Demonstrations of Darwin's Law applied!

"For openers, the car he was driving was stolen..."

True, but as I recall the officer did not know that at the time because he hadn't called the plate in.

Yeah, but the Trib knows that now. To call Squeaky a "motorist" is like calling Michael Vick a "pet owner."

It's a neutral term. [shrug] In this case it's pretty incomplete, but that's what the rest of the article is for, no?

I thought the Trib article was pretty good all in all, laid out pretty clearly what Potter used to justify the firing.

Did you also catch the article on the cop whose friend got busted for Drugs in his house? I seem to remember you blogging about that at the time. If it really is as portryaed in the Trib looks like he is basically guilty of trying to help out an old friend and giving the guy too much benefit of the doubt.

I did notice that story. Hard to tell what the officer is guilty of, if anything.

The article says the officer saw an ice pick sitting on the seat next to the suspect. Unless the officer thought he was making mojitos in the front seat, he probably had some intuition the car was stolen.

Let's not forget Squeaky was allegedly intoxicated and coming off a three day meth holiday. I would LOVE to see a toxicology report on his blood. Oh wait...it was all the cop's fault...my bad.

If the officer is guilty of not following protocol, then Squeaky should be held responsible for the bad decisions that rendered him incapable (or unwilling) of responding to the officer's instructions.

Not to mention the lethal danger that Squeaky represented driving around town intoxicated/high/exhausted in a stolen car.

"Squeaky should be held responsible for the bad decisions [...]"

Might have a little trouble getting him to the trial, though.

Squeaky shouldn't have tried to back over a cop...
Anyone think if he actually hit the cop with the car that Potter would have done anything different? I dont.
Probably would have demoted him for be stupid enough to stand in the way of a moving car.