The Crime Scene - To Serve and Inform

Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 2:55 PM ET, 03/ 7/2011

Man shot by police charged with assault

By Matt Zapotosky
Matt Zapotosky

The man in a stolen car who was shot and wounded by a Prince George's County police officer in Clinton Friday has been formally charged with assault, theft and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, authorities said Monday.

Terrance Lloyd Nelson Jr., 19, of Southeast D.C., was discharged from the hospital and jailed Saturday charged with first- and second-degree assault, theft and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, according to police and court records.

He has a preliminary hearing scheduled for Apr. 1, court records show.

By the police account, Nelson was in a stolen vehicle in the area of Brandywine and Woodyard roads, and he backed toward an officer who was approaching on foot. The officer, Andrew Nacin, thought he might be run over, so he fired at Nelson, police said.

Nelson was struck in the arm and sustained a non-life threatening injury, police said. Nacin, who has been on the force 18 months and is assigned to the District V station, has been placed on paid administrative leave while internal affairs detectives probe the incident.

Efforts to reach Nelson's family members Monday were unsuccessful.

By Matt Zapotosky  | March 7, 2011; 2:55 PM ET
Categories:  Matt Zapotosky, Police Shootings, Pr. George's, Updates  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Police ID Germantown collision victim
Next: D.C. officer charged in burglary sting

Comments

It seems like, "I thought he might run me over" is the standard excuse these days for cops firing upon unarmed suspects in cars.

This article clearly doesn't have enough detail to make any remotely educated assesssment of the situation. That said...it doesn't say whether the police knew the vehicle was stolen at the time. So, if they didn't, when did it become ok for the cops to shoot at people for backing up a motor vehicle?

Posted by: JoeMck | March 7, 2011 3:21 PM | Report abuse

JoeMck,
Gee did Terrence steal the car to help his sister deliver her Girl Scout cookies more efficiently? Um no.
A criminal gets shot by a police officer...VERY few non-criminals get shot by police. See how that works?
Don't commit crimes and the chances of being shot drop dramatically.

Posted by: BigDaddy651 | March 7, 2011 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Thanks BigDaddy! Stop blaming the police for doing their job! Yes there are some bad cops out there but this dude stole a car! I am glad that one more thief will be behind bars. If he wasn't out there breaking the law he wouldn't have gotten shot. Maybe he'll starighten his evil ways.

Posted by: wisepat | March 7, 2011 4:46 PM | Report abuse

I love these cats who think the police are to blame in these situations. "Couldn't you have offered the perp some mil & cookies? Is violence always necessary?

Let some of these knuckleheads ride along in a police car for 72 hours & see what the cops have to deal with. It ain't a teddy bear picnic out there.

Another stupid teenage male up to no good.

Posted by: TaxiDriver | March 7, 2011 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Nelson was in a stolen vehicle in the area of Brandywine and Woodyard roads, and he backed toward an officer who was approaching on foot. The officer, Andrew Nacin, thought he might be run over, so he fired at Nelson, police said.
-------------------------
I wonder when he shot the perp in the arm if the car was still in reverse? A better excuse would have been to say that, he saw the reverse light come on and thought that the driver was going to run him over. I mean who is to say that the officer saw the car being put into park and "thought" that the perp was trying to run him over. I'm not condoning that the kid was in a stolen car, but come on now, that could have been one of our family members getting pulled over for a routine traffic stop and this trigger happy officer might blast them away, because he thought they were trying to run him over. Well, he "busted his cherry" by shooting someone, but he would have earned his stripes if he would have killed the perp.

Posted by: PublicEnemy1 | March 8, 2011 9:51 AM | Report abuse

Wish the cops could just shoot him for stealing the car.

Posted by: clancrs | March 8, 2011 10:15 AM | Report abuse

Joe Mck ans public enemy number one - Two boneheads of a feather!

Posted by: PZ007 | March 8, 2011 10:17 AM | Report abuse

PublicEnemy1,

One thing article doesn't state is whether he was pulled over because he was driving a stolen vehicle.
I would assume the officer knew the vehicle was stolen and was reacting to the threat of being struck by the car. At that point, the car is the weapon(same as a gun etc.).
Do you think either not stealing or driving a stolen car would be a great first step toward NOT being shot by law enforcement?
I just find it amazing that people automatically question whether an officer needed to use a certain level of force to eliminate a threat to his life. We weren't there so we don't know what's appropriate.
Somehow I've made it through 46 years of life and managed to never get arrested, had law enforcement draw a weapon on me or had to steal anything. Why can't Terrence make even 20 years without all 3 of those?

Posted by: BigDaddy651 | March 8, 2011 11:22 AM | Report abuse

He's my cousin, y'all. Dag.

Posted by: TaxiDriver | March 8, 2011 12:07 PM | Report abuse

I think its funny that JoeMck talks about not being able to make an "educated assessment" from the article but he's too stupid to realise this is an update to a previous article that he could easily google. And then continues to assume that a police officer would actually shoot a person just for backing up their car.

He is a great example of how clueless a lot of people are as to what police officers actually do at work.

Posted by: blank08 | March 8, 2011 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Some folks who post here automatically take the perp/criminal/suspect's side.

Posted by: TaxiDriver | March 8, 2011 1:14 PM | Report abuse

PublicEnemy1,

"Do you think either not stealing or driving a stolen car would be a great first step toward NOT being shot by law enforcement?"
"Somehow I've made it through 46 years of life and managed to never get arrested, had law enforcement draw a weapon on me or had to steal anything. Why can't Terrence make even 20 years without all 3 of those?"

Still awaiting your response...que crickets chirping sound.

Posted by: BigDaddy651 | March 8, 2011 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Commit a crime, any crime, and getting shot is justified? That's what you guys are saying, right?

Like I said..there isn't enough detail to make an educated assessment...but here you all are condoning another police shooting as justifiable, from a position of ignorance. So My question stands...

"So, if they didn't, when did it become ok for the cops to shoot at people for backing up a motor vehicle?"

The Cop is on leave while Internal Affairs investigates...So the Cops haven't determined it was justified, so what makes you people think you know better?

Posted by: JoeMck | March 9, 2011 11:02 AM | Report abuse

PublicEnemy1,

"Do you think either not stealing or driving a stolen car would be a great first step toward NOT being shot by law enforcement?"
"Somehow I've made it through 46 years of life and managed to never get arrested, had law enforcement draw a weapon on me or had to steal anything. Why can't Terrence make even 20 years without all 3 of those?"

Still awaiting your response...que crickets chirping sound.


Posted by: BigDaddy651 | March 8, 2011 1:16 PM
-----------------------------
Didn't know I had to respond back to "your" opinion BD651.

Posted by: PublicEnemy1 | March 9, 2011 11:49 AM | Report abuse

"Some folks who post here automatically take the perp/criminal/suspect's side.

Posted by: TaxiDriver | March 8, 2011 1:14 PM | Report abuse "

Why is questioning the need to use deadly force automatically equivocated to "taking the perp's side."

Nobody is saying that the guy isn't guilty of the crimes for which he is charged, Except of course for the constitution which says that people are innocent until proven guilty.

What I asking about is the need for the police to resort to putting bullets into people.

Suppose I concede that backing up a car towards an officer on foot is threatening the cops life. Is putting the car in reverse, without actually moving, also life threatening?

Do you guys have any thoughts on the police shooting people other than "he deserved it, because he was a criminal?"

Posted by: JoeMck | March 9, 2011 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company