So what lesson do you think this mother taught her children?

[FLrider]

While watching this video I just couldn't believe what I was seeing.

 

This woman turned what should have been a "routine" stop into a fiasco of epic proportions.

 

She apparently felt she was above the law and that cooperating with police is not something that she ( for reasons only she knows ) has to do.

 

Then Jr. Steps up. I wish I knew what what going on in his mind. Was he protecting mom? From whom? From what? Was it that he too, has no respect for cops or the law?

 

..and what was the last cop on the scene thinking? Firing at a car eluding... Did he not know what was in the car? Looks to me like he was aiming at tires but...who knows...

 

And so in an instant, this wretched woman risks the life of her children and quite probably ruined the careers of several dedicated officers.. At a minimum having to serve years in "sensitivity training". He will be branded a racist and and his idiot PC friends will steer clear.....

 

Unbelievable...

 

 

 

[beemerman2k]

I have been hearing about this video. Unreal.

 

I view that cop as being entirely justified for attempting to shoot out her tires (which is what it appears to me he is trying to do). Once she flees, that minivan becomes a weapon with respect to the public; therefore, I am all for doing what must be done to immobilize it. I am sorry that other patrol car didn't pull in front of her, thus preventing her from fleeing in the first place.

 

What lesson does she teach her children? Same lesson the rest of the world seems to be teaching their children these days. "Blame it on the cops". Shameful.

[smiller]

On the surface her behavior was pretty inexcusable (providing of course that the full story isn't always immediately clear), but she didn't ruin the career of anyone. She is responsible for her actions, and the LEOs are responsible for their actions.

[RonStewart]

Do police try to shoot out tires? I thought that was only on tv?

[beemerman2k]

On the surface her behavior was pretty inexcusable (providing of course that the full story isn't always immediately clear), but she didn't ruin the career of anyone. She is responsible for her actions, and the LEOs are responsible for their actions.

 

I don't think it's that simple at all. But OK, I'll play along...

 

Why didn't that cop literally ball his fist and knock that woman into next week the second she attempted to get back in that van? That's what I'm holding him accountable for; he's too much of a natural gentleman to deal with idiots like these folks.

 

Of course, if he did that...back to sensitivity training

[FLrider]

On the surface her behavior was pretty inexcusable (providing of course that the full story isn't always immediately clear), but she didn't ruin the career of anyone. She is responsible for her actions, and the LEOs are responsible for their actions.

 

I see.....and if the LEO had not bothered to enforce the law and just let her speed, would you consider that an irresponsible action or responsible inaction?

[smiller]

There are many ways to enforce the law and many techniques to stop a fleeing vehicle short of shooting at a van full of kids.

[Dave McReynolds]

I feel kind of sorry for the woman in the van. Clearly what she did wasn't rational, and she'll pay the price for it. 99% of the people who feel they have been unfairly stopped will just wait for the ticket, either quietly or after explaining why they thought the stop was unfair. For those 99%, it will be a bump in the road that they will quickly get over. Resisting, when she had no possibility of escaping, and no possibility of making the situation better by resisting, was as irrational as a lot of the things a schizophrenic person would do that we would just shrug our shoulders at. She may even be schizophrenic, for all I know.

 

Note that I don't feel she shouldn't have been stopped; just that she didn't seem to be in control of herself.

[Blind Squirrel]

There are many ways to enforce the law and many techniques to stop a fleeing vehicle short of shooting at a van full of kids.

 

Would it have been okay if the van were full of adults?

 

I HATE it when people use kids as an excuse or a shield to justify bad behavior. The woman was the one in the wrong. SHE is the person that initially put the children in harms way with her behavior. I would love to see her charged with child endangerment.

 

The cop should have tazed her when she failed to comply at the second stop.

[smiller]

She may even be schizophrenic, for all I know.

Yes, that's what occurred to me too, her behavior was so irrational that it's easy to suspect some kind of mental disorder might be involved. Or at least it seems like a reasonable question to ask before jumping to the conclusion that the only possibility is that she's sticking her finger in the air at authority. Bashing in windows and shooting at a vehicle known to be occupied by innocents seems like a fairly gross overreaction under the circumstances. I know it's easy to make mistakes under pressure and I'm not without sympathy for everyone involved, but that episode displayed some pretty poor judgment all the way around.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

I view that cop as being entirely justified for attempting to shoot out her tires (which is what it appears to me he is trying to do). Once she flees, that minivan becomes a weapon with respect to the public; therefore, I am all for doing what must be done to immobilize it.

