Trooper fired for shooting at fleeing driver
SEATTLE -- The Washington State Patrol has fired a trooper who shot at a fleeing car after the driver ran over his foot.
State Patrol spokesman Bob Calkins said the department felt Trooper Jeff Laeuger's decision to use deadly force during the April 9, 2012 traffic stop was unjustified.
Laeuger had stopped a car that was illegally in the HOV lane on Interstate 405, but when Laeuger approached the car, the driver sped off, running over the Laeuger's foot.
Laeuger shot at the car fleeing car, but did not hit the driver.
"A car can be used as a weapon, and if it's coming at a police officer that's certainly a situation where it would be justified," Calkins said. "But it's very hard to justify when the vehicle is moving away from the involved officer."
The driver sped off but was arrested after crashing a short distance from the shooting scene.
Calkins said Laeuger's decision to shoot was "so far out of policy that we're not comfortable putting someone back on the street who would use deadly force inappropriately."
State Patrol spokesman Bob Calkins said the department felt Trooper Jeff Laeuger's decision to use deadly force during the April 9, 2012 traffic stop was unjustified.
Laeuger had stopped a car that was illegally in the HOV lane on Interstate 405, but when Laeuger approached the car, the driver sped off, running over the Laeuger's foot.
Laeuger shot at the car fleeing car, but did not hit the driver.
"A car can be used as a weapon, and if it's coming at a police officer that's certainly a situation where it would be justified," Calkins said. "But it's very hard to justify when the vehicle is moving away from the involved officer."
The driver sped off but was arrested after crashing a short distance from the shooting scene.
Calkins said Laeuger's decision to shoot was "so far out of policy that we're not comfortable putting someone back on the street who would use deadly force inappropriately."
And in other news about state troopers (not here)... http://now.msn.com/anthony-brasfield-florida-man-arrested-for-releasing-balloons
Hefe, the only reason you would say what you did is that you must be a criminal or a scofflaw.
It appears that komoispropaganda and orcasthunder want to change the subject and reach a different conclusion. Anybody who intentionally flees the police is a felon and it is called felony eluding, and it is the same for someone fleeing a traffic stop. I am a former police officer and a law school graduate.
@Donacita I'm glad you're no longer a police officer.
Good. We don't need cowboys in the police force. The state needs to cut the budget anyway.
And the soft on crime group has now gotten control of the WSP. I would like to take this time to thank Trooper Jeff Laeuger for his prompt decision to remove a POS from the street. The driver showed his intent to kill the Trooper and was rewarded appropriately for his decision.
I wonder, did the driver even KNOW about running ofer the foot?
And why did the Trooper stick his foot under the vehicle anyway? Don't they teach that doing that is not smart?
Whoever made this firing decision should be fired !Â
Fired? Â He/she should be promoted for attempting to take the trash out.Â
Something's obviously suspicious if they are trying to flee the scene. Â I say let the cop off the hook for that. Â NO ONE should flee an armed cop. Â Period. Â You're just asking for trouble doing that. Â Idiot....
@AdAckbar Sorry, I disagree. Possibly the citizen feared for their personal safety.
It is clearly much better for the police to shoot fleeing felons than chase them. When they chase at high speeds they endanger everyone. They invariably run into innocent people and kill or maim them. They should get close and shoot the fleeing felon in the head. Then, there is no risk to innocent people. Chasing at high speeds is police malpractice.
@Donacita I must have missed the part where the driver was a felon, nor if the officer knew it.
Oh Seattle, someday you will catch on to what Portland PD has known for years, shoot to kill, it cuts down on expenses, legal fees and it saves us tax dollars a lot of money.
What B.S Police should be able to fire more freely these days. The way the public is armed and the way thay act and all the extra rights they seem to have (just like the inmates in prison have) over law abiding folk. I say fire a way before that fleeing car hurts or kills someone. Just make sure that the officer has a clear field of fire before shooting.
I used to be a cop and I have been in situations where you have to make rapid decisions. This was a stupid decision on the State Patrol's part. My assumption is it was a political decision.
Just because the car was fleeing doesn't mean it can't injure the trooper. It already ran over his foot. What happens if the car caused the trooper to be shoved against the jersey barrier? Worse yet what if it knocked the trooper into traffic?Â
A legal precedent has already been set allowing for police officers to use deadly force in these situations. If the prosecutor didn't feel the need to charge him then it wasn't criminal. I am sure this wasn't the first time someone ran from this trooper. Its not like he opened fire because the suspect was fleeing.Â
It seems obvious to me, in this day of assault-an-officer-with-a-car happening every now and then, a person who runs over the foot of a police officer could expect to be shot or at least shot at.
Fire the person that Fired! And then start a bon Fire!
some of you should look up what constitute a Threat - in this case the threat was moving away from the officer Not towards him...  WSP made the right decision to fire Laeuger " use deadly force... was Unjustified "...
This was a crazy decision by the WSP. They should shoot at any car fleeing away from an officer as it is much better than chasing the SOB in a squad car. Chasing subjects the entire public to great danger because they always run into a mother with two kids in the car. Shooting only endangers the criminal.
@Donacita What if shooting the driver causes a crash that takes-out an entire family? Given how poorly people shoot in real world situations, what if the officer's shooting injured bystanders instead of his target? I guess you're not intelligent enough to realize that the reason police agencies have use of force policies is to protect us from the unintended consequences of rash judgement.
@Donacita Oh, sure. And if the "fleeing car" is you rushing your wife to the hospital for delivery? Where are you going to draw the line on who a police officer can shoot and execute? Someone who gives him the finger while driving by? GET REAL! Police are only authorized to used deadly force to stop a reasonably-perceived ACTUAL THREAT where no reasonable alternative exists.
@JLS1950 @Donacita You don't think driving your in labor wife to the hospital is a justified reason NOT to stop do you? There is NO reason to flee or not stop for the police. Not saying police should shoot at fleeing cars. But your example is a bad one. If you do that you'll end up in jail while your wife gives birth.Â
@Hippo Donut @JLS1950 @Donacita Actually, there ARE at least two valid reasons not to stop for police - reasons which police departments actually acknowledge are indeed valid and which they INSTRUCT drivers to observe: 1) If there is no safe place to pull over, you are to move right, signal your intention to stop, and continue to drive somewhat slowly until you reach a safe place to pull over and stop. 2) If you are uncertain that the person attempting to stop you really IS a police officer (e.g. non-uniformed officer in unmarked car, and especially women driving at night) you are to signal your awareness of the party, call 9-1-1 for verification if you have the ability to do so, and continue driving at a reduced speed until you either receive confirmation via telephone that this is a real police stop or else you reach a well-lighted and populated place where you do feel safe to be confronted by a possibly armed and ill-intentioned stranger.Â
Police have been fired for failing to recognize these two valid reasons also.
@JLS1950 Nonsense. Anyone fleeing a police officer is a felon and should be shot and not chased. The threat is to the public when they chase at high speeds.
@Donacita @JLS1950 Let me get this straight, what you are saying, Donacita. You are at the mall, in a large crowd, with your child, shopping - when a purse snatcher grabs a purse and starts running directly toward your position. Directly behind him is a police officer who has witnessed the theft - which is indeed a felony.Â
By your logic, the police officer should immediately open fire on the suspect who is directly on a line between said officer... and your soon-to-be-dead -ss!
Correct?
@Donacita @JLS1950 First of all, start by very carefully defining "fleeing". Is that anybody who drives away from a police officer? Or just someone who actually knows the police officer wants to talk with him?Â
Okay, that is not altogether relevant - it was just to make you think.Â
The law allows a police officer to fire upon a "fleeing felon" - but ONLY if the felon is deemed a serious and immediate threat to others ("armed and dangerous") and ONLY if there is no other reasonable and effective means to mitigate that threat and effect an arrest (that means RADIO.) In this case, the officer did not actually know whether he was dealing with a felon even. Yes, the driver MAY be charged with a felony for driving over the trooper's foot or for eluding... but what the H..L.. was the trooper doing with his foot under the wheel in the first place??? Let me make this a little clearer: running over the officer's foot might be a felony if it was an actual assault - but if it was actually wholly accidental it might not be. Also, whereas ELUDING a police officer is chargeable as a felony, simply driving forward during a traffic stop is not: the driver might merely be trying to reach a safer parking place for example (which might be especially likely if he pulled to the left shoulder from the HOV lane and then saw a wider spot of shoulder ahead.)Â
The point here is that declaring felony eluding or even vehicular assault involves a judgment of INTENT - and the trooper did not yet have a clear indication of intent. And even if he did correctly judge intent, that still does not in itself grant him justification to use deadly force unless (a) there is an imminent and continuing threat posed by the fleeing suspect and (b) there is no other effective means to mitigate that THREAT - not merely to effect capture.
