Crimminal Investigation for OIS (Use of Force) Warranted?

[CLHC]

Seattle Police released video footage captured on dashcam and bodycams:


https://youtu.be/6Uqw4FY0jsc

From this Seattle Times (https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/seattle-police-release-video-of-officers-shooting-at-car-in-eastlake/) article, it states in part that SPD will launch a crimminal investigation into this incident and use of force violations. One even stating "simply being done out of an abundance of caution."

Just wondering about that in the heat of that moment to fire and not get run over or otherwise. The suspect(s) did get away and the search continues.

[WillBrink]

Seattle Police released video footage captured on dashcam and bodycams:

From this Seattle Times (https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/seattle-police-release-video-of-officers-shooting-at-car-in-eastlake/) article, it states in part that SPD will launch a crimminal investigation into this incident and use of force violations. One even stating "simply being done out of an abundance of caution."

Just wondering about that in the heat of that moment to fire and not get run over or otherwise. The suspect(s) did get away and the search continues.

Man they unloaded on that car. When the driver decided to drive at the LEO, those seemed easy to defend. Once out of the way of the car, I don't know what the ROE are for a fleeing car at that point. That's a lot of rnd going down that ally in a high population density. From just what I see in the vid, not being LE, does not surprise me an investigation would get opened.

"According to the department manual, officers shouldn’t fire at a moving vehicle “unless a person in the vehicle is immediately threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle.” The manual states that the moving vehicle itself shall not “presumptively constitute a threat that justifies” deadly force.

Officers also should move out of the path of a vehicle unless the person is immediately threatening the officer or another person."

[Averageman]

Immediate action against the guy trying to run over the Officer isn't the issue, continuing to fire after the threat was over is.
Someone likely had children in those homes that became a backstop for those rounds being fired. After the criminal was no longer a direct threat it was emotion rather than logic squeezing those triggers.

[C-grunt]

First volley is easily justifiable, second volley would be harder to justify.

You could try under fleeing felon and articulate that someone who just tried to run over a cop is a danger to others. Whether that flies or not is the question.

Either way getting in front of a car is a bad idea.

[Feline]

Good shoot. Attempted murder on the felon's part. Both volleys justifiable.

ETA: Please correct the wording "crimminal" (sic) in the thread title. It offends my eyes.

[Firefly]

Depends on DA and GJ.

But that was just piss poor policework.
You never get in front of a car. The officer put himself in jeopardy and precipitated it. Perhaps not knowingly but thats the problem. You gotta be at least 30% smarter than these hoods.

Second volley reeked of sympathetic fire and plain ol' "oh shit"

[Feline]

Depends on DA and GJ.

But that was just piss poor policework.
You never get in front of a car. The officer put himself in jeopardy and precipitated it. Perhaps not knowingly but thats the problem. You gotta be at least 30% smarter than these hoods.

Second volley reeked of sympathetic fire and plain ol' "oh shit"

I agree, piss-poor tactic on the part of the officer first to the car.

[dwhitehorne]

First volley is easily justifiable, second volley would be harder to justify.

You could try under fleeing felon and articulate that someone who just tried to run over a cop is a danger to others. Whether that flies or not is the question.

Either way getting in front of a car is a bad idea.

This is what I'm thinking. Someone is going to have to do some creative writing on the whole thing. Looks like some serious sympathetic fire to me. One thing to remember violating General Orders/Agency policy is not a violation of the law. David

[26 Inf]

This is what I'm thinking. Someone is going to have to do some creative writing on the whole thing. Looks like some serious sympathetic fire to me. One thing to remember violating General Orders/Agency policy is not a violation of the law. David

Okay, trying to look at the film from the perspective of one who knows nothing about police work or the law.

First 'reasonable' question someone will ask is was the officer in front of the vehicle really in danger of death or great bodily harm, as the vehicle wasn't moving that fast. We can talk about how it doesn't take much of a fall to cause a serious/fatal closed-head injury, so they might be swayed by that.

Then when they watch the officer's body cam video, see the officer's hand on the hood and how the car kind of turns away as it pulls not, they will most likely go back the other way.

It was a suspicious vehicle/person vehicle call according to the story. Don't know what info the officers actually had.

Black and white, to me at least, the danger had passed when the officer fired the first rounds. We don't operate in a black and white world, though. This was a split second decision which, according to Graham, is not to be judged through the lenses of 20-20 hind-sight. Therefore, the first volley, to me at least doesn't rise to criminal behavior. Civilly, I'd think qualified immunity on the first volley.

Regarding the follow up shots, assuming the officers immediately released they had probable cause to believe the person had committed a felony involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious bodily harm, they next need to determine if the person was using a deadly weapon to make their escape and whether they had probable cause to believe the person would be a continued threat of death or great bodily harm unless immediately apprehended without delay.

You can form your own opinion on that one.

Generally, agency policies regarding firing at moving vehicles come about because of incidents like this. Apparently Seattle has a fairly clear policy about vehicles.

The worst thing that could happen to these officers is that one of the morons in the vehicle was wounded fatally, that would be a real can of worms.

[TAZ]

Those guys are lucky nobody was hurt. I’m actually surprised that they managed to miss the occupant of the vehicle.

I can see justification for the first volley as the guy pulls out and blatantly goes toward the officer. It’s not going to be rocket surgery to explain how a 2k pound car can cause serious injury if it hits you or runs over you should you fall.

Past that it’s a policy thing. Are they allowed to shoot at fleeing perps. Is vehicular assault serious enough to warrant the call that the driver is an immediate threat to those around him.

[WillBrink]

First volley is easily justifiable, second volley would be harder to justify.

You could try under fleeing felon and articulate that someone who just tried to run over a cop is a danger to others. Whether that flies or not is the question.

Either way getting in front of a car is a bad idea.

Does seem a bad idea to me, but not an uncommon move from what I have seen. Obviously 99% of the time the person stops. It's that other 1% of the time...

[Vandal]

Depends on DA and GJ.

But that was just piss poor policework.
You never get in front of a car. The officer put himself in jeopardy and precipitated it. Perhaps not knowingly but thats the problem. You gotta be at least 30% smarter than these hoods.

Second volley reeked of sympathetic fire and plain ol' "oh shit"

No grand jury in WA, just the King County Prosecutor's Office. We were talking about this at work last night, I work for an agency about 15-20 miles from Seattle. To shorten a long post, Seattle PD will likely hang all of them out to dry unless the guild steps in. SPD is so incredibly risk and use of force averse it's not even funny. The charges may not make it beyond the prosecutor's desk but they *will* be hemmed up on some kind of policy violation.

Even as a newer guy I know not to stand in front of a suspect vehicle unless you have no where else to go. The first volley looks good to me, I'm not sure about the second.