MPD press release about fatal officer-involved motorcycle wreck contradicts itself

Categories: Police
mpd.jpg
A Minneapolis Police Department press release addressing the circumstances of Ivan Romero's death contradicts itself in two adjacent paragraphs.

SEE ALSO: MPD Chief Harteau says Betsy Hodges is putting words in her mouth about cop cameras

Romero, 24, died in the intersection of West 26th Street and Blaisdell Avenue on May 10 when his motorcycle collided with a police SUV that was on the way to the Terrence Franklin standoff. Yesterday, MPD Chief Janeé Harteau announced no officers will be disciplined as a result of a state investigation into the fatal crash, which was determined to have happened as Romero skidded through the intersection out of control.

One paragraph in the MPD's press release suggests Romero had a driver's license but no motorcycle license:
The investigator reviewed the driver's license of Mr. Romero-Oliveras and determined that Mr. Romero-Oliveras did not have a motorcycle endorsement or permit which suggests that he may have been an inexperienced motorcyclist.
While the very next one states he didn't have a driver's license at all:
The MPD investigation determined that Mr. Romero-Oliveras did not have a valid driver's license of any kind.
It might not be anything more than unclear writing, but still, we figure it's worth pointing out.

A voicemail left with MPD spokeswoman Cyndi Barrington seeking clarification wasn't immediately returned.

To read the entire press release, click to page two.

My Voice Nation Help
14 comments
sosmpls
sosmpls

A clear case of blame the victim.  There was no reason for this cop to be racing to the scene of a crime where the perp was dead, and the wounded officers were already on their way to the hospital.

He should have obeyed the traffic laws.

Christine Brown
Christine Brown

this probably means they did a dmv check and it showed no motorcycle license. he probably had an expired or suspended drivers license.

Erik Seavey
Erik Seavey

CP has a beef with MPD. So drop your expectations of good reporting if the police are involved in a story.

Sue Fransen Way
Sue Fransen Way

This is more likely a case of unclear writing, as evidenced by the reference to "maximum breaking" which I'm sure was meant to be "maximum braking".

Sue Fransen Way
Sue Fransen Way

"The officer reviewed the license of" does not need to mean the officer ever saw the physical license. More likely it means the officer reviewed the online license information of...

Eden Cass
Eden Cass

It says the investigator reviewed his driver's license the says he didn't have a driver's license. If there is no license the investigator would have had nothing to review in the first place. Pretty clear contradiction to me. To use the apple analogy. It's like saying he had a rotten apple and them in the next paragraph saying he never had an apple to begin with.

greenthinks
greenthinks

A typo or .......a freudian slip.   As in   "eluded to"    instead of "alluded to"   . Just cop talk. Not everything can be a conspiracy. Getting hit from behind pretty much exonerates the cop any way.

Tom Henderson
Tom Henderson

I agree with Joe Duggan. That is not a contradiction. It is saying: He has no motorcycle endorsement or permit. In addition, he has no driver's license. What is the contradiction?

Joe Duggan
Joe Duggan

is that a contradiction? 'He doesn't have a motorcycle license. He doesn't have a license at all.' like, ' I don't have an apple. I don't have fruit at all.' Doesn't sound like one.

M__H
M__H

@Joe Duggan" The investigator reviewed the driver's license of Mr. Romero-Oliveras"

Usually when people review things there are things they are reviewing.

barbertj23
barbertj23

@M__H 

"Reviewed the driver's license of" I have a feeling is legal speak for "looked into the state and legality of their driver's license and associated documents"

Now Trending

Minnesota Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...