They know it wasn't because the standard have long been set by law. The level of response in this instance was by far not in proportion to the offense. This fleeing suspect posed no threat whatsoever to the public. This man being a 25 year veteran of the police force would be expected to now what the standards are.
You had said they had refused to press charges. He was released on his own recognizance. Which means he got bail without paying a bond by signing a written promise to appear. Probably because he did not have a criminal record and his crime here did not involve any violence.
Nope! I said, " It's also strange that they didn't press charges against the suspect with such clear evidence. "
It certainly was because it long established fact of law that a motor vehicle can be considered to be a deadly weapon. If roles were reversed with this suspect at the wheel of that SUV and cop on the street. That cop would've been fully justified to use deadly force because he believed the SUV being driven in a such an aggressive manner straight at him constituted a direct threat to his life.
You don't know that they haven't. He will find out at his court appearance what if any charges he faces. I would say it's probably not quite so cut and dry it might appear to you as given the unusual chain of events. There may be certain legal issues and facts to be investigated and weighed first before arriving at any charging decisions.
"Haven't made a charging decision" = "Haven't pressed charges".
The driver was a retired cop and doing an undercover stint for the protest. So it wouldn't readily apparent that he was a police officer, or that if he had even identified himself as being one, or what kind of authority he would have being retired. That guy wasn't the one that broke the window either.
Ok. And?
Lets hold the 13% that commit 65% of all crime and 53% of all murders accountable instead of coddling these criminals.
Video - Incident at 0:20
Police officer charged with 9 counts after allegedly hitting theft suspect with his car
A retired Portland police officer has been indicted on felony charges after allegedly hitting a theft suspect with his car in June 2020.www.kgw.com
I'm mixed on this. The vehicle hit was pretty significant - more than a glancing blow. However, I'm not sure it warrants charges, especially given that it was a pursuit of a suspect who just committed a crime and was fleeing police, and he wasn't severely injured.
The charges are clearly political and overkill. The multiple charges don't make sense. I'm not clear on how he would have rendered aid given that the person hit jumped up and ran away. It's also strange that they didn't press charges against the suspect with such clear evidence.
My understanding is that he worked for the police department at the time of the incident, but has since retired.
They usually mean freedom for the well off and powerful. Cops really misunderstood the punisher character when they glorify the guy as Frank Castle was never meant to be a hero, but a broken man who never passed the antihero archetype.Groshong was released on his own recognizance later that evening.
According to the Oregonian report, Groshong drove up to a skate shop at Northwest 9th Avenue and Davis Street just before midnight on June 15 and recorded two men stealing three skateboards. A short time later, according to the report, another man walked up to the store and stole a helmet.
A video of the incident obtained by the Oregonian shows a large black SUV speeding up 9th Avenue and hitting the man who stole the helmet. Groshong and another sergeant were inside that car.
From the link. I would imagine that people who mean what they say when they talk about loving "freedoms" and putting "freedoms" over safety would agree that government agents should not hit people who commit petty property crimes with cars.
Then again, being black in the vicinity of a police officer can be cause to shoot in this country, so...
And yet that is what the article states. Both. That's probably why there are some messy legal issues here. Daryl Turner, President of the Portland Police Association, had this to say about it; " Turner said Groshong was working undercover that evening to identify criminal behavior among protest-goers." I don't know for sure, but what I take from his description of Goshong's undercover role is that Goshong was acting more or less as a civilian informant, whose job it was to observe and report criminal activity among the protesters and not attempt to directly stop or intervene in whatever criminal activity he may observe.
It's not really that complicated. It's in the article, and has been repeated in the thread. He was working when the incident happened (July) and retired later (August). So when the article is discussing him (October) it refers to him as retired, which he is.