Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests Don't drink and drive

Quote:

---

Well put sigma. There really isn't any discussion left to have.

---

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:

---

I just wanted to make the 500th post in here.

---

Originally posted by sigma:

---

I wanted to thank you for the chart below, arch, as I couldn't find something similar yesterday, but I'm glad that you did. That was actually developed in conjunction with the CTTC Instructors, and despite what your little site said, Fairfax county did not invent PIT. The military did in their CTTC program for use by MPs and various other personnel as an offensive driving technique. Fairfax was the first civilian police department to use it as the military a lot of cross-training with various PDs in this regards.

Notice on the left-hand side it says "Known Threat Posed by Subject". Now, when the chase started this was definitely a Level 1 which is why we can see the South Carolina police doing little more than follow behind in the appropriate patterns -- it very quickly became a Level 2 when the driver committed attempted vehicular manslaughter on a highway worker.

Now, if you draw a little line over you can see the recommended solutions for that particular flight level -- Boxing In (antiquated technique rarely used anymore because of the hazard posed to the perpetrator, the officers, and the public) and Controlled Contact Techniques (this would mean PIT). You will also notice that, at that Flight Level, Disengaging is a very low option. Disengaging is generally only seriously considered for Level 1 flights. It has been stated by the GSP officers and the South Carolina officers that only after she almost killed that highway worker was the PIT considered.

But that's really beside your main point.

Your point is that the Cop committed manslaughter, correct?

Well, this isn't a cut-and-dry case, and while he did not commit manslaughter (by definition) he may have commited Wrongful Death and the legal system will decide if he did or not if a case is filed. There will likely be a civil suit brought by the family of the passenger. But it's unlikely that they'll win because the maneuver was conducted within the guidelines set up by the GSP.

GSP Policy States that the PIT maneuver must be conducted at "reasonable speeds" and at "locations where it can be performed safely". Now I will be the first to admit that a PIT at anything near 100 is hardly "reasonable" by my definition, even while I do believe it was the only way to stop this vehicle. I have PIT'd cars and been PIT'd at 75 and while it can be done safely, it's not for the faint of heart. But the real key is that according to the GSP, the "trooper performed within his training" and "he followed department policy". So, according to the state laws of Georgia the man did not commit manslaughter. According to the GSP the speed and location were "reasonable" and "safe". No matter how much you may disagree that is the law, and like I said before, when you can vote you can attempt to change that.

The civil suit will reach it's own conclusion, but if the GSP thought there was a good case against one of its' officers it would have dropped him in a hurry, so they obviously don't expect to lose. There are plenty of experts to call that will testify that the PIT maneuver was executed correctly and as a last resort after other ideas were considered too hazardous to attempt. You can disagree with them all you want, but I'm telling you that is exactly what will happen.

It's worth noting that a civil suit will not be brought by the family of the driver because her family agrees with the course of action that the police took. I'm personally rather astonished to hear that in this day and age with the shrugging of personal responsibility. The family of the passenger is far more likely to file the suit against the family of the driver -- because as you said, the driver was first-and-foremost responsible for the safety of the passenger, not the police whose first responsibility, by GSP policy, is to protect those outside of the perpetrator's vehicle. Again, if you disagree with that, take it up with the guys writing the laws and policies not the cop who was just carrying out his training. The case against the driver by the passenger is a guaranteed win, while a case against the GSP is not so much a given.

And now I have no more intentions of posting here again.

---

Originally posted by Red92784:

---

Holy [censored]! This thing got long as hell. I mean I thought it was long last night, but WOW!!!

---

Originally posted by Red92784:

---

WTF is your malfunction. I made my point and realized the futility in trying to sway someone with your staggering stupidity.

I was simply commenting on how effin long this thread got over night.

You know, I was reading some of your other posts and replies in the past and realized you just like to argue. You will flame anyone for anything even if it is a reasonable question or debate.

Find something usefull to say or go to bed and let us adults have a meaningfull conversation!

---