Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsMonday, July 6, 2009
Crime Officer-Involved Shooting in the Central District
Posted by Jonah Spangenthal-Lee on Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 8:18 PM
A Seattle police officer has been placed on administrative leave after opening fire on the driver of a car in the Central District earlier this evening who, police say, attempted to run the officer over.
Officers spotted a white Lexus near 20th Ave S and S Jackson Street at about 5:30 p.m. and discovered that the plates did not match the car. Police have not said why officers were checking the plates.
Officers approached the car and attempted to contact four men inside the Lexus who, police say, were "uncooperative." According to police, the driver peeled out and tried to run over the officers. One officer then opened fire on the driver.
The Lexus headed southbound on Jackson street, until all four men ditched the car near 18th and Jackson. The men fled on foot and, police say, one of them dropped a loaded handgun in the street. The unoccupied Lexus continued to roll down Jackson Street until it collided with a patrol car.
Police have arrested three of the men and are looking for the fourth. One of the men in custody, police say, sustained a gunshot wound to the hand. The men will be booked into the King County Jail for investigation of assault on an officer.
1
Do you keep a map on your wall with little pins for all these reports?
What would that map tell you over time?
It is all a mystery to me.
What would that map tell you over time?
It is all a mystery to me.
3
Maybe the guy in the car did something that would give the officer just cause to shoot at the car? Just a thought.
4
@1: That African-Americans are more likely to be the victims of violent crimes than people of other ethnic identities?
5
suspicious vehicle = young black men + luxury vehicle
first and most important equation taught at the academy.
i like how the cops can provoke a situation/chase, thus becoming victim and hero! keep up the good work.
first and most important equation taught at the academy.
i like how the cops can provoke a situation/chase, thus becoming victim and hero! keep up the good work.
10
This was a totally inappropriate use of deadly force.
First, because the car was full of passengers who are not reported to have threatened anyone.
Second, because even if the driver had nearly run over someone as he peeled out, opening fire only escalated the danger of the situation. Say the shots miss, the perp speeds through town like his life depends on getting away. Say the shots hit, a speeding car goes out of control in the middle of the city.
Meanwhile, the smart move for the passengers in this situation would have been to simply linger by the car and allow themselves to be detained for a bit. The driver's misbehavior provides no probable cause to search or arrest his passengers.
Incidentally, if it was a passenger who took that bullet to the hand, he's well-positioned to file suit.
First, because the car was full of passengers who are not reported to have threatened anyone.
Second, because even if the driver had nearly run over someone as he peeled out, opening fire only escalated the danger of the situation. Say the shots miss, the perp speeds through town like his life depends on getting away. Say the shots hit, a speeding car goes out of control in the middle of the city.
Meanwhile, the smart move for the passengers in this situation would have been to simply linger by the car and allow themselves to be detained for a bit. The driver's misbehavior provides no probable cause to search or arrest his passengers.
Incidentally, if it was a passenger who took that bullet to the hand, he's well-positioned to file suit.
13
@12:
He's assuming they won't be _convicted_ as accessories. That's a pretty safe assumption; it's not like the gas pedal responds to a majority vote of car occupants.
He's assuming they won't be _convicted_ as accessories. That's a pretty safe assumption; it's not like the gas pedal responds to a majority vote of car occupants.
15
@12,
Based on what's been reported, the passengers were apparently in the clear right up to the moment when they exited the car and ran from the police on foot. To charge a passenger as an accessory, the police would have to show probable cause that the passenger somehow enabled the driver to speed away. (Staying put with your seat belt buckled doesn't cut it.)
Based on what's been reported, the passengers were apparently in the clear right up to the moment when they exited the car and ran from the police on foot. To charge a passenger as an accessory, the police would have to show probable cause that the passenger somehow enabled the driver to speed away. (Staying put with your seat belt buckled doesn't cut it.)
16
Article missed some important info:
"The Lexus headed southbound on Jackson street, until all four men ditched the car near 18th and Jackson."
They ditched the Lexus only AFTER crashing it into a second police car at 18th.
Also, KOMO and the P-I are both reporting that the suspects shot first, as officers were approaching the car.
"The Lexus headed southbound on Jackson street, until all four men ditched the car near 18th and Jackson."
They ditched the Lexus only AFTER crashing it into a second police car at 18th.
Also, KOMO and the P-I are both reporting that the suspects shot first, as officers were approaching the car.
17
What would have happened if they just let the car speed away? Nothing. They would catch up to them another time. It's just a car.
Instead they created a very dangerous situation with gun fire and a car crash. Dumb.
