State Trooper shoots, kills driver near Highway 101

Navigation

User login

Online users

CIAGuy
Ehver Green
Guglielmo

Support OlyBlog

OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation:

OlyBlog is powered by:

Who's new

LongRider
non illegitimi ...
acreatureapart
eristalis
Hillguy

State Trooper shoots, kills driver near Highway 101

Submitted by Norm on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 11:50am.

Jeremy Pawloski
The Olympian

A State Patrol trooper shot and killed a man who fled from the trooper Monday during a high-speed chase that started on U.S. Highway 101 near Little Creek Casino and ended in the Steamboat Island area, according to State Patrol.

Read more here

Kudos to Janet for bringing this to my attention, I don't check the daily O very often anymore. This was posted in another thread but I'm thinking it deserves it's own at this point. As always, I do not recommend reading the haloscan comments, you have been warned :)

Norm

Norm's blog
Login or register to post comments

Just Curious...

Submitted by JstPlnOnry on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 12:03pm.

What do you find with the haloscan comments on this article? JstPlnOnry

Too many people

Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 12:08pm.

cheering about a dead person. That's what I see.

As a rule

Submitted by Norm on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 12:12pm.

I warn folks from reading the comments. For the most part I choose not to read them because of the style of dialogue...so to speak. I haven't read the comments for this particular story, I probably won't unless someone suggests to do so.

As of right now there's a

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 12:24pm.

As of right now there's a few posts on "the egomaniacal trooper shouldn't have chased him" but the majority are "Good job, one less criminal, who CHOSE to run"

One person says the dead criminal was a wonderful friend and family man. I'm sure I'd be in denial too if someone close to me made such a piss-poor decision that resulted in a death.

This won't add to my popularity, but I must.

Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Wed, 08/08/2007 - 9:34am.

I feel the need to post this just to illustrate how out of contol The Olympian allows their comments to become:

Hey, Olympian:

Try not to slander the officers so much.

People other than your beloved homosexuals deserve respect, too.
Band member | 08.08.07 - 5:34 am

Two points come to mind. In reading the article, I can't find where The Olympian slandered anyone. Secondly, the homosexual reference is nothing more than pure harassment at its finest.

Not to be redundant, but it's known that I was banned from posting in The Olympian. My violation was using the word "ass" in describing a harasser as an "arrogant ass".

What really motivates The Olympian is (1) if enough people complain - there was an organized effort against me, published in the comments by "Janet" (not OUR Janet) and (2) if you stand your ground after the banning - which I did.

So, in closing, if anyone has a question as to why I've chosen to write about issues in The Olympian, I think the above copy/paste is a great example of the community journalism they allow.

Happy Birthday to Olyblog and thanks to the docents (and other journalists) for making this community one that allows for thought and speech, along with dignity.

"There is only one race, the human race" - The Neville Brothers

As a rule

Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 1:07pm.

I don't think police should pursue unless the are trying to stop someone who as committed or is likly to commit a violent crime. This is the procedure in some jursidictions.

Speeding down the freeway

Submitted by Norm on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 1:13pm.

Speeding down the freeway and passing people on the shoulder shouldn't be considered to commit a violent crime? What if he clips a kid riding his bike near the highway? or the guy pulled over cause he ran out of gas? Remember, this trooper was responding to another call, when he was trying to pass this guy, he sped up and started driving erratically. THEN he started chasing. The trooper was responding to an accident, if this kid had pulled to the side the trooper would have drove on by.

from www.komotv.com

According to the patrol's account, a Trooper Jon Nelson was responding, emergency lights flashing, to a report of a collision and was traveling south on U.S. Highway 101 at about 5:30 p.m. As he tried to pass one vehicle, it accelerated and took off at about 90 mph.

With the trooper in pursuit, the sedan used the shoulder to pass other vehicles for about eight minutes until a spike strip placed by law enforcement officers deflated the tires at the Steamboat Island Road exit, Trooper Brandy Kessler said.

I am certain you understand

Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 1:31pm.

the ontological nature or your reasoning. Had the tropper pulled back, the driver wouldn't have placed anyone at risk.

Can you guarantee that?

Submitted by Norm on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 1:37pm.

Can you guarantee that? That, had the trooper pulled back, the driver would not have kept speeding erratically afraid that the cop might still be back there a ways? As stated, the trooper was responding to another call, should he stop all business in order to keep that car from doing something worse? What if the girl inside was a kidnap victim? Your daughter?

There are no guarantees

Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 1:47pm.

