A 58-year-old man who collided with an Oakland police patrol car
People do not collide with moving cars; it's the other way around. Who is and isn't guilty is determined on case by case basis. But there is no need to contort the language; it only makes the police look bad.
The collision happened around 1:30 p.m. when the patrol car traveling at slow speeds south on Third Avenue made a turn to East 12th Street, police said.
Failing to yield to pedestrians, probably. The LEO was not looking around, but fiddled with the radio or tried to find a house number.
Police have not determined if the pedestrian was on the crosswalk at the time of the collision.
What, pray tell, could be the reason why they haven't determined this simple detail? A slow moving car couldn't throw the victim 100 feet away; since he is alive, he fell within a couple feet from the place where he was hit. Was it a sudden, convenient case of momentary distraction that overcame all the officers and paramedics and firemen who responded? The location of the incident is one of the most essential facts to be recorded - far more important than noticing how many other people were in the cop's car, or whether the cop was responding to a call.
Google Maps shows that pedestrian crossings are present along 3rd Avenue. Also, a car that travels south on 3rd has to stop at this stop sign. Was the LEO above that simple requirement? Otherwise the road looks simple, and there are no obstructions. The LEO could strike a pedestrian only if he didn't pay attention to driving.
Any chance the police car dashboard cam was turned on to record whether the car stopped at the stop sign and the collision with the pedestrian?