Sorry for the repeat posts, but I noticed that the editorial is in March 2006, and the report was issued in June 2006, so the Compost did not have the benefit of facts. This was a hot local issue and I remember the liberals tossing around allegations of wild eyed, gun happy cops going after kids. The report put an end to that stuff. The link in post 304 contains a lot of detail about what happened.
No problem, I am not going to worry about that case much anyway. It did just dawn on me what I think happened.
I suspect the police cleared their guy who could have been charged with Man1 and in exchange the other kids in the car were not charged in the death which they could have been. Afterall someone died while they were committing a crime which is in most jurisdictions is makes you legally liable for the death.
I suspect that was the trade-off and the authorities played it up as justifiable. I suspect the off duty guy would have had much more trouble if the only suspect was the driver and he killed him. There would have been no trade-off to make then. I would not necessarily believe how it was played up by the person presenting the report.
The March editorial was typical WaPo pandering and jumping the gun. It's typical of their irresponsibility which is starting to match that of the NYT's. The March editorial was clearly written before the incident was fully investigated. As for not having benefit of the facts, they should act responsibly and either keep their mouths shut until they do or at least refrain from stirring the pot. But we all know that the more they stir the pot, the more papers they sell.
I also notice that the WaPo report about the results of the investigation is much briefer and less detailed than the original hit piece challenging the cop's story. The report on the investigation results says as little as possible. "Oops! Looks like we stepped in it again. Let's hurry up and get this swept under the carpet."