 

The PIT maneuver is often used to end car chases, but because it presents a serious possibilty of injury/death to the occupants of the fleeing vehicle and to bystanders, there are specific rules of engagement that dictate when this may be done:

 

The PIT is not applicable in every situation, and many factors affect the usefulness of the technique. Many of these factors relate to safety concerns: typical police policy recommends that an officer not attempt the PIT at speeds greater than 35 miles per hour (55 kilometers per hour), and requires careful choice of location, considering all possible effects on other traffic and pedestrians. Because of the police department's potential liability for the injury or death of not only of the occupants of the target vehicle, but also bystanders, most departments limit its use to only the most high-risk scenarios. Most departments specify that the PIT should only be used to stop pursuits that are immediately dangerous and ongoing.

 

Similarly, there are rules of engagement for firearms. I'll plead ignorance as to the exact details, but I'll wager that they require an officer not to fire in the general direction of bystanders unless the officer's life/limb is under immediate threat.

 

Which boils down to this:

Is she driving at the cop? OK officer, aim for her head.

 

Is she merely fleeing the scene, with a car full of noncombatant occupants? Probably best not to shoot at the vehicle. Pursue until she stops, or orchestrate an intervention with stopsticks to disable her vehicle.

 

Why didn't that cop literally ball his fist and knock that woman into next week the second she attempted to get back in that van?

 

Rules of engagement are also designed to minimize the risk of permanently disfiguring/debilitating injury to everyone involved. This is done on the presumption of innocence, and the idea that the police aren't supposed to be the ones who mete out justice; they're just supposed to haul you into court as efficiently and safely as they can. As it happens they found drug paraphernelia in her car, which might explain her reluctance to hang around. But what if she was indeed schizophrenic, or having some sort of diabetic episode? Is it then appropriate for an officer to strike her in the face? Or should he take steps to restrain her as safely as possible?

 

[Bud]

While I don't like getting "performance awards" I'm a big supporter of those who serve and protect. A job I wouldn't ever want to have to do.

 

Wasn't there, sure wouldn't try to second guess. Her behavior certainly isn't usual for those stopped.

 

She put the children at risk when she chose to flee.

 

Time will tell.

 

[Mike]

Lots of poor judgment in play here. First, the mom...God knows what motivated her to act the way she did. Then, the coppers...escalating pretty fast, to deadly force, when doing so clearly endangered the children.

 

There's no excusing any of it. I do wonder if the officers involved might have benefited from training in how to de-escalate confrontations (a la verbal judo). My observation is that, generally speaking, an "us versus them" mentality has begun to permeate law enforcement. Not everyone, but a sizable number of officers, no longer seem to appreciate the nuances of how to interact in a way that maintains control without leading to escalation. It's not always going to work, but these officers need to be given the tools to deal with situations like this.

[Matts_12GS]

There was another article on this I read before the OP, but it mentioned that a) there was paraphernalia in the car and that b) she was trying to get to the Rio Grande. Am wondering if there was some nature of immigration wrinkle at play here from her side.

[Twisties]

Lots of poor judgment in play here. First, the mom...God knows what motivated her to act the way she did. Then, the coppers...escalating pretty fast, to deadly force, when doing so clearly endangered the children.

 

There's no excusing any of it. I do wonder if the officers involved might have benefited from training in how to de-escalate confrontations (a la verbal judo). My observation is that, generally speaking, an "us versus them" mentality has begun to permeate law enforcement. Not everyone, but a sizable number of officers, no longer seem to appreciate the nuances of how to interact in a way that maintains control without leading to escalation. It's not always going to work, but these officers need to be given the tools to deal with situations like this.

 

Thank you Mike!

[beemerman2k]

Whether he clocks that woman or not, my only point--and the only point I would criticize these LEO's on--is that you can never let a vehicle flee. Ever. And people need to be educated to the fact that once you flee, the rules of the game change. You are now considered every bit as dangerous as an armed assailant.

 

Shooting endangered the van's occupants. Not shooting endangers the general public. Pick one and be ready to defend your choice to the media and hyper critical society.

 

I fully agree with Scott (blind squirrel). That woman is the one who placed the van's occupants in danger, not the police. 100% I agree with that viewpoint.

[upflying]

Things looked ok to me until the LEO fired at the fleeing vehicle. That's a bad shooting, nothing justified the use of deadly force at that point.