The other HUGE problem is simply the safety of the public: this trooper let loose with - presumably and based on what is known of police training - five deadly rounds... every one of which went wild and necessarily struck other objects or cars or people. That was a RECKLESS act on the part of the trooper in the absence of any knowledge that the driver represented a special threat. Remember, police are instructed to back off when mere pursuit threatens public safety unless there is a clear and overriding concern for the threat posed by the pursued: do you attempt to assert that a fusillade of gunfire is more easily justifiable?
What this all really boils down to is judgment - good or bad. The driver exercised bad judgement in initially trying (perhaps... we actually do not know why he first moved forward) to flee. But the officer behaved with reckless disregard for public safety by using lethal force in a manner which might have injured or killed any number of wholly innocent people. Where DID those deadly rounds go????
@Donacita@JLS1950" Anyone fleeing a police officer is a felon and should be shot"
Hopefully you are not a cop, security guard, or school crossing guard...
Just because someone is driving away from the scene does NOT automatically mean they are "escaping"...sometimes they may not even KNOW that something happened beyond a traffic stop.
@Donacita What if the bullet hit your car and injured you, your significant other, your children? Would you justify it then? Would you say "Oh, I was in the wrong place at the wrong time?" No, you wouldn't. This officer was not justified to use lethal force. Get on the radio, broadcast the plates, vehicle description, keep the gun holstered. if the driver had come back towards the officer instead of continuing to flee, then yes, you fire, but not when he's continuing to drive AWAY from the officer.
I don't understand this firing. Here we have a Trooper that reportedly (another news station) was a good cop. In the heat of the moment when the person speeds off and runs over his foot he shoots. I'd bet the driver wouldn't have given a rip if he ran over and killed the cop dead. Anyhow, we have this cop that gets fired for this. Last year they had all those  cops that lied about having earned their college degrees getting higher positions with higher pay which in my mind is nothing short of stealing. As far as I know other than a couple of position transfers, nothing happened to those lying rats.Also, now there will be foot issues for the cop and settlement on the way.
@zulu Because 100 lies about education going wild in heavy freeway traffic never struck and killed any innocent people.
Now the trooper will sue the state $10 million for wrongful termination, then settle out of court for $4 million rather than take a chance of losing the whole $10 million..
I disagree with that decision.. It does send the wrong message..
So, if I shoot at an officer then turn and run away, they cant shoot me? (Well, at least the State Patrol) That is good to know.. Not that I would be interested in trying that theory out..Â
So, the question I have, is when did the gun clear the holster, was it before the foot was ran over, or after, when he determined he could not pursue?
@Mr. H Isn't there rather a large difference between shooting at someone with a gun and accidentally driving over the foot that they so incautiously placed under your car?
@Mr. HÂ Um, no, that's not what they're saying. You shoot at a cop, you will get shot back and that is most definitely justifiable then. What they're saying is that this Trooper didn't have justification to pull his service weapon and fire. Even though he hit the suspects car, he could have shot and killed an innocent bystander or his/her child while they drove down the road. THAT is why he was fired. He needlessly put everyone else at risk because someone ran over his foot.Â
@DawgFan72.... ""Â You shoot at a cop, you will get shot back and that is most definitely justifiable then.""Â
dont tell that to Mr H - let him figure the fast way what happens if he shoots at the Police !!
I am not sure I like the message. When you get pulled over, just drive away, the Police won't shoot. How can you arrest someone, if they just walk/run away? If the trouper endangered others, ok, I get that.
@Komo Dragon Never heard of radio, huh?
@JLS1950Â @Komo Dragon use it every day, but still
@Komo Dragon A police officer's gun is not to be used a lasso.
Ridiculous. Â The courts here are so soft on crime, it's stupid. If someone flees and runs you over in the process, and you cannot go after them, you can assume that the person is going to harm someone else. Â If the cop hadn't shot the cretin, then we'd be reading about an entire family wiped out by a fleeing driver.Â
@DTOkay, look... all the shots (generally, by department training, there were five) went wild. (Hello??? He did not shoot the driver... he MISSED!) On a busy freeway. With other cars and drivers. And passengers. Bullets do not just evaporate if they miss their intended targets, you know! How many people do you want the cops to kill over a bruised foot?
dont worry Laeuger - im sure SPD has a special job for you ... !!
So the trooper could not pursue the vehicle because the guy drove over the officers foot. i see nothing wrong with shooting the driver. vehicles do have reverse and he could have just as easily have backed up and run over the officer a second time.Â
@32jim2 Let's see... probably five rounds going wild in heavy freeway traffic - exactly none actually hitting the suspect or his vehicle - and you see nothing wrong??? Heck, they can fire him for poor marksmanship if for nothing else!
C'mon, haven't we all wanted to shoot those single drivers in the HOV lane?Â
@Bubba Gunners No, i always invisioned a fork lift cat-a-pult that you slide the forks under the vehicle in front  and fling them behind you on top the the tailgater ridding your bumper.
This is probably one time I wouldn't support the decision. He technically assaulted that officer, so what are they doing about that? As far as using deadly force inappropriately, I wish some certain departments would feel the same way.
Was the driver charged with assault of a police officer {felony}? Was the driver charged with fleeing {felony}? If not why not ? I am just saddened that the trooper hadn't spent more time target practicing and ended up endangering the other traffic folks .
Now do the same for the security guard at the Bothell FDA lab who shot a teenager fleeing in his own car from a PARKING VIOLATION.
@JLS1950 actually this defends the security guards actions. As the car was being used in an attempt to run down the guards. As stated above "A car can be used as a weapon, and if it's coming at a police officer that's certainly a situation where it would be justified,". Seeing as the rounds when into the front of the vehicle it seems highly unlikely they were fired as the vehicle was driving away from the guards.
@Ghost1518 @JLS1950 Actually, I think you are full of beans. If you looked at the aerial photographs of the scene in Bothell, it becomes very clear that the teen drove FORWARD through the hedge and across the lawn and several curbs in fear to escape the shooting. Based on the guard's account, he was struck while the teen was BACKING and he (the guard) knowingly placed himself in danger by stepping behind a backing vehicle. So the clear indication is that the teen started to back out of a parking stall, the guard stepped deliberately behind the backing vehicle and was struck not hard enough to cause any real injury, then as the teen tried to drive FORWARD away from the guard the guard opened fire on the teen, attempting to executing him and causing serious injury. (It has been stated that the guard aimed for a head shot.)
By law, the guard is only justified in firing if the he had good reason to believe the teen driver DELIBERATELY tried to strike him and was CONTINUING to try to strike him - NOT if he were merely responding to a hit and run! Yes, a car can be used as a weapon. So can a hammer. But just because I hit your thumb with my hammer is not proof that I am trying to kill you - and just because I happen to bump into you while backing out of a parking space (and you are STUPID enough to try to stop me with your body!) does not mean I am intentionally assaulting you.
@Ghost1518 Sad that in today's society, some people - WAY too many people IMHO - see guns as the answer to every situation. Only bright spot is that statistically about twice as many will use their gun to earn a Darwin as will actually do someone else in.Â
@JLS1950 I hope that teens gets used to the court room. I'm sure it will not be the last time he ends up in one. Sad that in todays society "lawsuit" is the criminals answer to everything. That's ok, I look forward to reading all about the teens past, character witnesses (neighbors who referred to him as nothing but trouble, yep that was on the news) family history, how he obtained the vehicle, educational history, ect.... Lets get all the dirty laundry out there. Should be some good reading. And with this I'm done commenting on this pointless issue. Â
@Ghost1518 Well, Mr. "Facts", why don't you answer that question? Given that there were no reports of auto theft charges, I suspect there was no chargeable theft. My wife owned her own car at age 15, and had an instructional permit at age 15-1/2.Â
As for the rest, I'll look for what the court ultimately decides in the civil law$uit that is likely being filed even now (if not already done.)
@JLS1950Â LOL you and your speculation. Please continue to live in your fantasy world and I'll continue to look for the facts. Fact, there were multiple law enforcement agencies who reviewed the surveillance tapes, tire tracks, impact marks on the car, medical reports ect. And they all felt the teen was wrong and the guard was right. So get over it and move on. you are like a broken record struck on a bad song. it is what it is. So everytime there is an article about a shooting quit whining about the FDA incident.
Oh I do have one question; did the day start off with the underage kid stealing the car (taking it without permission) or did a consenting adult knowing give an unlicensed kid the keys to the vehicle for which he later used to commit a crime? Â