A Police Officer Shot and Killed a 17-Year-Old Boy as He Fled. Now, His Mother Is Suing.
"I hurt every day," said the victim's mother. "I cry all day, every day."

Last August, a Greensboro, North Carolina, police officer shot and killed a 17-year-old boy during a traffic stop. The boy, Nasanto Antonio Crenshaw, was riding in a stolen vehicle and was apparently attempting to flee when he was killed. Yesterday, the boy's mother filed a civil rights lawsuit against the police officer who shot her son, arguing that the officer's use of force was so egregious that it violated her son's Fourth Amendment rights.
"I hurt every day," Wakita Doriety, Crenshaw's mother, told WRAL, a local news station, last year. "I cry all day, every day…. It wasn't supposed to be this way."
According to the lawsuit, the incident occurred last August, when Crenshaw was pulled over by local police on suspicion that he was driving a vehicle that had recently been reported stolen. After being stopped, the defendant—a police officer identified only as "John Doe"—exited his patrol vehicle, and Crenshaw began driving away at a "speed of three to five miles per hour," according to the lawsuit.
After fleeing, the lawsuit reports that Crenshaw pulled the vehicle into a parking lot, where the defendant followed him. The parking lot was a dead end, and the complaint states that Crenshaw had begun attempting a three-point turn, causing the "driver's side of his vehicle to swipe the front end of Defendant Doe's patrol vehicle." At this point, Crenshaw's vehicle came to a stop, and the defendant exited his patrol car, commanding Crenshaw to "get on the ground, get on the ground do it now."
However, the complaint states that Crenshaw began turning the vehicle, facing away from the defendant and his patrol car. At this point, several passengers, also teenagers, jumped out of the vehicle and fled the scene. Shortly after, as Crenshaw was attempting to drive away at a "low rate of speed," the defendant fired three shots at Crenshaw, killing him.
According to the lawsuit, the defendant had no reason to believe that Crenshaw was going to try to drive into him. As the complaint states, "the trajectory of the bullets entering Nasanto's body is consistent with Defendant Doe standing on the side of Nasanto's moving vehicle and not in the trajectory path of Nasanto's moving vehicle and not in the trajectory path of Nasanto's moving vehicle."
"The force used by Defendant Doe shocks the conscience and violated the Fourth Amendment rights of Nasanto," reads the complaint. "Defendant Doe engaged in the conduct described by this Complaint willfully, maliciously, in bad faith, and in reckless disregard of Nasanto's protected constitutional rights." The complaint seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.
"As is standard protocol, the officer involved has been on administrative duty since the day of the incident," Greensboro Police Department (GPD) spokesperson Josie Cambareri told The Daily Beast. "In addition to the criminal investigation from the [State Bureau of Investigation], GPD does an internal investigation to determine whether or not policies were followed."
Despite the officer's disturbing conduct, it's unclear whether the lawsuit will be successful. Qualified immunity protections have managed to protect police from civil rights lawsuits, even in cases where their behavior explicitly violated a complainant's rights.
However, the complaint does argue that the defendant is not eligible for qualified immunity, noting that another lawsuit in the same circuit established that officers who "had violated the Fourth Amendment to the extent that they started to use deadly force, or continued to use deadly force … once it was no longer reasonable for them to believe that the car was about to run them (or their fellow officers) over" were not entitled to qualified immunity. While this past precedent provides some hope that Doriety will prevail in her lawsuit against the officer who killed her son, winning the case is still likely to be an uphill battle.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
However, the complaint states that Crenshaw began turning the vehicle, facing away from the defendant and his patrol car. At this point, several passengers, also teenagers, jumped out of the vehicle and fled the scene. Shortly after, as Crenshaw was attempting to drive away at a "low rate of speed," the defendant fired three shots at Crenshaw, killing him.
Um, without trying to suggest this shooting was in any way justified, the image I got from the headline was an unarmed 17yr old running away from the officer, on foot, shot in the back. I know the headline didn't technically say that, but...
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I'm now creating over $35,100 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,100 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link--------------------------------------------------->>> http://Www.JobsRevenue.Com
The whole article, presumably written by someone not directly involved in the case, reads like series of progressively truthful false rendition. It really almost seems like she's trying to pick up ENB's the 'shot in the back fleeing unarmed' narrative vs. 'shot in the front, running towards, armed' bodycam video mantel. Worse than the typical 'a car was stolen, shots were fired, the car was returned to the owner' selective-omission, passive-voice narrative.
It wasn't a traffic stop because he failed to signal or had a license plate bulb out or whatever, he was riding in a stolen vehicle (begging the question about how it was stolen) and jumped out.
Well... he wasn't so much riding in it as much as he was driving it when the traffic stop, er, apprehension occurred and he jumped out.
Well... he didn't so much jump out as try and turn the vehicle around, and make contact with the officer's car.
Well... he didn't so much as just make contact with the officer's car as much as he made contact and then continued to flee, as the driver in the car.
I presume all of this is on dashcam video somewhere and we just aren't allowed to see it.
Yeah, I'm 100% on board the "cops need to stop shooting people as the first response to hazardous situations that they themselves create" train but this story is so full of careful wordings to create the illusion of an injustice that I just don't buy it. Also, why does this article keep linking to the lawsuit document over and over and over? I count seven links to the document.
Yeah there are plenty of egregious examples of evil cops out there. This is a weak justification of a weak civil lawsuit. Reason really doesn't help solve the very real problem of police criminality by regurgitating the plaintiffs case. I am predisposed to to see this as an unjustified killing. But I'm going to need more evidence than I'm getting here. Do better Emma.
It looks like, for at least part of the issue, someone just find/replaced “complaint” with “[insert link here text=complaint]” and the same with “lawsuit”.
Really, it gets to a point where it reflects on the abject shittiness of the jurinalist.
I’m sure if the car was stolen and used in a bank robbery where 6 people got shot we’d already know about it. The fact that we haven’t strongly suggests the car was left in long term parking or unlocked in an unlocked garage, but, I can understand how police are obligated not to release the details of an unsolved crime, not bias juries, and not implicate themselves (motivationally, without regard for whether you think they should be able to) etc., etc. Similarly, from the other side, plaintiffs are always going to exaggerate and omit facts favorably in their suit for pretty much the same “not implicate themselves” motivation.
Maybe I could see value in a low-rent jurinalist, someone who doesn’t get paid to go out and dig up facts or investigate stories or talk to sources (you know, actual journalism), summarizing 30 or more pages of documents for people directly affected by the case or in the locality but, even then, I would at least expect them to summarize both sides of the story, rather than just repeat one side’s narrative like some 2-bit shill or $0.10-er.
Edit: To say nothing of an actual Editor who, traditionally, would tell such tencent jurinalists to "Get back out there and don't come back without a story, a whole one."
Same here....not that Emma 'I am so pissed I cannot get a beer - waah' Camp would try to wrongly imply a cop just blew away a BIPOC execution style.
Emma will morph into ENB in no time. Just watch.
Begin now earning every month an extra amount of $17k or more just by doing very simple and easy online job from home. I have received $18953 in my last month direct in my bank acc by doing this easy home base job just in my part time for 2 hrs maximum a day online. Even a child can now do this job and earns money online. Everybody can get this home job right now and start earning dollars online by follow details here..........
Click the link—————————————>>> http://WWW.Pay.JioSalary.COM
She aint old enough to have hooked that long.
https://twitter.com/LaocoonofTroy/status/1634184174625075200?t=KJ_IH4uLeizUQwNat34piw&s=19
"A Maryland bill would prevent anyone from being charged with felony murder if they are under the age of 25... The Democratic delegate behind the bill objects to this because anyone under the age of 25 has not had their brain fully develop."
[Link]
Then, surely, they are incapable of casting a ballot ?
Or deciding to have an abortion. Or deciding their sexual orientation.
Actually this law would help "them" cast a ballot.
If no felony conviction, voting privilege maintained.
Thus their name remains eligible for a mail in ballot...
NC had a healthy Libertarian party, with candidates, last I checked.
It isn't 1974, Hank.
❤️
Je suis payé plus de 160$ USD à 700 $ USD de l’heure pour travailler en ligne. J’ai entendu parler de ce travail il y a 3 mois et après avoir rejoint celui-ci, j’ai gagné facilement 31 000 $ USD sans avoir de compétences de travail en ligne. Essayez-le simplement sur le site d’accompagnement…
COPIER ET OUVRIR CE SITE…► WORK AT HOME
I wasn’t really a fan of Hogan. But I think he managed to steer Maryland away from some of the worst of the fringe-progressive policies. Now all bets are off. And Maryland will take its rightful place in competing with California, Massachusetts, New York, etc on who can be the most commie.