And you know that. You cannot guarantee that a trooper is always going to do the right thing, yet we give them procedures to follow and hope for the best. The fact that I cannot guarantee an outcome is not a valid criticism. You ask what if. Well what if he rear ended a little car full of babies and daughters and nuns and puppies because the trooper continued the chase? The idiosyncrasies of this case aside, people are more likely to drive recklessly and erratically if they are being pursued, period.

There's lots of what-ifs but

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 2:09pm.

There's lots of what-ifs but it doesn't change the fact that there was a stupid kid, who was apparently a criminal (there were warrants), who made a stupid decision and ended up dead for it. Why blame the trooper? And why assume the punk would've gone on his merry friendly peaceful way?

All the cop-haters who want to hold the hands of criminals should have violent crimes happen to them and their loved ones. It's harsh but that's about what's necessary to get some sense in them.

God, you should work for FOX News

Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 2:33pm.

I'm not talking about hating cops or holding the hands of criminals. I'm not blaming anyone for anything...even the "punk." I am merely proposing that we should adopt a more safe and sane policy towards police pursuits. For example, the Phoenix Police Department pursuit policy forbids pursuits for traffic violations, stolen vehicles, misdemeanors, and non-violent felonies. Officers are also discouraged from starting or continuing a pursuit when the fleeing driver exhibits “reckless disregard” for public safety. There are good reasons to adopt such policies. One is that 1 in 100 pursuits ends in death. Here is a good source (and it's by a cop, not a punk-loving, cop-hater like me): http://www.cji.net/cji/CenterInfo/lemc/papers/Police%20Pursuits.pdf

Ok, let's face it

Submitted by Norm on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 2:39pm.

We aren't going to agree. I believe Seattle kicked around a "no-pursuit" policy. I'm not sure if it went through or not, frankly I don't care because they are a truly neutered police dept anyway.

The way I see it, if you don't pursue a criminal, what's to keep them from committing crimes in the first place? Steal a car and you have a ticket out of town, no questions asked. Torch the car and there's no more evidence, you just got away with it. Kidnap someone and throw them in the trunk of a stolen car and now you KNOW the cops aren't going to pursue you unless they know, for certain, that you kidnapped someone. Same rules apply. If you think I'm wrong hang out with one of the local deputies in "Boy" area of the county. Lots of cars are stolen and torched near grand mound, none of them are investigated. It's not important enough and rarely are the VIN's recoverable. Hear that kids? Crime does pay.

Why should I work for Faux

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 2:40pm.

Why should I work for Faux news? Because I don't think 100% like you?

I didn't realize law and order, and criminal accountability, was just a Republican thing.

Phoenix is a good example. Their number of arrests have gone down while crime has risen along with the clearance rate dropping. Thanks for backing up my stance.

Now I'm sure you work for FOX news

Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 2:53pm.

your "analysis" of Phoenix crime data is criminally ignorant. I honestly don't care if you agree with me or not. But I won't sit by and listen to you insinuate your crap about cop-haters and punks when I'm making a simple comment about pursuit policies. That poisons the atmosphere, and that’s what Fox News does.

What is this, if you close

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 3:01pm.

What is this, if you close your eyes, cover your ears and holler loud enough you're right? When I see numbers, provided from the phoenix police department's own website, showing the numbers for violent crime has gone up in the last three years, the number of arrests have gone down in the last three years, and the percentage of clearance has also gone down, it's simple mathematics.

But I won't sit by and listen to you insinuate your crap about cop-haters and punks when I'm making a simple comment about pursuit policies

I gotcha. There's others on Olyblog like this, they believe if they make a statement By God everyone better agree with them, there's no room for discussion or debate. Agree or get lost. There must've been a dear criminal whose feelings got hurt.

Explain to me how my analysis was "criminally ignorant". I don't have a degree in sociology, mathematics or criminal justice so I know there's plenty I can learn.

Here are the problems

Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 3:41pm.

1. The Phoenix no pursuit policy began in March of 2006. The crime trends you site were apparent in the preceding year.

2. You appear to select a baseline year for no apparent, if not a dubious, reason.

3. You omit important confounding factors from your analysis. Many things influence arrest and crime rates: percent of the population who are recently released criminals; level of community supervision; police and prosecutor man hours; demographic and economic trends; etc. Without controlling for concurrent changes in these factors, you cannot draw any conclusions about the impact of the no-pursuit policy on arrests and crime.

4. You give absolutely no consideration to the benefits that may be attributable to the no-chase policy. That gives me the profound impression that you have already made up your mind on the issue. It's just a bad idea to you. A number of jurisdictions across the country have implemented no pursuit policies.

