USE OF FORCE TO BE STUDIED IN DC POLICE CHASE

Associated Press ^ | October 7, 2013 | Larry Neumeister,Eric Tucker

[Biggirl]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Police in Washington are reviewing the use of officers' deadly force in the killing of a woman who tried to ram her car through a White House barrier, a shooting her family says was unjustified.

[suijuris]

What, they were supposed to let her keep going until she killed someone?

Of course not. But over the weekend Wolf Blitzer aired an interview with what appeared to be a very credible witness to the final shooting. As the witness was describing what she saw, without even recognizing the gravity of it, she stated that the police pulled the baby out of the car and THEN fired numerous rounds on the woman in the car.

Perhaps the woman was already wounded (maybe mortally) from a prior shot, but at a minimum it appears an overuse of force considering the circumstances at that moment or worse, they decided to finish her off execution style. Something does not seem quite right and needs to be thoroughly investigated

[First_Salute]

Every officer who shot at the car, should be promptly dismissed without benefits, without pay, without any “balloon payments,” and be thankful that they got away with manslaughter.

Because, they screwed up ... *badly.*

Some of the officers may be charged with murder.

[justlurking]

If you are buying into this myth that its OK to shoot anybody getting near government buildings you need to re-think.

Look, I'm getting tired of this strawman.

This woman didn't "get near government buildings" because she was stopped by barricades designed to prevent it. But, if that was all she had done, it would have ended peacefully.

When she was thwarted at the White House, she drove off at high speed after striking a Secret Service officer. In my state, that is considered aggravated assault. If he had died, it would have been at least manslaughter.

She was nearly cornered at the US Capitol, but managed to escape:

You can even watch the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyszhTz8fQ4

This woman was given multiple opportunities to stop. In retrospect, it's easy to say she was just scared. But, at that moment she was almost indistinguishable from a genuine threat.

If she had struck and killed an innocent tourist, most people would be wanting to know why the cops didn't stop her when they had the opportunity.

[hedgetrimmer]

Personally I am troubled by the shoot to kill mentality that the media seems to be pushing on this country.

How is it that driving into a barricade warrants the death penalty? Why is the death penalty, without a trial by peers or the application of law as judged by the court, so acceptable to the media?

[AllAmericanGirl44]

You saw the video of the child being removed from the car?

Please let me know where to view this video, I have not seen that as of yet. That is a game changer, somehow I wonder how you saw this and it seems no one else has. Please link or direct, thanks

[Georgia Girl 2]

“Personally I am troubled by the shoot to kill mentality that the media seems to be pushing on this country.

I’m even more disturbed by the bobbleheads nodding yeh, yeh, yeh on FR. Thats really scary.

[Georgia Girl 2]

“RCW 46.61.500
Reckless driving — Penalty.

(1) Any person who drives any vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving. Violation of the provisions of this section is a gross misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for up to three hundred sixty-four days and by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars.

(2)(a) Subject to (b) of this subsection, the license or permit to drive or any nonresident privilege of any person convicted of reckless driving shall be suspended by the department for not less than thirty days.”

Posted above is the basic definition of reckless driving and the punishment for said crime in Washington, DC.

Nowhere does it say the penalty is death by multiple rounds of gunfire.

The woman was guilty of reckless driving. Period.

[HiTech RedNeck]

If this was the Capitol incident what we see is panic squared, or maybe even cubed. It probably WAS unlikely that the car could have done any harm to the Capitol without being able to be stopped in some other fashion. This is a weird, tense age, and our gendarmes have lost most of their gallantry.

[bmwcyle]

here is a woman that watched it happen

Some one has stripped the video. This woman saw the child removed and then the guns started up.

[AllAmericanGirl44]

ok then, I’m more confused today than I was last week!
What a disaster.

[justlurking]

You cited the motor vehicle code for the state of Washington, not Washington, DC.

But, let's take a closer look: Vehicular assault — Penalty.

(1) A person is guilty of vehicular assault if he or she operates or drives any vehicle:

(a) In a reckless manner and causes substantial bodily harm to another; or

(b) While under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, as defined by RCW 46.61.502, and causes substantial bodily harm to another; or

(c) With disregard for the safety of others and causes substantial bodily harm to another.

(2) Vehicular assault is a class B felony punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW.

(3) As used in this section, "substantial bodily harm" has the same meaning as in RCW 9A.04.110.

There's also: Assault in the third degree.

(1) A person is guilty of assault in the third degree if he or she, under circumstances not amounting to assault in the first or second degree:

(d) With criminal negligence, causes bodily harm to another person by means of a weapon or other instrument or thing likely to produce bodily harm; or

(f) With criminal negligence, causes bodily harm accompanied by substantial pain that extends for a period sufficient to cause considerable suffering; or

(g) Assaults a law enforcement officer or other employee of a law enforcement agency who was performing his or her official duties at the time of the assault; or

(2) Assault in the third degree is a class C felony.

In the second cite above, I left out a few clauses that weren't relevant to this situation.

Finally, I'll let you read through this chapter:

Justifiable homicide or use of deadly force by public officer, peace officer, person aiding.

Again, I'll remind you that you cited the laws for the state of Washington, not Washington, DC. They aren't relevant for this situation, but most state and federal laws are similar.

[bmwcyle]

Here is the events. She went to pick up her child and went driving to Washington DC. She was hearing voices but she did not have Schizophrenia. They kept saying she was postpartum but the child was too old for her to still have that.

She ran her car into an area they were having a drill. She freaked out and they started shooting. She was driving around like a nut. They got her stopped and pulled the kid and then they killed her.

Our younger police are the shoot first type.

[La Lydia]

I guess it makes a difference where you live and work. It would never occur to me to second-guess someone who was risking his life to keep me safe. Hind-sight is 20-20.

[SampleMan]

It would never occur to me to second-guess someone who was risking his life to keep me safe.

Perhaps you might reconsider what "safe" means when the police are shooting unarmed people.

Free people should question everything. I don't consider acquiescence to be a tolerable price for safety.

[La Lydia]

I consider acquiescing to not driving my car up Constitution Avenue at 80 miles an hour into office buildings occupied by 20,000 or so people a tolerable price for safety. And I do not equate what that woman did with principled civil disobedience.

[SampleMan]

Seriously? You think she was going to hurt 20,000 people in office buildings with her car?

Shooting crazy people is not the vanguard of public safety, its euthanasia. I prefer that the police exercise non-lethal force when possible, and one of my benchmarks for whether their use of force is OK is to ask how they would treat me for doing the same thing they just did. In this case, I would be getting charged with murder for cornering a hit and run driver and then shooting them 50-60 times.

[AllAmericanGirl44]

Wow, that’s a whole lot of info I hadn’t heard/read before.
Just to be clear, from my understanding, the postpartum can in fact last that long...if left untreated, most definately.

Not sure how anyone can claim she freaked out, I wasn’t there and I’m guessing neither were you, sooooo, for all I know she could have been raging mad at something and acted like a nut.

Do I think she should have been shot? NO
Do I think we have the complete story? NO

Thanks for sharing

[bmwcyle]

The government has control of the media. They control information quickly. The facts usually come out the first day and then the spin starts. TWA 800 or Oklahoma Bombing are the best examples of how the government controls stories after the first day.

[MaxMax]

They did not know there was a Child in the vehicle until after the shooting.

I keep seeing people say this without knowing the details. They did not know.

[La Lydia]

Oh. So how many people do you believe it would be acceptable for her to hurt or kill in order to meet your criteria? A number, please. Obviously she wasn’t going to take out everyone, and arguments deploying reductio ad absurdum hardly add to the debate.