Cops may get free pass on latest dead guy
Bank robber, fugitive, drug addict, facial tattoo -- the latest person killed by Portland police will evoke little sympathy. Even if the officers were not justified in gunning him down, people will excuse them because of who the deceased was. It's the death penalty for bank robbery, essentially.
Meanwhile, an alert reader connects another dot to the policemen who killed the guy. One of the officers, Andrew Hearst, was at Portland Adventist Hospital a few years ago, in the incident in which a man died in a car crash in the hospital parking lot after hospital personnel reportedly refused to come out and help him unless an ambulance got there first.
UPDATE, 1:42 p.m.: The latest from the O:
Asked Tuesday if a gun was recovered from Hatch at the scene of the shooting, police spokesman Sgt. Pete Simpson would say only that the bureau would release additional details late Wednesday "after all the interviews are complete."
| Posted at 12:59 PM | Permalink |
|
Comments (15)
May get free pass?
Ha ha ha ...
Posted by Mr. Grumpy | February 19, 2013 1:09 PM
Saying that "hospital personnel refused to come out and help him unless an ambulance got there first." is completely incorrect.
No need to give anyone a free pass. Watch the video for yourself:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/15/us-hospital-crash-idUSTRE71E7M320110215
Posted by Brian | February 19, 2013 1:34 PM
The free pass is on this week's killing.
I added a "reportedly," if that helps you. My mistake, if I made one, was relying on what was reported in the Oregonian.
Posted by Jack Bog | February 19, 2013 1:40 PM
Sgt. Pete Simpson would say only that the bureau would release additional details late Wednesday "after all the interviews are complete."
"After we've given them over 3 days to get their stories straight" is what he means. And presumably the answer to the question asked above is "no." I'm betting they did not recover a gun, and are scrambling to explain why they shot an unarmed guy.
Posted by Dave J. | February 19, 2013 2:38 PM
The gun question is yes or no.
Will the interviews tell us whether or not there was a gun when he was shot?
So we get his name, his criminal record, picture, who was involved in the shooting, but not the simple question...
Did he have a gun when he was executed?
Posted by TheD Man | February 19, 2013 2:49 PM
Of course he didn't. We'd have heard if he did by now. Heck, we would have heard by Monday morning if he had been actually carrying a gun.
The next thing that will come out is the admission that the security guard at the hospital who reported the guy pointing a gun at him *thought* he saw a gun, but can't be 100% sure. Heck, it might have been a cell phone, for all he knows. Just wait. That's the next shoe to drop.
Posted by Dave J. | February 19, 2013 2:59 PM
They would have told us by now if there was a gun. If not, the delay gives them plenty of time to plant and "find" a throw-down gun at the scene.
Posted by Frank | February 19, 2013 3:00 PM
I carried a gun once a couple years ago. It was well concealed at the time. Two people knew back then that I sometimes carried. If one of them decides to call the cops on me because they now hate my guts, am I eligible for similar treatment ? Sometimes I forget to shower for a few days and my tatts are no longer pretty.
Posted by Harry | February 19, 2013 3:33 PM
Harry, I don't think the gun would be a factor. See above.
Posted by Allan L. | February 19, 2013 3:36 PM
Unfortunately, as Jack points out, this guy's past (and, let's face it, appearance) will cause most of the idiots who populate the Oregonian and local news comment boards to say "good! One less piece of trash!" about this incident. The worrying thing for people with a brain, however, is that this kind of incident really lowers the bar for what cops are required to see before just deciding to shoot someone. If it turns out that the cops were merely told that this guy had a gun (and not told by the guy who saw it, presumably, but second or third hand), and then shot him without actually confirming that he had a gun, that is really concerning to me, and should be to everyone in town.
Posted by Dave J. | February 19, 2013 3:55 PM
This is proof the PPB is evolving: three smokin' Glocks and not one throw-down gun among them.
Posted by Mister Tea | February 19, 2013 4:49 PM
2nd shoe?
"Merle M. Hatch was carrying a black piece of plastic that police thought was a gun and had no firearm on him, some Portland officers were told at roll calls Tuesday."As reported by the O this evening.
Posted by oregonoak | February 19, 2013 5:03 PM
Latest info is that "Hatch was carrying a black piece of plastic that police thought was a gun":
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2013/02/man_shot_and_killed_by_portlan.html
Posted by Downtown Denizen | February 19, 2013 5:04 PM
From the sounds of things this guy does not deserve to be categorized with the more innocent/vulnerable PPB shooting/stomping victims. Obviously, he didn't deserve to be executed in cold blood for robbing a bank if that's all there is to this. IF he feigned having a gun it was justifiable self defense on the part of the officers. Hopefully there will be video footage so we don't have to rely on the credibility of the officers involved because their version of reality is a fantasy world unto itself.
Posted by Usual Kevin | February 19, 2013 5:31 PM
One less perp and no court cost. Excellent!!!
Posted by Frank | February 20, 2013 9:34 AM