I just picked up a copy of the golden gate [X]press, dated Thursday Feb. 7, and read the Police Cruiser article. I'm writing now because the line "Motorist fails to yield to police [...]", which follows the headline, made me raise my eyebrows. That summarizing line implies that the motorist is at fault, but the article itself makes such a claim doubtful. We learn in the second paragraph that Sgt. Randy Young says the the motorist's failure to yield caused the accident, but just because he says it doesn't make it true. Young has
reason to attribute fault to the motorist--he wants to shift blame away from the police--but he doesn't have first-person knowledge of the event (he wasn't there). Farther along in the article we do get a first-person account, which attributes fault to the police (from Jesus Taizan, who states "[The officer] accelerated a little bit too fast [...] I believe if he had waited, there wouldn't have been an accident"). Why does the police perspective, which had less validity (because of obvious reasons for bias, and because of hearsay
information) receive greater status in the article than the first-person account?

I work in an office very near the site where the accident took place, and what I heard with my own ears also casts doubt on Sgt. Young's version of the events. What I heard is this: a siren starting, and less than two seconds later, a loud crash. It seems obvious to me that the motorist didn't have time to yield. 19th Ave and Holloway is a very busy intersection, with lots of vehicle and pedestrian traffic.

It takes more than two seconds to pull over to the curb without causing an accident. In my eyes, this incident is a glaring example of police incompetence, gung-ho attitudes, and deception. By behaving in an extremely reckless and dangerous manner, the officer driving that cruiser put dozens of people at risk, and could have killed the motorist. What was it that made him think such dangerous behaviour necessary? A stolen laptop, probable worth less than fifteen hundred bucks.

Obviously, I've got my own opinions about the police, and I don't expect those opinions to be reflected in a hard-news article (or any other opinions, for that matter, knowing as I do that good journalism strives for neutrality). Still, I had to take exception at this article (especially with that summarizing line mentioned above) which paints the motorist as the culprit. I urge you to endeavor, in the future, to draft copy that does not insinuate blame, especially when the facts involved don't corroborate it.

Thank you for your time,
M. Soriano