By etc I presume you mean Illinois.
They are going to raise property taxes on everything but the governor's own personal house to convince people to not leave.
Illinois: It's on the way to Wisconsin.
Which is a stupid argument since the brain development between 18 and 25 has to do with long term decision making, not short term decision making or recognition of moral consequence.
So, a 21-yr.-old police officer who goes around executing perps Judge Dredd style will be relatively untouchable? Good to know.
Would get interesting all the way around if they went around executing members of a protected class, racking up hate crimes but remaining untouchable for the actual murders they committed.
Edit: Included as a link but it doesn't do the point justice very succinctly:
James Alex Fields Jr. (born April 26, 1997)was the driver of the car [at the "Charlottesville Car Attack"].
...
Until his arrest in Charlottesville [at age 20], Fields worked for about two years as a security guard in Ohio; he earned US$10.50 per hour and his income was $650 every two weeks. Fields's mother told the Toledo Blade that he had "recently moved out on his own." According to acquaintances, Fields "filled his time" playing video games and working at a local grocery store.
The 16-year old black kid that broke into my car, my neighbor’s car, actually all my neighbors’ cars, all the way down the block, across the street, and for about 3 more blocks further West, was eventually ‘shot while fleeing’ when the local cops caught up with him.
Something like 150 cars broken into, they eventually found one truck where the dipshit owner put the keys above the sun visor. They found that truck right around the time the very diligent and intelligent officers had finally managed to follow their 4-hour trail of break-ins right to them.
These young geniuses decided to try to run the cops over with the truck rather than be arrested. The driver of the truck was fatally shot, one of his friends was injured, and the 15-year old kid they had riding shotgun was given a personal tour of all the damage they caused the next morning and asked to explain to me and all of my neighbors what his dumb ass was doing breaking into all of our cars.
Another Rhodes scholar's life cut tragically short, leaving us to ponder what might have been.
He wuz turning his life around….
Wakita should name her next one Egregious Portabello Crenshaw. Maybe "The Talk" should include "don't steal cars".
1. QI sucks and should be abolished
2. I think law enforcement are too quick to shoot
With those out of the way I think making any determination here about what the officer did is entirely premature. First, all we have is the mother's version of events. We can't and don't know how accurate they are especially since we know she wasn't there. That same issue will occur when the cop responds. It will simply be his version.
The mother's version, however, seems to strain credulity unless there is evidence to back it up. Driving away at 3 to 5 MPH? I mean what the hell would even be the point of that. And cars go that fast just on their own if you aren't applying the break. And using the angle of trajectory to say the cop isn't in any danger when he is admittedly making a 3 point turn also doesn't move the needle much on it's own. The whole point of the maneuver is to change your direction and part of the time you will be horizontal.
There are way too many instances of law enforcement using clearly excessive force that to use this incident, at this stage, to write about to make your point seems...odd, if not dumb
1. QI sucks and should be abolished
Never going to happen. The best we can hope for is a dampening of its use in cases of police malfeasance.
2. I think law enforcement are too quick to shoot
Agree 287%
The mother’s version, however, seems to strain credulity unless there is evidence to back it up.
Also agree. It's like getting Gaige Grosskreutz's lawyer to tell us what happened on that fateful night.
2. I think law enforcement are too quick to shoot
Agree 287%
*Ssssss* Sure, but…
The seeming (not speaking to this case) compulsory check of your
69, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, and 3 with a vehicle inbound on your 12 makes it seem a little like the policy could use some polish. I mean, yeah, situational awareness and it sounds like the car wasn’t inbound in the case but, policy.It also doesn’t help that Reason writers aren’t clear and particularly accurate in their descriptions of these events. Often leaving out information critical to the total context. So I tend to reflexively distrust accounts like the one Emma writes here.
Them sound like fancy university words for lying
Emma..the pretentious Georgetown woke millennial who gets pissed neighborhood bars don't want her and her posse drinking there. This punk got what he deserved. You steal a car and it should be a capital offense.
I'm with you on 1. and 2. I think the tactical justifications for shooting, including the number and timing of rounds fired, needs a lot more case by case inspection. Way too much mag-dumping and late get-mine-in goes on.
But if the shots entered the car from the side, that pretty much rules out self-defense, unless the kid's car was hella fast, or the cop did that Wanted trajectory-roundhouse thing.
I'm a lot more okay with police offers shooting bullets at stolen cars that just rammed their patrol vehicles regardless of whether they are directly in the oncoming path of the vehicle than I am with 2am surprise attacks on sleeping people in their homes.
"and not in the trajectory path of Nasanto's moving vehicle and not in the trajectory path of Nasanto's moving vehicle." Repetition changes nothing.
Way too much mag-dumping and late get-mine-in goes on.
Sure, but this cop fired 3 shots and, it sounds like, had at least two hits in the C and D zones if not 2 "A"s and a "C" firing at the target laterally. Which is between "definitely not unskilled" and "above average" especially from the draw on a, maybe, moving target.
While it may be slower waiting for imminent danger when there have already been multiple attemots isn't much different from claiming the cops shouldn't have shot because they were reloading. The kid had no intention of stopping and was already in the disregard of damages and consequences phase from his actions.
No word from Dad?
If the accusation seems perhaps unsupported, well, that's precisely what a trial is for. Abolish QI, hold the damn trial and let a jury figure out what really happened.
Abolish QI, hold the damn trial and let a jury figure out what really happened.
Another strike (same) against the abolish/end QI argument: The suit is filed under the 4th and the precedent indicates QI is not in play, however, my understanding is, even absent QI, there's a popular policy as to whether the defendant gets a jury or a bench trial.
There are way too many instances of law enforcement using clearly excessive force that to use this incident, at this stage, to write about to make your point seems…odd, if not dumb
Agreed. Sounds like yet another case of “this is not the wrongful police homicide case you are looking for”/stupid games-stupid prizes story that Reason is notorious for, seemingly, cherry-picking.
Gotta take your wins where you probably aren’t going to get them, I guess.
" . . . even in cases where their behavior explicitly violated a complainant's rights."
I guess I need a new copy of the US Constitution; mine doesn't have the part where a fleeing felon has a right to escape.
True, but we could always catch them later at momma’s house instead of killing them in the street.
Does your version of the Constitution have a numeric limit on the number of auto thefts and hit-and-runs a felon is allowed to engage in before “catch them later at momma’s house” is no longer considered a viable solution? Do other crimes committed between the theft and turning up a momma’s house alter the formula at all?
I was implying it could be done the same day, perhaps without gunfire.
And how do you do that if they flee before you can identify them?
How long do you sit on momma's house while they hang at their friend's house for a few days until things cool off? Even if you know it was them, and catch it on video, it doesn't return the car or make them any easier to convict if the car gets cut up and sold for parts before they walk back home.
I'm a fan of playing the waiting game as opposed to no-knock raids of drug houses and violent felons and even for non-violent traffic offenses like $150 ticket for speeding and $200 for failure to stop for speeding (with dashcam evidence) mailed to your house or whatever, but once the car came back as stolen, this was not one of those situations.
"drug houses and *homes* of violent felons" that is.
Which momma? Getting an ID without a body would make that stakeout kinda intensive as they stakeout every mother in a 20 mile radius.
Right. I'm saying even if they *knew* who it was, the "sit on the house" game only works if the suspect is (suspects are) a) unaware and, more importantly, b) domestically stationary.
I understand that death isn't the sentence for auto theft, but a 5-10 min. high speed chase or 4-hour low speed chase isn't really optimal either. Not that I think the kid would've run into anyone or slammed into another car or anything, but the cop doesn't know that. The vehicle registry and hot sheets don't come back with "Stolen by an unarmed minor off an otherwise vacant lot." it just comes back with "Stolen".
I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.
Here’s what I do…………………..>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
so a dirtbag criminal committing felonies was killed by the police. i say good. don't want to get shot by the police? don't commit crimes.
Home income solution to enable everyone to work online and receive weekly payments to bank acct. Earn over $500 every day and get payouts every week straight to account bank. My last month of income was $30,390 and all I do is work up to 4 hours a day on my computer. Easy work and steady income are great with this job.
More information………………>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
the complaint does argue that the defendant is not eligible for qualified immunity, noting that another lawsuit in the same circuit established that officers who "had violated the Fourth Amendment to the extent that they started to use deadly force, or continued to use deadly force … once it was no longer reasonable for them to believe that the car was about to run them (or their fellow officers) over" were not entitled to qualified immunity.
I'm sure the court will agree that the previous circuit decision did not involve a car moving at 3 - 5 mph so it's a completely different thing altogether.
Yes, was the car a different make or color? What brand tires did it have? Was the previous action at a different time of day? How are officers supposed to know they are violating rights when circumstances are so different?
https://twitter.com/monitoringbias/status/1634194897875116032?t=KSWU34NqDXnwTeQxNbqB7w&s=19
Pew found that about 10 times more liberal women (more than half) have been diagnosed with a mental health condition by age 30 than conservative and moderate men have been by age 65, and about 2.5 times more than conservative women in their same age cohort.
[Graphic]
What’s really going to cook your noodle later on: how durable is the word “diagnosed”? Because the actual question said “been told by a doctor”. I’d be willing to bet a not-insignificant portion of those who said they were saw a Youtube or TikTok video by a PhD in Psychology talking about some illness and said, “Yep, that’s me!” (Or just some of Christine Blasey-Ford's testimony and said #metoo!)
https://twitter.com/mualphaxi/status/1634327606341369856?t=Acfj_oTUniEz0j_vkqWxMw&s=19
VIDEO: a DEI bureaucrat in action
Stanford Law's associate dean for DEI, Tirien Angela Steinbach, is an obvious moron, appointed only because she is a black woman. Here, she starts crying because FedSoc invited a conservative circuit judge.
$100k per year for this "education"
[Link]
In all fairness, there's a decent chance that she's crying because of the seemingly retarded position her career choices and political views have put her in. It would seem that a significant portion of the audience was there only to heckle him and heckle him to the point that he requests an administrator but the specific need of his request, which she may not be able to accommodate, cannot be heard.
So, in fact, the decedent was operating a stolen deadly weapon when he was shot? Which he had already used to strike the officer's vehicle?
Sure, no QI, let the mother sue.
And then, when the suit is quite properly bounced, make the mother and her lawyers pay the defendant not just his legal fees, but also a few hundred grand extra, as compensation to to the officer for their merit-free harassment of him through the legal system.
We have groups of these kids stealing cars throughout our cities. Roaming through neighborhoods looking for opportunity. Some have killed others in the car chases. They get arrested and they are back the next day. It is a dangerous business and everyone I have talked to about this is obviously pissed about the situation. More of them will end up dead. There will be celebrations when this happens.
https://twitter.com/_forest_seeker_/status/1634194577073532928?t=PrsZVS31n77_Oke-KcF-Tw&s=19
"This repulsive thing happened, dude you gotta hear the pornographic details about how someone you don't know did something horrible to someone else you don't know"
"Will I-- or anyone in my life-- be better off if you successfully make me emotional about this"
[Meme]
"You unfeeling, inhuman, unsympathetic sociopath!"
"Well, if you want me to sympathize with a victim I don't know, you're literally just trying to victimize me."
Emma Camp..Reason's new left libertarian millennial. Lives in DC..shows up in a neighborhood bar in Annapolis and is pissed they don't want some pretentious DC chick wanting to party. Now false narrative...the kid stole a car and was resisting arrest. Play stupid games as they say. What about the person's car that was stolen? They don't count. Who is the victim here? the thug didn't give up..and he paid the price.
Ok Emma what's your focus? Fiona is for open borders, Scott and Jacob for trannies and sexual mutilation of kids, Nick still on pot and Matt justifying covid lockdowns.
Reason..a pathetic former libertarian site.
What about the person’s car that was stolen? They don’t count. Who is the victim here?
This is actually pretty key and the plaintiff's attorney was actually asked about this and waived it away with, almost literally, "I can understand why you would ask that. It's a good question, but it's not important."
Bureaucracy being what it is, hot sheets and vehicle registrations don't generally note why or the manner in which the vehicle was stolen, just that it was stolen. The Cop has no idea if the driver is just sitting in a stolen car or sitting, armed, in a stolen car. That's no justification for guns blazing but this clearly was not a situation of him just walking up to the car and opening fire.
...
To be fair Jacob is not for trannies, he's for jailing Trump.
