Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

FickleMachine8931 t1_jcwaqf4 wrote

Reply to comment by Most_kinds_of_Dirt in 17-year-old shot and killed by US Park Police after fleeing traffic stop identified - WTOP News by thepulloutmethod

Holy shit. How are you defending a criminal? If this was my car, I would be glad the cops tried to prevent theft and future theft.

17

Most_kinds_of_Dirt t1_jcwb6tr wrote

I'm not defending the crime he committed.

I'm saying he shouldn't have lost his life for stealing a car, and that the cops created a situation which led to that outcome.

−13

[deleted] t1_jcwcci0 wrote

I would argue stealing a car led to that outcome.

15

Most_kinds_of_Dirt t1_jcwkcx0 wrote

I understand that opinion, but from a legal perspective there are only two options:

  1. Martin (the 17-year old) was at fault by endangering the cops' safety, and was shot in self-defense.

  2. The cops were not in danger, which would nullify their self-defense claim and open them up to manslaughter charges.

There's no legal option where "stealing a car led to that outcome" because stealing a car doesn't meet the standard for a proximate cause:

>The most common test of proximate cause under the American legal system is foreseeability. It determines if the harm resulting from an action could reasonably have been predicted[...]

>A "threefold test" of foreseeability of damage, proximity of relationship and reasonableness was established in the case of Caparo v Dickman (1990) and adopted in the litigation between Lungowe and others and Vedanta Resources plc (Supreme Court ruling 2019).[7][8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximate_cause

With so much on the line, you understand that the cops would have a reason to lie: either Martin endangered their safety, or one of those cops is going to jail.

1

[deleted] t1_jcwlfa6 wrote

Less than a week ago USPP pursued a vehicle in Rock Creek Park and that driver killed 3 innocent people. In light of that their professional experience could lead one to the reasonable assumption that the criminal behind the wheel of this stolen car could cause serious harm unchallenged.

7

cptjeff t1_jd41aft wrote

They did NOT pursue in that case. The driver fled the stop at high speed and crashed even without the pursuit.

1

Most_kinds_of_Dirt t1_jcwmmbk wrote

>USPP pursued a vehicle in Rock Creek Park and that driver killed 3 innocent people.

Which is exactly why many jurisdictions don't allow police to engage in car chases anymore (unless there's an immediate danger to someone's life or personal safety).

You're blaming that driver here, but it's really the same situation: the cops wanted to catch a bad guy and they created a situation which resulted in somebody's death.

−1

[deleted] t1_jcwo5tn wrote

Yeah. I’m blaming the person behind the wheel. You’re using a Schrödinger’s cat argument blaming the police for the criminal’s actions. If I drive shitfaced and cause an accident am I not to blame?

6

Most_kinds_of_Dirt t1_jcwp98s wrote

Driving shitfaced would meet the legal standard for proximate cause of an accident, since it would be reasonably foreseeable that doing that could result in someone's injury or death.

It would be reasonable to use force to stop a drunk driver from endangering other people.

The car thief in this story didn't pose a danger to anyone until the Police got involved.

Simply stealing a car doesn't justify the use of force, nor should it justify his death.

−1

[deleted] t1_jcwpk11 wrote

How can you say he didn’t pose a threat? Do you know what his mindset was? You are basing your argument on a supposition that as far as I can tell you’ve just decided is fact

3

Most_kinds_of_Dirt t1_jcws38n wrote

>How can you say he didn’t pose a threat?

Because he was asleep inside the car when police found him:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/03/18/park-police-shooting-dc/

Which is a pretty crucial detail missing from OP's article.

1

[deleted] t1_jcwso89 wrote

I don’t see that in any article except WaPo and that’s behind a paywall

2

Most_kinds_of_Dirt t1_jcwty7q wrote

Copying here to avoid the paywall:

>The incident began when D.C. police received a call about a suspicious vehicle, and officers found the car parked with the engine running, according to a D.C. police spokesman. The driver appeared to be asleep or nodding off, the spokesman said. The officers ran the tags and determined the vehicle was stolen, according to the spokesman, and called for backup.

>Two Park Police officers responded to the call near 34th and Baker streets NE, said Park Police spokesman Thomas Twiname. They approached the car, and one of them got into the back seat, at which point the driver appeared to wake up and hit the accelerator, the D.C. police spokesman said.

>The officer was “trapped in the vehicle,” Twiname said, and unable to escape. The officer gave commands to stop and then discharged a firearm, Twiname said. The driver was pronounced dead at the scene.

2

FickleMachine8931 t1_jcwe2ps wrote

The police made a lawful attempt at trying to remove the suspect. It's on the suspect.

How would you have apprehended him?

8

Most_kinds_of_Dirt t1_jcwlv51 wrote

>made a lawful attempt

Basically a meaningless distinction here - almost anything cops do is considered "a lawful attempt" simply because they're cops.

That doesn't mean it was the right thing to do, or even that it would still be a legal thing to do if we had a justice system that held police to the same standard as everybody else.

>How would you have apprehended him?

Slip an air tag in the car or hit him with one of these, then track him down later. The car thief didn't pose an immediate danger to anyone until the cops got involved, so there was no reason for them to create the situation which resulted in his death.

0

FickleMachine8931 t1_jcwm4od wrote

Until the criminal causes injury by joyriding or decides he wants to do bigger crimes. It's time we bring broken windows policy to DC.

5

19TDG2000617078 t1_jcxo4k3 wrote

Can't GPS track vehicles without a warrant, 4th amendment violation.

4