An appropriate analysis would be one that compares outcomes in those jurisdictions with outcomes in other jurisdictions that have less restrictive policies. One could statistically control for differences between these communities and make some marginally conclusive statements about the costs and benefits of high speed pursuit. I'll see if I can find such a study, though I doubt it would change many minds.

Just to be clear, when I say no-pursuit policy, I mean pursuit is allowed but considerably restricted.

And I am not saying agree or get lost. This has NOTHING to do with the feelings of criminals. Take that to someone else's comment. It is a fair question of public policy that has clear ramifications with regard to public safety, everyone's.

1. Fair enough.2. Nothing

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 3:52pm.

1. Fair enough.

2. Nothing dubious about it. Three years is simple enough to think on; Ten years has a lot of complexity to it.

3. Explanations, such as this and number 1, help me see something I might've missed. Suggesting I belong on Faux news and damning my analysis without explaining why serves to draw a line.

4. Actually I've never had a problem with a good persuit policy. There's plenty of argument, here and elsewhere, for there being no persuits ever under any circumstances and I'll never buy that.

I'll see if I can find such a study, though I doubt it would change many minds.

Actually, I think that's a good idea.

This has NOTHING to do with the feelings of criminals. Take that to someone else's comment.

I went back to the begining of that branch and saw how you might've taken it to mean I was calling you a cop-hating criminal-coddler. That paragraph at the end was meant towards those who think that way, it wasn't intended to be directed straight at you. I'll be happy to buy you a beer for it sometime.

Let's all try and keep the thread cool, or at least luke-warm

Submitted by Norm on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 3:58pm.

We all know we are allowed to disagree and as long as we are presenting other angles and ideas I think we all might walk away with something new. I'm hoping that others will come in and maybe they will have some good info as well. They may not jump in though if the thread is already burning, make sense?

Oh what the heck do you know?

Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 4:14pm.

Just kidding Norm. Point taken. Sorry for the Fox News comment MH. I'm at the Broho almost every evening. I'm the old guy.

Guglielmo unmasked!

Submitted by jlw on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 8:00pm.

Well, sort of. When I think of "the old guy at the Broho," I don't think of you, Guglielmo.

Well

Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 8:48pm.

you are too kind Janet B.

That's what you think

Submitted by jlw on Wed, 08/08/2007 - 9:44am.

The old guy at the Broho thinks I'm really harsh.

Maybe he's just

Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 08/08/2007 - 10:06am.

overly sensative.

No one can be as old as me.

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Wed, 08/08/2007 - 10:28am.

No one can be as old as me. I'm thirty-four and three-quarters!

Hey Merwyn,

Submitted by Rob Richards on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 9:03pm.

I've got some crow left over from earlier! :)

Sure

Submitted by Norm on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 9:06pm.

but do you have the plant you stole from the broho?

uh, Norm,

Submitted by Rob Richards on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 9:09pm.

Allegedly.

For Heaven's sake, Rob!

Submitted by Phil Owen on Wed, 08/08/2007 - 9:09am.

How much "alleged" mischief do you get into, anyway?

The Canaanite's Call

I could tell you, but then

Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 08/08/2007 - 9:13am.

I could tell you, but then you could be subpoenaed. (wow, i spelled that right on the first try!)

I'm impressed

Submitted by Norm on Wed, 08/08/2007 - 9:40am.

I'm impressed

ok, so let's weigh it out

Submitted by Norm on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 2:25pm.

Had he stopped pursuit and let the guy go on his way it could have been fine, keep in mind that he now has to slow down responding to the accident as well for fear of making this moron think that he was chasing him. So, the trooper now just let a fleeing person, now identified as a wanted felon out of state, and warranted criminal out of county, that's what we know for sure. Given the man's behavior, would a reasonable person think this is normal behavior for a wanted criminal? Maybe. You would think with a woman and a child (provided the trooper saw the child) would slow down and pull over so he doesn't get them killed. Possibly his motivation was to get away with the woman (and child) because the woman was being held against her will. Could you, as the trooper, live with yourself if you let a kidnapper go and had the chance to stop him? I would have a rough time with that. Could I live with myself if I caused another person harm by chasing someone who was fleeing from me? I think so. At least I knew at the time that I was doing the right thing though. Letting the guy drive off erratically when he's wanted is NOT the right thing. That's all the justification I need.

You don't know all of those things when you begin a chase

Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 2:38pm.

Perhaps chasing someone simply because they won't stop does not justify the one death that occurs in every 100 chases. You need a better policy to determine when and when not to pursue.

