford said, and, "fearing for his safety," shot at the sport-utility vehicle.
---------

Crawford is the police spokesman identified in the article. The worst one could argue is that he is describing the event as told to him by the officer involved. So yeah, that's quite an eyewitness account of what happened!

I have a generally high opinion of the police. However jumping in front of a fleeing SUV in this case or "accidentally discharging" a firearm that killed the alleged gambler are things that trained people entrusted with public safety should not do, and if they do they should be held accountable. That said I am sure the officers in both cases feel terrible about the outcome and will have to live with what happened. But neither should continue police work in public-facing capacities.

How different the outcome may have been if someone had just taken down the plate number and three or four uniforms were waiting at mom and dad's house when the kid got home, who would then spill the beans on who was with him who skipped on the bill. Police search the vehicle and find the pot, still bust him for being drunk, round up the friends, and they all take a ride and have a sit-down at the pokey.

Edit: it appears that i was wrong about the FCPD website not listing this shooting. crazy alexandria.

---

SWweeman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Before you sensationalize that the "Alexandria" cop
> just jumped out in front of a moving car, it is
> possible the driver did move towards the officer
> as he stood in the road or shoulder.

i somehow dont think that the cop would seriously think that a car would stop if he just waved them to the side. also, wasnt it in the parking lot? how is shooting ANYONE inside the car going to stop it from flying towards you? how did the cop even get in place to be a target for the car? he had enough time to pull out his gun and fire at the SUV, would running out of the way take much longer? for me, running out of the way of a moving car is my first thought, not trying to stop the car by any means. i dont think there is any need to sensationalize this story at all,

---

criminal justice guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But if the kids would have just paid the bill, none of
> this would have happened. So if you think about it,
> its the kids fault, and they paid the price for it.

here's a situation: a guy is crossing the street illegally by not using the crosswalk. i guess if you just run him over with your car it is the guy's fault for breaking the law and paid the price for it. sounds about right?


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/28/2006 12:27AM by Gravis.

sorry. try again.

Alexandria (the part where this incident took place) is an independent city... Fairfax can't touch it, can't even tell their mayor to change his lunch order.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/28/2006 12:25AM by RESton Peace.

Actually some Fairfax County cops do patrol parts of Alexandria. I don't know where the boundary is but know a FCPD officer who partols addresses that say Alexandria.

On another note, why didn't those guys just wait? Today they could have gotten food for free and it wouldn't have been a crime!

"On February 28, 2006 from 7 AM to 2 PM IHOPs across the country will celebrate National Pancake Day (also known as Shrove Tuesday) by offering our guests a free short stack of pancakes*. This is going to be our biggest one day celebration in our history.

-------------------
National Pancake Day has a rich history that stretches back centuries and has always been a time of celebration. National Pancake Day always falls on Fat Tuesday and this year it will be a celebration at IHOP.

So gather your friends, family and neighbors and come to your local IHOP and enjoy a short stack of pancakes on us. All we ask is that you consider making a donation to a great charity like First Book or other local, worthy cause. Where else would you celebrate National Pancake Day than IHOP? See you there.

* Limit one free short stack per guest. Valid for dine-in only, no to go orders. Not valid with any other offer, special, coupon, or discount. Valid at participating restaurants only, while supplies last.
-------------------

Like I said, pgens "the part where this happened" is 100% in the city proper. The non-city, fairfax, "yes this is my mailing address not a proper part of the city" part begins south of 495.

So what you meant to write was "The part of Alexandria where this incident took place is an independent city area. Fairfax can't touch it, can't even tell their mayor to change his lunch order." Parentheticals don't describe later clauses in the same sentence, they are asides. In other words, the sentence with a parenthetical matches the meaning of the sentence with the parenthetical removed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/28/2006 08:59AM by pgens.

Another article here http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=711531... nothing much new here except they name the officer and adds "Alexandria policy allows an officer to shoot if a moving vehicle threatens their life, but only after they've tried moving out of the vehicle's path."

pgens Wrote:
How about not stepping in front of a moving vehicle ?!


How about not running out on a bill and not ignoring a cop when he tells you to stop?


