Don't drink and drive - CEG Archives

Originally posted by SVTcontourSVT:
Thats [censored] up

Thats far beyond [censored] up

Even typing this sucks:

A circle of chalk where they found the head.
Blood on a mail box.

Originally posted by Jeb Hoge:

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
Don't watch the video.

I'll take your word on it, but why?

The video is not that bad. There is no pictures or footage that has anything to do with the accident, they just elaborate more on the story

Originally posted by t - roy:
There is no pictures or footage that has anything to do with the accident

http://yp.yahoo.com/py/ypBrowse.py?ycat=8107050&city=Albany&state=GA&uzip=31701&country=us&msa=0120&cs=4&ed=qe1yJK1o2TwCe0m9xnkXGfpZMC01_G9EvggDdES2bQtI&qtx=eye+doctor

Watch the one about the high speed chase.

Its pretty effed up. http://www.11alive.com/video/player.aspx?aid=30978&sid=50939&bw=

How could a cop pit someone at 100+mph and not expect them to die. They may have been doing their job but there are much safer ways to slow someone down.

I wont be running from the cops in Georgia any time soon.

Originally posted by Red92784:
Watch the one about the high speed chase. Its pretty effed up. http://www.11alive.com/video/player.aspx?aid=30978&sid=50939&bw=

How could a cop pit someone at 100+mph and not expect them to die. They may have been doing their job but there are much safer ways to slow someone down.

I wont be running from the cops in Georgia any time soon.

That was pretty bad! Probably the best thing someone could do in that situation is DON'T RUN FROM THE COPS! If you want to gamble with your life be prepared to lose. It's that simple! Should they have offered Krispy Kremes instead or continue to chase them and hope they hit a big truck instead of car full of people?

Yeah BUT they couldda used spiked strips. Come on, they know going that fast, a pit manaveur on any vehicle but especially a SUV is most likely gonna result in someone's death.

Did you happen to notice ALL the other traffic? 3 lanes + 2 wide shoulders = kinda hard to put down spike strips. 60+ miles should give you enough time to think about the consequences of your actions. Guess she thought wrong.

Originally posted by CRZYDRVR:
How drunk do you have to be to leave a headless body in your truck??

Well they said they left the bar right after 12:00 and he was still "visually inebriated" when the police came to his house at around 8:30 am

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
http://www.11alive.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=51194

Ahahahahaha I'm sorry guys, but that's hilarious. His friend had his head out the window and got it whacked off, and he just keeps on driving like nothing happened. They got what was coming to them, shouldn't drive drunk (or ride with a drunk driver).

You happen to notice they found a spot to do the pit manaveur? Couldn't have found a spot for spike strips in 70 miles? Righhht. And you know they keep em on a rope so they can easily slide them out and back in once they do their job. And do you think the 17yr old passenger deserved to die because of the driver's choice?

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:

Originally posted by t - roy:
There is no pictures or footage that has anything to do with the accident

http://yp.yahoo.com/py/ypBrowse.py?ycat=8107050&city=Albany&state=GA&uzip=31701&country=us&msa=0120&cs=4&ed=qe1yJK1o2TwCe0m9xnkXGfpZMC01_G9EvggDdES2bQtI&qtx=eye+doctor

oh, I meant to say there was no graphic footage or pictures. By the way, how long did it take to come up with that one?...dick

Haha, glad to see you have a sense of humor.

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
Haha, glad to see you have a sense of humor.

You were always a jokester...

Let me see if I can break it down so even you can understand. What amounts to a 50 foot wide road, heavy traffic and a suspect running at 100+ mph. They can stop the traffic behind them but they can very well stop the traffic in front of them without risking lives. There's a lot of variable in that. The found an opening after 60 miles.(60 f'ing mile! Hello?) She wasn't going to stop! More than likely someone was going to get hurt! That's why they did what they did.

As for the passenger if I'm him after about 10 minutes of this chase I'm reaching over and turning off the key. By continuing to "go along for the ride" shows complicity on his part in my eyes! A heavy price was payed I admit but that's where your brain comes in handy!

Dude. It was GSP that did the manaveur, after 13 minutes of the vechicle being in their jurisdiction. I'm sure some of that was spent catching up to the SUV, so MAYBE 10 minutes that it took for this GSP officer to do that. And notice that he flies by the other cop (non-gsp i believe) and does it pretty quickly. How hard is to understand that spike strips would have been a lot better to use? The insterstate isn't exactly a difficult thing to figure out. Get a unit that is ahead of the vehicle to park on the side of the road, or better yet TWO units, each with strips. As the SUV comes by, slide the strip out, flat tires, and pull it back in. I guess you don't know about spike strips or just want to ignore them. Most 17 yr olds aren't gonna pull the keys out from someone running from the cops, especially someone older than them. Would you say the same thing if it was a baby? Yeah what a stupid baby for not pulling them keys out. I swear, some people just want to argue for the sake of arguement and not even THINK about alternatives to a situation.

Spike strips are better used in a more controlled situation ie. less traffic, smaller road.
So when you cross a state line you get like a do over or a start again?

We're not talking babies stupid! He's 17! One more year and he can vote! If this 17 year old thinks like you think he thinks then maybe a little bleach for the gene pool is what's required!
Despite these points you're trying to make let's go back to my first post, try a little personal responsibility and...

Quote:

DON'T RUN FROM THE COPS!

I'm not arguing for the sake of an argument I'm just trying to enlighten another fingerpointer who's trying to find someone else to blame other than the people who started the chase in the first place!

Well no crap you shouldn't run from the cops, man you're smart. But cops should use a little more thought and not go killing people every chance they get, especially ONE innocent person,, oo but that person was guilty because they didn't get the key out. How do you know that 17 yr old didn't try to stop the driver? How would you feel if it was your kid that had been the 17 yr old? Oo I bet you woulda felt the same.

You know what, pit manaveurs are also better used at slower speeds and less traffic.
I'm not saying the SUV driver was right, and I'm not even saying the cops were completely wrong BUT there are alternatives that they could have used and saved an INNOCENT life. Ooo but what does that persons life matter? According to you they deserved to die. Dude, you shoulda been in that SUV, you pathetic loser. You don't care about human life either that or you just don't think. OR both.

kermit please contribute something useful to this thread or just stop posting. Not only do you not know a single thing about EVO but you also dont know a single thing about what went through/ is going through that officers head. He may have been ordered to do that - he may be at home crying that he killed someone. Bottom line - you dont know anything about the situation and you obviously dont know much about law enforcement.

As I have told you many times please learn about a subject before you post up useless garbage

I'm not saying the officer is at fault. Though I'm saying the supervisor or however ordered should have thought of better methods first. There are many chases that end without pit manaveurs being performed at 100mph+. Please read my posts and try to understand them, and understand them with more than just your cop view. I'm not mad about the cop himself (as you seem to think I am), I'm mad about the action when other alternatives weren't tried. Again, how would you feel if that was a relative of your's as the passenger?
And do you realize I started this thread?
How many times will it take for you to realize it doesn't matter what you tell me? I'm not gonna think about how I might go against someone else's opinion, because that's basically what this boils down to.
Please come back with something useful yourself, in relation to the arguement. Don't get off topic by trying to make it look like I'm blaming a single officer.

I already told you I dont play this game -

Made a crappy outline so ya'll can flame me more rather than discuss/argue the subject.

:::
1.SUV driver wrong for running
2.Cops should have tried a different manaveur first
3.Innocent life lost, some people try to argue that somehow that because this person was in the SUV, that they aren't innocent because they didn't stop the driver. Obviously the driver isn't the kinda person that is easily stopped, so maybe they did try but failed. They were innocent and they are now dead
4.Yeah some things have to be done, but if there is a better way, how bout we try it first, huh? Ooo no, let's kill people.
5.horse, I don't know much about EVO, that's true, I'm sure RT and his SE doesn't either
6.I'm not blaming a single officer
7.I probably know more about law enforcement than you think
8.This doesn't even really boil down to what I know, it boils down to what's right,,, or to put it to where ya'll can understand ,,, let's try NOT to kill people

OK suppose they where allowed to continue and after the spike strip did work, this 4500 lb moving at 100 mph piles into a car caring your family? THEY ALL DIE! Who do you blame? The cops? I mean it certainly by your logic it couldn't be the people in the other car breaking the law. There must have been something else they could have done. Well spiking them in heavy traffic is not an exact science but Kremi said it would work so how come it didn't?

I said earlier that in MY eyes the 17 after 60-some miles is an accomplice. That's MY opinion, bite me if you don't like it!

As far as life goes I care a lot but I care far less for those breaking the law and endangering other because of what amounts to their own selfishness.

Maybe when you grow up you'll understand but I doubt it!

After the spike strip did work? Well their vehicle would be decellerating prettyt quickly at that point. Why would they hit a vehicle then as opposed to the 70 miles they already went?
This is all opinion, we need to both bite each other.
DUDE, you think that 17 yr old was breaking the law? You have some weird logic to me. I know that if I was driving there are many people that could TRY to stop me, but I could easily get them to stop, by hitting,etc. (Many could also stop me by hitting,etc.)
Like I said the cops weren't completely wrong. But in that 70 mile chase, they could have tried strips or something else. Did they keep doing that chase just hoping at some point the SUV would decide to stop? They should have tried something before then.
You really really have bad logic when you think because someone is in a vehicle they are a law breaker and should die. Sad thing is you're already grown up and have that logic.

Do you remember the lady who hit a homeless man and just went home? She hits this guy and he is her front window, like through it. She goes home and lets him die in her car window in her garage. I think she was just nuts and maybe a little drunk.... This one is pretty bad, how do think you can drive with that much in you.

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
After the spike strip did work? Well their vehicle would be decellerating prettyt quickly at that point. Why would they hit a vehicle then as opposed to the 70 miles they already went?
This is all opinion, we need to both bite each other.
DUDE, you think that 17 yr old was breaking the law? You have some weird logic to me. I know that if I was driving there are many people that could TRY to stop me, but I could easily get them to stop, by hitting,etc. (Many could also stop me by hitting,etc.)
Like I said the cops weren't completely wrong. But in that 70 mile chase, they could have tried strips or something else. Did they keep doing that chase just hoping at some point the SUV would decide to stop? They should have tried something before then.
You really really have bad logic when you think because someone is in a vehicle they are a law breaker and should die. Sad thing is you're already grown up and have that logic.

Yes they are only supposed to use that manuver in safe conditions, I don't think it was a wise choice. However, they did what they thought was right and it turned out deadly. I do think your argument would be different if these kids killed someone in the process. I don't think they deserved to loose their lives, but it happened and there is nothing anyone can do to change that. Spike strips at 100+mph, yes they would decelerate, but that never stops them from continuing to run.

You also have to realize that at 100+mph spike strips would have the same effect. The tires would blow out, not slowly deflate, and at that speed the driver would lose control and likly roll the suv.

Originally posted by KyleH:
You also have to realize that at 100+mph spike strips would have the same effect. The tires would blow out, not slowly deflate, and at that speed the driver would lose control and likly roll the suv.

Yeah.. I wonder if we could get some professional opinions on the spike strips. Personally, I would guess that at that speed they would rapidly decrease, not slowly. With the spike strips, you can't control where the SUV is gonna be in traffic.. with the pit, you can get the SUV when you KNOW its clear. Again, I'm not sure about this, its all just best guess. Where's a po po when we need him?

1. Spike strips at those speeds would likely have the same effect as the pit maneuver.

2. Looking at the tape, the interstate was at least 3 lanes wide with heavy traffic. There was no way the officers could have deployed spike strips in a situation like that without significant risk to their own lives, more risk than completing the pit maneuver.

3. You are assuming that at least one officer far ahead of the chase had spike strips. That is not always the case, for various reasons.

4. When they finally pitted her, it was after 60 miles during which she put hundreds at risk, and was likely a spur-of-the-moment thing, when the officers saw an opportunity to end the dangerous situation rather than continue to let her endanger completely innocent drivers.

5. You are acting like the officer was giddy that he got the chance to kill someone by completing the pit maneuver. Likely NOT the case. High speed chases are one of the most stressful situations for police officers; and you never feel good about taking a life.

6. The 17 yr old is an unfortunate victim, as is the driver. It's likely the 17 yr old was paralyzed with fear during the entire incident.

7. It's likely they chased her that distance hoping she would run out of gas. When she didn't, the officers had to take charge and end the situation rather than let her willfully endanger lives. As a result, her failure to obey the law cost her and her passenger their lives.

Originally posted by Sandman333:
4. When they finally pitted her, it was after 60 miles during which she put hundreds at risk, and was likely a spur-of-the-moment thing, when the officers saw an opportunity to end the dangerous situation rather than continue to let her endanger completely innocent drivers.

Exactly, its not like it was 5 miles into the chase.

There's another thing that you are all failing to mention about their death..............neither driver, nor the passenger, were wearing seatbelts. They MIGHT have had a chance to live if they did..........I do say MIGHT. I saw what the truck looked like after and I honestly don't think they would have survived either way.
I have to agree, whether they used spike strips or the PIT, either way would result in a very bad ending. The officers did what they had to do to keep thousands of people safe, and if it meant ending those two lives, well, so be it, they chose to run all because of a suspended license. I have ABSOLUTELY no sympathy for that kind of stupidness.

Originally posted by Sandman333:

5. You are acting like the officer was giddy that he got the chance to kill someone by completing the pit maneuver. Likely NOT the case. High speed chases are one of the most stressful situations for police officers; and you never feel good about taking a life.

6. The 17 yr old is an unfortunate victim, as is the driver. It's likely the 17 yr old was paralyzed with fear during the entire incident.

5.Again, nothing against any officer.

6.Yes

Thanks Sandman for not being a prick about it like some people are.

And because of your post, I understand better now. Yeah the pit manaveur may have been the only thing they could have done in this case (MAYBE not though).
If that is the only method though, I think more methods need to be developed or something. That could have just as easily been a hostage that the officers didn't realize was a hostage.

Originally posted by CRZYDRVR:
OMG thats crazy

How drunk do you have to be to leave a headless body in your truck??

I'm suprised that didn't occur here in NM.

Kremi, how could they know where/when the break in traffic would be? You need a small window of opportunity when using spike strips in order to deploy them, and in traffic, that's darn near impossible. On a clear road, the officer can toss them out into the road, but not in traffic.

At 100mph in traffic there was NO WAY to know if/when any window of opportunity would ever present itself, much less where along the roadway it might happen.

IMHO, the moment you decide to run from the cops and put others lives in danger, you surrender ANY AND ALL expectations that the officers will be concerned with and will do anything to ensure your safety. Their priority is to try to stop you ASAP without hurting themselves or innocent civillians. YOUR safety is a distant second.

Not only did those two knuckleheads deserve what they got, the officer did the world a favor by getting rid of two complete morons before they could procreate. Darwin strikes again.

Originally posted by PackRat:
Not only did those two knuckleheads deserve what they got, the officer did the world a favor by getting rid of two complete morons before they could procreate. Darwin strikes again.

Harsh...

Originally posted by TourDeForce:

Originally posted by PackRat:
Not only did those two knuckleheads deserve what they got, the officer did the world a favor by getting rid of two complete morons before they could procreate. Darwin strikes again.

Harsh...

I have no sympathy for the stupid. There are people far more deserving of my good thoughts than two dipshits that obviously lacked the common sense God gave a watermelon.

Originally posted by TourDeForce:
Kremi, how could they know where/when the break in traffic would be? You need a small window of opportunity when using spike strips in order to deploy them, and in traffic, that's darn near impossible. On a clear road, the officer can toss them out into the road, but not in traffic.

At 100mph in traffic there was NO WAY to know if/when any window of opportunity would ever present itself, much less where along the roadway it might happen.

Right you need a small window. A very small window. But let's say that strips wouldn't have worked,,, I think something else needs to be developed.

I can't believe how many people on here are calling the 17 yr old passenger a criminal. Like Sandman said they were probably too scared to do anything. And how do ya'll know they didn't try to stop the driver?
I guess I'm gonna have to never ride with anyone, because according to a lot of ya'll that makes me a criminal and I should die.

I like to think I don't associate with those who would run from the police with no regards for my safety and certainly a deathwish of their own.

Get your balls together and do something about it. I'm sure that when they weren't doing 70+, the kid coulda easily given a sucker punch to the jaw, stomach or anything, and stopped that person, if she wasn't going to stop on her own. Oh and you can always jack the keys out of the ignition. There's plenty that coulda been done, if someone I was riding with tried to pull a stunt like that, and wouldn't have listened to me, you better believe I am gonna get pissed, and do whatever I can to stop them. They are as much a risk to me as to any cop following our car. It's insinuated that I am now an accomplice to this person, if I am not doing anything to stop their illegal activity.

Originally posted by PlatoSVT:
Get your balls together and do something about it. I'm sure that when they weren't doing 70+, the kid coulda easily given a sucker punch to the jaw, stomach or anything, and stopped that person, if she wasn't going to stop on her own. Oh and you can always jack the keys out of the ignition. There's plenty that coulda been done, if someone I was riding with tried to pull a stunt like that, and wouldn't have listened to me, you better believe I am gonna get pissed, and do whatever I can to stop them. They are as much a risk to me as to any cop following our car. It's insinuated that I am now an accomplice to this person, if I am not doing anything to stop their illegal activity.

Yeah, but everyone isn't like you. Nothing the passenger did was illegal, from the information that I have. The passenger would have no legal requirement to try to stop the driver. And really think about this, someone who likely just got their license within the last 2 years is going to be scared sh!tless in a chase like this, too scared to do anything...

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
...let's say that strips wouldn't have worked, I think something else needs to be developed.

Agreed. There are a few things under development, and a few prototypes that are being tested, but so far I don't see a really practical alternative.

There was some kind of mini car with an EMP generator or sup'm on it that would rocket under the fleeing vehicle & disable the ignition system, but that was not practical. Some kind of variation on that sans the mini car would be cool.

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
I guess I'm gonna have to never ride with anyone, because according to a lot of ya'll that makes me a criminal and I should die.

WHAT? You have to be kidding. I agree that the passenger could have done something if they wanted to, maybe they did, we will never know. But what you are saying is that we should let them go because there is a passenger in there and let them possibly do more damage????? I am glad you are not a cop. Yes a few people are making stupid remarks, but I think you are paying more attention to them than the rational remarks. I don't think they deserved to die, but they had to be stopped!

Why has no one here realized that in that 60 mile chase no one thought of blocking traffic to give them the opportunity they needed to do what they do? The police could have easily sowed down traffic behind the speeding car and blocked any on ramps long enough to stop them safely.

Think about it, they caused a big a** traffic jam when they pitted and killed them so why couldn't they have blocked off traffic to try and stop them without killing them.

There is a safer alternative to everything. The most dangerous thing of all is not at leat thinking of one. The officer that took them out had not been in that chase very long. Im sure he diddn't intend to kill them, but he could have at least taken a minute to consider all the alternatives.

Originally posted by Red92784:
Why has no one here realized that in that 60 mile chase no one thought of blocking traffic to give them the opportunity they needed to do what they do?

Think about how long it would take to set that up. You really think they could stop traffic and get the cars out of harms way long before that chase got there?

Yes, if it was timed right.

Originally posted by Red92784:
Why has no one here realized that in that 60 mile chase no one thought of blocking traffic to give them the opportunity they needed to do what they do? The police could have easily sowed down traffic behind the speeding car and blocked any on ramps long enough to stop them safely.

Think about it, they caused a big a** traffic jam when they pitted and killed them so why couldn't they have blocked off traffic to try and stop them without killing them.

There is a safer alternative to everything. The most dangerous thing of all is not at leat thinking of one. The officer that took them out had not been in that chase very long. Im sure he diddn't intend to kill them, but he could have at least taken a minute to consider all the alternatives.

...only to have them plow into a school bus load of kids (stopped at said traffic jam) at 100+ MPH.... and then we would be discussing how irresponsible it was for the police to use innocent civilians as their road block.... sometimes we just cannot win. You can't please everyone...

I think you miss-understood. I mean they should have cleared the road for a few miles ahead. Consecutavely block off on ramps a few miles ahead from the chase and then when the chase passes let trafic follow behind.

Originally posted by SVT24:

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
I guess I'm gonna have to never ride with anyone, because according to a lot of ya'll that makes me a criminal and I should die.

WHAT? You have to be kidding. I agree that the passenger could have done something if they wanted to, maybe they did, we will never know. But what you are saying is that we should let them go because there is a passenger in there and let them possibly do more damage????? I am glad you are not a cop. Yes a few people are making stupid remarks, but I think you are paying more attention to them than the rational remarks. I don't think they deserved to die, but they had to be stopped!

Thanks for putting words in my mouth. AGAIN AGAIN AGAIN. The cops were not completely wrong for their action. I just think other methods should have been tried first.
Read what I post (and THINK) before you reply.
Thanks for those that contributed in a good way that helped me to better understand the situation.
I still don't understand some people's thoughts that the 17 yr old was a criminal and should die because they were in the vehicle. That really doesn't make sense to me.

Quote:

I think you miss-understood. I mean they should have cleared the road for a few miles ahead. Consecutavely block off on ramps a few miles ahead from the chase and then when the chase passes let trafic follow behind.

Do you have any idea of the coordination that involves?

Keep in mind, this car was going 100mph+, they covered a distance "of a few miles" in about 3 minutes.

So, you're suggesting they coordinate with police 20+ miles away (a feat in and of itself) to stop every onramp onto the freeway for 10 miles (another feat that would likely cause accidents as the traffic flow change screwed people up), and then hope that the car doesn't decide he wants to get off the freeway at some point between here and there.

And that still doesn't take care of those people who are already on the freeway. They're still in the way.

Whatever happened to blocking the road with semis?

So you wuld rather mindlessly ram them off the road into a tree and KILL them than try to make it work.

WHO CARES if it screws up traffic as long as you safe a life.

After all isn't that what cops are for, TO SAVE LIVES.

Weather they are guilty or innocent these are still peoples lives we are talking about.

Quote:

Whatever happened to blocking the road with semis?

On a totally empty road, provided you have helpful truckers who are willing to make the sacrifice, that works.

On your average freeway, the trucks will only stop regular traffic and instead of hitting the trucks, the speeder rear-ends innocent bystanders at 100+mph.

My only complaint is that it took the police 60 miles to do it. Those that run from the cops and put INNOCENTS in danger by their actions deserve to be taken out. IMO cops should wreck these retards w/in 5 miles of a chase beginning. I'd be absolutely furious had that nimrod in the Pathfinder caused the injury or death of one of my family members due to the chase.

Kermit you really need to do a ride along program with your local law enforcement agency and observe the danger they put themselves in at every stop, the general lack of resources available to them, and the extent to which they are hamstrung by pandering to asinine public perceptions while trying to control a section of the population which abides by no rules.

I cannot even eat and drive without the digestive process making me tired enough to fall asleep.

Though once feeling a little sleepy coming from a drag race late at night with bro and newp I promised a meal and so we ate at like 11pm a the olive garden and I actualy felt energized after the meal and not tired light I thought I would feel.

Originally posted by bigMoneyRacing:
Those that run from the cops and put INNOCENTS in danger by their actions deserve to be taken out.

I don't totally disagree with you on this, BUT the 17 yr old passenger really didn't have a huge choice.

I would do a ride along with my local police, but they all keep getting arrested, four in the last month. Maybe I could ride along with your local police.

Quote:

So you wuld rather mindlessly ram them off the road into a tree and KILL them than try to make it work.

There is nothing "mindless" about doing a PIT at 100+. You don't just casually run into a car at 100mph. That cop risked is own life to stop them.

I'm sure the cops tried to think of any number of things before risking their own lives and PITing a car at that speed -- they did let the chase continue for 60 miles didn't they? What do you think they were doing all that time? Drawing straws on who would get to do it?

Quote:

WHO CARES if it screws up traffic as long as you safe a life.

Did I say anything about traffic? No, I said you're impossible idea would likely cause additional accidents.

Quote:

Weather they are guilty or innocent these are still peoples lives we are talking about.

Yeah, and every second they're on the road they risk dozens more lives. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Quote:

After all isn't that what cops are for, TO SAVE LIVES.

And, as far as I'm concerned, those cops probably saved the lives of dozens of innocent people on the road by taking the lives of 2 (or at least 1) guilty ones.

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:

Thanks for putting words in my mouth. AGAIN AGAIN AGAIN.

Ooo a couple o' fender benders from dumbasses tryin to get off an on ramp.

After 60 miles it most likely had media coverage anyway and probably picked up a news chopper. People would quickly figure out what was going on and take another route.

Plus at those speeds a normal cop will back off and let a chopper follow so they slow down and stop driving like idiots.

So one could say that the police were endangering lives by continuing the chase after after it got dangerous.

Originally posted by SVT24:

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:

Thanks for putting words in my mouth. AGAIN AGAIN AGAIN.

Now thanks for cutting off part of the quote.

The again again again went with this:
The cops were not completely wrong for their action. I just think other methods should have been tried first.

Quote:

Ooo a couple o' fender benders from dumbasses tryin to get off an on ramp.

How does one get "off an on-ramp" when you're not getting into the freeway? I'm not trying to be a smart-ass, it's just you've said that three times now and it's kind of confusing exatly what you mean.

Quote:

After 60 miles it most likely had media coverage anyway and probably picked up a news chopper. People would quickly figure out what was going on and take another route.

You obviously haven't been around any areas with chases -- people flock to them.

Quote:

Plus at those speeds a normal cop will back off and let a chopper follow so they slow down and stop driving like idiots.

I'm sure every precint in rural Georgia has a chopper at their disposal.

Quote:

So one could say that the police were endangering lives by continuing the chase after after it got dangerous.

Well, [censored], there's the ticket. Next time I get pulled over I'll just go 100mph. Cops can't chase me after that because that's "dangerous"!

Originally posted by sigma:

Quote:

After 60 miles it most likely had media coverage anyway and probably picked up a news chopper. People would quickly figure out what was going on and take another route.

You obviously haven't been around any areas with chases -- people flock to them.

Exactly what I was going to say. I mean, alot of the chases I have seen on tv have people standing on the side of the road and they are cheering the perps on.

I think you are being a smart a*s.

Now you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Just accept that their lives could have been saved, or not taken, however you want to look at it.

Guily or not, taking a life is unexeptable and always avoidable.

Quote:

Now you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

No, I'm arguing because you're wrong and obviously very ignorant of how the police operate, how a high-speed chase works, and lack the basic common sense to determine when some "plan" is feasible or not.

Quote:

Just accept that their lives could have been saved, or not taken, however you want to look at it.

Sure they could have been saved -- they could have let them go. What the hell would that have done? It's because cops sometimes let people go that people run in the first place -- they think they can get away.

Quote:

Guily or not, taking a life is unexeptable and always avoidable.

Save the bleeding-heart crap for someone who gives a [censored].

Originally posted by Renee:

Exactly what I was going to say. I mean, alot of the chases I have seen on tv have people standing on the side of the road and they are cheering the perps on.

The OJ chase had people on the expressway overpass holding signs up the whole way!

Originally posted by Red92784:
Guily or not, taking a life is unexeptable and always avoidable.

Unexceptable (spelled right)? Yes
Always avoidable? Doubtful. And if so, at what expense? Even more people dieing later?

Originally posted by RyeLou:

Unexceptable (spelled right)? Yes

Unacceptable.

God, your a heartless f*ck!

Im not some bible thumper.
But I was brought up to believe that life is sacred and you should protect it at all cost.

If life means nothing to you, then I feel sorry for you and you should end yourself now.

Originally posted by Red92784:
I was brought up to believe that life is sacred and you should protect it at all cost.

If life means nothing to you, then I feel sorry for you and you should end yourself now.

Hehe, what contradiction! It's beautiful!

Quote:

If life means nothing to you, then I feel sorry for you and you should end yourself now.

On the contrary, the life of those innocents on the road means more to me than the life of those who were running from the police.

At what point does it become okay to endanger the guy running from the cops? After he kills 2 bystanders? 5? 10? At what point is it okay to PIT the car and risk killing the occupants?

I think it's at 0 bystanders. But that's just me.

Impossible!

Ok you think it doesn't matter that those cops killed those two teenagers. But what if it happened to you. What if that innocent person was a friend, a family member, your girlfriend, wife, or child. I'll bet you wouldn't feel the same way.

Stop picking at my grammar, trying to make fun of me because you know I'm right and you cant think of anything else to say to back up your mindless babble.

You can think I'm wrong all you want. Thats alright because I know I'm right and thats all that matters. There is no point in trying to change someones mind that cant be changed.

This may sound cliche but LOOK OUTSIDE THE F*CKIN BOX once in a while, and if your lookin for a fight go pick one with someone a little dumber. That way when you outwit them you can feel good about yourself, because thats not going to happen today.

Im done here, Ive said my two cents, and there is nothing more to discuss.

Originally posted by Red92784:

Stop picking at my grammar, trying to make fun of me because you know I'm right and you cant think of anything else to say to back up your mindless babble.

I'm picking at your complete disregard for a thorough and conistent thought.

Originally posted by Red92784:
You can think I'm wrong all you want. Thats alright because I know I'm right and thats all that matters. There is no point in trying to change someones mind that cant be changed.

This may sound cliche but LOOK OUTSIDE THE F*CKIN BOX once in a while, and if your lookin for a fight go pick one with someone a little dumber.

Hehe, you've done it again!

If it were my family or friend, I'd have to realize that when you perform an illegal act, you are submitting yourself to the mercy of the legal system, a.k.a., the COPS. That's the price you pay for living here. We have laws, people break them, it's the cops job to put those people away, in the safest manner they can. While this one got out of hand, the cop was doing his job, and the criminal was doing his.

Originally posted by PlatoSVT:

Originally posted by RyeLou:

Unexceptable (spelled right)? Yes

Unacceptable.

Ya know, I thought taht looked wrong too. It's been a long business trip...I'm ready to go home in 38 minutes!

Originally posted by Red92784:
Impossible!

Ok you think it doesn't matter that those cops killed those two teenagers. But what if it happened to you. What if that innocent person was a friend, a family member, your girlfriend, wife, or child. I'll bet you wouldn't feel the same way.

Stop picking at my grammar, trying to make fun of me because you know I'm right and you cant think of anything else to say to back up your mindless babble.

You can think I'm wrong all you want. Thats alright because I know I'm right and thats all that matters. There is no point in trying to change someones mind that cant be changed.

This may sound cliche but LOOK OUTSIDE THE F*CKIN BOX once in a while, and if your lookin for a fight go pick one with someone a little dumber. That way when you outwit them you can feel good about yourself, because thats not going to happen today.

Im done here, Ive said my two cents, and there is nothing more to discuss.

The cops did not kill those people. The driver killed her self and her passenger by forcing the cops position. We don't live in a magical happy land where there's always an easy way out of things.
And by the same token, what if it your friend, family member, girlfriend, wife, or child that was in a car that was hit by the pathfinder because the cops gave up that opportunity to end the persuit. The cops were trying to save more lives, not intentionally trying to kill them.

You know, theoreticly speaking. Since both of us are the type of people who always have to have the last word, or laugh. This thread could go on forever.

Congrats to the origional poster.

Last word. Last Laugh... (chuckle, chuckle, meniacle, chuckle.)

EDIT: DAMNIT! Didn't get it in last, he has one more!

Originally posted by KyleH:
The cops did not kill those people. The driver killed her self and her passenger by forcing the cops position. We don't live in a magical happy land where there's always an easy way out of things.
And by the same token, what if it your friend, family member, girlfriend, wife, or child that was in a car that was hit by the pathfinder because the cops gave up that opportunity to end the persuit. The cops were trying to save more lives, not intentionally trying to kill them.

Please read my previous posts before responding. I never said they intentionaly killed those people.

Originally posted by PlatoSVT:
Last word. Last Laugh... (chuckle, chuckle, meniacle, chuckle.)

Not gonna happen. This thing will go on untill its locked.

Originally posted by Red92784:

... those cops killed those two teenagers.

I guess this insinuates intention

Originally posted by Red92784:

Please read my previous posts before responding. I never said they intentionaly killed those people.

You did say you were done talking though. How 'bout it?

Originally posted by Red92784:
Im done here, Ive said my two cents, and there is nothing more to discuss.

Im not discussing that anymore. Im making sure I get the last laugh.

Quote:

Ok you think it doesn't matter that those cops killed those two teenagers. But what if it happened to you. What if that innocent person was a friend, a family member, your girlfriend, wife, or child. I'll bet you wouldn't feel the same way.

"Innocent person"? What innocent person?

The only truly innocent people in this case were the ones the driver was endangering by running from the cops. It's those people I'm concerned about while you seem more concerned with the lives of those who run from the police.

All a matter of priorities I guess. It's a good thing there's people like you in the world -- even the worst offenders in the world need good defense attorneys to worry more about them than innocent people.

Chuckle, Haha, Laugh.

The pasenger wasnt running, they were probably holding on for dear life.

I know what your going to say, Im discusing it again Blah Blah Blah. I cant help my self, its too tempting.

We have no way of knowing for sure.

You assume they were sitting there holding on for dear life -- nothing more than an innocent passenger. It's just as likely he was the one cheering his driver buddy along, just as guilty as he was. We'll never know for sure.

What we do know is that the car was endangering other people and the cops put an end to that. There is no doubt about the innocence (in this crime) of others on the road.

But it's how they ended it that was questionable.

Ha!

You've yet to come up with a better solution.

Something is only "questionable" when there are alternative methods that were not undertaken.

Have you read any of the posts in this thread!!!

There are a couple better solutions, mine being the best of course.

Hehe

1> Blocking on-ramps -- Even if the idea made any sense whatsoever, and it doesn't, this is Rural Georgia -- how many on and offramps do you think there are?

2> Spike Strips -- Have you ever had a blow-out at 100mph? Jesus, the things have been long considereed to be more unsafe than the PIT maneuver. That SUV would have rolled in a heartbeat and you would be sitting here questioning that move saying they should have PIT'd the guy.

Any other of your marvelous ideas you'd like to put forward?

Yes, Clearing the roads and giving them room so they will slow down.

I dont know about you. But if I was running from the police for whatever reason, red and blues in my rearview would just make me want to drive faster.

Edit: HoHo HaHa

Quote:

Yes, Clearing the roads and giving them room so they will slow down.

Okay, let's assume you could clear the roads -- even though as you saw in the video, people aren't quick to move aside at all and, if word spreads people actually come to chases.. but let's assume it happened.

You slow down... back off... the guy slows down...

Then what?

You plan on asking him nicely to pull over?

The girl got what she asked for. The boy's life was in her hands not the cops. She is responsible for both deaths.

-Andy

Once they slow down the cops spike em' at a safe speed. If they are stubourn they drive on the rims for a while, but a car can only take so much. The car will make the decision for them. The car stops, cops swarm it, take the driver down, and save the passenger.

See isn't that better, no one died.

It seems to me that somewhere during that 60 mile chase someone might have at least thought of doing something like that.

HaHa HeHe

Hi everyone, don't mean to change the subject, but what happened to the guy that got his head chopped off. wasn't that what this thread was about?

I mean the people in the SUV weren't even drinking..

Quote:

Once they slow down the cops spike em' at a safe speed. If they are stubourn they drive on the rims for a while, but a car can only take so much. The car will make the decision for them. The car stops, cops swarm it, take the driver down, and save the passenger.

See isn't that better, no one died.

It seems to me that somewhere during that 60 mile chase someone might have at least thought of doing something like that.

I'm sure that someone did think of that. Any cop would rather use a spike strtip if possible than risk his own life conducting a PIT maneuver. It was probably discarded with good reason, like perhaps the thought that they'd not slow down enough to matter.

I cruise at 85mph -- and that's regular everyday speed, and I'm far from alone at that speed. These guys were going over 100 -- so even if they were to "slow down", you're talking maybe 15mph slower. They certainly wouldn't go any slower than 85-95mph -- they might not have red and blues in their face, but the cops are still there and they're still trying to get away. A blow-out at that speed in any car, particularly an SUV, is still a likely fatal accident.

Quote:

Hi everyone, don't mean to change the subject, but what happened to the guy that got his head chopped off. wasn't that what this thread was about?

Last I heard he was dead.

Originally posted by sigma:

Quote:

Hi everyone, don't mean to change the subject, but what happened to the guy that got his head chopped off. wasn't that what this thread was about?

Last I heard he was dead.

lol

Originally posted by Red92784:
It seems to me that somewhere during that 60 mile chase someone might have at least thought of doing something like that.

It seems to me that somewhere during that 60 mile chase THE DRIVER might have at least thought she wasn't going to get away and should pull over.

How far must law enforcement officers go just to cater to the criminal? Maybe next time they should offer a mid-chase refuelling and bathroom break? You probably think they should buy the family a new Pathfinder

Originally posted by Red92784:
Ooo a couple o' fender benders from dumbasses tryin to get off an on ramp.

After 60 miles it most likely had media coverage anyway and probably picked up a news chopper. People would quickly figure out what was going on and take another route.

Plus at those speeds a normal cop will back off and let a chopper follow so they slow down and stop driving like idiots.

So one could say that the police were endangering lives by continuing the chase after after it got dangerous.

lol, my oh my.....

So, let me get this straight... the media choppers suddenly sprout police officers, everyone is listening to the same radio station and decides to be a good little citizen and get out of the way of this dangerous chase, and hey, we should just let people run if they want to, they were too busy to go to jail today anyway... yikes.

Ok, I just have to add fuel to this fire.

Originally posted by Red92784:
Once they slow down the cops spike em' at a safe speed. If they are stubourn they drive on the rims for a while, but a car can only take so much. The car will make the decision for them. The car stops, cops swarm it, take the driver down, and save the passenger.

Lets say that everything went according to plan. The freeway was magically cleared, there were no bystanders cheering on the driver, the cops backed off knowing that there ware troopers with spike strips (I gave you two just so we know the tires will blowout) and just for fun, lets add a big roadblock to that so even if the spike strips dont work the truck is going to slam into (insert your favorite heavy objects here). The cops lay the spike strips, the do thier job and blowout all four tires on the Pathfinder. The SUV's tires deflate and the truck begins losing speed....

....the driver loses control and veers across the median slamming into oncoming traffic killing the SUV's occupants plus the occupants of multiple other vehicles because of the over 140 mph collision speed.

Everything worked but that one variable is a [censored] isnt it.

On a sidenote part of that situation just happened here. A car full of teenage boys was having a road rage incident with a minivan. The minivan hit the brakes, the driver hit his brakes and tried to steer around the van. His passenger, for some reason, decided that this would be a good time to pull the e-brake. The car spun out, cleared the median and killed a motorcyclist. So, just like the passenger in the SUV, the lives of the (relatively innocent) teenagers in that car are now ruined. And, as I just found out, the biker's obiturary is in todays paper. He left behind his wife, children and job as an EMT. So not only did the passenger's stupidity kill a person, it killed a person who was specifically trained to save peoples lives.

Originally posted by CRZYDRVR:
How drunk do you have to be to leave a headless body in your truck??

I thought spike strips contained many small hollow break away tips that slowly deflating the tires rather than blow them out....

On I-16 near where I'm going to school, they have like those train track crossing kinda gates on a bunch of the exits/entrances. Not sure if they're supposed to be used for chases or what.

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
I thought spike strips contained many small hollow break away tips that slowly deflating the tires rather than blow them out....

On I-16 near where I'm going to school, they have like those train track crossing kinda gates on a bunch of the exits/entrances. Not sure if they're supposed to be used for chases or what.

You need to watch WORLD'S WILDEST POLICE VIDEOS a little more. They show the use of spike strips and the PIT alot on that show. You will see that the spikes usually blow the tires out. I saw one the other day where the tires blew with the spikes and immediately flew off the truck at the cops.
By the way, the show is on Spike TV(the former TNN) at 7pm EST Monday through Friday. Check it out, it shows you exactly what the cops have to deal with.

I need to watch TV more, right..... There was a recent link, I believe on another forum to a video they showed on there of a BMW M3 that was supposedly stolen and that it eventually broke down and that's how they caught it. In actuallity the 15 yr old took his dad's car, and he outran the cops once he made the camaro cruiser crash and he made it home, but his dad turned him in. You can see in the video of the supposed part where he "breaks down" that the time is actually earlier than other parts of the chase they show, and he was actually just slowing to do a u-turn. So, no, I'm not gonna watch that program to see how things really are.

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
So, no, I'm not gonna watch that program to see how things really are.

Cuz it's easy to fake someone running over spike strips.

Originally posted by PlatoSVT:

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
So, no, I'm not gonna watch that program to see how things really are.

Cuz it's easy to fake someone running over spike strips.

Yes and their passenger should die because they are in the vehicle.

I don't think anyone here is saying the passenger SHOULD have died. Just that it's an acceptable casualty due to the driver's actions, and what could've resulted to truely INNOCENT people.

Dude, so are you saying the passenger wasn't innocent? I'm still not getting that. Yeah like I said, cops weren't really wrong, just something else shouldda been tried and stuff needs to be developed or planned out better or something to avoid this kinda crap.

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
Dude, so are you saying the passenger wasn't innocent?

We all already know the passenger was essentially innocent. I am saying someone driving their kids to school is a HELL of a lot more innocent than someone riding alongside the criminal.

its funny how this thread got competely off track. but anywho, theres alot of issues toward the cop im feeling. well, like previously said......no one wanted the passenger to die......the driver, well one word....DUMB, anyone with a brain shoulda known that one way or another the cops were gonna stop her. so if you were a cop and given the order to take the suspect out......would you rather deal with your captain or chief later because you said,"Nah, i cant do that." think about what the officers deal with, not just the brainless driver and passenger that got stuck in the middle that im probably sure coulda helped stop the chase if they WANTED to. my father has been on the force for almost 20 yrs now, theres a lot of $hit some wouldnt understand. but you gotta do what you gotta do. but to each his own thought.

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
But cops should use a little more thought and not go killing people every chance they get

You = moron

http://www.collegehumor.com/?image_id=55494

That's the REAL reason you don't drink and drive.

Warning: GROSS, and not particularly safe for work

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
Dude, so are you saying the passenger wasn't innocent? I'm still not getting that. Yeah like I said, cops weren't really wrong, just something else shouldda been tried and stuff needs to be developed or planned out better or something to avoid this kinda crap.

WTF else could they have tried????? seriously, they exhausted all of thier options.

-you cant use spikestrips on a busy freeway becuase you will cause accidents, some unsuspecting driver will run it over not knowing WTF it was.

-you cant block traffic, it will cause more accidents, possibly leading to more deaths.

-dont have a way to shut off the car.

-cant shoot out the tires at 100+ MPH without risking hitting an innocent civilian

-you cant drop [censored] in thier way becuase there is TRAFFIC.

-Roadblocks only work if the suspect is willing to stop.

they cant shoot a missle from a helicopter (not being sarcastic, if i were a cop, the thought woudl have crossed my mind)

-cant lure them onto a city street to try to slow them down, not much is more dangerous than a car barreling down a city street at 100+ MPH, if they were doing that on the highway, they will do it on the street. the only thing worse than a car at those speeds in those conditions is an SUV or pickup truck.

IMO, the PIT was the most viable option that had the least risk to civilians involoved. the minute a driver decides to run from the police, he/she waives all rights to his/her life...THIS DOES NOT MEAN THE PASSENGER DESERVED TO DIE...it just means that he/she gave their life to protect the life of others...if the passenger was in on it, then they both got what they deserved IMO.

this was a no win situation, i think they did DAMN good. do you realize how much danger the officer that performed the manuver put himself in??? imagine a 5000+lb SUV flipping over inches in front of yuou at 100+ miles per hour...he could have died...

and at those speeds, the PIT woudl have flipped most vehicles, even a contour.

rant over.

BTW, this wasnt nessecarily directed only at you kremit.

Originally posted by DanLeCompte:

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
But cops should use a little more thought and not go killing people every chance they get

You = moron

Looks who's talking.

AGAIN, other stuff wasn't tried, though if nothing else couldda been tried something needs to be developed to have a better solution. Or no, let's kill innocent people is better.

And MORE innocent? Either you are innocent or not.

Quote:

And MORE innocent? Either you are innocent or not.

Yes, but the differentiation in this case is those we know were innocent and those we don't know.

You're awfully quick to assume that the passenger was totally innocent, even while it's just as, if not more, likely that he wasn't.

And there simply can't be a "other stuff wasn't tried" excuse -- you get one chance to stop a car at 100mph. You don't get to sit around in a War Room and brainstorm 50 different way to go about it.

They had like 40 minutes, that's enough to try a few things. And even if that 17 yr old didn't try to stop the driver, I doubt they were like yeah go faster, go faster, weeee , I bet we can escape from the police.... still innocent. The situation was bad, some of the other scenarios could be bad, that's why we need to try/develop other stuff.

Quote:

They had like 40 minutes, that's enough to try a few things

Time is not exactly the point.

The point is you get one chance at 100mph -- at that speed either they crash and live or they crash and die, the chance of coming to a safe stop involuntarily is virtually nil. You get one chance to make the best decision for the situation.

Quote:

And even if that 17 yr old didn't try to stop the driver, I doubt they were like yeah go faster, go faster, weeee , I bet we can escape from the police

Oh, come on!. That's exactly what most 17 year olds are going to do.

Not sure what kinda 17 yr olds you know. I'm 18 so I think that's close enough, and neither I nor my friends would urge the other one to continue a high speed chase for that long. Now if I'm with a friend, and there is little traffic and his CAR is a real quick un and it's just one cop,, well if he wants to run, then I'm not gonna stop him unless somehow that cop manages to stay behind us/my friend is stupid enough to stay on the highway. No way though would I let the chase continue for that long, and definitely not in a SUV. Though I'm not a real big guy so many people would be able to stop me from stopping them. And most/if not all of my friends are actually more smarter (

) about these things than me, and would freak out if there was even a 5 sec chase.

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
There was a recent link, I believe on another forum to a video they showed on there of a BMW M3 that was supposedly stolen and that it eventually broke down and that's how they caught it. In actuallity the 15 yr old took his dad's car, and he outran the cops once he made the camaro cruiser crash and he made it home, but his dad turned him in. You can see in the video of the supposed part where he "breaks down" that the time is actually earlier than other parts of the chase they show, and he was actually just slowing to do a u-turn.

Dang im not saying I approve of this kids actions but thats damn impressive!

Yeah, he did alright for a 15 yr old. He made the camaro crash by just jerking his shoulder toward the camaro when it was beside him and the cop over reacted. Hit the median, almost flipped and then went back onto the highway and came close to taking out another cruiser.

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
Yeah, he did alright for a 15 yr old. He made the camaro crash by just jerking his shoulder toward the camaro when it was beside him and the cop over reacted. Hit the median, almost flipped and then went back onto the highway and came close to taking out another cruiser.

Makes you wonder why cops react the way they do doesn't it!

Kremi, dude. You seriously need to go on a few ride alongs. Many PDs offer the opportunity for observers to accompany the officers for an evening. You should go on a few to see what it's like for them.

After a few, start asking your questions & get their perspective on things. It'll open your eyes to a whole new way of seeing the world.

Knowledge is power!

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:

Originally posted by DanLeCompte:

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
But cops should use a little more thought and not go killing people every chance they get

You = moron

Looks who's talking.

AGAIN, other stuff wasn't tried, though if nothing else couldda been tried something needs to be developed to have a better solution. Or no, let's kill innocent people is better.

But cops should...not go killing people every chance they get

You're honestly going to stand behind that statement?

kermit - let me give you another thing to think on.
You wondered if they could have set up some sort of for lack of a better word "moving roadblack" and closed the road to additional traffic ect.

Well one area I know your not focusing on is the behind the scenes of law enforcement. I am very glad I dont have to be out in a car doing the actual "dirty work" - buit I dispatch so I can add a bit of light to this situation. One of the first things that you hacve to take into account is that mabey not all the agencies had the same radio systems. Here in my city we have 2 different radio systems between the local PD and the college pd that also do some helping around town. Sometimes different agencies dont have the equipment to even talk to each other - they would have to roll down their windows and yell. Just one of the intricacies of law enforcement that isnt readily known

Originally posted by SVTcontourSVT:
Thats [censored] up

Originally posted by TourDeForce:
Kremi, dude. You seriously need to go on a few ride alongs. Many PDs offer the opportunity for observers to accompany the officers for an evening. You should go on a few to see what it's like for them.

After a few, start asking your questions & get their perspective on things. It'll open your eyes to a whole new way of seeing the world. Knowledge is power!

You'd be surprised what I know about cops from working with them, dealing with them, and personaly knowing them. Though yeah my statements may not show that.

And yeah that one quote isn't really right, but sure I'll stick by it. There are a few cops that are too triggy happy and whatnot, not really in this case. And when I say cops it's more describing an organization. Anyways, I hate you guys, I'm going home!

Couldn't they like pull in front of them and shoot at the radiater?

That would stop em' pretty soon.

Hmm HeHe HaHa HoHo!

Originally posted by TourDeForce:
Kremi, dude. You seriously need to go on a few ride alongs. Many PDs offer the opportunity for observers to accompany the officers for an evening. You should go on a few to see what it's like for them.

After a few, start asking your questions & get their perspective on things. It'll open your eyes to a whole new way of seeing the world. Knowledge is power!

Nah, he won't do that, he won't even bother to sit and watch a damn tv show that will show him this sort of thing too. If he won't even check out a tv show, he definately doesn't have the cajones to go on a ride along. Ah well.

Originally posted by Red92784:
Couldn't they like pull in front of them and shoot at the radiater?

That would stop em' pretty soon.

Hmm HeHe HaHa HoHo!

You, my friend, definitely need to stop watching TV.

Originally posted by Sandman333:
You, my friend, definitely need to stop watching TV.

What? It could work.

Originally posted by Sandman333:

Originally posted by Red92784:
Couldn't they like pull in front of them and shoot at the radiater?

That would stop em' pretty soon.

Hmm HeHe HaHa HoHo!

You, my friend, definitely need to stop watching TV.

Would be safer than pitting the car at 100+. I've seen chases where cops shoot out tires and such, that wasnt in movies. shows like real TV or cops have those chases on all the time.

Most states tell troopers to let the car go, if they dont have a very good reason to stop it. In this case they didnt. Spike strips are constantly used in high traffic... and if you ever watch cops use spike strips, they throw them out... car goes over them, then they yank them back as the cop car thats chasing the car goes by... takes 1/2 a second. They could've done something else besides killing people. Cops dont have that right. Yes, the SUV was endangering other motorists lifes... but thats when the cops need to decided to let it go. Besides, for a suspended license... chasing the car for that long is pointless, and they already had the plates on the car, and they saw who was driving it. Why not let the car go, and go back to the house and wait for the person to show up. Been done before...

Originally posted by arch:

Originally posted by Sandman333:

Originally posted by Red92784:
Couldn't they like pull in front of them and shoot at the radiater?

That would stop em' pretty soon.

Hmm HeHe HaHa HoHo!

You, my friend, definitely need to stop watching TV.

Would be safer than pitting the car at 100+. I've seen chases where cops shoot out tires and such, that wasnt in movies. shows like real TV or cops have those chases on all the time.

Most states tell troopers to let the car go, if they dont have a very good reason to stop it. In this case they didnt. Spike strips are constantly used in high traffic... and if you ever watch cops use spike strips, they throw them out... car goes over them, then they yank them back as the cop car thats chasing the car goes by... takes 1/2 a second. They could've done something else besides killing people. Cops dont have that right. Yes, the SUV was endangering other motorists lifes... but thats when the cops need to decided to let it go. Besides, for a suspended license... chasing the car for that long is pointless, and they already had the plates on the car, and they saw who was driving it. Why not let the car go, and go back to the house and wait for the person to show up. Been done before...

Look at it from the oppisite point of view. Why would someone only guilty of DWS run like that. Could possibly be that the passenger was kidnapped or being held hostage. The officers didn't know that either. It makes no sense to run like that for such a minor violation, and so prudence suggests that something more is going on. Therefore, the police have an interest in investigating further, hence continuing the chase.

You hear about people running for stupid stuff like that all the time. Ever watched cops, or worlds craziest police chases. Plus arch is right, they had the tags. They coulda backed off and waited for them at home.

Can GSP not afford a helicopter?
Whatever happened to cops using every non-lethal force before lethal force?
Ive seen people run for the stupidest reasons, just to get out of a ticket or an arrest. I know people that run for stupider reasons.
Was watching cops last week... guy was running because the cop wanted to pull him over for a tail light out. Totaled his car.

In any case, that cop killed two people. FACT. You cant tell me he didnt. In any state, that gets prision time. If I did that with my car, I would be going to jail. So you want to tell me just because somebody has a different career choice than me, its ok to kill innocent people? Goverment officials even get introuble for killing innocent people, but its ok because its called 'casualty's of war'. I hate this 'Oh, he is a cop, and he was doing his job, so its ok' BS. He killed two people. Lethal force is supposed to be the last option.

don't make the mistake of equating what you see on "Cops" with everyday police work. 99% of the time, they are running because 1.Drugs, 2.DUI, 3.Stolen vehicle or property, 4.They are wanted on a warrant.....

The truth is you don't know what they were running for. The truth is that the cops took the life of 2 people, one innocent, without knoledge of why they were even running.
I dont think they would have made it 60 miles at 100+mph if the driver was drunk. Any other reason isn't good enough to take someones life. If they backed off and let them think they got away they would have slowed and gone home. The cops could have picked them up later.

Originally posted by arch:

In any case, that cop killed two people. FACT. You cant tell me he didnt. In any state, that gets prision time. If I did that with my car, I would be going to jail. So you want to tell me just because somebody has a different career choice than me, its ok to kill innocent people? Goverment officials even get introuble for killing innocent people, but its ok because its called 'casualty's of war'. I hate this 'Oh, he is a cop, and he was doing his job, so its ok' BS. He killed two people. Lethal force is supposed to be the last option.

They killed themselves. They set in motion the events that led to their own deaths. Don't try to pin this on the cop, the people mostly responsible for this will be pushing up daisies.

