Re: Cop who shot innocent kid
Date: June 08, 2007 09:52PM
Genevieve Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Unlike some people on this site, I do not hold any
> grudges against the police. However, I still
> don't understand this shooting.
>
> First, why did the cop put himself in a dangerous
> situation over an unpaid bill at IHOP? Couldn't
> he have recorded the license plate number and
> tracked this back to the owner of the SUV? Or
> perhaps another cop in the area would catch the
> SUV if he called it in? I understand that these
> methods wouldn't guarantee that the kids were
> caught, but it seems like a safe approach.
>
> Second, once you are in harms way how does
> shooting at the vehicle help? Even if he had hit
> the driver, couldn't the vehicle continue driving
> towards him?
>
> I'm not trying to berate the cop. I really just
> don't understand why this ended with gunfire.
> Were the cop's actions based upon policies and
> procedures?
To address your points, the cop put himself in a dangerous position over an unpaid bill at IHOP because that is what cops do. I assure you the cop didn't say to himself, "When I pursue this kid out of IHOP, I'm going to stand in front of his car." When the cop came out of IHOP and the kid was already leaving, he ran in front of the car and signaled it to stop, just as a cop would do if you were speeding. As with a speeding driver, if the person accelerates and attempts to run the police officer over, deadly force would be appropriate in stopping that threat. Could the officer have recorded the tag number and ask someone else to help? Sure he could have. The officer could have also not come to work that night, or perhaps not even bothered his off-duty assignment with this petty crime. We can "what if" until we are blue in our face, but that is not productive. The officer chose to try and apprehend a criminal and the criminal chose not to be apprehended.
Your second point, why shoot the driver? The kid accelerated toward the officer, which is an overt act to murder the officer. No matter how you spin this story the kid driving had several choices: Stop the car and surrender, stop the car and run away on foot, accelerate and attempt to flee. By accelerating, the kid accepted the fact that if the officer did not move, he would run him over. Newton's laws wouldn't allow for anything different. The officer, who HAD made an attempt to get out of the way and ran into a parked car did the only thing he could do.
Your last point about the shooting based on policy and procedure is where the media ran away. I believe Alexandria policy states officers should avoid shooting at moving motor vehicles. Even if the police department determines an officer violated it's policies in the course of a shooting, the commonwealth's attorney must decide if the shooting was legal, or illegal. For the shooting to be manslaughter or murder, the prosecution would have to prove a GROSS, wilful and wanton disregard for human life. A person who shoots a burglar doesn't get prosecuted for a crime for the same reason the cop didn't get charged with a crime. The person (officer) was in fear for his life and made an attempt to stop the action.
I'm sure many people don't agree with me, but I thank the police for putting themselves on the line every day. When criminals choose to break the law and get caught, they need to take their lumps and stop trying to run over police officers.