This is sad, but the driver was a fucking idiot.

I saw the parents of the dead kid on the news the other night and they looks like great role models - - for a Lynard Skynard back-up band. Free Bird! -§

seriously, pgens, get a hobby... you just outdid graivs when it comes to the overanalyzed stupid grammar naziism.

Fairfax MF-er Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How about not running out on a bill and not
> ignoring a cop when he tells you to stop?
>
>
> This is sad, but the driver was a fucking idiot.

Very true... saw an interview today on local CBS with three of the people in the car, how horrible it was, etc. I'm not excusing what they did either.

There was a new twist revealed in the piece though... four shots went into the vehicle, I think something like one in the grill, one in the guy, one in the side, one in the back quarterpanel. Whatever the locations it shows the cop started firing when he was in front of the vehicle and continued shooting as it passed him. So at some point he either stepped out of the way or the Jeep veered.

But the guy they interviewed (I'm not calling him a kid as he may have been 18 or older like the driver) was a dumb fuck for pulling a dine and dash. He said what I did, which was "why didn't they just take down a tag number?" Waaahhhh. Why didn't you just pay your fucking tab?

So maybe the good guys and bad guys can come to an agreement. The bad guys won't steal and run anymore, and the good guys won't shoot when they can take down a tag number.

the cop murdered someone in cold blood because he was tired from working too many hours on and off duty and had a fucking gun in his hand. Any idiot too stupid to get out of the road with a vehicle coming at him deserves to have his stupid ass run over. The only difference in this case was that the rent a cop was a real cop in his day job and had the license to carry a gun. Most other rent a cops don't have guns to kill people. What if it was me being the security guard and I shot someone in the same situation. Do you actually believe I'd be given extra consideration since I'm not a cop during my day job hours? Highly doubt it. The idiot cop deserves to be in jail. Manslaughter at minimum.

PaperPusher Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the cop murdered someone in cold blood because he
> was tired from working too many hours on and off
> duty and had a fucking gun in his hand. Any idiot
> too stupid to get out of the road with a vehicle
> coming at him deserves to have his stupid ass run
> over. The only difference in this case was that
> the rent a cop was a real cop in his day job and
> had the license to carry a gun. Most other rent a
> cops don't have guns to kill people. What if it
> was me being the security guard and I shot someone
> in the same situation. Do you actually believe
> I'd be given extra consideration since I'm not a
> cop during my day job hours? Highly doubt it.
> The idiot cop deserves to be in jail.
> Manslaughter at minimum.



Something like this happened in another town I lived in. The cop was cleared because a car being used to ram you is considered a deadly weapon. I'm sure the cop will get off, though if he did shoot at the SUV after it went by him it stopped being in self-defense.

RESton Peace Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> seriously, pgens, get a hobby... you just outdid
> graivs when it comes to the overanalyzed stupid
> grammar naziism.

i think pgens just set a new record for being analytical.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

I'm not disputing that deadly weapon possibility but dosn't that only apply to the performance of official police duties and not during a part-time rent-a-cop job?

once the cop was told of the larceny, he is no longer "rent a cop", he is an on duty police officer with full authority and a duty to try to aprehend an offender. hence it was his job to try and stop those kids from stealing and to apprehend them on the scene. the driver changed the rules when he accelerated toward the officer. I feel bad that that officer has to live with what happened for the rest of his life. and as for you monday morning quarterbacks. why dont you go out there yourself and make a difference.

The owners of the establishment obviously have problems with "dine and dash" such that they determined it worthwhile to hire an off duty cop. No one (not even high school kids) should be drunk/stoned, out at 3:30 am, stealing from a business in front of a uniformed cop and running from the law when confronted.

I feel sorry for the driver who has to live the rest of his life knowing he got his friend killed because he failed to stop the car. But he probably finds it easier to blame the cop. Good times.

Excuse me enoughalready. I believe that by my not putting 100% faith into the corrupted mentality that the police always do the right thing IS doing my part to make a difference. You can certainly apply the Vaseline to yourself and accept whatever is offered but I, for one, refuse to believe that an overtired, overworked cop (and probably with a bad attitude because of the above) on a part time gig is doing the right thing.

