Tacoma officer runs over man lying on street

TACOMA, Wash. — Tacoma police are investigating after an officer ran over a man lying on the street early Saturday morning.
The incident happened at about 1:20 a.m. in the 600 block of North Fife Street.
Tacoma Police Department spokeswoman Loretta Cool told KIRO 7 a patrol vehicle traveling 10 mph ran over a person lying on the roadway.
The victim was a 22-year-old man. He was taken to the hospital and is in critical condition.
Cool said the investigation remains ongoing.

Source Link

I am undecided on this at this time. I am just really having a hard time believing that this cop did not see this guy in the road. He stopped multiple times, two that can clearly be seen in the video, and what appears to be once before he is seen coming into the view of the camera.

The last time he stopped he was only feet away. Granted, maybe the hood of the car was obstructing his view?
I just can't rectify, inside my mind, him speeding up in the way that he did.....even after running over the guy. It all seems too coincidental.

Maybe I am wrong and am open to interpretation....
Chime in ATS.....what say you?

(Btw...is there some reason one cannot add to the posse comitatus forum?)

More from the source article in the OP....

Duane Marggraf, who lives at the retirement home down the street, was sitting on the porch when the accident happened. Marggraf said he saw the young man get in a car, start up the engine, then get out. But Marggraf did not see the man lie down on the pavement. He then saw the squad car approach. He said the officer was checking out the cars and even stopped to look at Marggraf where he was sitting. “He continued up the road real slowly. When his headlights hit the concrete up there, I noticed there was somebody up there laying in the road,” Marggraf said. “I thought he was going to get out and give him a citation for being drunk in public or something like that. But he continued on and ran him over, just like watching a movie.”

Apparently, the officer involved is NOT being put on leave. The department claims it was an accident. The officer has been given "a few days off".

Now, I am sure that IF this was not intentional, it was pretty traumatic but not just for the cop (obviously).

I am just wondering....how in the name of all that is holy can the department determine that this was an accident based on the video? Did they watch the same video I just did because I have my doubts. Not that I am ready to crucify the officer in question here (we don't have his name) but I think some questions should definitely be asked. How can they make such a rash determination? (and yes, that last question is a bit rhetorical as I am more than a bit cynical about cops investigating cops....color me jaded but too many things I have seen and heard tell me that all too often they hide behind those badges and protect their own)

Was that police car also a vacuum cleaner because that poor man just disappeared.

a reply to: Jakal26
When officers from the same department "investigate" their own officers, there can be no justice.
I just hope if I ever do anything illegal, my Mom can be the judge for a day!

a reply to: Biigs

It was a momentary vacuum, I suppose you could say. The car drug the guy down the street a bit.
If you notice the tall bushes to the left of the place the guy was originally laying, it appears he was drug that far and then rolled out from behind the police car. It appears that someone(s...hard to tell if there is more than one of them) is in the street checking on what must be the guy, laying in the road.

No idea why he was laying there.

From the article:

A resident in the neighborhood, Kassie Mitchell, caught infrared images of the incident on surveillance video and shared it with KIRO 7. The man is seen walking to a car at around 1:13a.m. Three minutes later, he exits the car, and lies down on the pavement. After two minutes there, the police squad car is seen approaching slowly, stopping occasionally, and finally running over the man.

WTH???

I'd call it a hoax and fake, but that's no hoax site. It's a standard local media outlet. Good god...

I really did just see that..huh?

Here is an update by the way.. Same source.

Man run over by Tacoma police officer is a JBLM soldier

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

I originally obtained it from what I would call a "questionable" site. I actually had to do a double take after watching it because it really did look like the guy just disappeared. I was beginning to think the same thing when i FINALLY found the source linked in the article on the site I am speaking of (don't want to mention it because I am not sure if that is cool here)

Without reading anything before watching it....it sure looked intentional to me.
I am just really having a hard time with all the coincidences in the video.

He stops multiple times.....he then coincidentally speeds up after the last "stop", just in time to hit the guy with some speed behind him.

He doesn't immediately stop when he hits the guy.....though, with that one I am torn because I can imagine that if I were to run over something that I "didn't see", I might be more than a little startled by the noise as well.....especially if it caught him off guard like he apparently claims.

It also appears to me that he turns the wheels, almost aiming at the guy's head. Though, again, I am not sure and that is why I brought it here....to get the opinion of those on ATS.

Just hard for me to believe this cop's story when a guy on his porch, obviously further away than the cop, could see this guy....yet this cop couldn't? He had multiple opportunities to see him, even if he just glanced up to keep his car in the road (if he really was checking tags...etc) you would think he couldn't miss a man sized.....well, MAN, in the road!

Looks like an accident to me.
The guy looks brightly lit up in the video, but don't forget that video is from an infrared camera.
The officer appeared to be speeding up to check the next car ahead of him. He was running tags on local cars in the area, using the cars laptop, and this just happened to be between driveways.

“He continued up the road real slowly. When his headlights hit the concrete up there, I noticed there was somebody up there laying in the road,” Marggraf said. “I thought he was going to get out and give him a citation for being drunk in public or something like that. But he continued on and ran him over, just like watching a movie.”

An old lady on a porch sees him in the road but the officer didn't. So much for paying attention while driving. Sad event.

a reply to: defcon5

The guy looks brightly lit up in the video, but don't forget that video is from an infrared camera.

Yet a witness could see this guy from his porch?

The officer appeared to be speeding up to check the next car ahead of him. He was running tags on local cars in the area

Which car are you referring to? The one in the driveway to the top of our view of the street?

a reply to: Jakal26
Some of it has to do with search patterns.
You use a different search pattern when you are watching the road, then when you are scanning for prowlers. I could make a joke here about if you want to hide from a cop lay down right in front of him, but it's actually true. I know it works, because it was trick that was taught to me years ago when playing paintball for a team, and I used it effectively a lot. When someone is looking for a person they look at their height outward, scanning for a silhouette on the horizon, not at the ground around them or below their own feet (or in this case, on the road in front of them).

originally posted by: Jakal26
Yet a witness could see this guy from his porch?

He has a different perspective, and a different search pattern.

originally posted by: Jakal26
Which car are you referring to? The one in the driveway to the top of our view of the street?

the one in the driveway just ahead of where the guy was laying.

a reply to: defcon5

When someone is looking for a person they look at their height outward, scanning for a silhouette on the horizon, not at the ground around them or below their own feet (or in this case, on the road in front of them).

After he comes into view, the first time he initially stops, sitting and scanning....he would be at approximately that height "on the horizon"......I am just having a hard time believing he missed that if he is so keen on looking for "silhouettes" on the horizon. I mean, if he is incapable of seeing that silhouette of a guy laying in the road, it is hard for me to imagine he is affective at his job.

Not to mention that he wasn't JUST supposedly "looking for prowlers". Remember, he was busy harassing the locals, making sure they didn't have any unpaid tickets and the like.
He was also reportedly "looking down at his computer".....so the, "he was checking for prowlers" argument is breaking down a bit when I can see that it isn't the ONLY thing he was doing.

Maybe it was just a case of a TON of distraction at once....In that case, it is negligence.
Either way, I cannot see how he is not on leave while they sort this out....oh, right...they've already made up their minds'. Of course, silly me.

a reply to: defcon5

The one in the driveway? Really?
He had to speed up for that? He was that near it and sped up? If that is the case, why isn't he slowly very soon after speeding up? If he doesn't, he is going to drive right by it.

One would think at some point before the officer was right up to the man his lights would have been on him and he would be in officer's vision as the officer looked down the street to move the car.

a reply to: Jakal26
Obviously you see what you want to see, and you want to see abuse here.
The fact is that from a sitting position in a car, with a dashboard, and with limited headlights, while searching at bushes, parked cars, etc. This guy was missed laying on a dark road in his dark clothing. Also there is a optical illusion that is created by the new road reflectors that causes you to think you can see further down the road then you actually can if the object is laying between the reflectors and not blocking them.

Now why on gawds green earth would he just run the guy over for no reason?
If he wanted to be a jerk, and give the guy a hard time, he had a perfect target there for a DUI arrest and public intoxication. So why intentionally run him over?

a reply to: roadgravel

And that was my thought as well. He surely isn't going to speed up without, at the very least, glancing up directly in front of him.

I am still intrigued by the slight turn of the wheels right before he hits the guy. It just looks intentional. I don't know.
What I do know for certain is that it is ludicrous that this officer isn't going to be on leave while an investigation takes place.
We will probably be either really lucky or will have to fight really hard just to get his name. I would like to know this guy's history.

If any of us hit this guy, whether we seen him or not, we would be in jail until a court sorted it out.
We would be presumed to be guilty of negligence, at the VERY least. Vehicular manslaughter would be, more than likely, the charge.

Of course, obviously....it doesn't work the same for "them" as it does "us". Same ole song and dance.

a reply to: defcon5

No. I am not seeing anything here.
I am asking questions. Something the department has obviously failed in their duty, to US, to do. Since it is a foregone conclusion in their mind, I will make issue with that as well.

Now why on gawds green earth would he just run the guy over for no reason? If he wanted to be a jerk, and give the guy a hard time, he had a perfect target there for a DUI arrest and public intoxication. So why intentionally run him over?

Well, I could think of a few reasons but I won't delve into that kind of making assumptions because it really isn't productive.
Let's just say that I don't see the world through the rose colored glasses you are displaying here.
I've seen too much and know too much about people and the dark places inside the mind to say, right off, that he would have no "reason" to do such a thing.

a reply to: Jakal26

He surely isn't going to speed up without, at the very least, glancing up directly in front of him.

Exactly. A driver is required to be looking at the road. "Limited headlights" they are the brightest close to the vehicle, not far down the road. It seems to me he should have been in a well lit spot.

a reply to: Jakal26
Pardon my crude drawings.

Your search pattern when you are looking for someone or something is at the horizon, this is human nature, and you can try it sometime when you are out in the woods. In that case, someone can basically be hidden in plain sight by being above or below the persons natural search pattern. Again, I know this works because we used to use it to play “hunt the rabbit” when playing paintball.
Also, I have been present at police training when my friend went to the academy where they had to “search” a dark bathroom using their flashlights for an armed suspect. The instructor would get up on top of or below the sinks, and the officers would miss him 90% of the time their first time through.


There is an optical illusion created by the new road reflectors where your brain gets the impression that it can see further ahead down the road then it actually can. That is because the reflectors give the impression that you can see “Infinitely” down the road, when in fact you can really only see as far as the headlights (the orange circle here). If something is just beyond the headlights (or even too close) between your periods of looking forward, it can be laying in the middle of the road and you not see it.