This article deals with the case of a stolen mini-bike that ended in the fatal shooting of 14 year old DeOnte’ Rawlings. The story does not end there however as there is question on the circumstances surrounding the killing of the youth by two off duty officers attempting to retrieve the vehicle. There is a level of transparency being called into question regarding this case such as how there could be an allegation of shots exchanged yet the victim had no weapon, the disappearance and then sudden reappearance of the bike, and other matters implying tampering of evidence. Among these ambiguities is a failure to initially interview witnesses at the scene. The implication of this seems to be not just a cover up but also the possibility of another rider of the min-bike and another shooter accounting for lack of ties between what happened with DeOnte’. The key evidence in all this is the same that started the incident and that is the mini-bike.
Because of the secretive nature in which this internal investigation has been conducted the only thing that can be most critically assessed in this crime in relation to our readings is the nature of auto theft and youthful offenders. Based on Fleming’s work we know that auto theft is motivated by one or a combination of three things generally: profit, transportation, and/or recreation. By the nature of the offender’s age in this case and the specific vehicle which had been stolen it is a fair deduction to presume that the higher likelihood of the mini-bike theft was the result of recreational or transportation motive. This may have been a case of thrill seeking gone terribly awry. However the involvement of an unknown shooter in this case still leaves questions to be answered in this case and complicate procession beyond the speculative phase of this analysis.
On the part of the two off duty police there is more scrutiny which need be applied to their handling of this case which has in effect resulted in the necessity for further internal investigation of this case. There are clear policy constraints as revealed by Fleming that restrict the police in what they can and cannot do in the case of auto theft. There seems to be something suspicious to the entirety of how this pursuit was carried out and too many gaps within the story to leave a comfortable feeling that proper policing has occurred in the unfurling of this case.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/18/AR2009041801737.html?sid=ST2009041801738