Qwert, not sure about you but a .02% blood alcohol level is far from being "drunk" and the driver's possession of pot is certainly no guarantee that the victim was "stoned" as you say.

just a quick question from reading a few above posts, who said the officer was "tied and overworked?". I have seen that posted a few times but haven't read it in any of the releases, does someone have inside info?

enoughalready Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> once the cop was told of the larceny, he is no
> longer "rent a cop", he is an on duty police
> officer with full authority and a duty to try to
> aprehend an offender. hence it was his job to try
> and stop those kids from stealing and to apprehend
> them on the scene. the driver changed the rules
> when he accelerated toward the officer. I feel
> bad that that officer has to live with what
> happened for the rest of his life. and as for you
> monday morning quarterbacks. why dont you go out
> there yourself and make a difference.


ok, let me get this straight. you're saying that as soon as a crime is committed, he becomes an on-duty cop? what are the duties of a security guard that is not an off-duty cop, watch and be a witness? there's a reason security guards usually don't have a loaded firearm on them, it's UNNECCESSARY. i hope you experience some police brutality in the near future, enoughalready.

PaperPusher Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not disputing that deadly weapon possibility
> but dosn't that only apply to the performance of
> official police duties and not during a part-time
> rent-a-cop job?


An officer of the law is an officer of the law, regardless of when they are working. It's not like he was some Mall Cop.

PaperPusher Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Excuse me enoughalready. I believe that by my not
> putting 100% faith into the corrupted mentality
> that the police always do the right thing IS doing
> my part to make a difference.


You would prefer to put 100% faith in some under-age drinkers out at 3:30 am who were in the process of ripping off a restaurant when they were shot at?

>
> ok, let me get this straight. you're saying that
> as soon as a crime is committed, he becomes an
> on-duty cop? what are the duties of a security
> guard that is not an off-duty cop, watch and be a
> witness? there's a reason security guards usually
> don't have a loaded firearm on them, it's
> UNNECCESSARY. i hope you experience some police
> brutality in the near future, enoughalready.


A cop is a cop, whether he or she is on duty or not. They have a sworn duty to enforce the law 24 hours a day. They aren't "security guards." They are law enforcement. Would you have felt better if an on-duty cop was eating at the restaurant and shot the guy?

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > seriously, pgens, get a hobby... you just
> outdid
> > graivs when it comes to the overanalyzed stupid
> > grammar naziism.
>
> i think pgens just set a new record for being
> analytical.

I have always set the high bar for intellectual content on this forum, glad to see the continuous improvement! Complements are rare on this forum, and I would like to thank all those involved in this effort.

And to all those defending actions based on self-defense, please see my prior post concerning shooting at an oncoming train and let me know if you think that is a justified self-defense action as well. Also share with the group how shooting at the side of a passing vehicle decreases one's chances of injury.

Qwert: who said he was uniformed? If he was working security as a second job I doubt he was wearing a police uniform and that anyone, including the driver of the SUV, knew he was a police officer. He may have looked like any other guy, were it not for the firearm in his hand.

And to the "why don't YOU go out and make a difference" crowd how do you know some of the posters here aren't LEOs in one capacity or another?

PaperPusher said:

"Qwert, not sure about you but a .02% blood alcohol level is far from being "drunk""

I read the articles. Where does it say the driver was a .02. All I read was that he was arrested for DUI. That would indicate a BAC > .08%.

Where in any of the articles does it say the vehicle was moving at the time the officer steeped in front of it. I can't find a quote that shows clearly he did not step in front of a parked or stopped vehicle.

1st WTOP Article: "Police spokeswoman Amy Bertsch says the officer tried to stop the customers from fleeing in a Jeep Grand Cherokee and fired at the vehicle when it drove toward him." Could it not have been stopped when he stepped in front of it then he fired when it drove toward him.

Gravis this is a quote form the news article in the Washington Post.

"Crawford said the officer, who was in uniform, was told by a restaurant employee that the teenagers had walked out on their bill"

"In Uniform"

I'm not going to defend the actions of the officer because I don't have all the facts, but neither do any of you. Some of the facts we do have, like the officer was in uniform, are quickly being forgotten.