Nope, I don't know that

Submitted by Norm on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 2:41pm.

I also don't know if the guy breaking into my house is going to murder me. You damn well better bet that he's going to end up with a couple of bullets in him before I find out if he's going to shoot me though. Why wait around for the worst to happen when you can keep yourself alive by taking the initiative?

Read Norm

Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 2:55pm.

http://www.cji.net/cji/CenterInfo/lemc/papers/Police%20Pursuits.pdf

Bottom of page 8: This

Submitted by Norm on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 3:25pm.

Bottom of page 8:

This policy specifies that pursuit for motor vehicle offenses are not authorized, unless the violator's vehicle is being operated so as to pose an immediate threat to the safety of another person.

The guy writing the research paper, this is part of the policy his dept was adopting. Just thought I'd point that out.

You'll also notice he never once mentions the effect on crime after these policies were put into action, just that the number of pursuits dropped. Why?

I have not read the entire paper

Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 3:45pm.

So I cannot say why the author does or does not cite crime outcomes. I posted the paper only because it is critical examination of police puruits by a cop. If it was by a cop-hater, no one would read it.

I just did a quick skimming

Submitted by Norm on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 3:55pm.

I just did a quick skimming read. I didn't see it mentioned but I may have missed it. I didn't like his justification of certain material, but I'll read it more thoroughly(sp?) tonight and give an impression. It was presented well if nothing else. Thanks for the link, I'm off to dinner and dancing now.....

Maybe the trooper can roll

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 2:43pm.

Maybe the trooper can roll his window down and holler "Are you carrying any weapons or stolen property?" Maybe the patrol cars can have bumper stickers saying Honk if You're Legal!

As a rule? For Guglielmo

Submitted by Tschida on Wed, 08/08/2007 - 9:42am.

If you think that the police should not pursue, how would they catch people who are criminals? All they would have to do is flee. How about a culture where the overwhelming majority of the population does not tolerate criminals, does not provide them services when it is known they are wanted by the law enforcement, and a population that expects that if you try to flee in your vehicle you will not get away, but rather be caught no matter how far you try to run. How about a society where everyone is expected to obey the law, and behave in a moral and more selfless manner?

I think they should pursue but only in very limited situations

Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 08/08/2007 - 10:21am.

Because pursuits are very dangerous (1 in 100 results in fatality) I believe pursuits are not justified for traffic violations, misdemeanors, and non-violent felonies. I also think police should be discouraged from starting or continuing a pursuit when the fleeing driver exhibits “reckless disregard” for public safety. Get the license, find the person later. Not sure what impact such a policy would have on crime and arrests, but it would result in less property damage and fewer injuries and deaths that result from high speed pursuits. And many of those deaths are innocent drivers and bystanders. It's a trade off, a few more crimes and missed arrests for a few more lives saved on the road. I don't know if the trade off is worth it, but neither do you. The data aren't there. So why not give it a try, analyze the results, and put the debate to rest. Who's afraid of some simple cost-benefit analysis?

According to some haloscan

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 2:52pm.

According to some haloscan comments the State Patrol put down a spike strip without making sure other traffic was cleared. The first to hit it was an innocent driver who spun out of control and nearly hit other vehicles.

A) Did this happen?

B) Was there in fact warning, such as parked and flashing patrol cars with troopers trying to motion people to slow down or stop?

C) What was the speed limit on that portion of road and how fast was the innocent driver going?

This brings up a new, very valid, question to the discussion.

D'oh, now I have to read the

Submitted by Norm on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 2:55pm.

D'oh, now I have to read the comments :(

Jon Nelson Criminal Record Comment

Submitted by JstPlnOnry on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 4:56pm.

The comment that concerns me is:

Jon Nelson is the same trooper charged in Thurston County Superior Court in 2001 for rape and Unlawful Imprisonment case number 01-1-00222-1 disbelief | 08.07.07 - 2:34 pm

Any way to find out the validity of this one? I went to http://dw.courts.wa.gov/ and searched and found this record but am missing where the charge is rape & Unlawful Imprisonment.

There are 200 Jon Nelson records too...

JstPlnOnry

Is it the same Jon Nelson?

Submitted by Norm on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 7:59pm.

Is it the same Jon Nelson?

