I suppose it would depend on the circumstances, wouldn't it? Were there witnesses? Surveillance cameras? Was he injured and/or stuck in the vehicle when police arrived? All of those things would (possibly) prevent him from arguing that he wasn't driving. Guess we'll all just have to wait and see.
I don't think he'd be able to argue that he didn't drive through the doors, but he certainly could try to dispute why he drove through the doors. The question would be: did he do it on purpose, have a true accident (like a mechanical failure on his car), or have an accident due to some sort of impairment? I think that's the part folks should reserve judgment on.
Read closer: "The off-duty officer -- who was still in uniform -- told the arriving officer that Ward was an off-duty officer with the Boulder Police Department." Ward was not in uniform- the off-duty officer who spotted her was. Doesn't change the meat of the story, but that's why it was removed- the wording was misleading.
Bing, it's actually the state that requires a victim for each crime, not the cops. If there's a crime, there has to be a suspect and a victim. It's a little messed up sometimes since there may not be a true victim for each crime but crime reporting statistics require these labels.
Burglary does not equal theft. Burglary can include theft, but it's more about the unlawful entry of a place.
Generally, the folks that participate in drug busts are part of a task force that can include undercover officers. It would pretty much render them ineffective if their faces were splashed across a news story that identified them as police officers, wouldn't it?
I agree completely that someone could be startled, but I don't know about swerving into the oncoming lane. That seems like a bit of an excessive reaction to flashing lights in your rearview mirror.
It sounds like the Cadillac driver did the escalation. All the deputy did, per the story, is flip on their emergency lights to initiate a traffic stop. Most people's reaction would not be to swerve into oncoming traffic, so there was no expectation on the deputy's part that there was a danger of anyone getting hurt.
I'm not kidding, nor am I naive. I just have a law enforcement background. Police don't charge someone with a crime if they can't back it up, generally. I won't say that officers are perfect all the time, because they ARE human, but the goal is to find someone who has done something unlawful and arrest them for that crime. The law can be tricky and it isn't always clear why certain charges are warranted without obtaining a copy of the report.
But I do agree that the arrestee in this case does need help and I genuinely hope that, should they reconcile, this doesn't happen again. I was a DV victim and I was very glad that multiple charges were put on the suspect in that case as his actions affected me far worse than just physically. I don't know what his bond was in that case, but I guarantee that it wouldn't have felt like too much to me, no matter how high it was.
The police charge as they see fit based on evidence. The DA's office is responsible for the charges after arrest, including whether the suspect takes a plea or not. The police have zero control over the charges after the suspect is arrested and jailed, so I doubt that charges are "piled on" in hopes of a plea.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Medley