So, the "boy" committed a major felony, resisted arrest twice, and then tried to escape by car.
What exactly are officers supposed to do in such cases? Just let the criminal drive away? What do you suggest?
I can tell you that there are many legal car owners in that city celebrating this shooting. FAFO.
[comment meant for other thread]
Another young Black person shot in a city run by Democrats. You'd think that Blacks would get the idea sooner or later.
Look at all the conservative losers who spent their Friday evenings commenting on Reason LOL.
Maybe don't steal a car? Reason is really struggling to find sympathetic victims of police brutality. I seriously doubt this is the best they could do.
The only time you're allowed to call a young Black man "boy" is when he's been shot or beaten by the police.
Driving while black gives qualified immunity license to kill. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) made the mass killing of blacks by klansmen in former Confederate states as legal as it now. The difference is today's killers have to get hired on a sort machine police force. That precedent still applies to immigration and to women enslaved as reproductive dams by Texas in violation of the Reconstruction Amendments.
You obviously haven't read Thomas Sowell's book "Black Rednecks and White Liberals." You really should.
Police are trained to kill anyone who attempts to drive away, and then claim that the person was using the car as a deadly weapon. Doesn't matter if they shoot through the side or rear of the car, the report will contain boilerplate language claiming they feared for their lives, coming straight at them, blah blah blah. And nothing else happens.
Nothing else happens to the officers. The taxpayers often have to pay settlements, which can be in the millions.
Home income solution to enable everyone to work online and receive weekly payments to bank acct. Earn over $500 every day and get payouts every week straight to account bank. My last month of income was $30,390 and all I do is work up to 4 hours a day on my computer. Easy work and steady income are great with this job.
More information………………>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
The fact that Nasanto Antonio Crenshaw was riding in a stolen care is a huge red flag and calls into question the authenticity of the claim and the sincerity of the plaintiff. I would be so bold to say the mother probably enabled him.
How can someone be a "felon" before being tried and convicted for commission of a felony? Isn't "suspect" the word you should be using? Or are police officers entitled, in addition to defending themselves and others, to act as judges, juries, and executioners? And isn't the "life" part of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" a right? And wouldn't the cop call for backup after learning that the car was reported stolen (by someone not identified at the time)? More will be revealed, yes?
Dead car thief. Call it a win. As punishment, refrain from giving the cop a medal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RUynKBeQH8
Sheesh, I swear Reason makes a story more obtuse on purpose. The whole point of having trained danger response is that training is supposed to teach when to shoot and when NOT to shoot. The guiding principal of not shooting at a stolen car that’s not trying to kill you is that if you kill the driver of a fleeing car … now you have an unguided multi-ton metal death machine careening down the street, running over nuns, orphans, and school marms because the driver is dead. It’s like when they back off a freeway chase because it’s more dangerous than it’s worth.
But cops are like, he didn't do wanted in .2 seconds... better start blasting.
Won’t it be hilarious when they release the cop’s name and it’s Ofc. Laquisha DaKwan Quantavia Jackson and the story completely evaporates from the news cycle.
Maybe instead of indoctrinating kids in sexual perversions schools should teach classes from kindergarten on up through high school teaching kids not to resist arrest or flee from armed officers of the law? Especially the trigger happy tyrannical type cops!
See also; Chris Rock's How to Not Get Your Ass Beat by the Cops.
All you had to do was look at the trayvoned picture accompanying the article to know that Reason would be peddling the usual line of leftist bullshit.
I find it so hard to forge an opinion over these kind of stories, I always find the narratives so biased I don't know what or whom to believe...
'...Crenshaw began turning the vehicle, facing away from the defendant and his patrol car. ..' That's not in the complaint. Actually the complaint says, '....As Nasanto was attempting to elude Defendant Doe, Defendant Doe fired his weapon into the front windshield of the vehicle....'
So it appears the car was coming towards the officer who shouldn't have to stand still to see if the driver will turn the steering wheel a few degrees and floor the accelerator. Case closed.
Cry me a river. Somehow my parents taught me not to steal other people’s property and I survived past age 17, imagine that. A vehicle is a deadly weapon. Maybe stop stealing…
I am not in favor of killing someone for car theft and sometimes it seems these law officers put themselves in position to have an excuse to shoot. If the guy was really going just a few miles an hour then there was no reason to shoot, just move out of the way.