Regardless though, if it IS the same Jon Nelson he must have been found "not guilty" or he would not be a trooper. Thin blue line doesn't cover felons with firearms. Plus, there's mention of a protection order, protection order = no firearms. In the case of WSP if the PO was granted I'm sure he would be on leave or fired.

someone on the online

Submitted by Norm on Wed, 08/08/2007 - 9:41am.

someone on the online comments claims to know the whole story. The thing that has to be remembered though is that because he's a cop, he's a target. Also, like any other citizen of this great country, he is innocent until/unless proven guilty. He doesn't seem to have been found guilty.

Comments Section on this Article

Submitted by JstPlnOnry on Thu, 08/09/2007 - 9:39am.

I am just in awe at the responses people are posting about this particular article. I got banned (and to this day I'm still don't know why) yet people like Bananas and others are posting things that clearly violate Aaron Mason's game rules!?

It's also amazing to me how passionate people are on this subject. Clearly there's more support for the trooper than Moniz and personally, I think that's a good thing because I agree with their reasons for supporting the trooper!

JstPlnOnry

"Do not mistake for conspiracy and intrigue what can best be explained by stupidity and incompetence." - Unknown

I don't have a problem with

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Thu, 08/09/2007 - 9:47am.

I don't have a problem with people wanting to make sure that proper procedures were followed. If, and I'm using the hypothetical "if", if it was shown the trooper over-reacted then there should be Hell to pay. However, seeing as how he was nearly rundown after concluding the chase I doubt he was out of bounds.

It's when people automatically think the trooper should have done nothing and let suspicious activity (speeding away) go without consequence that I wonder about the values of today.

Consequences?

Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 08/09/2007 - 10:02am.

One death in every 100 high speed pursuits isn't a consequence? There are all kinds of consequences and they need to be weighed, not simply dismissed as a crisis of modern values. Turns out the man was shot in the chest. An odd shot placement given the circumstances. And why believe he was "nearly run down" without any evidence?

good luck friend

Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 08/09/2007 - 10:07am.

good luck friend

Which death, the death of an

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Thu, 08/09/2007 - 10:31am.

Which death, the death of an innocent or the death of the runner?

And why believe he was "nearly run down" without any evidence?

The car's camera will show what's what. I hope they make it public. Whatever it shows that's what I'll believe.

For example...

Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 08/09/2007 - 11:17am.

According to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) data "314 people were killed during pursuits in 1998. Of this total, 2 were police officers and 198 were individuals being chased. The remaining 114 were either occupants of unrelated vehicles or pedestrians”

That's about a third, a high

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Thu, 08/09/2007 - 11:27am.

That's about a third, a high enough percentage to justify people having this debate. Are there any numbers more recent than '98? Some that show areas with new chase policies which lessened innocent deaths? And what would be the new crime stats in areas where people aren't chased and apprehended?

I certainly think one-third is a huge chunk for innocent deaths. Something should be done. However there will always be reasons why bad things like that happen: If a crazy with a gun started spraying bullets in a public square and the police fired on him to save more lives from being mowed down there could still be someone innocent who took a police bullet.

Ugh. There's obviously not an easy answer. I'm just sure that letting dangerous people, or potentially dangerous people, get away scot free isn't it.

Probably not any newer numbers

Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 08/09/2007 - 12:06pm.

because I pulled these form a 2005 report. I'm guessing the author used the latest numbers available. But something new might have been published in the last two years. Yes, I think too many people die to accept the status quo without properly justifying it.

Wow!

Submitted by jlw on Thu, 08/09/2007 - 7:49pm.

People generally think of law enforcement as being a dangerous job, but it seems to be a lot more dangerous to be an innocent bystander.

Okay...

Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 08/09/2007 - 2:12pm.

A chest injury could result from a shot in the back, but the details are sure vague. I wonder if anyone has filed a public information act request, or if such videos even fall under that law?

I'm betting it won't be

Submitted by Norm on Thu, 08/09/2007 - 2:14pm.

I'm betting it won't be released until after the investigation. Given how many of these dash-cam videos are on youtube anymore, I'm sure it won't take long before it's requested.

Shooting and doing nothing

Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 08/09/2007 - 10:06am.

Shooting and doing nothing aren't the only two options. It seems the trooper could have worked with other officers to track the vehicle down via radio and got the suspect when it would be a little safer for everybody. If the car was registered to him, then they know where he lives, they could have had a car waiting at his house. Anybody that says a person deserves to be killed, no matter the circumstances, has something wrong with them, and it makes me question the values of our society.

Exactly!

Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 08/09/2007 - 10:14am.

That false dichotomy is an all too convenient ploy. Right out of the Sean Hannity debate manual.

I'm not saying he deserved

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Thu, 08/09/2007 - 10:29am.

I'm not saying he deserved to die and if I did in fact word it that way elsewhere I'll gladly retract it. However, as someone elsewhere pointed out, people die as a result of poor choices all the time.

If I were to point a gun at someone, especially a cop, I'd know that I stand a good chance of being shot back. If I walk on the edge of the Grand Canyon I know there's a good chance I'll slip and fall.

What the pro-criminal apologists fail to appreciate is that the Trooper, who is charged with protecting society, had no idea who he was. The moment the kid chose to pull away the Trooper had to wonder why, with such valid possibilities as 1) He just committed a major crime, or 2) The passengers were kidnapped, or even 3) the car is loaded with drugs or weapons.

Generally a law-abiding citizen isn't going to race away from a police vehicle.

We now know he most likely wasn't going to hurt his fiance, but had the tables been turned, and it was a situation where her body (and that of the child) was found raped and mutilated there'd be an equally loud uproar about how the police let this happen.

If he had just pulled over not only would he still be alive, but he'd most likely still be walking free on his multiple warrants for Theft and skipping court mandated drug tests. I wish people would stop trying to pass him off as an innocent saint.

He pulled away at 90 mph. It wouldn't matter if the Trooper radioed ahead for others to keep an eye out. It doesn't take long for a car to disappear around the corner at 90. There's plenty of turn-offs, and contrary to some beliefs 101 isn't saturated with patrol cars.

Besides, had the car not been registered to him they might still know his identity but not necessarily know where to find him. Remember, when it all started there was no way for the Trooper to know any of this.

So the kid pulled away, he led the police on a chase, then after going over a spike strip he intentionally rammed the trooper's vehicle. Bear in mind this wasn't any bumper-cars love tap. Was he truly a safe individual to have allowed to go his merry way?

Pro-criminal? That's an odd characterization

Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 08/09/2007 - 10:58am.

1) He just committed a major crime,

2) The passengers were kidnapped,

3) the car is loaded with drugs or weapons

Yes, all extrememly common possibilities. On exceedingly rare occasions people run because

4) just committed a minor crime

6) suspended license

7) outstanding warrants

8) is an undocumented alien

9) on probation and with dope your pocket

10) missed a meeting with a parole officer

11) just run away with his 17 year old girl friend

12) afraid of cops (because they might shoot you)

13) mentally ill

14) suicidal

15) no insurance

16) no registration

17) mom and dad will get mad

18) young

19) stupid

The FACT is less that 17% of suspects flee for an underlying felony.

Yes, those are relatively

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Thu, 08/09/2007 - 11:16am.

Yes, those are relatively minor reasons. There are equally minor reasons why someone might pull a gun, it's still a deadly situation that needs to be stopped asap.

Regardless of whether the reason for running was major, minor or just plain stupid people need to be able to accept the consequences of their actions. I'm perceiving that many of those questioning the trooper's actions don't believe in accountability, or at least not for anyone other than the Trooper himself, and I have to wonder why. What do they wish to get away with and not be held accountable over?

Society needs to be accountable also

Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 08/09/2007 - 11:22am.

We make the rules. We are responsible for pursuit policies and we are responsible for KNOWING that the benefits of such policies outway the costs. To accept them uncritically is quite irresponsible.

From one of my old Monty

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Thu, 08/09/2007 - 11:30am.

From one of my old Monty Python tapes:

After "God" identified a killer:
"It's a fair call, but Society's to blame!"
"Right! We'll be charging them too!"

There's actually no time for

Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 08/09/2007 - 10:54am.

There's actually no time for all of those thoughts to go through an officer's head. That's why they're trained and have protocols to follow. They are trained to respond in certain ways in certain instances. If a car speeds away, they pursue. What they're not trained adequately on is what happens when the chase is over. In a number of places around the country police are required to wait for back up before they approach a suspect's vehicle. The idea is that 1.) This will allow a minute for the officer's heart rate to decrease making her/him less likely to make a rash split decision like firing a weapon, and 2.) two or more heads are better than one, other cops there will add rationality to the situation. Malcolm Gladwell wrote about it in "Blink". Cops have so much adrenaline after a high speed chase that sometimes they are not totally in control of themselves and things like this happen. Is it the cops fault? No, not completely, it's more the fault of a culture that makes it OK for a weapon to be drawn and fired at another person even if that person isn't armed.

