Recent comments in /f/washingtondc

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

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

[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

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