Many agencies have policies against shooting at fleeing or moving vehicles..unless the vehicle is coming at you. And then you should make an effort to jump out of the way.

Shooting at tires is rarely successful at stopping the vehicle.

The PIT is considered the same level of force as the firearm.

Not sure if anyone mentioned the race card, but the occupants had all the emotional presumptive precursors of thinking they were being victimized for driving while black.

That type of ignorant thinking is passed on through generations.

[4wheeldog]

Do police try to shoot out tires? I thought that was only on tv?

 

And in New Messico. There was plenty of stupid on both sides of this story. The woman was completely out of line, and needs to get aquainted with the inside of a cell. But shooting at the vehicle was not a good choice.......Too many ways that could have gone very wrong.

 

New Messico cops have been getting a lot of bad publicity lately (Colonoscopies for clenching one's glutinous maximus, for example)......You would think that they would try to control their bad behavior.

[smiller]

Whether he clocks that woman or not, my only point--and the only point I would criticize these LEO's on--is that you can never let a vehicle flee. Ever.

I'm not in law enforcement but I don't think that is an absolute, and this is a good example. If the only method you have to stop the vehicle is firing at it while it is full of innocent occupants then you indeed have to let it (temporarily) flee, so as to be able to apply more appropriate methods (roadblock, spike strip, etc.)

 

[upflying]

Whether he clocks that woman or not, my only point--and the only point I would criticize these LEO's on--is that you can never let a vehicle flee. Ever.

I'm not in law enforcement but I don't think that is an absolute, and this is a good example. If the only method you have to stop the vehicle is firing at it while it is full of innocent occupants then you indeed have to let it (temporarily) flee, so as to be able to apply more appropriate methods (roadblock, spike strip, etc.)

Yup, had countless vehicles flee from me, some successfully, some fatally..

[Bud]

What's the old saying?

 

"You can't outrun Motorola?"

[beemerman2k]

Well, I suppose it's pretty clear where I stand. You flee, you relinquish your right to bitch about what happened to you. For me, this is cut and dry, and even applies to men like Rodney King and OJ Simpson. You flee, it's on you. Period.

 

Were I king of the country, I'd make it abundantly clear: you flee, you relinquish any and all claims to rights. You are considered a threat to public safety, and you will be taken out by any means necessary. Let the officer write the ticket, and prepare to argue in court if you feel it was unjustified. End of story.

 

These idiots end up taking out whole families with this nonsense. To add insult to injury, the one in the wrong lives to see another day while the innocent family suffers huge losses. That's why I have no room for this nonsense.

[Roadwolf]

"So what lesson do you think this mother taught her children?"

 

Next time, obey the orders of the officer… cuz some of them are a bit trigger happy.

[upflying]

Attorneys and liability has entered the cesspool of police pursuits now.

If the violator you are chasing was originally observed committing a non-hazardous violation, such as registration, license plates, lights, tires, windows, tint, smoke, then the pursuit must be terminated.

And if the pursuit goes the wrong way on a freeway, through a school zone, inclement weather, heavy traffic, lots of peds in the area, then the pursuit must be terminated.

Only time carte blanche is granted in a pursuit if the bad guy just committed a murder or is shooting back at you.

Ca has a lot of bad guys roaming our communities now due to AB109.

[FLrider]

Exactly. All she had to do is sit there while the LEO ran her plates for warrants, etc.,. In the end, she would had got a ticket and if lucky, a warning.

 

Instead she went into denial mode. Did you hear her in the audio where she says " I didn't run" ? She honestly believes that speeding away to avoid the officer wasn't running away. Yes, the car ran. I was just sitting in it....

 

...and the boy who rushes the officer.... It's obvious what he's been raised to think about rules and the costs of breaking them....and the people who try to enforce them.

 

Somehow or another I just know that this is going to turn into a "driving while black" I'm a victim your a racist, police abuse, BS claim.

 

It's just falling on my deaf ears any more. The pendulum has begun to swing....

[SteveHebert]

I am not an LEO so I will have to defer to Bob and the others here but I am involved in police actions over here with DEA. We utilize Rules of Engagement and Rules of use of Force depending on the mission set. The bottom line is that warning shots are never authorized using a personal weapon. When you choose to use the firearm, you must use it to inflict deadly force. It is always the last option. You may not use it to disable a motor vehicle.