A cop chooses their proffession knowing full well that they could die in the line of duty. It's a consequence they accept. Given that, and given the fact that they are tasked with keeping the peace, or protecting and serveing, I do not believe they should shoot first. They should keep themselves out of situation where they are going to be compromised (wait for backup), and shoot only if fired upon. Some may say that I'm a criminal lover, it's not true, I just think we can be better as a society than the outcome of this tragic news story. And yes, it is always a tragedy when someone is shot.

I pretty much agree with

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Thu, 08/09/2007 - 11:06am.

I pretty much agree with you, anything I might disagree with is minor and having little to no bearing on your point.

I think waiting for backup, when applicable, is an excellent policy.

Being prone to adrenaline rushes myself I understand full well the body condition where one doesn't have the capacity to control impulses. The stress classes that I took a few months ago focuses heavily on understanding the physical symptoms your body exhibits in the early stages of stress and/or anger so that you have a chance to divert the energy before it escalates uncontrollably. Those simple things like taking a deep breath or going for a walk.

Yes, I would call you a

Submitted by Norm on Thu, 08/09/2007 - 11:59am.

Yes, I would call you a criminal lover for that last paragraph. As a civilian, if someone points a gun at me, brandishes a gun, pulls a knife, etc I am going to shoot them before they have the chance to end my life. Self-preservation trumps all. In my mind, that is the right thing to do.

stop it norm

Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 08/09/2007 - 12:29pm.

I'm saying that I believe cops should be held to a higher standard, NOT that criminals should be treated better.

Sorry

Submitted by Norm on Thu, 08/09/2007 - 12:38pm.

Really, the whole criminal lover thing was a joke. I was smiling when I typed it....I swear! I don't think ANYONE is payed well enough to just "take" a bullet before they defend themselves. Cops already are held to a higher standard.

Jon Nelson's use of force was justified.

Submitted by DrewHendricks on Thu, 11/01/2007 - 4:50pm.

Today (11/1/07) I got a chance to actually view the dash camera footage with Captain Jeff K DeVere of the WSP. We watched the video footage from the time Nelson went to lights and sirens North of Shelton, until the firemen arrive to help take care of Mr Moniz on a country road in Thurston County.

Having watched the video, I have to say that Trooper Nelson did what he was trained to do. There was about 20-25 feet of space between the officer's car and Mr Moniz' car, when Mr Moniz put his car in reverse and accelerated, down a slight grade, into the parked squad car - throwing the car back (The officers say ten feet, the video does not really answer that question independently.) Mr Moniz' car is pretty badly dented in the trunk area when it comes to rest, but the impact was straight on, deliberate assault and the officer immediately fired three rounds into the rear driver's side door, into the back of the driver (Mr. Moniz). That stopped his assault of the officer and ended the confrontation.

Trooper Nelson then gave aid, directed the widow to the nearest house to call 911, and stayed with Mr Moniz to assist - which due to radio traffic was pretty minimal assistance for about three minutes (He had to explain where they were at so ambulances could get there).

Nothing in Trooper Nelson's demeanor was angry or hostile to the victim or the witnesses, after his initial yelling to them to get out of the car. He rendered aid, and directed bystanders without raising his voice or losing his "cool." He expressed regret at the scene, asking Mr Moniz (who is still alive at this point, but barely audible on the dash cam mic) "Why did you run? Why didn't you just stop?"

In my opinion, Jon Nelson had no better options available to him to stop this vehicular assault. His dog and his TASER cannot be used to stop the car, the Shotgun is on a rack inside the car which just jumped back ten feet and the handgun in his hand is ready and aimed. The shots happen almost immediately after the impact of the vehicle.

No one wins. But if we're going to give officers lethal options, this is what is going to happen sometimes - especially if someone is assaulting them with a deadly weapon such as a car.

Jon, if you happen to read this please accept my apology for the part of you which dies when you take a life. I know almost everyone probably wants to assure you that you're a hero, and I know that you probably don't feel like one - and that's OK, because you're not a hero. But you did the best you could do with the tools and training you had. We could ask no more. If you can forgive yourself, please do. If you can't, please keep trying to.

Drew Hendricks,
Olympia Copwatch
360-870-3127
Drew | 11.01.07 - 5:23 pm | (posted originally to the Olympian comments on the Editorial calling for a Coroner's Inquest. Original at
http://www.theolympian.com/opinion/story/238237.html

While I agree we need independent review, and a Coroner's Inquest is a good way to do that from within the system, the whole point of outside review is not served if a local politically connected official is the one directing the inquest.

Thank You For Sharing This Drew

Submitted by JstPlnOnry on Thu, 11/01/2007 - 7:14pm.

I appreciate your point of view, your honesty and the words you gave Trooper Nelson at the end.