Instead they created a very dangerous situation with gun fire and a car crash. Dumb.
19
Here's a C.D. News account of the incident ... and here's a selection of background noise for the same day.
I especially like the crew of young black males "associated with pink bicycles" casing a house for possibe burglary.
I especially like the crew of young black males "associated with pink bicycles" casing a house for possibe burglary.
21
What would have happened if they just let the car speed away?
@17 Well with any luck, if they got away, they'd come fu*k with you and rob you. Maybe shoot your kid? Who knows, but we can only hope.
@17 Well with any luck, if they got away, they'd come fu*k with you and rob you. Maybe shoot your kid? Who knows, but we can only hope.
22
Up here in Wallingford, we have our share of troubled youth too, why don't we get press coverage. Why just yesterday I saw a gang of wigga's from Fremont cruising around in their daddie's BMW calling the missus a 'stroller-mama-bitch' as she stepped out of Fuel on 45th with her morning java. Seriously, the kids up here are running amok.
23
@4 Victims AND perpetrators. Remember, it's a vicious circle and by no means should they be expected to take responsibility for the situation.
24
I hereby commission the assembled community of scholars and Slog posters to compile a Field Manual of approved passive-aggressive law enforcement techniques.
25
@17
What would have happened if they just let the car speed away? Nothing. They would catch up to them another time"
And if these guys had gone on to commit a serious crime in the meanwhile and the public found out a cop had let them go to "catch up to them another time" the cop would loose his job, the public would be pissed, and people would have even less faith in our cops to protect us.
What would have happened if they just let the car speed away? Nothing. They would catch up to them another time"
And if these guys had gone on to commit a serious crime in the meanwhile and the public found out a cop had let them go to "catch up to them another time" the cop would loose his job, the public would be pissed, and people would have even less faith in our cops to protect us.
26
@21: Wrong. Re-read the question. Here's a hint: It doesn't say "what if we didn't have police." Or are you one of those "we have to destroy the village to save it" people?
There are plenty of places where the police are no longer allowed to engage in high speed pursuit outside of the most extreme cases. Believe it or not total chaos doesn't result.
People always say that if you get robbed you should just give up your wallet without a struggle because it's only money. It's not worth someone dying. Apparently that logic doesn't apply to cops. For them 4 or more lives are worth less than catching a car thief right that second (because there will never be another chance to make that arrest, right?).
There are plenty of places where the police are no longer allowed to engage in high speed pursuit outside of the most extreme cases. Believe it or not total chaos doesn't result.
People always say that if you get robbed you should just give up your wallet without a struggle because it's only money. It's not worth someone dying. Apparently that logic doesn't apply to cops. For them 4 or more lives are worth less than catching a car thief right that second (because there will never be another chance to make that arrest, right?).
28
@17, @21, @25,
re. "What would have happened if...", nobody's saying that the SPD shouldn't have pursued these guys. The issue here is whether the SPD was justified in opening fire.
It wasn't the gunshots that ended the chase, it was the fact that multiple responding units boxed them in with SPD cruisers. The gunshots just aggravated the situation and put the public at increased risk.
@16,
Actually, neither KOMO nor anyone else is reporting that the perps fired shots. If they did open fire first, then I would agree that the SPD was justified in returning fire.
re. "What would have happened if...", nobody's saying that the SPD shouldn't have pursued these guys. The issue here is whether the SPD was justified in opening fire.
It wasn't the gunshots that ended the chase, it was the fact that multiple responding units boxed them in with SPD cruisers. The gunshots just aggravated the situation and put the public at increased risk.
@16,
Actually, neither KOMO nor anyone else is reporting that the perps fired shots. If they did open fire first, then I would agree that the SPD was justified in returning fire.
29
Oddly enough, "Suspect A" in this case already got a year for eluding police (among numerous other convictions), in a 2007 chase that was terminated by Sheriff's Deputies.
30
Eric Arrr you are such a complete and total moron of the highest degree.
Please go away and stop cluttering up SLOG with your factually incorrect rhetoric.
The SPD was completely justified in shooting at those thugs. Period.
Fact:
1. The car was displaying stolen plates that didn't match.
2. Therefore it immediately became a felony situation.
3. There were multiple people inside the vehicle raising the potential danger level, that anyone inside a vehicle had the potential for being dangerous, as the theft of a motorvehicle is one of the riskiest situations for a police officer, as they have limited view of any potential weapons, the vehicle is mobile and can be used as a weapon, and the occupants within the vehicle are unknown.
