Anonymous wrote:https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-unjust-pursuit-of-police-officer-sutton" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-unjust-pursuit-of-police-officer-sutton

What can be done to save this man? Has anyone organized? Is there somewhere that I can donate to?

Thanks in advance.

This is Sutton's lawyer's argument, publishing in a right wing think tank's propaganda blog masquerading as a news site. Not a neutral news article. That doesn't mean he's wrong, but it does mean it's not fully honest.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC’s no-chase policy is perplexing. I don’t want high speech chases in my neighborhood if unneeded, but they are supposed to just let criminals… run away?

No, they are supposed to have other ways of tracking them that don't involve high-speed chases in a city.

The victim of the car crash was being tracked by an ankle monitor. But tracking isn't apprehension. Eventually a suspect needs to be apprehended.

dcist has been covering this story for years, with an even hand and views from all stakeholders. This story is microcosm of the social problems and breakdown of trust in DC and around the country. It's tragedy all around.

Sutton is still at home pending legal proceedings.
The anti-chase policies has been softened since this event.

Karon Hylton shouldn't have died, and Officer Sutton shouldn't be in jail. And these rental mopeds shouldn't be on the street.


Please read their full coverage.

One example:

https://dcist.com/story/20/11/02/karon-hylton-browns-loved-ones-remember-his-exuberant-spirit-and-dreams-for-fatherhood/

And a follow up:
https://dcist.com/story/22/12/21/terence-sutton-guilty-verdict-second-degree-murder/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If he was driving 30 mph he wasn’t in pursuit in an official term, he was following. There is a difference.
He never should have been convicted.
I agree with others this is why crime is through the roof.

The MPD general order on police pursuits: "Attempt by a law enforcement officer in an emergency vehicle to apprehend a suspect who is actively attempting to elude apprehension while operating a motor vehicle.”

Interesting. This seems to say that this policy applies only to suspects operating a motor vehicle. But the suspect in this case was on a scooter, which, by any reasonable definition is not a motor vehicle.

So how did the officer violate the policy?

It was a motorized scooter. Don't know how many ccs

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If he was driving 30 mph he wasn’t in pursuit in an official term, he was following. There is a difference.
He never should have been convicted.
I agree with others this is why crime is through the roof.

The MPD general order on police pursuits: "Attempt by a law enforcement officer in an emergency vehicle to apprehend a suspect who is actively attempting to elude apprehension while operating a motor vehicle.”

Interesting. This seems to say that this policy applies only to suspects operating a motor vehicle. But the suspect in this case was on a scooter, which, by any reasonable definition is not a motor vehicle.

So how did the officer violate the policy?

It was a moped. A moped is a motor vehicle. People operating mopeds are required to wear helmets. The initial official pretext for the pursuit was that Karon Hylton-Brown was not wearing a helmet.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you want police to be able to chase people in their cars for not wearing a helmet?

"I'M BEATING YOU FOR YOUR OWN SAFETY! STOP RESISTING!!"

They were chasing him because he was a known member of a dangerous gang headed to go shoot someone.

Source? Or just making assumptions like usual

rtfa

so your source is a blog post by some guy? All along the official story was he was being stopped because he wasn't wearing a helmet but now the story is that they "knew" he was head to kill someone?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If he was driving 30 mph he wasn’t in pursuit in an official term, he was following. There is a difference.
He never should have been convicted.
I agree with others this is why crime is through the roof.

The MPD general order on police pursuits: "Attempt by a law enforcement officer in an emergency vehicle to apprehend a suspect who is actively attempting to elude apprehension while operating a motor vehicle.”

Interesting. This seems to say that this policy applies only to suspects operating a motor vehicle. But the suspect in this case was on a scooter, which, by any reasonable definition is not a motor vehicle.

So how did the officer violate the policy?

Anonymous wrote:If he was driving 30 mph he wasn’t in pursuit in an official term, he was following. There is a difference.
He never should have been convicted.
I agree with others this is why crime is through the roof.

The MPD general order on police pursuits: "Attempt by a law enforcement officer in an emergency vehicle to apprehend a suspect who is actively attempting to elude apprehension while operating a motor vehicle.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you want police to be able to chase people in their cars for not wearing a helmet?

"I'M BEATING YOU FOR YOUR OWN SAFETY! STOP RESISTING!!"

They were chasing him because he was a known member of a dangerous gang headed to go shoot someone.

That's interesting, because initially, police said they attempted the stop because he wasn't wearing a helmet. Are you saying that wasn't the truth?

I'm confused. Do you want police officers out on the street who know who the small percent commiting all the crimes in our city are, or do you not? You can stop people for not wearing a helmet AND they can be a known member of a dangerous gang. Those two things can be concurrent. Should we just give up on policing?

I'm confused. Do you want police officers out on the street who tell the truth, or do you not?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have no idea what happened. But has no one here watched any NCIS? You have to hold the suspect on what you have, hoping more will come.

Right? It was on a TV show that I've seen. Where else could we go to for policies on unreasonable search and seizure or due process?

Also, I learned all that I needed about counter-terrorism from watching 24.

Right?

Where did the Council learn how to “legislate”? Watching Suits might improve their skills. Not sure where exactly to go to learn all they know about how Jews control the weather to control the cities (an actual statement by a sitting Councilman who keeps getting reelected)

If he was driving 30 mph he wasn’t in pursuit in an official term, he was following. There is a difference.
He never should have been convicted.
I agree with others this is why crime is through the roof.

Anonymous wrote:Biden should pardon him. This case is bs. Im a liberal and live in DC. The carjacking, dangerous driving and terrorizing of regular people by criminals has gone too far. I feel for this officer and his family.

I do too. How do you elevate it to pardon level? is anyone working on that? lots of smart lawyers in DC who must be tired of living in fear and want to send a message of support to the MPD

Biden should pardon him. This case is bs. Im a liberal and live in DC. The carjacking, dangerous driving and terrorizing of regular people by criminals has gone too far. I feel for this officer and his family.

Anonymous wrote:I have no idea what happened. But has no one here watched any NCIS? You have to hold the suspect on what you have, hoping more will come.

Right? It was on a TV show that I've seen. Where else could we go to for policies on unreasonable search and seizure or due process?

Also, I learned all that I needed about counter-terrorism from watching 24.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you want police to be able to chase people in their cars for not wearing a helmet?

"I'M BEATING YOU FOR YOUR OWN SAFETY! STOP RESISTING!!"

They were chasing him because he was a known member of a dangerous gang headed to go shoot someone.

That's interesting, because initially, police said they attempted the stop because he wasn't wearing a helmet. Are you saying that wasn't the truth?

I'm confused. Do you want police officers out on the street who know who the small percent commiting all the crimes in our city are, or do you not? You can stop people for not wearing a helmet AND they can be a known member of a dangerous gang. Those two things can be concurrent. Should we just give up on policing?