Sorry Gravis, the part about the uniform should have been directed at pgens.

0.02 was reported in the Post print edition this a.m. That's enough for underaged drinking in any state. -§

PaperPusher Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Qwert, not sure about you but a .02% blood alcohol
> level is far from being "drunk" and the driver's
> possession of pot is certainly no guarantee that
> the victim was "stoned" as you say.

From the Washington Post article:
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.

I don't know much about the metabolism of alcohol, but if he blew a .02 more than two hours after the accident, I would have to agree that he was drunk at the time of the shooting. Stupid kids. I don't care what people do in their own home, but drunk driving isn't acceptable.

I just noticed that IHOP is moving into my neighborhood in what was once the Copelands in Centreville/Clifton. I'd better buy a bulletproof vest.

I disagree that he was drunk based on that, but it doesn't matter. VA has zero tolerance for youth drinking and driving, period.

Unless that IHOP in centreville comes up with wasabi-flavored syrup I don't know how they'll sell to the market for that shopping center.

I understand the Rooty Tooty Fresh and Fruity plate is known in DUI circles for its ability to sop up the booze and bring down the BAL. Did the guy have blueberry breath? Did he?

PaperPusher Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the cop murdered someone in cold blood because he
> was tired from working too many hours on and off
> duty and had a fucking gun in his hand. Any idiot
> too stupid to get out of the road with a vehicle
> coming at him deserves to have his stupid ass run
> over. The only difference in this case was that
> the rent a cop was a real cop in his day job and
> had the license to carry a gun. Most other rent a
> cops don't have guns to kill people. What if it
> was me being the security guard and I shot someone
> in the same situation. Do you actually believe
> I'd be given extra consideration since I'm not a
> cop during my day job hours? Highly doubt it.
> The idiot cop deserves to be in jail.
> Manslaughter at minimum.






Agreed, you are putting yourself in harms way by jumping in front of a moving vehicle. Shouldn't be assault with a deadly weapon ESPECIALLY when the driver tries to swerve out of the way. Police officers like this are worthless. I highly doubt any of the kids even ended up paying the bill they owed, what a terrible waste of human life. Meanwhile, the gung ho cop faggots praise the shit out of the officer for 'doing a great job, stopping crime, killing innocent kids'..

paperpusher. its funny how you are so adimately against putting your "100%" faith in to any corrupted train of thought, and yet you seem to be "100%" sure that this whole mess is all the cops fault. your own posts are completely self contradictory. sounds like you are a real smart guy. let the city/fbi/citizens rewiew board do their investigation before you go slandering someone that you dont even know.

obviously by the name "paperpusher" it sounds like you are the kind of person that finds if very easy to critique, when you yourself dosent even have the balls to go out and do something that makes a difference. oh wait, you do....by the way did you not get the memo about those TPS reports...

where did it say that the vehicle was moving when the cop steped in front of it? If it wasnt moving and the driver gunned it when the cop walked in to the path of the vehicle (very possibly his only path of approach due to the size of the parkinglot) than isnt the driver the on who initiated the deadly confrontation.

enoughalready, go ahead and say all you want about me and my contributions to society - Obviously I didn't choose a job where I can go shoot people for petty offenses and don't care to. Am I sure that it is entirely the cop's fault? No but I am certain that he didn't have to shoot into the vehicle when he KNEW that it was just a bunch of kids out having fun. As for the alcohol test taken 2 hours after the kids were shot - seems like a moot point and performed as an afterthough as a way to shift blame from the cops to the bunch of kids.

As for the question about the cop tired from being overworked? Can we say that it was me applying a little common sense to the situation? I've worked the graveyard shift after working a full day on my primary job and needless to say it is exhausting no matter how brainless the work may be.

Go ahead and attack me ... I really don't care. It's idiots with guns that need to be attacked.

Disclaimer:
I appreciate when cops do their job properly just as I appreciate when anyone does their job properly. Screwups by professions with guns kill people. Screwups by people who don't carry guns don't kill people.

ok so i got some info from watching the news in which they had the kids that were in the car speak. here's what they said:

1. they were in the parking lot of the IHOP
   
2. their Jeep (not really an SUV) was turning the corner inside the parking lot
   
3. the passengers all seperately stated that the cop was quite far away "atleast 30 feet away"
   
4. the cop shot at them (they didnt say how many rounds)
   
5. a passenger in the back seat was struck by atleast one bullet and killed
   
6. this all happened as they rounded the corner on the parking lot

and for the record, because the driver was underage, ANY amount of alchol would count as him being "drunk" so that is why he got the DUI for 0.02% BAC. he was also charged with possesion (of marijana) and had not been using it so he was not stoned at the time.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

enoughalready Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> where did it say that the vehicle was moving when
> the cop steped in front of it?

The police spokesman quoted in the WP article said the officer stepped into the path of the vehicle. Place your cell phone on the floor. What path is it in? Kick it. Now what path is it in? Moving things have paths, stationary things don't. If the vehicle had a clear path for the officer to step into then it was likely moving. But we'll know for sure when more details emerge. Of course we don't have all the facts, just the statements of the police spokesman and the dashers.

Another article... nothing new except the attorney for the officer says he acted within accepted parameters and urged patience.

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=713415

It says the officer had permission to moonlight at IHOP, but why an officer is allowed to wear his/her uniform while moonlighting at a private business is beyond me. Should the occupants of the SUV want to sue someone, if the guy was out of uniform they could have only sued IHOP because their employee fired at them. Now because of the uniform the Alexandria police get sucked into the incident as a potential lawsuit target. With all the scrutiny governments are under for use of tax dollars I'm surprised rules aren't in place forbidding any use of government property while not on the clock or going straight to and from work. What if the IHOP is across town from where the officer lives? Is a squad car being used to travel to and from the other job?

pgens,
  the cops take a "i do as i please" stance on the world, so why would they bother paying for gas and not be able to speed as much as they want? i know one thing is true, the cop put himself in possible danger by not just taking down the plate number. im hoping he gets a hefty load of jail time.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Gravis, I agree. It's murder no matter how you look at it and is still murder if it is ruled otherwise by the courts.

All this chatter is making me hungry for some flapjacks. -§

qwert Wrote:
>
> I feel sorry for the driver who has to live the
> rest of his life knowing he got his friend killed
> because he failed to stop the car. But he
> probably finds it easier to blame the cop. Good
> times.

Um the cop kill his friend, its not like the driver crashed or it was a DUI crash. The cop fired at the car hitting the passanger.

the cop wouldnt have shot if the driver didnt try to run him over with his car. as for everyone who keeps on saying "just get the tag #", if the cop located the theives than he had a duty to apprehend them there. with your line of thinking no criminals would ever be caught

I see. So if the cop took down the tags, called his buddies and had them meet him at the registration address and question the guy's parents that isn't better than just shooting them. Because just shooting them gets people caught, while just going to their house and picking them up there does nothing. You must be a Mensa member.

The officer's duty to apprehend is not at all costs, and if the vehicle was passing him, his life was not in danger at any point that he shot the side of the vehicle.

enoughalready do you spend time at the shopping mall walking in front of people and then suddenly stopping and when someone collides with you, you scream "HELP! SECURITY!" because someone ran into you? That makes as much sense as stepping in front of a moving vehicle and claiming your life was in danger.

he was acting as a security guard, not as an official police officer. He was on Ihop payroll, not county - makes him still a security guard no matter how you slice it.

Ihop has deep pockets, they go for the money. Suing the police only makes them write more tickets to make up for the lost revenue.

paperpusher, once the cop tries to effect an arrest he is no longer on ihops payroll, he is on city time.


pgens, i understand your point that you dont believe he SHOULD have been infront of the vehicle at ANY time, but the fact it that he was. and when the person driving the vehicle accelerates instead of breaking (which a normal person would do), then that person is intending to run him over. I dont know all the facts and if the officer acted out of line then the investigation will prove it. I just dont think its right for everyone to jude before they know all the facts. Although it may seem like i am supporting the officer, all that i am really doing is trying to point out that there is always more than one side to any story.