4. The occupants were not cooperative as reported. This means they failed to follow a lawful request of an officer performing a felony stop on that vehicle. Rather, they decided to use that vehicle as a weapon, and endanger the officer in some fashion with it. The officer perceived their life in danger by either the approaching/departing vehicle, and/or witnessed a weapon within the vehicle.
Therefore based on totality of circumstances (the legal justification), they were ENTIRELY justified in opening fire. Anyone sitting in a vehicle with stolen plates is a criminal thug. Period. End. Of. Story.
It does NOT matter whether any shots were fired by the thugs first. That is not a necessary requirement nor should it ever be. The thugs clearly knew they were in the wrong, they clearly choose to disobey a police officer during a felony investigation stop.
It is too sad that the officer didn't have a clearer shot.
That much we know to be the truth.
More...
Please go away and stop cluttering up SLOG with your factually incorrect rhetoric.
The SPD was completely justified in shooting at those thugs. Period.
Fact:
1. The car was displaying stolen plates that didn't match.
2. Therefore it immediately became a felony situation.
3. There were multiple people inside the vehicle raising the potential danger level, that anyone inside a vehicle had the potential for being dangerous, as the theft of a motorvehicle is one of the riskiest situations for a police officer, as they have limited view of any potential weapons, the vehicle is mobile and can be used as a weapon, and the occupants within the vehicle are unknown.
4. The occupants were not cooperative as reported. This means they failed to follow a lawful request of an officer performing a felony stop on that vehicle. Rather, they decided to use that vehicle as a weapon, and endanger the officer in some fashion with it. The officer perceived their life in danger by either the approaching/departing vehicle, and/or witnessed a weapon within the vehicle.
Therefore based on totality of circumstances (the legal justification), they were ENTIRELY justified in opening fire. Anyone sitting in a vehicle with stolen plates is a criminal thug. Period. End. Of. Story.
It does NOT matter whether any shots were fired by the thugs first. That is not a necessary requirement nor should it ever be. The thugs clearly knew they were in the wrong, they clearly choose to disobey a police officer during a felony investigation stop.
It is too sad that the officer didn't have a clearer shot.
That much we know to be the truth.
33
Hard to believe they would have "caught up with them later" since the plates (and presumably the address of those plates) didn't match the car.
34
@32 Sure.
I'm assuming you want to debate the sound logic of your previous posts?
(If you think I feel threatened in the slightest degree... you might want to know more about my background first)
Just sayin'
I'm assuming you want to debate the sound logic of your previous posts?
(If you think I feel threatened in the slightest degree... you might want to know more about my background first)
Just sayin'
35
@34,
Me, threaten? Oh, come on. Seriously. I'm a 90-pound wuss. Get over yourself.
It's just that once people start to get all ad-hominem, (e.g., "complete and total moron", etc.) it gets tiresome. I suggest we troll-proof the debate by taking it offline.
Anyway, speaking of previous posts and the merit thereof, it is not a felony to display bogus plates. In fact, it's not even a crime. It's a lousy traffic infraction.
Grounds for stopping a vehicle? Sure. "Immediately a felony situation?" Um, no.
Me, threaten? Oh, come on. Seriously. I'm a 90-pound wuss. Get over yourself.
It's just that once people start to get all ad-hominem, (e.g., "complete and total moron", etc.) it gets tiresome. I suggest we troll-proof the debate by taking it offline.
Anyway, speaking of previous posts and the merit thereof, it is not a felony to display bogus plates. In fact, it's not even a crime. It's a lousy traffic infraction.
Grounds for stopping a vehicle? Sure. "Immediately a felony situation?" Um, no.
36
@35 fair enough. I agree..
It is not a felony to display bogus plates. You are correct. However, that statute you cite does not surround using of plates in an attempt to conceal the true nature of a stolen vehicle. E.g, that sub section you refer to is designed for people who are trying to swap plates onto a legally obtained vehicle.
In this case, the plates were being used in the aiding of committing a felony.
Even so, either way you want to cut it... an officer is going to cautiously approach a vehicle with fake plates with multiple people inside of it. They will treat the scene as having the potential to be a stolen vehicle first and order the driver to turn the vehicle off, put their hands in the air, and comply with instructions, until such time as the scene has been rendered safe.
There is no justifiable reason for the driver to zoom off. None.
Any lawful driver would have handled the situation much differently (as happens thousands of times every day across the city). A simple traffic stop for an infraction or ticket does not raise cause of alarm justifying zooming off and disobeying an officer.
