"I'd have shot him"

The post mortems are still coming in on the carjacker whom the Portland police shot dead in the middle of I-5 a couple of weeks ago. The latest story in the O points out that the cops shot into a moving vehicle, which is generally forbidden by official policy. The O also points out, as I have, that the cops' story of what happened on the freeway that day has changed.

But I am finding it difficult to muster much discomfort about the police's killing the guy. As I understand it, the dude started with an armed home invasion robbery about a block from a middle school. The last time I checked, the homeowner would have been legally justified in killing him right there and then.

That was apparently followed by at least one armed carjacking, maybe two. Then the guy was driving the wrong way down a crowded I-5.

“If this officer was aware of the previous carjackings, and now he’s got this guy in his gunsights, I’d have shot him, because he’s going to kill somebody,” Gilberston said. “I don’t say that very often.”

That sounds right to me. The Portland cops are mostly jerks, but this isn't a good case for attacking them.

If there's anything the police bureau deserves criticism over in this case, it's its inane insistence that there are significant, relevant facts that haven't been uncovered yet.

Sgt. Kevin Allen, a police spokesperson, said it’s too soon to conclude whether the pair of recent police shootings fall in line with bureau policy.

“Given that both of those incidents are still in the early stages of investigation, and all the facts have not come to light, it would be highly premature to make any judgments now about whether these incidents are in or out of policy,” he said.

"The early stages of investigation"? Come on. The investigation is pretty much over. What we're into now is the routine stalling so that the killer cop and the other police on the scene can get their story straight. That, and to let the public's memories of what happened fade away. When was the last time that one of these "investigations" actually "closed," with the findings released to the public? Doesn't usually happen, Bob, and if it does, it's a long time after most people have stopped caring.


  1. ^100%. But the order comes top-down from the organization, and you mentioned I guess, but to reiterate; are they authorized to use deadly force or not?

    That turns upon the fact and practical consideration of the moving vehicle, more than anything, was that (one of) your point(s)?


Post a Comment

The platform used for this blog is awfully wonky when it comes to comments. It may work for you, it may not. It's a Google thing, and beyond my control. Apologies if you can't get through. You can email me a comment at jackbogsblog@comcast.net, and if it's appropriate, I can post it here for you.