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pgens,
>   the cops take a "i do as i please"
> stance on the world, so why would they bother
> paying for gas and not be able to speed as much as
> they want? i know one thing is true, the cop put
> himself in possible danger by not just taking down
> the plate number. im hoping he gets a hefty load
> of jail time.

Agreed, I think we really need to take things into context. Say there was a domestic dispute where a 3rd party was killed by a drunk wife (who just had taken the rest of the husbands beer persay) who was trying to drive away from a husband in the street, I'd be willing to bet an ihop breakfast or lunch on the fact that the husband would be facing at least some form of manslaughter charges, assault with a deadly weapon (for pointing the gun at the rest of the people), brandishing a firearm, etc.

Also, he really wasn't acting like a police officer, he was on IHOP payroll..but was using a county gun. That means he is guilty of misappropriation of county property which is a big time crime, imagine if you borrowed a company car for going out with your buddies on friday night, or started using the company van as a taxi cab...... Fucking Bullshit

enoughalready certainly acts as if s/he is knowledgable of the workings of the rent-a-cop process. Sounds like bullshit to me and a convenient way to cover the tracks of a murdering moonlighter trying to pull some overtime.

If what you say is true, and IF the murderer didn't shoot the kid but instead just wrote down a license plate, would that equate to a city payroll situation or an Ihop payroll situation? What a way to boost the ole paycheck, huh?

Different jurisdictions have different rules for "Off Duty Employment". The rules and laws on this vary, but generally officers are allowed to use their uniforms, radio, gun, and other equipment (and, if needed, police cruiser - but that is often an extra charge to cover cost of gas and vehicle). Also, off duty employment must be approved by the department, and organized through the department (in Fairfax, I don't know about Alexandria and other jurisdictions).
"Enoughalready" has hit the nail right on the head so far when it comes to the laws in this case. As soon as that officer was made aware of the crime that had just been committed, and attempted to affect an arrest, he became on duty. Police officers are sworn to uphold the law, 24/7. If an officer is off duty, eating at him, it is his duty to uphold the law, and do whatever he safely can to either gthat IHOP with some friends, and someone did a dine and dash in front ofet the people who did it, or get their license number.


While I don't completely agree with what the everything that officer is reported to have done, I don't believe that the circumstances behind the officer being there, working off duty, and trying to uphold the law are illegal.

Me Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> While I don't completely agree with what the
> everything that officer is reported to have done,
> I don't believe that the circumstances behind the
> officer being there, working off duty, and trying
> to uphold the law are illegal.

Agreed, and I didn't suggest that the officer's wearing the uniform is a crime, but I have a problem with an officer wearing a police uniform while in the employ of a commercial interest. I guess there are policies and agreements specifying behavior, but what would happen if my car broke down in a lane of traffic outside an IHOP, I see a person in a police uniform through the window of the IHOP, and I go in and ask him if he could help me out, direct traffic around the vehicle, etc? Is he bound by policy to leave the IHOP post and assist me?

It seems to me that all interests would be served better if an officer is either plainclothed or in some other uniform when being paid by someone other than the police force. He/she can always show a badge and identify him/herself as a police officer if the need arises.

Sorry, but if someone drives a vehicle towards another person they are attempting to cause that person serious bodily harm or death.

The state of Virginia allows the use of lethal force to prevent serious bodily harm or death so as far as I'm concerned, the shooting was justified.

boredom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sorry, but if someone drives a vehicle towards
> another person they are attempting to cause that
> person serious bodily harm or death.
>
> The state of Virginia allows the use of lethal
> force to prevent serious bodily harm or death so
> as far as I'm concerned, the shooting was
> justified.

Just so we are clear, the next time you begin to pull out of your driveway and some guy jumps in the path of your car and says "oh crap, now the car might hit me and I could die," he is legally justified in emptying his firearm into your car with the intention of killing you. Is that what you are arguing? That by knowingly but unnecessarily placing oneself in imminent danger, deadly force is justified to escape from such placement? That because I jump in front of a moving vehicle, the intention of the driver of the car is therefore to kill me?

