Comments

1
This first round of shots *might* be justified, but shooting at a car driving away certainly isn’t.
3
How many damn shots was that?

The way that car pulled out looked less dangerous than when a rude or an alert driver cuts off a pedestrian. I've had encounters as a pedestrian with cars that we're more threatening and frightening than this would have been. So by SPD standards maybe I would have been justified shooting the driver about 20 times.
4
Fuck the SPD. They were in zero danger. "Backing up," my ass. How many lives were put in danger for absolutely no reason? But nothing will happen to these overzealous trigger-happy lunatics, because nothing ever does. Seattle's most dangerous street gang wears badges. And remember: Prosecutors are cops too. Jenny Durkan is one of them.
5
Jonah Spangenthal-Lee, does SPD training discuss whether to shoot at a car that's driving away?
6
What @1 said. I’ve been on three juries and the cops overreacted as if they were playing COD or GTA.
7
@1 given generally accepted police standards, those shots are the dictionary definition of 'justified'. The officer is literally being pushed by the car and the driver obviously knows the cop is right there. There's no misunderstanding taking place here.
8
Justified
9
Those cops are losers. Everyone in my generation learned the proper way to stop a rampaging car:

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-h62EDdgQk5c/V…

10
Pretty reckless.
11
and no one got hit? wtf?
12
@7. As the car is driving away, and no longer posing a threat to officers, at least 6 shots are fired by what appear to be high powered rifles. This was to stop a fleeing suspect not to protect their own safety and put the safety of nearby public in extreme danger. That’s the dictionary definition of justified? I don’t think so.
13
From the Seattle police manual:

https://www.seattle.gov/police-manual/ti…

“Officers Shall Not Fire at or From a Moving Vehicle

Firearms shall not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless a person in the vehicle is immediately threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle. The moving vehicle itself shall not presumptively constitute a threat that justifies an officer’s use of deadly force.

An officer threatened by an oncoming vehicle shall, if feasible, move out of its path instead of discharging a firearm at it or any of its occupants.

Officers shall not discharge a firearm from a moving vehicle unless a person is immediately threatening the officer or another person with deadly force.”
14
@13 wins.

Seems pretty clear, unless there's a "panic overrides all rules" exception somewhere else.
15
@7 Which 'generally accepted police standards' are those? The ones 'generally accepted' by authoritarian shits? It appears the Seattle police manual does not take these 'generally accepted standards' into account.

Pretty clearly they initially said the car was 'backing up toward them' because they know full well most of that barrage was unjustified and wildly reckless.
16
Permanent Consent Decree.

Let our SPD be run by the Feds, obviously local management is incompetent.
18
@13: I hate to agree even in part with the authoritarians here, who always seem to excuse and celebrate police violence whenever it occurs. (Looking at you and you and you, @7, 9, and 17.)

However, having watched the video, I believe these police have committed no crime. Under RCW 9A.16.040(1)(c)(i), police in Washington are allowed to use deadly force when necessary to apprehend someone who police reasonably believe has committed a felony. And even if the police turn out to be wrong about the necessity of their force or the suspect's commission of the felony, they are immune from conviction if they acted without malice, meaning spur-of-the-moment shootings are lawful even if it later turns out the shootings were unjustified.

The first burst of fire seems justified by the need to prevent the officer from being rammed. The second burst at the retreating vehicle does not. It is nonetheless not a crime under Washington law for police to behave this way, though as you point out, the officers can and should be fired for doing this.
19
@17. An officer just can’t shoot someone because they are suspected of committing a felony. They must reasonably believe there is a risk of serious harm. If you read the next paragraph of the RCW entry you cited (see below) it states:

“2) In considering whether to use deadly force under subsection (1)(c) of this section, to arrest or apprehend any person for the commission of any crime, the peace officer must have probable cause to believe that the suspect, if not apprehended, poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer or a threat of serious physical harm to others. Among the circumstances which may be considered by peace officers as a "threat of serious physical harm" are the following:
(a) The suspect threatens a peace officer with a weapon or displays a weapon in a manner that could reasonably be construed as threatening; or
(b) There is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed any crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm.
Under these circumstances deadly force may also be used if necessary to prevent escape from the officer, where, if feasible, some warning is given.”
21
Justified.

However: That close to the slow moving car and that many shots fired, and they didn't hit anyone? When they found the car, they said there was a small amount of blood that did not indicate a serious injury...

Seriously, guys, SPEND SOME TIME AT THE RANGE!
22
Ah Mr. Mehlman. They observed the suspect 'attempt to murder one of their number'? We've go a pretty clear view here and this just makes your assertion pretty clearly ludicrous.

Maybe keep your fucking guns in your pants if you do not have a very good reason to believe a suspect to be armed. Then maybe you won't go squeezing off a bunch of random rounds in a tightly packed neighborhood for no other reason than other people are doing it.
23
They've found the car, presumably they know who owns it - so where are the weed smoking phone holders?
25
This is like a scene from Narcos. These officers deserve to get their own show on Netflix, or at least starring roles in a Keystone Cops remake.
27
@15 there isn't a nation on earth where police have guns at all where this would not be a justified shoot. Not one, anywhere.

If your issue is armed police, well, that's a fine stance to have. But otherwise, you've stretched the definition of "authoritarian" to include the least authoritarian humans in the history of the planet. But words don't matter anymore, so whatever.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.