There should be no mystery
A passenger car hit a police car at SE 122nd and Stark in Portland the other night. The driver of the car was badly injured, and a police officer was also hospitalized, although in better shape. The police car was headed east on Stark, and the other car was going south on 122nd.
The police have been quick to point out that the civilian driver had been drinking before the late night crash. But the details have been sketchy (to say the least) about who had the green light, and how fast each car was traveling. KGW's reporting it this way:
The statement also said investigators were still trying to determine which driver had the green light. [Officer] Clark had his overhead lights on, but whether the siren was going has not been determined, Simpson said. Video evidence from area businesses will also be part of the investigation, he said.
That report is puzzling to us, since as we noted on this blog a couple of months ago, there are surveillance cameras posted on all the corners at that intersection, pointed in all four directions. If the police officer was clearly in the right, we would expect to see those videos, and we're a bit concerned that they haven't been released yet. The Portland police are notorious for giving one-sided versions of events whenever they and civilians interact in a physically violent way. Let's hope this isn't another round of that.
| Posted at 8:43 AM | Permalink |
|
Comments (13)
"Investigators were still trying to determine who had the green light."
RiiiiiGHT.
Like investigators are still trying to determine if there is any way on God's green earth that they can weed out the natural-born killers still roosting on our law enforcement team in their kevlar police-union jackets.
Posted by gaye harris | September 20, 2011 9:17 AM
One sided versions indeed...
I smell a cover up, or at least a shading of the truth here.
And the same for that bicyclist who slammed into the police cruiser, breaking the poor cops windshield. The article had me weeping for that poor cop and his car.
Posted by Harry | September 20, 2011 9:21 AM
Was the officer checked for alcohol?
Posted by dman | September 20, 2011 9:25 AM
I suspect there are city attorneys, concerned about liability in situations such as this, who are really pulling the strings as to what information is released.
Posted by Gibby | September 20, 2011 9:56 AM
Gibby - Every hear of discovery. It makes the question of what is released rather moot.
Posted by LucsAdvo | September 20, 2011 10:07 AM
Yes Lucs, I understand.
Problem is, there are attorneys behind the scenes who might have to engage in future courtroom litigation. They are the ones who might prefer to wait for till discovery is requested, if at all, before all the facts are revealed.
Posted by gibby | September 20, 2011 10:30 AM
I'm betting the civilian had the green light and the cop didn't have his siren turned on, at least not continuously. And they sure got the story out quick that she was drunk, but I don't see any BAC level being reported. It seems like it's all being packaged a particular way.
Posted by boycat | September 20, 2011 10:38 AM
Of course, you can be drunk and somehow manage to drive fine. I don't encourage it at all, but it has been done once or twice in history. They are obviously trying to make people think that because she was drunk, she is at fault for the accident--that's the only reason to release that info so quickly.
Posted by Dave J. | September 20, 2011 11:09 AM
No one has yet said the driver was intoxicated. The way this place utilizes "information management" for it's own purposes, she might have had one glass of wine at dinner 6 hours before and they'd say exactly what they're already admitted.
I agree, sounds like attorneys are doing a risk analysis of trying to make the claim she was DUII.
Posted by Mr. Grumpy | September 20, 2011 11:35 AM
This was simply a donut run. No harm intended. But, those fearless officers in My Police Bureau desperately neded their donuts. They are heroes. Please pay your taxes to support their disability pensions.
Thank you.
Did I tell you they are heroes.
Posted by Sammy Portlandia | September 20, 2011 12:34 PM
That report is puzzling to us, since as we noted on this blog a couple of months ago, there are surveillance cameras posted on all the corners at that intersection, pointed in all four directions.
Perhaps the city uses the same video camera contractor as Tri-Met? Seems that whenever there is a crime at a Max stop, the video cameras are, once again, out of order. Does nobody check, or does nobody care?
Posted by Dave J. | September 20, 2011 12:56 PM
No one has yet said the driver was intoxicated.
The headline of the article Jack linked to reads: "Woman in wreck with cop was drunk," and Adams stupid tweet says: "Just visited our @PortlandPolice Officer hit by a suspected drunk driver: he is banged up but in good spirits. Wish him well!"
The fix is already in.
Posted by Ex-bartender | September 20, 2011 2:07 PM
Third paragraph now says the officer didn't have a green. Regardless if his lights and siren were on, he has the duty to clear the intersection prior to proceeding through. Looks like the officer failed to do that.
Posted by Andrew | September 20, 2011 5:14 PM