Video Shows the Car Crash that Led to Fatal Police Shooting of Deaf Man

Full title at link: Video shows the car crash that led to fatal police shooting of deaf man who refused to drop a metal pipe because he couldn't hear the cops

As we have already been informed by Oklahoma City Police Department:

Police were investigating a hit-and-run involving Sanchez's father, who drove his pickup truck back to their residence after the crash at around 8.15pm, according to witnesses.

Now, surveillance video shows the hit-and-run.

The article doesn't provide a specific source for the video. It is simply described as a "surveillance" video -- but not from where. I think it's safe to assume that if the video had been provided by police, the article would have stated that. So perhaps it was a nearby business, or private home, or even another vehicle's dash cam.

The accident is difficult to see clearly in the video, but you can see the red pickup rolling and then landing upright on its tires. The article describes the accident thusly:

A pickup truck collides with a car. As the car hits the pickup in its side, the truck rolls over completely and then comes to rest in an upright position on its wheels. The car doesn't stop and the pickup drives away, too.

So -- as bolded by me -- the red pickup being driven by the victim's father was struck by another vehicle. It would seem that the father was not responsible for the accident, but the victim in the accident. The at-fault driver did not stop, thus the hit-and-run nature of the accident. The article does not say who called the police to report the accident, nor has the OCPD provided that information. I think it's safe to assume that the hit-and-run driver who caused the accident did not call the police. The article, however, tell us:

A witness who followed the pickup led police to an address where Sanchez's father, who was driving the truck, had parked the vehicle.

I find that very very odd.... a "witness" to the accident follows the vehicle struck, but not the hit-and-run driver/vehicle which caused the accident? Why???

And then that "witness" goes back to the scene of the accident (presumably) to inform police, and the police then follow this "witness" to the victim's home. Why not just get the license plate and report it to the police? And since when do police "follow" some random citizen? Why would they trust that person not to lead them into an ambush? Why not just get the location -- if not the exact address, then at least the street name, block, major cross streets, etc. -- and then the police go check it out? Or, why not run the plates, which would have led them to that address anyway?

Naturally, just like whoever reported the hit-and-run accident to police initially, this "witness" is not identified. Perhaps it is the same person. But that's not public information at this point.

My mind is reeling with questions... and speculation... but that's all it is for now. As has become standard practice, the reporting leaves out too many details to form any informed opinion. But that, in and of itself, fuels even more speculation -- and suspicion.

a reply to: Boadicea

Gotta love life in the land of the free.

a reply to: FHomerK

Or something kinda sorta like that, eh?

a reply to: Boadicea

It's all really pretty, if you just ignore the stench.

a reply to: FHomerK

Sadly, yes. Lipstick comes in all sorts of pretty shades these days....

It seems everything we read is tinged with some shade, in the most obvious ways -- and with no apology or explanation! There was a time when no reporter worth their salt would let unanswered questions go unaddressed.

So, for example in this situation, the article would have specifically addressed the identity of the "witness," and whoever reported the accident, etc., even if only to say, "The witness asked to remain anonymous," or "The police refused to identify the witness," or whatever. But the reporter would have reported trying to identify the witness and the reasons they cannot/do not.

I'm also disappointed that the article does not make clear that the driver of the pick was the victim, and that any police response should have been to help him. Instead the article simply speaks to the police investigating a hit-and-run, with the inference that the father was the at-fault party.

Too often what is not reported is just as disturbing as what is reported.

a reply to: Boadicea

your source is a glorified super market tabloid, not known for for their investigative reporting. just printing sensationalized and exaggerating the stories.

The Daily Mail is a British daily middle-market[2][3] tabloid newspaper owned by the Daily Mail and General Trust[4] and published in London.

It is the United Kingdom's second biggest-selling daily newspaper after The Sun.[5] Its sister paper The Mail on Sunday was launched in 1982 while Scottish and Irish editions of the daily paper were launched in 1947 and 2006 respectively. Jonathan Harmsworth, 4th Viscount Rothermere, a great-grandson of the one of the co-founders, is the current chairman and controlling shareholder of the Daily Mail and General Trust, while day-to-day editorial decisions for the newspaper are usually made by a team around the editor, Paul Dacre.
Daily Mail

everything in the article could have been found out listening to press conferences and releases. your not going to find any in depth reporting from the daily mail.

it's a gossip rag, all you have to do is look at the right hand side of the page and you should be able to tell that.

plus if you look at the bottom under the last video, you will see read more that had links to real newspapers and local news, which no doubt they read and wrote their story from.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

so are you saying that what's in the OP is wrong, or taking a page from the daily mail themselves and leading readers to believe something based on your own opinion?

is the information in the OP wrong or you just want to sway it to be wrong.... you didn't seem to provide anything insightful besides the daily mail is considered tabloid, what counter 'links' do you have to refute what's in the OP, sourced from the daily mail.... anything at all.?

originally posted by: Boadicea
It would seem that the father was not responsible for the accident, but the victim in the accident.

Do we know this for a fact? I t-boned some guys car once but he ran a light. If you only saw a snippet of the accident you would assume I was at fault.

This is why no one involved in an accident is supposed to leave the scene until statements can be taken and a police report begun.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

And not one of those additional sources included the video, not even any mention of the video, which the Daily Mail provided. Nor did those articles provide any of the answers to the questions I proposed here.

So what's your point really? Are you suggesting that the video is fake? If not, why attack Daily Mail itself and not the credibility of the video? Or why not question the fact that Daily Mail doesn't identify the source of the video and how they obtained it? Or why no one else has it? Or if others do have it, why was it not released? Or if the police have seen the video?

So many questions related to the actual facts and circumstances of not just the video, but the events leading up to the shooting.

a reply to: odzeandennz

no what i'm saying if you want in depth reporting, don't go reading a tabloid and then whine because they didn't furnish answers to your questions.

stop trying to put words in peoples mouths and read what was written.

not once did i say anything about the case, all i talked about was his source.

a reply to: Boadicea

my point is don't expect a tabloid to be a great source of information, it's not their bread and butter, it's a gossip rag.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
Me:

It would seem that the father was not responsible for the accident, but the victim in the accident.

Your Reply:

Do we know this for a fact? I t-boned some guys car once but he ran a light. If you only saw a snippet of the accident you would assume I was at fault.

Fair question, and that's why I did qualify it with "it would seem that the father was not responsible." Much like when one driver rear ends another, it is typically assumed that the driver who rear-ended the other vehicle is at fault for failing to control their speed and/or following too close. But it could be that the driver in front cut the other driver off and slammed on their brakes to turn right, in which case the driver in front is at fault.

And this is another something that should have been made clear in the article -- or attempted to be made clear. If they have the video, then presumably the could have and should have gotten more details about the scene of the accident and how it all played out from the source of the video.

And, for that matter, from the witness(es) to the accident.

Is it just shoddy reporting? Or a knowing and deliberate effort to suggest/imply/infer wrongdoing on the part of the father???

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: Boadicea

my point is don't expect a tabloid to be a great source of information, it's not their bread and butter, it's a gossip rag.

At this point, I don't see the distinction being made. If you can find or have found the answers to the questions I proposed elsewhere, I would very much appreciate if you shared.

originally posted by: Boadicea
Is it just shoddy reporting? Or a knowing and deliberate effort to suggest/imply/infer wrongdoing on the part of the father???

Possibly both. The source is a notoriously poor one which tends towards sensationalism as opposed to factual reporting.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The source is a notoriously poor one which tends towards sensationalism as opposed to factual reporting.

You may be giving them too much credit there!

This may say more about me than the Daily Mail, but they often seem to go beyond just sensationalizing to stirring the pot so-to-speak... as in something akin to disinfo. A few well chosen "facts" can say much without really saying anything at all.

a reply to: Boadicea


I tend to agree with your statement.

Wow innocent man shot again by police for no good reason other than they are scared, worthless human beings and people here are arguing about a video?

Wtf

a reply to: Boadicea

Police ordered Sanchez to drop the weapon and get on the ground, Mathews said. Both officers had weapons drawn — Lindsey had a Taser and Barnes a gun. Sanchez came off the porch and was walking toward Barnes. "The witnesses also were yelling that this person, Mr. Sanchez, was deaf and could not hear. The officers didn't know this at the time," Mathews said.

Why is it lately they choose the guns and not the tasers?

Officers were responding to a hit-and-run accident around 8:15 p.m., Capt. Bo Mathews, the police department's public information officer, told reporters Wednesday. A witness of the accident told police a vehicle involved went to a nearby address.

Guess it was right near the accident site.

www.npr.org...

a reply to: SeaWorthy

Why is it lately they choose the guns and not the tasers?

Or, for that matter, not the pepper spray or not the rubber bullets or not some other non-lethal means. One reason I have heard is that not all officers have tasers, nor are all officers trained in the use of tasers. And we often hear that those don't guarantee to stop the suspected "perp." And the disconnect seems to be that they don't realize that's the point!!! Because they suspect or "fear" someone "might" be a threat, doesn't mean they are actually a threat... so these rules of engagement guarantee that innocent folks will die at the hands of an officer playing judge, jury and executioner.

Lethal force should be the absolute last resort. Not the first and only option. Our LEOs should be provided the best of defensive training and equipment so that they don't have to feel that killing someone is their best and/or only option.

I found this article interesting in that regard: Scots Police Teach US Cops How To Avoid Gun Use

Sergeant Jim Young trains hundreds of Scottish police recruits every year.

"The American style of policing, it's very authoritative," he said.

"There's a difference of going in, straight up at this level, whereby you're ordering people, you're shouting at them. You can't go anywhere after that.

"But if you start down low you can adjust your communications to suit."