 

We are authorized to use warning shots from crew served weapons on the aircraft after we have gone through a series of de-escalation procedures, and only if we have certainty that we will not harm anyone in the process. Basically we maneuver the aircraft, drop smoke grenades and pop flares to stop the vehicle. If they do not stop and are an imminent threat, we are authorized warning shots to give them every chance to stop their actions. Then it is the ultimate decision of the pilot in command to authorize the use of the weapons for deadly force. That decision is never taken lightly. I can tell you that we rarely have to go that far and I emphasize rarely. We de-escalate quite often and it works!

 

There is always the caveat though that if the threat is imminent which does not have to be immediate and we feel that it is justified for self defense, deadly force is always authorized.

 

I do not agree with the actions of the LEO in that video, firing at the vehicle. James statement and observation about the patrol car positioning in front of the van was spot on. That may have stopped this from escalating.

 

If the LEO was in front of the van and she then continued forward, towards him and did not stop, I would have no issues with shooting the driver. In that instance the vehicle became a weapon and his life was in jeopardy.

 

Just my 2 cents.....

[Blind Squirrel]

New Messico cops have been getting a lot of bad publicity lately (Colonoscopies for clenching one's glutinous maximus, for example)......You would think that they would try to control their bad behavior.

 

She needs to use this information as her defense stratagy. "I feared for the safety and sanctity of my bung hole!"

[Mike]

"So what lesson do you think this mother taught her children?"

 

Next time, obey the orders of the officer… cuz some of them are a bit trigger happy.

 

[Mike]

...and the boy who rushes the officer.... It's obvious what he's been raised to think about rules and the costs of breaking them....and the people who try to enforce them.

 

This is really the only point which I'd question. Mom doesn't appear to set a stellar example and you might be right, but I would've kicked God Himself in the nuts at that age if I thought he was threatening my mama.

 

And to put that in context, I was raised in the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

"So what lesson do you think this mother taught her children?"

 

Next time, obey the orders of the officer cuz some of them are a bit trigger happy.

 

Comical, but honestly, it's true. Kent/Pilgrm said as much on his website:

 

...get your head in the right place, and remember who you are dealing with.

 

His training dictates that HE control the encounter, not you. To assure that he can do so he has been given various tools, among them blunt objects, nasty chemicals, and firearms. He has been trained to use them and given permission to do so if, in his judgment, it becomes necessary. While there may be arguing after the fact of using them about whether or not he should have, it remains that you may be in the hospital or jail or morgue while that argument goes on.

[Sil]

It saddens me to see the level all this has fallen to. I think we all agree that the driver screwed up. But things go wrong on many levels here and there are some serious breaches of professionalism. One, whether there were other people in the van or not, does speeding (or even possessing drug paraphernalia) and fleeing justify a death sentence for the driver? In my past life we were taught to use the minimal amount of force necessary to control the situation, and to use non-lethal methods when we could. Sometimes that meant allowing stupidity to unfold and then dealing with the mess afterwards, as long as the ramifications of stupidity were non-violent, nothing was lost. More importantly I noticed that the person who discharged his firearm was not aware of what had happened, or what potential for collateral damage existed. That is an offense worthy of termination at the least and legal charges at the most. Sorry, there is no excuse for stupid on either side.

[Matts_12GS]

 

And to put that in context, I was raised in the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod.

 

We in the ELCA always thought you Missouri types were "off"

 

[SuperG]

Attorneys and liability has entered the cesspool of police pursuits now.

If the violator you are chasing was originally observed committing a non-hazardous violation, such as registration, license plates, lights, tires, windows, tint, smoke, then the pursuit must be terminated.

And if the pursuit goes the wrong way on a freeway, through a school zone, inclement weather, heavy traffic, lots of peds in the area, then the pursuit must be terminated.

Only time carte blanche is granted in a pursuit if the bad guy just committed a murder or is shooting back at you.

Ca has a lot of bad guys roaming our communities now due to AB109.

 

"Attorneys and liability has entered the cesspool of police pursuits now. "

 

I would say justifiably so.

We are not in the wild west anymore, where it was -eye for an eye on site justice.

 

as it is seen in this video - mom is driving through a town trying to flee, likely in distress from being fired upon. She is driving recklessly carelessly in wrong way traffic.

the likelihood of colliding with an other vehicle is much greater and head-on collisions usually don to turn out good.

 

If injury or death would have occurred (to the occupants or to occupants of an other colliding innocent vehicle) because of the chase, you know that lawyers would have been on this case like flies on sh$%^ paper.

