Police officer charged with 9 counts after allegedly hitting theft suspect with his car

[Atomic Kid]

It sounds like - and this is a guess from the other statements - that they were trying to video the looters to collect evidence. They may have just driven down the road with the video rolling, rather than trying to chase him. It's a strange cut though - not clear if they are even on the same street in both shots. If it is, the person ran across the street, then back, to approach from the van's right.

And again, look at the video. We only see a short cut of it, but the car is driving in the far left lane. The looter is running in the next lane. It's possible that they were trying to cut him off, but they weren't behind him. They didn't 'run the looter down' from behind - he ran in front of their car, and they immediately stopped. the driver probably didn't expect someone to sprint in front of a moving car.

Bystanders - yes they were shocked. They saw someone hit. You are inferring the rest. You even added a third lane to the street.

It's definitely the same street and intersection as at the beginning of the video and it even looks to be a one way street. The SUV was definitely aiming to hit that man. There's no doubt about what the intent was here. It was an assault with a deadly weapon.

 

[dcsports]

It's definitely the same street and intersection as at the beginning of the video and it even looks to be a one way street. The SUV was definitely aiming to hit that man. There's no doubt about what the intent was here. It was an assault with a deadly weapon.

It's definitely the same street and intersection as at the beginning of the video and it even looks to be a one way street. The SUV was definitely aiming to hit that man. There's no doubt about what the intent was here. It was an assault with a deadly weapon.

Again, you are seeing things that aren't there. It is a two lane street (not three). It can't be the same intersection, because at the start the vehicles are driving away from the intersection (and camera), and at the end they are driving toward the intersection (and camera). It also can't be the same camera because of the vantage point (and obviously much lower resolution of the second shot).

Obviously, there's come editing going on. There's enough disparity that it makes me wonder if these are from the same incident. It would be helpful to see the full clips.

At the beginning, the car is in the right lane, and the store on it's left. In the second shot, the looter is in the right lane, and the car in the left. That means that the looter would have had to run across the street to the right, and the police move to the left lane. Then the looter changed his mind and ran back across the street to the side he started from (in front of the car). That doesn't make sense if the police were 'trying to run him over' - they would have been following him, not moving to the opposite lane.

More likely, the van was trying to drive parallel, with the officer in the passenger seat taking a video of the suspect on his right. Assuming the officer driving was watching where he was going, he might not have even seen where the looter was going until he ran in front of the car.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Again, you are seeing things that aren't there. It is a two lane street (not three). It can't be the same intersection, because at the start the vehicles are driving away from the intersection (and camera), and at the end they are driving toward the intersection (and camera). It also can't be the same camera because of the vantage point (and obviously much lower resolution of the second shot).

Obviously, there's come editing going on. There's enough disparity that it makes me wonder if these are from the same incident. It would be helpful to see the full clips.

At the beginning, the car is in the right lane, and the store on it's left. In the second shot, the looter is in the right lane, and the car in the left. That means that the looter would have had to run across the street to the right, and the police move to the left lane. Then the looter changed his mind and ran back across the street to the side he started from (in front of the car). That doesn't make sense if the police were 'trying to run him over' - they would have been following him, not moving to the opposite lane.

More likely, the van was trying to drive parallel, with the officer in the passenger seat taking a video of the suspect on his right. Assuming the officer driving was watching where he was going, he might not have even seen where the looter was going until he ran in front of the car.

I'll concede that it's two lanes but you're going way out of your way to avoid the obvious. The explanation is simple. The SUV went down the street, turned around and took up a position where it could observe the store and waited. When a looter started to run from it, (it's not clear if this is one of the two who broke the window or a third person that came along and took advantage of a target of opportunity, looks like it could be the latter), the SUV accelerated from it's position down the street toward the running man and chased him all the way to opposite curb. The running man never changed direction. Couldn't tell from the video tape which direction the street flows in, but that wouldn't really be an issue, as it looks pretty clear that through traffic had been barricaded or detoured from this section of the city because of the protest.

 

[dcsports]

I'll concede that it's two lanes but you're going way out of your way to avoid the obvious. The explanation is simple. The SUV went down the street, turned around and took up a position where it could observe the store and waited. When a looter started to run from it, (it's not clear if this is one of the two who broke the window or a third person that came along and took advantage of a target of opportunity, looks like it could be the latter), the SUV accelerated from it's position down the street toward the running man and chased him all the way to opposite curb. The running man never changed direction. Couldn't tell from the video tape which direction the street flows in, but that wouldn't really be an issue, as it looks pretty clear that through traffic had been barricaded or detoured from this section of the city because of the protest.

lol. You are going out of your way to try to make this fit a narrative. You already said this was a one-way street - why would they go the wrong way? And this was supposedly a long way from the protests - specifically targeting vandals and looters taking advantage of the situation. No indication its a barricaded street - there's at least one other car in one of the shots.

 

[Atomic Kid]

lol. You are going out of your way to try to make this fit a narrative. You already said this was a one-way street - why would they go the wrong way? And this was supposedly a long way from the protests - specifically targeting vandals and looters taking advantage of the situation. No indication its a barricaded street - there's at least one other car in one of the shots.

No I said it look like could be a one way street but couldn't tell from the video because no street signs were visible, no cars parked on either side of it, and no traffic. And I said if it is or isn't it didn't really matter the end result would be the same either way. The SUV ends up at near 45 degree angle at the curb opposite from the store clearly indicating it had traversed from the lane nearest the store across the other lane to the opposite corner in direct pursuit of the running suspect. Matter of fact I later remembered that I have Google Earth Pro on my computer and looked up the address and it shows that street and intersection in question and it is two way street. The Skate Shop extends from the corner on the left side all the way down to where those two cars are parked. The second is still frame from the video just after the SUV impacted the man, you can see the angle it was at impact, the fire hydrant, street sign and the red brick building on the corner that correspond with the Google Earth image.

 

[dcsports]

No I said it look like could be a one way street but couldn't tell from the video because no street signs were visible, no cars parked on either side of it, and no traffic. And I said if it is or isn't it didn't really matter the end result would be the same either way. The SUV ends up at near 45 degree angle at the curb opposite from the store clearly indicating it had traversed from the lane nearest the store across the other lane to the opposite corner in direct pursuit of the running suspect. Matter of fact I later remembered that I have Google Earth Pro on my computer and looked up the address and it shows that street and intersection in question and it is two way street. The Skate Shop extends from the corner on the left side all the way down to where those two cars are parked. The second is still frame from the video just after the SUV impacted the man, you can see the angle it was at impact, the fire hydrant, street sign and the red brick building on the corner that correspond with the Google Earth image.


View attachment 67301789

View attachment 67301790

Well, OK. It's a two way street. Congratulations on proving yourself wrong.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Well, OK. It's a two way street. Congratulations on proving yourself wrong.

I wasn't wrong. I said that might be but wasn't sure. And the fact it isn't a one way street would seem to show that the SUV was parked on the left side of the road before taking off after the running man and traversed from that lane all the way across the other lane to the impact point on the opposite corner. The photos show that it could not have been anything else but deliberate. The SUV went so far to the opposite curb that it's covering the manhole cover just a couple feet from the sidewalk that appears in the Google Earth image.