What if the situation was turned around? What if another restaurant patron was in a car looking for a parking spot when the dashers departed the IHOP, and the dashers ran out in the road in front of the car, said "oh no, that person in the car now heading toward us is trying to KILL US!" and opened fire? Don't you think they should be arrested and prosecuted for assault with a deadly weapon?

pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> enoughalready do you spend time at the shopping
> mall walking in front of people and then suddenly
> stopping and when someone collides with you, you
> scream "HELP! SECURITY!" because someone ran into
> you? That makes as much sense as stepping in
> front of a moving vehicle and claiming your life
> was in danger.

ok... now that's just rediculous!... the person that ran into him was clearly trying to kill him so he would have taken out a gun and shot them several times. perfectly logical; perfectly legal.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/2006 07:29AM by Gravis.

This is from the Washington Post (March 1, 2006)

"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."

Of course this little tid bit was buried at the bottom of the article.

I saw the tidbit in the article and could invision the security guard stepping in front of the car with his hand up thinking he was superman or something.

I can envision the bravery and commitment of law enforcement officers.

It's easy to second-guess everyone in this equation, but personally, it seems like the cop should've known that this wasn't a crime warranting deadly force. Some kids bolted from an Ihop without paying. By all accounts, they didn't force the employees into a freezer and rob the place. The officer was aware of this.

How difficult would it have been for him to simply follow them to the vehicle and run their license plate? With that information, the gun shouldn't have even been an option.

Car was already in motion:

From Washington Post:

"Walters said Smith left the restaurant first to warm up Brown's car. Walters left and climbed into the front passenger seat. Then came Brown, who sat behind Smith, and Adam Daughtrey. Smith pulled around to the front of the restaurant to pick up Paulitzky and Aaron Daughtrey. "They came out walking pretty fast, so at that time, me and Steve-o figured out that they probably ditched the bill," Walters said in an e-mail."

pgens,

You are comparing apples and oranges.

"Just so we are clear, the next time you begin to pull out of your driveway and some guy jumps in the path of your car and says "oh crap, now the car might hit me and I could die," he is legally justified in emptying his firearm into your car with the intention of killing you. Is that what you are arguing? That by knowingly but unnecessarily placing oneself in imminent danger, deadly force is justified to escape from such placement? That because I jump in front of a moving vehicle, the intention of the driver of the car is therefore to kill me?

What if the situation was turned around? What if another restaurant patron was in a car looking for a parking spot when the dashers departed the IHOP, and the dashers ran out in the road in front of the car, said "oh no, that person in the car now heading toward us is trying to KILL US!" and opened fire? Don't you think they should be arrested and prosecuted for assault with a deadly weapon?"

The officer had a legal justification for attempting to stop the vehicle. It is his job. In the other situations you cited, ie..a citizen or a criminal stepping in front of a vehicle there is no legal justification for them attempting to stop the vehicle. Once again I am not defending the officers actions because we don't have the whole story. But your examples for condemning him are rediculous. If you substitute a uniformed police officer in either of the two examples above I think a resonable driver would stop their vehicle.

It still seems like the sensible second option (if the first option of running the license plate isn't possible) would be to simply call in a description of the vehicle and its occupants. How difficult would it have been to track them down at that time in the morning?

Again, this officer knew what the extent of the crime was; and I don't think anyone is buying that his drawing a weapon was ever really necessary.

Did he actually have to shoot into the vehicle to stop it? For that, he is an idiot deserving to go to jail.

PaperPusher Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Did he actually have to shoot into the vehicle to
> stop it? For that, he is an idiot deserving to go
> to jail.


Yes, he had to shoot. If not, he could have been a dead idiot and you could be on the board moaning about how kids don't respect authority these days.

kids never respected authority, ever, not even once in history. they may have feared it, but they did not respect it.