I believed all along Trooper Nelson was doing his job to the best of his ability.

"Do not mistake for conspiracy and intrigue what can best be explained by stupidity and incompetence." - Unknown

Thanks Drew

Submitted by Sarah on Fri, 11/02/2007 - 5:10am.

Thanks for writing this up for us, valuable info and observations.

It sounded really sincere

Submitted by Norm on Fri, 11/02/2007 - 8:15am.

It sounded really sincere and heartfelt until the end when you threw your own political spin into it.

Another reading is possible

Submitted by Sarah on Fri, 11/02/2007 - 9:18am.

I don't know that the last part of Drew's post was political spin, of course, I cannot speak for him. I think I "heard" it differently from you Norm. I think that last part is heartfelt also.

It's an opinion Norm

Submitted by Guglielmo on Fri, 11/02/2007 - 9:36am.

Sincerity shouldn't be measured by whether or not you like the sentiment. At least, I don't think it should. I give Drew a lot of credit for what he did write.

I give Drew lots of credit.

Submitted by Norm on Fri, 11/02/2007 - 9:51am.

I'm not sure if it was hard for him or not, but he's not normally someone (I feel) who would write something positive about a cop without putting his own spin on it. Not that Drew is a bad person, I think he's a great person, just not happy about authority.

Really his sentiment was wonderful, it was: But if we're going to give officers lethal options, this is what is going to happen sometimes.....and that's OK, because you're not a hero.....But you did the best you could do with the tools and training you had. That changed my mind toward the end. He started out as "Heartfelt Drew" and turned into, "anti-authority, super-anarchist, cop-watch extraordinare Drew".

So how about I throw mine in: Nelson, you did the right thing. It is far better that this guy is in the grave than you are. You may not feel like a hero, but the fact that you put on that uniform every day, and risk your life, makes you a hero, no matter what anyone else says. I'm glad that you had the tools and training that you do, otherwise you may not be around today. If you are feeling bad (I wouldn't blame you) know who you are friends are, and pay no attention to the haters.

Not spin, just counseling

Submitted by DrewHendricks on Wed, 11/21/2007 - 6:52pm.

You never say to a man who is questioning his own decisions that you're glad he did X or Y. You don't gloss, or sugarcoat, or shine him on. You say what you mean, mean what you say, and let him know that he's normal for feeling conflicted and fuc&ed up by the experience. You don't agree with me about authority, but that statement was nothing to do with my political "take" on it. The stuff about this will happen again, that is slightly political in a general sense.

That stuff about not being a hero was not spin, but actual counseling talk from actual learned experience. I know I hate to be told "You're a good guy" when I'm feeling like an ass-hat. So I don't blow that smoke up that hole. I just said what was true: He's not a hero. He should not hold himself up to that impossible standard. He should forgive himself. I will, and I hope Harley's widow and son will.

Haters?

Submitted by Guglielmo on Fri, 11/02/2007 - 10:01am.

Good grief. I think Drew's point is that given the current practices, the trooper was justified. I think it is fair to now challenge those practices and ask if things can be done differently. If you don't ask it NEVER changes.

He could have worded it

Submitted by Norm on Fri, 11/02/2007 - 10:11am.

He could have worded it differently, he could have included his challenges in another thread, instead he chose to write something heartfelt, and throw his own political view in at the end.

Jim, let's face it, you and I aren't going to agree here, really most folks on the blog aren't going to agree with me, so let's just drop it where it is.

I agree with you, Norm. I

Submitted by Ehver Green on Fri, 11/02/2007 - 10:47am.

I agree with you, Norm. I was going to comment last night but I just didn't have the energy after my interactions with Rob.

This was the kicker - "...because you're not a hero."

I guess I just don't see why

Submitted by Guglielmo on Fri, 11/02/2007 - 10:43am.

a political view can't be heartfelt. Had he said, "You know, I think I actually like the way the curent review process works," I doubt you'd be having a problem with it even though it's just as political. Dropped.

Kind of hard not to get that

Submitted by Norm on Fri, 11/02/2007 - 10:47am.

Kind of hard not to get that last word in eh?

"You always have to have the

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Fri, 11/02/2007 - 10:50am.

"You always have to have the last word."

"No I don't!"

"You just proved my point."

"You're right, I'm sorry. I'll drop it."

"Thank You"

"Don't mention it."

"Okay then, I won't"

Damn the United States! I wish I may never hear of the United States again!
Philip Nolan, the man without a country

OlyBlog.net

OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you.

If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here.

Now playing at: