Police Shoot Passenger in Car, Considering Charging Driver with Felony Murder

cop involved in shooting has not been identifiedCity of HaywardPolice in Hayward, California were trying to shoot the driver of a car they say was aimed at that hit their patrol cruiser when a passenger was fatally shot twice instead. It happened at 3 in the morning on Sunday and a civilian was riding along with the police. Police say it was a tragedy, but procedures were followed and there was no ill-intent. Via the Contra Costa Times:

[Sgt. Eric] Krimm said the passenger's death was "tragic."

"Our policy does not prohibit shooting at a vehicle. In any shooting, officers have to consider and be aware of their backdrop and the potential injury to people who are not the intended target. It's tragic that he was shot in this incident because there was no intent to harm him," Krimm said. "At this point in the investigation, we have not found anything that we would have arrested him for."

The Times also reports that police are considering charging the driver of the car with felony murder for the death of the passenger. It’s the fifth fatal police shooting in the Bay Area since last Thursday.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • $park¥||

    It's tragic that he was shot in this incident because there was no intent to harm him

    Woops! Well, at least they didn't mean it.

  • RBS||

    FTA: "The officers did not intend to shoot the passenger. It was due to the dynamics of motion and time that it occurred."

  • $park¥||

    Cops: "It's not our fault! We're used to shooting stationary targets! You can't blame us, we didn't MEAN it!"

  • SugarFree||

    "It's not our fault! We're used to shooting stationary targets of little kids and pregnant women!

  • Rich||

    Moreover, [the driver] did not intend to strike the police car.

    Sheesh, does *anyone* in the Bay Area do *anything* on purpose?

  • ||

    I didn't mean to shoot him. I was only aiming bullets in his general direction. How was I supposed to know one might hit him?

  • Loki||

    Are those cops or soldiers? Seriously I can't tell.

    Police in Hayward, California were trying to shoot the driver of a car ... when a passenger was fatally shot twice instead.

    Nice shooting there, Tex. Was the car right hand drive?

  • IamNotEvil||

    Somebody needs to do a slideshow with a bunch of pictures where you pick police or military for each picture. Could grade at the end and then maybe people might get the idea that law enforcement is more about enforcement than law.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

  • ||

  • RBS||

    So these cops decided to play action hero and killed an innocent passenger?

  • John Galt||

    Hey, there was a civilian riding shotgun in the cruiser that was expecting a little excitement. Don't blame the cop.

  • Chris Mallory||

    The cops are civilians. Government employees not in the military are civilians. People not in the employ of the government are citizens.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    ...when a passenger was fatally shot twice instead.

    I'm getting the passive voice from reason now? And also, coppers should probably take some kind of target practice class or something.

  • Ed||

    The active's right there in the headline. Sometimes the passive voice is just the passive voice :-o

  • $park¥||

    Don't bother with him, Ed, nobody else does.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    EVERYONE LOVES ME.

  • $park¥||

    STEVE SMITH doesn't count as everybody.

  • ||

    Sometimes the passive voice is just the passive voice

    I'm stealing this, since I frequently find myself railing against mindless anti-passivism.

  • ||

    Nobody wants to hear about your sexual proclivities, nicole.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    some of us do
    /asking for a friend

  • ||

    Well, I hate mindless anti-passivism.

  • ||

    So you're saying you're pro-passivity.

  • ||

    I'm saying there's a time and a place for everything. Such as with parallel sentence structure, or anal.

  • ||

    Nicole, there IS no place for anal. Ew.

  • $park¥||

    Does that mean you like it when you're addressed as "dirty whore" or "filthy bitch" while your boyfriend is banging you? I'm lost.

  • Irish||

    Thank you! Passive voice is not necessarily bad. Quick example of the passive voice:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
  • phandaal||

    The phrase was stolen when it was discovered that it would be useful in conversation.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    who hurt you?

  • Harvard||

    The secret to survival is to always travel with a dog.

  • ||

    It's like a twist on the old joke about fleeing a cheetah: "I don't have to be bulletproof, I just have to attract less attention than the dog."

  • John Galt||

    Hahaha. Yeah, he'll take the bullets for you.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    The idea that police can charge people for shit that the police do, including getting their own dumbass selves killed, is fucked up.

  • ||

    But they assure us we live under the rule of law.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Except you can't get charged with felony murder unless you're already committing a different violent felony.

  • $park¥||

    Different violent felony like being a passenger in a car?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Huh?

    The driver is possibly going to be charged, not the (now dead) passenger. He is accused of assault with a deadly weapon, which is a violent felony, due to his actual collision with the police car (not merely "aiming at" the car as Krayewski mysteriously put it).

  • yonemoto||

    One time I was very slowly and carefully coming out of an alleyway onto a street when a police car came charging down the street, and had to swerve to avoid me. I got a ticket for "reckless entry into a highway". Challenged it, and lost. The cop made up a story, and brought a diagram supporting his made up story. If he had struck me, I am sure asshole cop would have charged me with "assault with a deadly weapon" instead of a $500 ticket. As soon as I can afford it, I'm installing russian-style dashboard cams.

  • yonemoto||

    oh shit, they're only $30.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Sounds like he had the right of way, correct?

  • ||

  • gaoxiaen||

    They always do.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Read my comment carefully again, Tulpa.

    I'm saying it is wrong to charge a defendant with a crime due to the results of something the pigs did.

  • Enough About Palin||

    If the US citizenry declared a War on Cops, who do you think would win?

  • $park¥||

    It's so easy to get a home SWATted that I think the citizenry could take out a good chunk of them with traps before shit started to get real.

  • RBS||

    Certainly not the dogs.

  • Harvard||

    Citizenry, hands down. The smart ones would take it to the cops at their home with the wifey and kidlets. Mano au mano.
    Plus the civilians are better shots largely.

  • Brendan||

    Yep. I have no problem with people who bring the fight back to the police also following the same rules and showing the same level of care and concern for innocents as the police do.

    The indifference of so many police depts. towards innocent people, animals, etc. is why I was indifferent (not supportive, just indifferent) about Dorner killing that cop's daughter.

  • Coeus||

    Not cool. If you use the same tactics you hate them for, what's the point of beating them?

  • Brendan||

    To beat them. Also, maybe to show them how harmful their tactics are.

  • John||

    It’s the fifth fatal police shooting in the Bay Area since last Thursday.

    Am I the only one who read that and thought the reason was being snarky not thinking that yes it is actually true?

  • Enough About Palin||

    I didn't question it at all.

  • John||

    It just sounds like a joke.

  • ||

    It's in the same story linked above.

  • ||

    No, I actually went "holy shit, that's five fatal shooting in just that area in one week, that's fucked". Because that's fucked.

  • John||

    It is fucked. But it is so fucked it sounds like a joke, like a comic exaggeration.

  • $park¥||

    If he put eleventy hundred or nine million I would assume it was exaggeration. Five, not so much.

  • John||

    It is the since Thursday part that is over the top./

  • John Galt||

    Once again this is why citizens have no business using firearms. They're not properly trained and would have most likely accidentally shot the driver or just jumped out of the car's path.

  • Tim||

    +2 (to the head)

  • SugarFree||

    Ed, I'm not being mean, but I think your summary article is a bit ambiguous on who exactly was shot. It is unclear if it was the passenger in the vehicle that was approaching the patrol car or if it was the ride-along passenger in the patrol car itself--mentioning the second confuses the issue necessarily.

    I also don't care for the use of "civilian." Cops are not the military and they are not patrolling enemy territory, despite what the steroids whisper to them in the night.

  • ||

    "What's the matter, steroids make you deaf?"

  • Almanian!||

    Huh?

  • Tim||

    "Meet Sub-Zero, now just plain Zero."

  • ||

    Episiarch is lying.

  • Malphas||

    "At this point in the investigation, we have not found anything that we would have arrested him for."

    Well damn it man, keep looking!

    Suspect just looks so much better on the paperwork then Bystander.

  • Tim||

    "At this point in the investigation, we have not found anything that we would COULD HAVE SHOT him for."

    FIFY

  • Copernicus||

    "The Times also reports that police are considering charging the driver of the car with felony murder for the death of the passenger."

    Murder? Manslaughter at best I would think, unless the driver was swerving has car so that his passenger could catch the bullets in his body.

    Anyhoo...

  • Unindicted Co-conspirator||

    Felony murder is normally second-degree murder, occasionally first-degree murder; it's never just manslaughter.

    The idea is that you're legally culpable for homicides that occur during your commission of a dangerous crime even if they weren't intended by you. The commission of the felony substitutes for the usual murder mens rea.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Fuck this noise.

  • Unindicted Co-conspirator||

    Hey, I'm not saying it's sound and indispensable legal theory. Some jurisdictions have abolished it.

    But it's part of the common law heritage: the basic principle is at least as old as Magna Carta, and the modern felony murder rule dates from the 1700s. It is what it is.

  • $park¥||

    good shoot by the boys in blue. passenger knew that driver was aiming for the officers and atfpapic should have known what was going to happen. if he didn't want to be shot he should have ducked or jumped out of the car. hth

  • Almanian!||

    +200 curls

  • ||

    You're good, Sparks. I actually had to double check the name to see if it was Dunphy.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Oh my fucking God Krayewski. Can you misrepresent the cop stories a little more?

    Police in Hayward, California were trying to shoot the driver of a car they say was aimed at their patrol cruiser when a passenger was fatally shot twice instead.

    From the article:

    The driver, identified as Arthur Pakman, 23, of Oakley, was arrested following the 3:20 a.m. shooting. Police said Pakman was driving a Honda, with one passenger, that struck a police cruiser during a traffic stop at Fletcher Lane and Watkins Street.

    No doubt the consensus here will immediately knee-jerk to THE COPS ARE LYING GODDAMMIT but the question of whether the cop car was hit by the perp's car is pretty fucking easy to verify from physical evidence. Let me know if it turns out the cop car had no damage from a collision.

  • Almanian!||

    So you hit my car, so now I get to shoot you.

    Got it.

    PS Nice use of "perp", Tulip.

  • RBS||

    Bootlickers gotta lick boot.

  • Tim||

  • Almanian!||

    what?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The fact that he hit the police car DURING a traffic stop, fled after hitting the car, and then crashed into another car after the fact need not enter into the judgement at all, is that your position?

  • Almanian!||

    Of course I said none of that.

    Good job as usual, Tulip.

    FIRE AT WILL!

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Wow, my bad. I assumed you actually endeavored to discover the facts of the case before pronouncing judgement.

  • Almanian!||

    Good initial assumption, Tulip.

    FIRE AT WILL! HE RAN INTO MY CAR! THEREFORE I MUST SHOOT HIM!

    SOP in the ociffer handbook - pretty sure of that.

  • $park¥||

    Here's the explanation right here.

    FTA: "The rash of Bay Area police shootings came just days after two Santa Cruz police officers were ambushed and fatally shot by a man they were attempting to question."

    Two cops were killed in an ambush, WAR ON COPS!

  • Harvard||

    If only.

  • Brendan||

    In other words, it's a revenge thing. Someone killed some cops, now it's time for them to strike back.

  • Not an Economist||

    You missed a step. The guy hit the cop car, was shot at, then he fled. If someone is shooting at me I generally try to get away.

    We don't know how badly the cop car was hit. We don't know if the guy's car had a chance to stop before the police opened fire. There is a lot we don't know that would play a major effect on whether the shooting was called for. If you look on Youtube there are a lot of video's where someone lost control of a car and hit a parked vehicle and a cop jumped out of the way. You can't just shoot someone because they lost control of the car.

  • Atanarjuat||

    Ah, so he accidentally dinged up their car. For a minute I thought there was no need to open fire.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    He accidentally dinged up their car while they were attempting a traffic stop, and then fled after the dinging occurred, ultimately dinging his car against another car, and dinging the passenger enough that it appeared the passenger had died from the final ding.

  • $park¥||

    He hit the police car, the police opened fire. THEY OPENED FIRE ON THE CAR! I suppose instead of trying to get the fuck away from crazy cops trying to kill him he should have just stayed there and gotten killed. That would have made the story all better.

  • $park¥||

    FTA: "Police had been looking into whether the wreck played a role in the victim's death, but an autopsy Tuesday showed the man died from a gunshot wound.

    "The victim was struck twice by bullets, one of them which proved to be fatal," Krimm said."

    Yeah, it was the final crash that killed the passenger alright. Did you RTFA?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    enough that it appeared the passenger had died from the final ding.

    get a flerking dictionary

  • Almanian!||

    o you know what bodywork COSTS these days? The fucking labor rate is, like, $75, $80/hr or so.

    It was a good kill.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Meh. My sister's, old professor's daughter-in-law makes 20 times that on her laptop. She just bort hersef a new lotus car.

