Shot For Nothing (or Something)

News reports of incidents between the police and, well, everybody else, are the fodder of commentary, meaning that we’re constrained to rely on what we read when blawgers blawg.  You know that, of course, as do I when I hope that whatever I’m writing about has been reported with at least a modicum of accuracy. 

I will often decide not to write about something because the reporting strikes me as wrong or dubious, and rather than run with it, I prefer to let things flesh out a bit until I know whether there’s really something of interest there. It turns out that stories that smell at the outset often aren’t stories at all, just squiggly black marks use to fill newspaper space until something real comes along.

Every once in a while, however, a reports comes along that is either outrageous or absolutely insignificant, according to the report, and there are two conflicting reports that can’t even begin to be reconciled.  The story of Joey Tucker in Salt Lake City is such a story.  From the Courthouse News:

Police officers responded to a family’s complaint that their diabetic son may have been in danger from driving without taking his medicine by running him off the road into an interstate highway median and shooting him to death, the family says.

Joey Tucker’s father, Perry Tucker, and his fiancée Brieanne Matson say they were “concerned about his health” when they called Salt Lake City Police. Joey Tucker had not taken his diabetes medication and “had possibly taken a sleeping pill,” according to the federal complaint.

The family claims a Highway Patrol trooper rammed Tucker’s pickup into a concrete barrier as Tucker drove on Interstate 80, then Salt Lake Police Officer Louis “Law” Jones shot him to death while he “was simply sitting,” all of which was recorded on officers’ dashboard cameras.

If true, this is absolutely horrible, an outrage.  A family seeking the aid of police to help protect their diabetic loved one, only to have him executed at the hand of “Law” Jones.  But the  Salt Lake Tribune tells a different story:




Salt Lake City police Officer Louis “Law” Abner Jones shot Tucker on the highway after Tucker led authorities on a low-speed chase, rammed a police vehicle and threatened another swipe at officers with his car, according to police reports and a review by the Salt Lake County District Attorney’s Office. The office ruled the shooting justified.


Tucker was suspected in two hit-and-run crashes the day he was shot, the reports state. Jones spotted him near 2600 West and 1500 South in Salt Lake City and pursued him onto State Road 202, before following Tucker onto I-80, where the Utah Highway Patrol took up the chase, the reports state.



UHP unsuccessfully tried to stop the vehicle. Both police agencies then followed Tucker west on I-80. UHP Trooper Lawrence Hopper used a PIT maneuver to bring Tucker’s Chevrolet pickup to a stop, the reports state, though the vehicle swerved across the highway.



Tucker then rammed the truck into the trooper’s car, reversed and turned the wheels toward the officer, the report states. Jones then shot three times into the truck, hitting Tucker in the neck and torso. Tucker died at the scene.



The District Attorney’s Office ruled Jones was justified because his actions were “necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person.”


At almost every turn, and with some allegations thrown in such as “two hit-and-run crashes,” the story is very different.  While much about the “official” story emits the typical odor of the police spinning their story to simultaneously justify, and absolve themselves of, the killing of Joey Tucker, it remains a bit difficult to understand why a police officer, having already immobilized his vehicle, would then execute a person who was doing nothing.  Yes, it could happen.  No, it doesn’t happen often.

There is supposedly a police dashcam video which, according to the complaint filed by Joey Tucker’s family, supports their cause.


“The dash cam videos reveal that Joey did not take any action, make any threats, or do anything to cause any immediate or [im]minent threat of harm to any of the officers. Joey was simply sitting in his vehicle.”

If true, this should prove damning to the police version of events.  But no video has been released, and it seems quite inexplicable why the police, knowing that there is a video, would allege as they do, and determine that it was a righteous shoot, if their own video proves the opposite.  Given that the family hasn’t disclosed the video, preferring instead to say what it shows rather than let the video speak for itself, the natural assumption is that it’s not nearly as helpful as suggested.

This means that the problem going forward is that this becomes a he said/she said case.  There will be a bevy of police officers swearing in unison that they were only trying to help, and then prevent themselves from being killed by this guy who was about to run them down.  It’s not that they wanted to shoot, but a question of who makes it home for dinner that night.

Like it or not, and many of us don’t, the argument that a cop acted to protect his own life or the life of another police officer from harm is a winner.  Even the most cynical among us will cut a cop a break if we believe that he believed harm was imminent.  This means that sometimes they get away with murder.

The takeaway here isn’t a new story, but one that bears remembering.  All interactions with police have the potential to go bad.  It may say “to protect and serve” on the side of their patrol car, but that’s just marketing.  To make it home for dinner is the prime directive.  It’s awfully easy to call 911 when you need a friendly, helping hand in an unfortunate situation, one where a loved one could potentially do harm to himself unwittingly.  And yet, the potential remains.

It’s unclear what happened to Joey Tucker.  It’s unlikely that anyone will ever know what really happened on the road, whether he rammed the cops or they rammed him.  Whether he was just sitting there in a diabetic stupor or was about to run down a police officer who was there to help him and preferred not to die in the process.  The only thing that is clear is that Joey Tucker didn’t make it home for dinner.

H/T Turley

2 thoughts on “Shot For Nothing (or Something)

  1. Sojourner

    Indeed, someone who has ‘possibly taken a sleeping pill’ is a dire threat to the public and must be neutralized immediately. This is why, after being led on a slow speed chase (the officers didn’t use their lights so as not to attract undue attention or alarm the public) they judiciously executed a PIT maneuver, passing then turning quickly in front of the subject, forcing the ‘suspect’ to swerve dangerously across the highway and onto the side of the road. In their alarm at the miserable FAIL of the PIT maneuver, the officers were understandably spooked. Thankfully, there were no casualties except the ‘suspect,’ but the public can get downright testy when you turn the interstate into a playground.

    After this the suspect malevolently dented the officer’s patrol car. We all know that when the police swarm around your car, then turn into you and brake in front of you, it’s easy to avoid hitting them. Obviously you’ve done something dastardly to be in the situation that led to them ‘chasing’ you so you must be an expert at stuntman driving.

    Now, civilian observers may say that the ‘suspect’ was struggling to gain control of his vehicle after several police cars swerved into him and braked in front of him on the Interstate, where he was travelling at a scofflaw speed of 54 miles an hour.

    But police officers have special senses, and they wisely interpreted his spinning wheels to mean he intended to attack them with his vehicle!!

    Thus the officer had not choice but to shoot three times into the driver’s side of the car, killing the suspect.

    A police officer who prefers to remain off the record told this reporter, “even if he was just getting control of his vehicle, there was a chance he might not be able to do it. He could have dented our squad car, and the captain hates that. By shooting him, we knew there it was highly unlikely he could keep pressing down on the accelerator.”

    The civilian public, unfortunately, is angry that the police have created a situation where the public may lose money via a lawsuit. To counteract any bad will the policeman’s union has voted unanimously to use their own monies to fund a public awareness campaign. (Actually, they are using $100,000 which belonged to an 83-year old infirm widow who, astonishingly, was dealing drugs from her wheelchair in the nursing home. Because she could be using her nest egg to purchase drugs the funds were forfeit. The captain used his discretion, and gave the funds to the union.)

    The top five all-time highest scorers on the police entrance exams were charged with the task of coming up with a publicity campaign to avoid lawsuits that result from police actions.

    They wisely decided that when people expect cops to be helpful, it’s bad for the department’s reputation. “Back in the dark ages before September 11, we had to be all “officer Shmoe is your best friend,” stated an officer wearing a T shirt that read “I’m a cop, I’ll save you not kiss your ass.”

  2. Sojourner

    Continued from previous comment:

    “You know, we had to be all friendly, friendly lik we actually care that your kitty is up a tree, even if that’s a job for the fire department. But after September 11th, we started realizing that we could get away with murder and we like it that way. Our biggest problem is these idiots who still call expecting us to help. Then they’re all weepy weepy cause we killed their family member.”
    “How do you like my T-shirt,” said the officer, who preferred to remain unnamed. “Check out the back,” he said, turning around to reveal the slogan “I see guilty people.”

    “The way we see it, the government’s going to keep letting us get away with murder, as long as we dont f–k up too much with someone we can’t smear too good afterwards. So we came up with this campaign.”

    The campaign, while bound to be controversial, has been praised by some community leaders for its honesty.

    Phase 1, 2 and 3 of the campaign will include billboards and bumper stickers reading:
    If you lov’em DON’T call the cops
    and
    Cops: We shoot when a pin drops
    and
    Looking at us funny could be fatal

    Like the above publicity campaign, testimony in a current trial down here in Galveston for official oppression reveals an endearing straightforwardness.

    A man was taken from his house, handcuffed and hobbled in the middle of the night, and brought that way to the county jail. Unfortunately, there’s a video camera in the garage. The officers pulled the man out of the car. Angry that he was moving to slowly (apparently most hobbled prisoners are much quicker) they leaned him against the car with his hands cuffed behind his back, and an officer starting punching him in the face.

    Unfortunately, a young idealistic rookie who didn’t understand how things work down here in Texas had been horrified at his partner’s behavior for months, but this was the first time it occurred in a sitution where it could be clearly recorded.

    Now, we all know that not only do officers have the right to shoot anyone they think might prevent them from getting home safe, they also accumulate a lot of anger and stress. So we should understand when they work off their bad feelings about being ridiculous cowards who would only hit someone handcuffed and hobbled by whaling on the same.

    The problem in this situation was the prisoner was not recorded doing anything in any way hostile to the officer. So the officer’s (we refuse to use the word defendant for someone who risks their life for the public (until they see a scary shadow)) defense was that the suspect spit at him in the squad car.

    The Lieutenant who trains officers in the use of force was asked if spitting could be seen as a reason to ‘bring someone down.’

    He responded yes, that he trained suspects should be ‘taken down’ if they spit. ‘Spitting is a serious assault,’ he said. This is all on record in the Galveston Daily News.

    “If they call you a poopoo head bring’em down too.

Comments are closed.