The way I look at it is like this. Yes the kids were stupid for running out on the bill. They never should have done it. But what I ask you is this. If YOU were a police officer and you were just told that some kids just skipped out on the bill, would you put your life in danger by stepping directly in front of a moving vehicle hoping that the kids in the car will see you at night under the lights of the parking lot. Now I doubt that the cop knew the driver was intoxicated but at whatever it was AM in the morning, it should have been a thought in his mind that MAYBE they could be drunk. So now I ask you if you were an officer watching an IHOP and at 3:40 am you were told that some kids ran out on a bill, and you thought, it's possible the driver could be drunk...THEN would you step in front of a moving vehicle. A cop is supposed to think of these things and at the same time think about the safety of himself, any possible bystanders, and yes even the people in the vehicle. Yes I understand that as a cop, if a vehicle is heading straight for you, it is considered a deadly weapon and in which case you CAN use deadly force to save your life. But at the same time...is it wise to put yourself into that position for an IHOP bill from four kids that skipped out on the bill, which can't be all that expensive considering the price of IHOP food. The cop put himself in danger of being run over by a vehicle which in turn technically gives him the right to fire on the vehicle. That is what bothers me the most. If it winds up being decided that the officer made the correct decision even after he placed himself in danger by stepping in the path of a moving vehicle, then what will stop this from happening in the future with a trigger happy cop. All he will have to do is step in front of the car (for whatever reason) say the car was heading right for him and shoot at the car. I personally don't think it's right. But that is just my opinion. Now if the cop was standing to the side and the car then turned to head for him, then I would hope he would do what he could to save his life because then it is quite obvious that person has every intent to harm the officer.

My point exactly. It's 3:40 AM--how hard could it have been to track that vehicle down if he'd simply stepped out of the way and radioed it to other units? But nooooo--those kids were a threat to society and had to be stopped at all costs. (rolls eyes).

yeah lol aren't we forgetting that the cop jumped in the way, the kids swerved out of the way to avoid hitting him, meanwhile the police officer was blasting shots into the car???????????/
3

and id never moan about kids not respecting authority cause I like to see police dead on the street

Exactly. All of my own feelings on excuses for life in danger, bravery of police, etc all went away when I learned there were shots fired into the side of the vehicle. At that point the officer's life was not in danger of being struck by the vehicle, whether you argue he should have been in front of it or not.


And sal,

>a citizen or a criminal stepping in front of a vehicle there
>is no legal justification for them attempting to stop the vehicle.

Apparently you are not aware that Virginia citizens are allowed, with a firearm, to protect themselves with deadly force if life is in danger and retreat is not possible. So my comparison is not apples to oranges at all.

I know everyone has their opinions and they are entitled to them, but it's a little scary that some people are okay with a police officer having a double-0 license just by jumping in front of a moving vehicle under the presumption that life is therefore in danger and deadly force is required to extract the officer from the threat.

The only possible good news to come out of this is the legal precedent for pedestrians in a walkway where they have right-of-way, or heck even in strip mall parking lots, can then open fire on approaching vehicles that in their opinion do not appear to be slowing down. If trained police officers aren't expected to jump out of the way then I can't see how out-of-shape, untrained, ordinary citizens should be expected to.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/2006 02:22PM by pgens.

I hope this isn't precedent setting in the fact that the police can just shoot at you when they jump infront of your car in a parking lot

Note to self: WALK to Dunkin' Donuts in the future. Don't drive. Better to be safe than sorry. :)

maybe it is best for me to pull over and put my hands behind my head every time I see a cop. My kid sits in a seat behind me so I should take no chances.

Walk to krsipy kreme, too, the drive through at the Alexandria one was packed last night. Walk-in traffic would have been better served.

All you people complaining because this cop did his job are the same ones who complain that cops don't do enough to stop crime. You have no idea what happened that night. For all you know, the SUV was stopped, the cop stepped in front to come around to the driver's side and the kid punched it. I wish more people would let the investigation conclude before jumping to half-assed conclusions.

I think that the cop is being given latitude simply because he is a cop. If a regular security guard had shot a patron over an IHOP bill, no one would be coming to his defense.

Yes, the kids needed to be caught and punished. I will not defend their behavior. However, they did not commit a violent crime. The gun should never have been used. If the kid was truly shot from the side, then I'd call this murder instead of manslaughter.

On the other hand, I admit that the kids may be lying. I will await the forensic analysis before making my final judgment. But it will take a lot of evidence for me to exonerate the cop. The worst part is that I bet he feels terrible. I bet he would take it back if he could. Mistakes have terrible consequences when they involve firearms. Just ask Dick Cheney. Oh wait, he got away with his drunken accident.