Add to that the fact that this was a felony suspected vehicle theft and you up the ante.
Either way the thugz were in the wrong. And I'll completely support officer safety as being paramount to any interaction with them. They put their lives on the line every day to deal with these type of lawless scum.
So yes it was immediately a potential felony situation if the officer ran the plates and they were for a 84 Chevy Cavalier, and not a 08 Lexus worth in excess of $50,000 being driven by a youth. The totality of circumstances included the type of vehicle being commonly stolen/prized by thugs, the age of the driver not matching the usual profile of a Lexus owner, and especially when running the plates showed the plate didn't match the type of vehicle.
All of that taken in context points to it being stolen, and not simply a clerical mistake to transfer plate ownership.
More...
It is not a felony to display bogus plates. You are correct. However, that statute you cite does not surround using of plates in an attempt to conceal the true nature of a stolen vehicle. E.g, that sub section you refer to is designed for people who are trying to swap plates onto a legally obtained vehicle.
In this case, the plates were being used in the aiding of committing a felony.
Even so, either way you want to cut it... an officer is going to cautiously approach a vehicle with fake plates with multiple people inside of it. They will treat the scene as having the potential to be a stolen vehicle first and order the driver to turn the vehicle off, put their hands in the air, and comply with instructions, until such time as the scene has been rendered safe.
There is no justifiable reason for the driver to zoom off. None.
Any lawful driver would have handled the situation much differently (as happens thousands of times every day across the city). A simple traffic stop for an infraction or ticket does not raise cause of alarm justifying zooming off and disobeying an officer.
Add to that the fact that this was a felony suspected vehicle theft and you up the ante.
Either way the thugz were in the wrong. And I'll completely support officer safety as being paramount to any interaction with them. They put their lives on the line every day to deal with these type of lawless scum.
So yes it was immediately a potential felony situation if the officer ran the plates and they were for a 84 Chevy Cavalier, and not a 08 Lexus worth in excess of $50,000 being driven by a youth. The totality of circumstances included the type of vehicle being commonly stolen/prized by thugs, the age of the driver not matching the usual profile of a Lexus owner, and especially when running the plates showed the plate didn't match the type of vehicle.
All of that taken in context points to it being stolen, and not simply a clerical mistake to transfer plate ownership.
37
@35,
For the record, I never argued that the driver had any right to refuse to give information, or to speed away. As soon as he did that, he committed a whole raft of misdemeanors in plain sight of the officers, and arguably also the class C felony of evasion.
Also, the driver might arguably have committed the class C felony of assault in the 3rd, if in fact he aimed the car so as to "almost run over" a police officer while exiting the parking lot. (I wouldn't make too much of the "almost ran over" bit - if a driver swerves to avoid hitting a police officer and drives around him instead, this is clearly not assault, but the police report is still going to say the driver "almost ran over" the cop.)
Based on the facts reported, my main points in all of this are:
1. The passengers were completely innocent until they fled the vehicle on foot. Up until that point, they did not share responsibility for any of the driver's crimes, nor were any of them subject to lawful arrest or search of their persons.
2. Even as the driver fled, the officer should not have fired his gun. Doing so created the substantial risk that he would hit the passengers (who were legally innocent at that point in time), or that the car would go out of control, or that the driver would flee with an even more desperate lack of regard for public safety.
For the record, I never argued that the driver had any right to refuse to give information, or to speed away. As soon as he did that, he committed a whole raft of misdemeanors in plain sight of the officers, and arguably also the class C felony of evasion.
Also, the driver might arguably have committed the class C felony of assault in the 3rd, if in fact he aimed the car so as to "almost run over" a police officer while exiting the parking lot. (I wouldn't make too much of the "almost ran over" bit - if a driver swerves to avoid hitting a police officer and drives around him instead, this is clearly not assault, but the police report is still going to say the driver "almost ran over" the cop.)
Based on the facts reported, my main points in all of this are:
1. The passengers were completely innocent until they fled the vehicle on foot. Up until that point, they did not share responsibility for any of the driver's crimes, nor were any of them subject to lawful arrest or search of their persons.
2. Even as the driver fled, the officer should not have fired his gun. Doing so created the substantial risk that he would hit the passengers (who were legally innocent at that point in time), or that the car would go out of control, or that the driver would flee with an even more desperate lack of regard for public safety.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
Crowdsourcing Uncut Police Video from the Dec. 12 Occupy Protest at the Port of Seattle by Eli Sanders
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
The Onion Is on a Roll: "Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon" by Charles Mudede
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (37) RSS