  • ||

    FTA:

    The driver, identified as Arthur Pakman, 23, of Oakley, was
    arrested following the 3:20 a.m. shooting. Police said Pakman was driving a Honda, with one passenger, that struck a police cruiser during a traffic stop at Fletcher Lane and Watkins Street.
    An officer fired on the Honda, hitting the passenger. During a subsequent pursuit, the Honda crashed at D Street and Foothill Boulevard.
    ...
    Krimm said authorities would seek homicide charges against the driver, but Pakman has yet to be formally charged. He was arrested on suspicion of felony murder and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon... he will be held without bail for a parole violation, a prosecutor said.
    Pakman's Hayward-based attorney, Frederick Remer, said the violation stemmed from a 2010 driving under the influence conviction.
    Remer said his client was on his way to visit his girlfriend in Richmond on the morning of the incident and did not intend to strike the police car.
    Remer said his client is a former Marine who was recently discharged from service and that he was trying to drive around the cop car to avoid being pulled over.
    "He was a young kid, trying to flee cops," Remer said. "He didn't present a clear and present danger to any person."

    Stupid, clearly. Murderer? Not so much.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    So, cops are certainly lying, lawyer for defendant is certainly telling whole and unvarnished truth. No evidence needed.

    Typical Reason chatter.

  • ||

    I never said the cops were lying, I think it's pretty stupid to hit a cop car and then try to drive away regardless of motive, and I'm pretty sure I disagree with the entire concept of "felony murder," so your objection really does not apply to my comment.

  • ||

    And typical authority fellation from you, Tulpy-Poo. Your inner fascist really comes out in these threads. It's frankly disgusting. You're a real piece of work.

  • Tim||

    If I, a law abiding gun owner, had done this exact same thing it would be national news and proof that citizens can't be trusted with guns.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Well, the cops should be punished for hitting an innocent person. I agree with that much.

    But painting the perp as some poor kid who was victimized by roid-raging cops is too much.

  • Almanian!||

    I like how you just keep adding adjectives and arguments and shit that no one has used.

    You're the first Little house-of-straw Pig, Tulip.

    Pig -- LIKE COPS! GET IT! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

  • Almanian!||

    Well, yeah. You're all militia-y and shit. Duh.

    These are COPS, Timmeh. COPS.

    It was a good kill - Tulip told me so.

    So don't try to confate what a citizen would have happen to them - they don't have the RIGHT to do what a COP MUST do.

    Jeez.

    PS huh?

  • John Galt||

    Well, the murder is being pinned on the kid they were trying to murder. Phew, the cop's safe and that's what's important.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    My guess is (and there aren't enough facts in the article to determine this) that they fired on the vehicle while it was passing them after hitting the car. That would provide the most likely orientation for a shot aimed at the driver to hit the passenger (ie, through the driver's side window).

  • BakedPenguin||

    Why were they shooting in the first place, Tulphy?

  • Harvard||

    This could never happen in Seattle.

  • Almanian!||

    So Steven Segal was riding with the cops when they made a fatal mistake executed an innocent citizen aimed at a dog but hit a person who jumped in front of a bullet experienced collateral damage during the fog of the War on Violence.

    AND NOTHING ELSE HAPPENED.

  • Harvard||

    Never in a million fucking years.

  • Almanian!||

    What difference, at this point, does it make!??!

  • Harvard||

    Two million I say!

  • Almanian!||

    huh?

  • Almanian!||

    Show us on the Officer Barbrady Doll™ where the cop touched you, Krayewski.

    /Tulip

  • ||

    Is this a place to leave nutkicks? Cause here you go.

  • John Galt||

    Well, to be fair they did just forget about him. It's not like it was on purpose.

  • Fladnag the Yarg||

    "no intent to harm"

    When shooting a gun! WTF!

  • Anonymous Coward||

    If my case law is up to par (and it likely isn't but have it anyway), the police can't say a shooting is legal for the purpose of exonerating themselves of culpability, but illegal for the purpose of determining liability under felony murder.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Fuck Tulpa. God damn.

  • SumpTump||

    Stupid PUNK cops. Its P O S cops liek this I LOVE to hear about in the news getting clipped in the line of duty!

    www.WorldAnon.da.bz

  • Shmurphy||

    WHY the FUCK are COPS wearing CAMO?!? FUCK.

  • BuSab Agent||

    So no one can see them, silly.

  • postalmarksman||

    passenger should be charged with interfering with police

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement