George Goode Jr. and the Tucson Police Department’s Police Report
I am so angry about this I can barely sit still.
The police report on George Goode Jr.’s fatal accident was released to us today. Reading the brief newspaper story about his accident, it appears that what happened is that Mr. Goode was in the middle (turning) lane on First Ave, waiting for a break in traffic so he could make a left turn, cross traffic, and proceed down a side street. A common situation.
But traffic in the “median” lane–that is, the lane closest to him–stopped to let him pass. Specifically, a large SUV stopped. He accepted the driver’s offer to turn in front of the SUV and proceed across First Avenue.
Tragically, he did not see that a second car was proceeding at about 35 mph down First Avenue in the curbside lane, and the driver of that car did not see him. He was struck by the car and instantly killed.
That’s what the newspaper seems to say, and it is a story that makes a good deal of sense. But it is not what the police report says.
According to the police report, Mr. Goode essentially drove his bike directly into the car. The police report repeatedly says that Goode rode behind, not in front of, the SUV, and at one point it even says “Witnesses said that Goode had crossed 1st Ave and narrowly avoided being struck by the large SUV that was next to the silver Saturn (that struck Goode).”
The report does not name these “witnesses,” but there are only three who were interviewed: the driver of the vehicle that hit Goode, the driver’s passenger, and a woman who saw the whole thing unfold from across the street. Of the many, many paragraphs the police devote to describing the accident from the point of view of the driver and his passenger, they only spend one short paragraph on what this witness (who not only saw the entire thing happen from a neutral vantage point, but is also impartial) has to say.
According to the police report, she too said that Mr. Goode turned behind the SUV and drove into the car that struck him. In other words, an SUV passed him and he then steered his bike straight into oncoming traffic.
So I called this witness to ask her if she would tell me what she saw, and she graciously did so.
And do you know what she said? She said the SUV stopped for Mr. Goode, he proceeded in front of it, and was struck by the car speeding by. She said she saw the entire thing and that it was absolutely horrific to watch, because from her vantage point she knew he was going to be hit and she knew he did not see the car that hit him, because he could not see past the SUV.
Question: why does the police report devote so little time to her statement, even though she was the best witness available? And why do they misreport what she had to say, making it out as if Goode simply drove, suicidally, to his death? Why did they not interview the driver of the SUV? Why are so many pages devoting to telling a story that is not true, a story that makes Mr. Goode out to be someone with a death wish?
The true story–or what I take to be the true story–is a tragic one with no real villains. A driver who thought he was being courteous unwittingly led Mr. Goode to his death. The story told by the police report, on the other hand, is a farce, in which an irrational cyclist mysteriously pedaled his bike straight into oncoming traffic.
Which story do you believe? How do you explain the difference between the police report and the witness?
–Erik Ryberg
October 1st, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Contact the officers named in the police reports; these cops shouldn’t have a problem discussing the report unless they were intentionally dishonest (some good indications that the police are lying are their propensity to use forceful tones of voice, aggressive body gestures, threats of arrest, claim that they are not at liberty to discuss such matters, etc..). The officers’ or the department’s willingness to speak about this matter is probably the best indication of whether the truth is being told, however, the cops are also very careful about getting their story straight. Any delay, or hesitation to comment by TPD is likely the result of officers being briefed on this case, and of course in order for all the officers to tell the same story, they all must be briefed before any one of them can comment.
People may have to go to the homes of the officers that filed this bogus report, and remind them that they live in OUR communities and serve US. It sounds to me like it’s about time to send these lying pigs a wake-up call; the department should also step-up to the plate and FIRE these officers!
Unfortunately the I.P.A. is about as crooked as they come.
Maybe it is just me, but it seems their is no accountability for the untruths and unlawful conduct of the Tucson police department, or any of its flying monkeys… Unless the people of Tucson remind them of who we are
October 2nd, 2008 at 11:40 am
Fortunately, none of my experiences with fellow law enforcement officers’ involvement in cover-ups, misrepresentation of fact (or whatever synonym you prefer to employ), etc. involved loss of life situations. However, the public should know that federal and state LEOs, who–by oaths of office and codes of ethics must act under the ‘color of their uniform’ at all times–are capable of fabricating information within official documents.
Making false or misleading statements by LEOs is egregious enough; however, inferring a deceased person’s potential ‘confused’ psychological state posthumously, violates and breaches all bounds of professional honesty, integrity, and ethical codes.
Most laypersons and courts tend to confer deference to the police–with whom most people ‘believe to be honest’—and assume that the eyewitness account was, in some manner, flawed. That is sometimes the case since we have all heard of the problems with eyewitness testimony. However, in this case, and from the available reports, appearances suggest ineptness in the police report, intentional or otherwise.
I think back to the many times in my 43 years-plus of driving when I have courteously yielded to bicyclists; however, after reading of this tragic death of an innocent person, I will never again yield unless the law clearly requires my actions.
We all should know that ‘life is not fair’. I am increasingly learning that law enforcement and justice are neither ‘fair nor just’ for many who seek jurisprudential fairness and impartiality regarding civil and criminal law.
October 2nd, 2008 at 3:32 pm
And what of the poor kid killed by the school bus? What exactly were the circumstances of that one? News reports stated no citations were issued but there were no explanations as to what happened.
October 2nd, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Lauren just got the police report on that incident today. It’s awfully short — I would have expected more. Not much to learn from it other than that he died instantly, which is somewhat comforting.
It appears that the driver should have been further to the right than he was, and I was disappointed that there was no citation given for that. Had he been where he should have been, Kevin Barajas-Robinson would probably still be alive today.
EBR
October 5th, 2008 at 2:50 am
That’s easy, and it has less to do with “carhead” than you think. You see, the police are basically evil. People become police to impose their will on others, not to “protect and serve”. There may be good cops out there, but they are the exception and not the rule. In this case, the police are imposing their will on the “bike riding hippies” by refusing to serve justice. If it had been a car full of black teens, you can bet your butt that the hammer of the law would have come down on them swiftly and violently.