Parents report their son driving without diabetes meds. Cops chase and kill him.

[Courtesy Flush]

http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/21/35070.htm

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.

[JI7]

1. seems like Murder if that is what happened

[brewens]

2. Did they cut his ears off and make a necklace too? Might as well. n/t

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ecstatic]

4. Awful. They trusted the police and got screwed nt

[Dawson Leery]

5. If possible, do not involve the cops.

[JVS]

6. Oink oink.

[KamaAina]

7. Louis "Law" Jones?!

How ironic. :grr:

[Angry Dragon]

8. stupid.. .stupid....... stupid

[IDemo]

9. He shouldn't have been in danger if he missed an insulin shot

Other than having a high blood glucose level and possibly being thirsty and a bit nauseous. If he had taken too high a dose or missed a meal, then he could have become hypoglycemic and become confused or possibly passed out. I'm not sure what the effects would have been if he was Type 2 and missed his oral meds.

[leeroysphitz]

10. ???

It says the police were "trailing" Tucker and then describes the officers use of the PIT maneuver but it never mentioned any earlier attempts to pull him over. I assume they wouldn't simply drive up unannounced and start ramming somebody from behind. I must assume that lights and sirens would have to be on for a while before any ramming (PIT maneuver) occurs.

So what gives? Did Tucker try to evade the police? If so why would he do that? Was it warrants or something? Did the author check? He made no mention.

Is the link to a press release or a news article?

[blondeatlast]

31. If he had low bg (I'm a lifetime insulin-dependent, fwiw--and I think it's worth

a lot), he could very well have been driving VERY erratically, possibly seizing, and possibly unable to respond to any warnings.

If he had high bg, it could have severely impaired his reaction time and mimicked drunken-driving. Insulin dependents are warned NEVER to drive without checking bg first, and never to drive with a bg <100. A bg >300 can also make one "slow" on the uptake.

Any number of things could have happened here--far too little information for me to judge any of it.

[IDemo]

44. Not sure I agree entirely

Type 1 for nearly 50 years here. I'm perfectly functional below 100 and prefer to be in the 80 to 90 region. Most people probably couldn't tell I was in trouble if I was at a 40, but much below that it goes downhill quickly (I'm very rarely at that level anymore). I think the days of a 70 or lower being the point of alarm for a low BG has gone away somewhat with long-acting insulins like Lantus and with the slow drip delivery of insulin pumps, especially for one who tests frequently (8 times or more daily for me).

On the other end of the spectrum, I don't experience confusion or slow reaction times at a high level, but again, I don't go there often. A generally sick feeling and dehydration is about all I feel. If one is at a 600 or higher level for many hours, they are in danger of going comatose, but they should have plenty of time before then to adjust their BG with an additional injection.

[blondeatlast]

52. What you are saying is true, but as you well know, we all are bit different.

It's mentioned downthread that he got really nasty when bG was high--so do I; it's the first indication for me. Anyway, there's so much here we don't know--this is from the plaintiff's attorneys (I'm a paralegal and have written plenty of press releases like it as well as complaints).

What I do know is that as manageable as IDD is--it's still a gawddamned drag (I test 6-8 x a day and am a happy pumper--I remember at the age of 7 having to take my little beige plastic Clinitest tubes to school and peeing in a cup!)

:hi:

[jberryhill]

47. He had taken his mom's prescription sleeping pills

...and had multiple DUI's.

[no limit]

91. In there article there is the court document submitted by the lawyers of the family

according to the lawyers the officers never tried to pull him over. They simply rammed him and as the vehicle was against a barrier shot and killed him. This is the lawyer's side of the story but I don't see why they would lie since everything is on video.

[ReggieVeggie]

11. the world is going straight to shit

and it deserves it

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[in_cog_ni_to]

13. OMG.

I'm speechless. :cry:

[EstimatedProphet]

14. I had to do a little research on this

It's jaw-dropping, isn't it? And apparently it's true. It's confirmed here: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/51446200-76/tucker-police-lake-salt.html.csp

[SDuderstadt]

16. Here's an interesting...

part of the article:

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 article also states that Tucker was suspected in two previous hit-and-runs that day. I am not saying the outcome is justified, nor am I taking the side of the police. But, I think that it's shameful that DU's "shoot-first, ask-questions-later" (no pun intended) brigade is so quick to condemn without first asking questions and looking for more information.

[EstimatedProphet]

18. Except for one thing:

The very next paragraph describes how the dash-cam in the police car shows an entirely different chain of events.

The video of Jones pursuing Tucker shows that Jones did not turn on his lights, use sirens or other methods to let a distraught Tucker know he was trying to stop him, the family’s lawsuit states. The dash cam video also shows that Tucker wasn’t speeding, stopped at stop signs and used turn signals, their complaint states.

Tucker didn’t attack the authorities with his vehicle, the lawsuit alleges. And after Jones fired on Tucker, when UHP had joined the pursuit, the dash cam captures Hopper’s reaction to the three shots Jones fired, according to the complaint.

"Oh, no! Oh, sh--!" Hopper shouted, according to the lawsuit.

[SDuderstadt]

19. Where does that say that....

the webcam shows that Tucker did not ram his car into the trooper's car nor aim the car at the trooper???

You're taking the word of the plaintiffs uncritically.

[joeunderdog]

24. You're doing the same to the cops.

What do you expect the Defendant (cops) to say?

The video won't lie.

[SDuderstadt]

26. Which is why I counseled getting more facts...

Duh.

I specifically said that I was not taking the cops side. Your outrage is really unwarranted.

[EstimatedProphet]

60. But you are taking the cop's side.

You're specifically saying that the plaintiffs need to be examined critically - when they are the ones apparently with the evidence to back things up, as far as the article goes - yet at the same time you simply copied what the article stated was the police explanation, and used it as argument that the driver was at fault.

The relevant conclusive evidence rests on the videotape. I haven't seen it. I assume you haven't either. Both sides need skepticism.

[SDuderstadt]

66. No, I'm not....

I have said repeatedly that I am not taking the cops' side. Why you have trouble understanding that is apparently known only to you.

I keep saying we should get all the facts before we draw conclusions. The fact that a number of you think there is something wrong with that that doesn't speak highly to your critical thinking skills.

[BobbyBoring]

27. Read the article at the link on 20

That's where it says that.

[SDuderstadt]

29. No...

read more carefully.

That's what the family SAYS the webcam shows. Duh.

[EOTE]

32. Webcam? I'm kind of doubting the prosecution is going to be showing any webcam video.

And I have zero reason to doubt that family as it will be quite clear they're telling the truth when the video is released. The COPS have every reason to lie about it because they don't want the video shown in the first place.

[SDuderstadt]

33. More conjecture on your part....n/t

[EOTE]

37. About the webcam?

Actually, that's not conjecture at all. You do know that police officers don't use webcams other than recreationally, right?

[SDuderstadt]

39. WTF are you babbling about...

now?

Have you seen the film from the webcam? Neither have I. Why don;t we wait until we've seen it before you leap to conclusions???

[EOTE]

40. Wow, you are hilarious.

Once again, I'll have to inform you that police officers don't use webcams. It's called a dash cam. I'd have really expected you to know something like this, being so informed regarding police and all.

[SDuderstadt]

41. Dude...

I got the name wrong. Duh.

[EOTE]

42. At least three times. Duh. NT

[SDuderstadt]

46. I plead guilty to one count of...

using the wrong term, dude.

The point is you've not seen it so you have no fucking idea what it shows. Duh.

[EOTE]

48. Yeah, whatever.

You used it twice in this very thread, after I corrected you. You also used it in the previous thread that was deleted. Regardless, I don't need to have seen the dash cam video to know that there's an extremely minute possibility this cop is telling the truth. Families don't go about wasting thousands of dollars on lawsuits when their claims can be so easily disproven by looking at a simple video. Families don't like wasting thousands of dollars. And cops don't like going to jail for their murders.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hfojvt]

56. you never made a correction

you just made a sarcastic remark. "Webcam? I doubt the family is gonna show any webcam."

At that point you had made no correction to the term.

[SDuderstadt]

76. How do you know the lawyers...

didn't take the case on a contingency basis?


Duh.

[johnroshan]

78. That was unwarranted. /nt

[demwing]

84. So freaking what? There's video, thats the point

all you are arguing is semantics. Fail.

[EstimatedProphet]

57. I see. The plaintiffs should be looked upon skeptically. The police are automatically correct

[SDuderstadt]

67. I'm saying the whole situation should be looked at....

critically.

Nothing more, nothing less, dude. I'll thank you to quit misrepresenting my words.

[seabeyond]

21. listening to all different points but this is per the lawsuit. until we see video....

then why would we believe the lawsuit of saying what happened any more than the police.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

87. Didn't know that ramming a patrol car was a death penalty offense

Nor was I aware of a death penalty for leaving the scene of an accident.

[SDuderstadt]

90. Nice oversimplification n/t

[hfojvt]

55. did you get any other details?

like this?

"Just after 11:30 a.m., Tucker was involved in the first of two hit-and-run accidents. Near 2200 W. California Ave, Tucker hit another vehicle with his car. Police did not have any further information to release Friday about that accident. Perry Tucker, who was at the scene, said his son hit the rear fender of another vehicle.

About 10 minutes, later, Tucker was involved in another hit and run accident near 4100 South and 2100 West. Again, no other details about the accident were available Friday.

Perry Tucker said the alleged chase with police did not exceed 25 to 30 mph.

At one point, Joey went to his girlfriend's work near 1500 South and 2450 West. There, fire trucks boxed him in against a guard shack, his father claimed. But they moved out of the way when he threatened to ram them with his truck, Perry said."

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705322062/Did-blood-sugar-lead-to-tragedy.html?pg=2

It's not like he was just driving down the road and they rammed him.

[EstimatedProphet]

62. I sure did

Did YOU notice that your article is a year and a half old, and the plaintiffs filed their case less than a week ago? The man's family is coming forward with this NOW, not in 2009 when the case was last discussed and (I am guessing) closed. Possibly it is because they are just now in possession of evidence making it possible - such as a dashboard video from the police car, as the article I posted suggests.

Maybe it is just like he was driving his car down the road, and they rammed him for no reason. But we'd never know that from your article, seeing as how it's so far out of date and everything.

[hfojvt]

63. my article is right after the incident

Does more time allow more facts to come out, or more time for stories to be written.

We get to hear what the family is saying. A family that is filing a lawsuit. But we don't get to see the video.

Meaning that newer articles are only giving the statements of one side.

[EstimatedProphet]

64. Time allows for both

The older article only gave one side too, don't forget.

Without seeing the video, it is too early to reflexively excuse the police and make comments about how we all just hate police because we're all a bunch of potheads.

[SDuderstadt]

70. "Without seeing the video, it is too early to reflexively excuse the police"

Unintentional irony. As I have said repeatedly, without seeing the video, we have no way of knowing which side is right.

Duh.

[jberryhill]

75. The older article interviewed the parents and the police

The present article is simply based on the civil complaint filed by the parents.

[JonLP24]

69. Interesting how different articles come up with different things

This one right here just basically says he is guilty of those hit-and-runs while others suggest he was suspected -- with no clear indication that he is guilty of them.

[frebrd]

15. And they wonder why people hate cops. eom

[DeSwiss]

17. Fuck. - K&R n/t

[killbotfactory]

20. I don't see how this was avoidable...

Apparently, their biggest mistake in this tragic episode was calling the police.

[seabeyond]

22. unless as state... as i read, there were two other earlier hit and runs. that could kill

an innocent.

[SDuderstadt]

23. Very misleading subject line....n/t

[cbdo2007]

25. Hmmmm.....seems like you're leaving out some important info here.

Nice spin job though!

[WatsonT]

28. What do you mean?

[Occulus]

30. Like what? I read the article.

Apparently, the deceased did literally nothing wrong- he didn't even commit a moving violation. It could be said that he in fact did everything right, even to leaving his hands on the wheel and visible once he was stopped.

You can't defend the police in this case. The shooter doesn't even have one atom to stand on.

[SDuderstadt]

36. That is what the family is saying....

do you have any independent corroboration of that?

Hint: no.

[jberryhill]

45. He hit two cars and had phoned to tell his parents he took pills

...then he tried to hit a fire truck. By the time the state police were trying to stop him (once unsuccessfully), they also knew full well he had multiple DUI's.

What article did YOU read?

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705322062/Did-blood-sugar-lead-to-tragedy.html

[EstimatedProphet]

65. That's what the paper said in 2009

That's not what the other paper says today.

[jberryhill]

74. The other paper today is taken from a civil complaint

So, no, there won't be any messy details in it.

[IDemo]

34. I think the story contains an error by the reporter or police

As I stated in post #13, missing an insulin shot would not be a major cause for concern, at least not enough to cause erratic driving. The family should have known that, but perhaps didn't if he was a newly diagnosed diabetic. If he actually was driving erratically, it is likely that he had too high of a dose, missed a meal, or had exercised more than usual and his blood glucose level had dropped to a dangerous point - say 40 mgdl or lower.

The story just doesn't add up as reported. It sounds as if either the police report was incorrect (re the 'missed' diabetes meds) or the reporter didn't interpret it correctly. Hopefully the family didn't mistake the impact of a missed shot.

[jberryhill]

38. He phoned his parents to tell them he took sleeping pills

He also had multiple DUI's, two hit-and-runs that day, and had attempted to ram a fire truck when they boxed him in the first time.

[jberryhill]

35. News Report From The Time....

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705322062/Did-blood-sugar-lead-to-tragedy.html

Perry Tucker said when his son's blood-sugar got high, "It usually set him off."

...

Police say that at about 10:45 a.m., they received a call from the family telling them Joey had taken prescription medication in an attempt to commit suicide.

Just after 11:30 a.m., Tucker was involved in the first of two hit-and-run accidents. Near 2200 W. California Ave, Tucker hit another vehicle with his car. Police did not have any further information to release Friday about that accident.

...

About 10 minutes, later, Tucker was involved in another hit and run accident near 4100 South and 2100 West.

...

At one point, Joey went to his girlfriend's work near 1500 South and 2450 West. There, fire trucks boxed him in against a guard shack, his father claimed. But they moved out of the way when he threatened to ram them with his truck, Perry said.

...

After Joey Tucker drove onto I-80, Salt Lake police and the Utah Highway Patrol attempted to stop his truck by twice attempting a pit maneuver. After bumping the truck's rear panel the second time, causing it to spin out, officers got out of their cars to take Tucker into custody. That's when Tucker attempted to hit an officer with his vehicle, according to police, prompting a Salt Lake officer to open fire.

[seabeyond]

49. two hit and runs, attempted suicide, trying to do damage to firemen, running some more

and then supposed harm to cops

i am hardly seeing the op in this story

[jberryhill]

51. That is because the OP is a flack piece inspired by the plaintiff's attorney

Reading a civil complaint is hardly the best place to get the facts about anything. If I believed what people wrote in them, then I'd be certain that Obama was born in Kenya.

As noted in the article from the time there were three attempts to stop him that day. He had multiple DUI's, had had a fight with his girlfriend, fled two collisions, and attempted to ram a fire truck the first time they boxed him in. The dashcam video isn't going to show any of those things, which are part of the overall factual circumstances.

He didn't stop after they attempted to PIT him the first time, either.

That is not a "defense" of anything. It is simply noting that there are other facts which are not in the civil complaint, and that there is no reason to judge the situation at this time. To someone who has made a judgment, I'm sure it sounds like a "defense", when it is simply a statement that you do not have all of the facts, and your conclusion about whether the use of force was appropriate is not based on the facts that will be developed when a response is filed to the civil complaint.

Of course, nobody will hear anything if the state settles the suit and pays out.

Now, this incident was back in 2009. The reason you are hearing about it now is that they are probably up against the statute of limitations for this action. So, it has been filed at this time, and the plaintiff's attorney brought it to the attention of the press for the purpose of putting some settlement pressure on the state.

Like it or not, that is all part of the dynamics of civil actions, and uncritically accepting the allegations in them is a sure route to all sorts of knee-jerk conclusions. As with the Obama birthers who get excited every time one of their cases is filed (80 so far), if the allegations of the complaint suit their prejudices, then they believe it.

[WildEyedLiberal]

54. Best post in the thread. Thank you.

It's undeniably a tragedy what happened to the man who was shot to death. I find it unpersuasive that lethal force was necessary to subdue him, but I don't know all the facts, and the truth is that none of us do. It's just another excuse for DU to collectively kneejerk about OMG EVIL COPS. The cops in this situation may very well be evil cops who unjustifiably gunned down a man, but I will wait for the rest of the story to come out before I jump to those conclusions. It saves wiping the egg off my face later.

[Nevernose]

68. I once had a serious, yet totally farsical, lawsuit filed against me

They filed one year and 364 days after the accident in question. And the sheninagans the lawyers got into should have resulted in people being seriously disiplined.

My lawyer, hired by the insurance company, filed a federal court suit arguing that he didn't have to represent me, naming me, my boss, and the insurance company as respondants. So who calls up my boss and agrees to represent us (me, boss, and insurance co.) pro bono? The exact same asshole who's in state court suing me (spectacularly unsuccessfuly, I might add) for wrongful death.

And I was the only one who saw a conflict of interest...

People like that are why I'm highly suspicious of anything involving lawyers, and one of the reasons I didn't go to law school.

[spooked911]

80. yeah, but let's agree that there are plenty of recent cases where the cops were out of control

and acted over-aggressively. None of us know exactly what happened here but it's not too much of a stretch to think the cops over-reacted.

[jberryhill]

85. Don't know either way

Yes, there are plenty of incidents where cops over react.

Yes, there are plenty of incidents where fleeing suspects endanger cops.

Unless someone here is psychic, we don't know what happened here.

[Rabblevox]

43. Here in Portland, OR the police have a long and shameful history of killing unarmed suspects...

So much so that last year a coalition of religious leaders urged their parishioners NOT to call the police if they had a friend or family member in crisis.

These aren't anarchists, hippies, or rebels. These are middle-aged, socially conservative, preachers, pastors and priests. And they are publicly telling their people that the police are NOT your friends, and are likely to cause what you hoped to prevent.

I may not understand their religion. I may not like their taste in clothes and cars. But I applaud their courage and conviction in telling the police to their face that they have become the monsters they were hired to protect us from.


http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2010/11/portlands_albina_ministerial_alliance_demands_accountability_and_reform_for_police_use_of_deadly_for.html

[Rex]

53. Whatever happen to road spikes or shooting the tires out?

Just hollywood stuff? They could think of no better way to end the day then 3 bullets to the body? Typical cops, spend all day without a solution then finally kill the suspect. Stupid.

[hayu_lol]

59. I do think that some of you...

need to get together and form your own city which you can run without police...or maybe even without laws.

Impossible to live in a modern city without police and fire departments.

Barryhill, thanks for trying to get that message through to our very own local outlaws.

As to the knock on southern police departments, the huge large city police departments would be more subject to having 'bad' cops. Exceptions of course.

My hunch is that the more life on the streets degrades, the more(not less)police we are going to need. Police are neither better nor worse than any other profession/occupation.

[Rex]

77. Right, exactly and like all professions you get stupid people that

are not qualified for the jobs they are in. Such is the case we see in the OP. They had all day to figure out a solution, but no - much easier to shoot him and not the tires...

:eyes:

[JoeyT]

79. And some of the people here could form their own city.

With buildings full of nothing but long aisles of freshly polished boots to lick.

Yes, police *are* worse. They have more authority. What other profession gets to shoot people and demand the benefit of the doubt? Especially if other members of that profession were routinely in the news for shooting people unnecessarily.

[southerncrone]

61. Holy shit.

Don't know what else to say about this.
Horribly wrong in America. :cry:

[Liberal_in_LA]

71. wow!

[Liberal_in_LA]

72. looks like cops might have lied on the report...more from another site

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."

Tucker’s family, however, alleges the situation should have been handled differently and that a dash cam video in Jones’ vehicle shows that the incident unfolded differently from how police described.

The video of Jones pursuing Tucker shows that Jones did not turn on his lights, use sirens or other methods to let a distraught Tucker know he was trying to stop him, the family’s lawsuit states. The dash cam video also shows that Tucker wasn’t speeding, stopped at stop signs and used turn signals, their complaint states.

Tucker didn’t attack the authorities with his vehicle, the lawsuit alleges. And after Jones fired on Tucker, when UHP had joined the pursuit, the dash cam captures Hopper’s reaction to the three shots Jones fired, according to the complaint.

"Oh, no! Oh, sh--!" Hopper shouted, according to the lawsuit.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/51446200-76/tucker-police-lake-salt.html.csp#

[Little Star]

73. Well the parents won't have to worry themselves about...

him driving un-medicated again. Dumb shits!

[lame54]

81. Maybe they were insulin laced bullets...

jackasses

[DirkGently]

82. Horrible if true. Does sound like the story comes from the family's lawsuit, however.

The family seeks punitive damages for wrongful death, loss of consortium and civil rights violations, and medical and funeral expenses. They are represented by George Waddoups with Robert J. Debry & Associates

And there's at least one rather large missing part of the story, which is, "How did the situation go from troopers following the young man's car from his fiancee's house to using a PIT maneuver to ram his car off the road?"

Would they not have tried to simply pull him over?

Could be as awful as it sounds. Could be there are important details missing. Lawsuits by design leave out anything helpful to the other side.

[closeupready]

83. Does this story argue in favor of taking guns away from law enforcement officers?

nt

[demwing]

86. no

[closeupready]

88. I disagree.

[demwing]

93. Fair enough. But as a matter of form, you might consider

making your case first, rather than asking people to blindly jump in. It might come off like you're looking for someone to disagree with you.

[Taitertots]

89. Impaired driver, suspected multiple hit and runs, known DUI offender, suicidal.....

Threatening violence against firemen, running from the police and using his vehicle as a weapon against them. Sounds like shooting him was the appropriate course of action.

[demwing]

94. Surely he deserved to die.

Except that the police video is reported to show that the most heinous of those charges were false (running from the police and using his vehicle as a weapon against them). And of course, the "hit and runs" were only "suspected."

So what! He had previous DUIs, he allegedly threatened a fireman, and was possibly suicidal.

Surely he deserved to die.

[Taitertots]

95. Given the situation, the officers actions were justified

He was pointing a deadly weapon at police officers are refusing to comply, shooting him was justified.

It was only a matter of time before this asshole killed or hurt someone. But I guess you think the police should treat him with kid gloves, despite pointing a deadly weapon at them, threatening firemen, hitting multiple cars, and a history of dangerous anti-social behavior (drunk driving).

Parents are just trying to bank off their failures as parents to raise their child right.

Edit: That is the same video the police department and the DA watched and found no reason to charge the officers. Of course the family won't actually let anyone see this video which allegedly makes their case.

[proReality]

92. My God, cops just get crazier and crazier. n/t