 

picture the scenario where this driver hits an other minivan full of kids and some die. Was the successful chase/capture or a later apprehension worth it?

[upflying]

Yep, that is the way police chiefs in Ca put it in department policies..

"Is the risk of pursuit worth the goal of capture"?

Fleeing felons who used deadly force to avoid capture and/or used deadly force in the commission of the crime..absolutely!

Fleeing motorists who don't want a ticket for speeding..usually not.

 

[SuperG]

Look on the positive side!

this will make some great training videos for cadets and vets alike.

 

DOn't shoot at the rear of fleeing vehicle aiming low trying to hit the tires, you may hit the fuel tank instead.

Fiery bang and crash with chard bodies = NOt GOOD!

Effectiveness of using a baton to bust of windows = check

Busting out windows on passenger side where the children is located= no good!

all children in the vehicle will resent authority for life= check

 

[SWB]

I'm sure that some of the professional LEO's on this forum will make better observations than I, but here goes:

 

• 
   
  
• Woman is clearly in the wrong. She was stupid in the beginning, she got her son into trouble, and she obviously lost it as the officer escalated the incident.
   
  
• The initial contact officer's first mistake: Not waiting for backup before approaching a vehicle which (a) had already fled and (b) had multiple occupants. One officer can deal with 4-5 subjects, but it's far less safe than having a second, or 3 or 4 people to separate the perps, search, interview, etc. His second mistake was in raising his voice. He was clearly angry, and let his anger escalate tensions in the situation. Whatever was going on with that woman, a forceful, calm, "command presence" beats raising his voice and screaming. He had managed to get her out of the van at one point, and was starting to gain control of the situation. He just wasn't able to cope with the situation when the woman and her son's behavior spun out of control.
   
  
• On the other hand, the officer had to assume that the woman fled the initial stop because (a) the woman or another occupant was subject to an open warrant, (b) the woman had some other legal problem, i.e. drugs in the vehicle, © the woman could have been under duress (how could the officer be certain that the "young man" in the vehicle was related to her; there's no way of knowing). The officer had to stop that vehicle, aside from the risks the fleeing vehicle posed to the public at large.
   
  
• The initial contact officer's mistakes were manifest when he was running around chasing both the mother and son, and culminated when he FAILED TO DO THE OBVIOUS, FIRST PRIORITY beyond self-defense and protection of the innocent, which was to REMOVE THE KEYS FROM THE VEHICLE. When the woman stepped out of the vehicle and began heading towards the back fo the van, he should have reached in and removed her keys. Hind sight is, of course 20/20, but I'd have to think that this would be standard procedures any time a vehicle flees. When you get it stopped, remove the keys from the perp. This is probably the officer's largest error in judgment, i.e. dwarfing the others.
   
  
• I can't fathom the second officer firing on the vehicle. What was his target? Perhaps the tires, however, once that round leaves the chamber, chance takes over. That round could have ricocheted into the gas tank, or into an innocent occupant. He also erred when he parked his patrol car but failed to block the van, which had just been stopped after fleeing. That's a bit more subjective, i.e. there could be other reasons for positioning the patrol car where it was, but again, Police Academy 101, once you stop a fleeing vehicle make sure it stays stopped. We don't know what the second officer knew when he arrived, but evidently he thought it was a "life or death" situation for someone, or it's unlikely he would have fired his handgun.
   
  

Errors in judgment occurred all around. My feeling is that no one died in this event, and much can be learned from it. If the woman simply panicked, had no priors and was otherwise a regular citizen, then the prosecutor should plead this down to a misdemeanor and make counseling and perhaps community service part of her penalty. Ditto for her son. Not every stupid mistake needs to ruin lives.

 

Ditto for the LEO's. As bad as their behavior was, and depending on the officer's prior reputation and service, the supervisors should use this as a training opportunity. Suspension, for certain, for at least the officer who discharged his weapon, and letters for both in their service jacket, but termination or criminal prosecution is not particularly appropriate, given the events presented.

 

Similarly, this (first contact) officer should understand how his errors impacted the lives influenced by his law enforcement presence. Had he handle the situation more appropriately, the woman, her son, and that family may have been helped, rather than harmed (though, again, what happened was primarily her responsibility). Some of the risky behavior might have been avoided. In his support, a fellow officer fired on the vehicle and will have to pay the price for that indiscretion. I would think that this incident would be a particularly good training aid explaining to young officers the responsibilities, priorities, and actions of an officer making first contact. They set the tone for the entire encounter.

 

So, I'm not advocating giving a pass to anyone in this incident. The LEO's need training, better composure, to use better judgment, and a dose of common sense. All of those things CAN be learned, resulting in better law enforcement for the community. The woman and her son's lives can be reclaimed. Better scars rather than ruin, for all concerned, absent other prior issues.

 

- Scott

[SWB]

...and the boy who rushes the officer.... It's obvious what he's been raised to think about rules and the costs of breaking them....and the people who try to enforce them.

 

This is really the only point which I'd question. Mom doesn't appear to set a stellar example and you might be right, but I would've kicked God Himself in the nuts at that age if I thought he was threatening my mama.

 

And to put that in context, I was raised in the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod.

 

Yup, it may be a permanent handicap, but proud of it.

[dba]

Not everyone, but a sizable number of officers, no longer seem to appreciate the nuances of how to interact in a way that maintains control without leading to escalation. It's not always going to work, but these officers need to be given the tools to deal with situations like this.

 

You’re right. Although retired for four years, my wife still works as an LEO and as a training officer. While not to lump all the younger Generation Y officers in one pile, what I saw right before I retired and what my wife sees now while training some of these folks; is that they are more equipped to deal with people via their smart phones and tablets than in person.

 

Some of these younger officers are almost completely devoid of interpersonal, social skills. The police academy is to teach you the basic skills needed to become a police officer. A 19 to 26 week field training period is to teach an officer how to refine those skills and hopefully survive.

 

Upflying is right when he writes of the attorneys and the liability issues invading police work. Newer officers are being taught that if you use force on someone, you’ll be sued. This is causing some officers to be hesitant in using force when necessary; and sometimes even failing to recognize the fact that force is needed. Being behind the curve when that occurs is a bad place to be; and can lead into the wide open gap that shows up between inaction and over reaction. That’s bad for all parties involved.

 

[upflying]

dba is right, Rodney King changed forever the way cops do their work. I've been to many calls that were deescalated only to have another officer show up and build tensions again.

The goal is not to use force on someone. It messes up uniforms, gets you hurt, greatly increases report writing and causes bystanders to conclude "police brutality".

I always found if I took a moment to slow things down, remain calm, treat everyone with respect, explain the why and how, I could get violent people to submit peacefully to arrest. The important thing is to always "ask" someone to do something and never "tell" someone to do something.

Much of the technique comes from "verbal judo" taught by the late Dr. George Thompson. I always try to sound like I care about about the problem or the situation. Basically the cop has to sell an arrest to a bad guy. Dr. Thompson said "empathy" is the most powerful word in the English language. Empathy goes a long way to being an effective LEO. Empathy could have gone a long way to prevent what we saw on the New Messico video.

I agree, generation "Smart Phone" is not equipped for face to face social interaction.

[upflying]

I think we all predicted this happening. It was a bad shooting.

Read somewhere where Officer Montoya treated the whole family to McDonalds after the shooting. A bit too late and too little for apologies..

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=9352108

[DiggerJim]

He'll be back: "Montoya has 30 days to appeal his firing to a public safety advisory council."

[upflying]

He'll be back: "Montoya has 30 days to appeal his firing to a public safety advisory council."

I doubt it, politics has mucked this one up to the point of no return.

[Glenn Reed]

He'll be back: "Montoya has 30 days to appeal his firing to a public safety advisory council."

I doubt it, politics has mucked this one up to the point of no return.

 

Well, he is at least planning to appeal - story here.

[Roadwolf]

What is there to appeal, really?

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

What is there to appeal, really?

 

That the punishment (termination) was too harsh for his infraction. I would guess he'll ask for some lesser punishment, e.g. a few months suspended without pay, or something like that.

[upflying]

What is there to appeal, really?

Cops have rights and one of those is an appeal of the termination.

Right or wrong, you have to go through the due process hoops.

Appeals could be training, mindset, fatigue, stress, anxiety, peer pressure, personal problems, perception, equipment, radio communication, expereince, terrain, driving, weather, ambient noise and a plethora of other factors brought up by Montoya's attorney.

We live in a world where people are not responsible for their actions.

Example, Ca peace officer bill of rights..

http://www.insidehighered.com/sites/default/server_files/files/policeofficersbillofrights.pdf