If you did that in your car, you're damn right you'd be going to jail. Don't be a dumbass. You doing it and a cop doing it are apples and oranges.

And they are hardly innocent. You're acting like the cops ran two people off the road who weren't doing anything.

Wanker.

Im not... I know its there because its exciting, and it wouldnt be good TV if it was just traffic stops all the time.
But you're missing my point. Which is, It happens, cops can get around it, and this time they made a choice to kill people instead of trying to stop them. And you cant tell me that a pit manuver at 100+ is trying to stop them... its not... its trying to kill them to elimate the threat, this isnt iraq, and GSP arent soilders. To peserve life right?

No but they killed an innocent person. The driver deserved what they got.

Originally posted by Red92784:
No but they killed an innocent person. The driver deserved what they got.

You're assuming they were innocent. The mere fact that they got into a vehicle with a driver that had a suspended license (which is the only reason they suspect he was running) makes him a moron. Quite worthy of a Darwin strike.

Damn it....
You're all missing my point.

THE COP DID NOT DO HIS JOB.

Just because a car doesnt pull over when a cop tells it to, doesnt give the cop the right to kill the occupants.

Originally posted by PackRat:

You're assuming they were innocent. The mere fact that they got into a vehicle with a driver that had a suspended license (which is the only reason they suspect he was running) makes him a moron. Quite worthy of a Darwin strike.

You're assuming he knew that his license was suspended.

Originally posted by arch:

Originally posted by PackRat:

You're assuming they were innocent. The mere fact that they got into a vehicle with a driver that had a suspended license (which is the only reason they suspect he was running) makes him a moron. Quite worthy of a Darwin strike.

You're assuming he knew that his license was suspended.

Well, if he was running for the heck of it, that makes him the biggest [censored] of all time.

Originally posted by arch:
Damn it....
You're all missing my point.

THE COP DID NOT DO HIS JOB.

Yes he did, he put an end to a chase without anybody not involved getting hurt, that's the best outcome. The safety of the runners is a distant second.

Quote:

Just because a car doesnt pull over when a cop tells it to, doesnt give the cop the right to kill the occupants.

I'm sure that wasn't the intended outcome but when you decided to run from the cops at 100 mph, all bets are off.

Do you need some cheese to go with your wine?

Originally posted by PackRat:

Originally posted by arch:

Originally posted by PackRat:

You're assuming they were innocent. The mere fact that they got into a vehicle with a driver that had a suspended license (which is the only reason they suspect he was running) makes him a moron. Quite worthy of a Darwin strike.

You're assuming he knew that his license was suspended.

Well, if he was running for the heck of it, that makes him the biggest [censored] of all time.

I meant, you're assuming that the passenger knew the license was suspended. Cops didnt know until afterwards. Cops didnt know anything except the original reason for pulling the car over. Which was a BS reason to begin with.

Originally posted by arch:
Damn it....
You're all missing my point.

THE COP DID NOT DO HIS JOB.

Just because a car doesnt pull over when a cop tells it to, doesnt give the cop the right to kill the occupants.

Sigh, you are a dumbass. You should just not post ever again. Cops are not bloodthirsty devils. They are normal people like you and I and I will tell you right now that they do not derive pleasure from killing people. They also didn't know that they would die, they didn't know they had no seatbelts on, all they knew is that if they were running, its was logical that something else was wrong.

Quote:

Yes he did, he put an end to a chase without anybody not involved getting hurt, that's the best outcome. The safety of the runners is a distant second.

The cops only duty is not to stop the chase.

Quote:

I'm sure that wasn't the intended outcome but when you decided to run from the cops at 100 mph, all bets are off.

Wasnt the intended outcome.... B S

Quote:

The truth is you don't know what they were running for. The truth is that the cops took the life of 2 people, one innocent, without knoledge of why they were even running.

You admit you don't know what they're running for, yet you still go on about "innocence". For all you know the two people just killed someone. You have no idea whatsoever about the innocence or guilt of anyone in that truck, and neither did the police at hand. They only knew they were running like hell for some reason.

Quote:

I dont think they would have made it 60 miles at 100+mph if the driver was drunk. Any other reason isn't good enough to take someones life.

So now drunk driving is punishable by death in your mind? My, aren't we a little hypocritical.

Quote:

If they backed off and let them think they got away they would have slowed and gone home. The cops could have picked them up later.

Home? Where's Home? How the hell do you follow them home without following them?

And don't say Registration -- my registration hasn't had my home address on it ever in my life.

Quote:

But you're missing my point. Which is, It happens, cops can get around it, and this time they made a choice to kill people instead of trying to stop them. And you cant tell me that a pit manuver at 100+ is trying to stop them... its not... its trying to kill them to elimate the threat,

Feel free to come up with something better -- no one's came up with anything yet.

The latest 2 suggesstions are:

1> Shooting out Radiators -- GSP don't have partners with them to shoot a gun, but let's assume they did... They have to get in front of a car going 125mph, hold a gun backwards out a car window, and hit a 1-foot square while going that fast. Chances are far more likely they'd shoot a person -- where they hell would that get them?

2> Shooting out Tires -- Again, provided you had someone to shoot you now have to hit a target about 6in x6in -- not likely. And a blow-out at that speed is more fatal than the PIT manuever.

Any other bright ideas to come from our own resident 'experts' on what cops should do in a given situation?

THE COPS HAD NOTHING ON THE PASSENGER. THEREFORE HE/SHE (I CANT REMEMBER) IS INNOCENT!!!!! THE COP KILLED AN INNOCENT PERSON.

ALSO IF ALL THEY HAD ON THE DRIVER WAS A SUSPENDED LICENCE, THAT IS NOT ENOUGH REASON TO KILL THEM. SOME COPS NEED TO LEARN WHEN ITS TIME TO BACK OFF!!!

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO "INNOCENT BEFORE PROVEN GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW". COPS DONT HAVE THE RIGHT TO SENTANCE SOMEONE TO DEATH, UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING IN SELF DEFENCE TO PROTECT THEIR OWN LIFE. THE DRIVER OF THE SUV WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENDANGERING ANYONE IF THE COPS HAD KNOWN WHEN TO BACK OFF.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, COPS ARE BEING GIVEN WAY TOO MUCH POWER.

THE PEOPLE IN THE SUV HADN'T KILLED ANYONE, THEREFORE THEY DO NOT DESERVE TO DIE!

Helicopter

Wow, your craftly use of the caps lock button really convinces me of your point!

But anyways,
Think about this logically. Suspended license = fine, running from cops = jail time, but if something else found w/ suspended license = more jail time then, running from cops sounds like a viable option. Innocent people generally don't run, but when they do they normally pull over eventually and say it just isn't worth it.

"Helicopter"

huh? Lemme guess, a big magnet on the bottom and they just life the car off the road

Quote:

THE COPS HAD NOTHING ON THE PASSENGER. THEREFORE HE/SHE (I CANT REMEMBER) IS INNOCENT!!!!! THE COP KILLED AN INNOCENT PERSON.

ALSO IF ALL THEY HAD ON THE DRIVER WAS A SUSPENDED LICENCE, THAT IS NOT ENOUGH REASON TO KILL THEM. SOME COPS NEED TO LEARN WHEN ITS TIME TO BACK OFF!!!

The cops had nothing on either you dense-headed [censored]. Only after the fact did anyone have any clue why they were running.

Quote:

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO "INNOCENT BEFORE PROVEN GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW". COPS DONT HAVE THE RIGHT TO SENTANCE SOMEONE TO DEATH, UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING IN SELF DEFENCE TO PROTECT THEIR OWN LIFE.

... Or the lives of others.

Quote:

THE DRIVER OF THE SUV WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENDANGERING ANYONE IF THE COPS HAD KNOWN WHEN TO BACK OFF.

By your logic let's not have cops at all! Cops just scare criminals into doing crazy [censored] like high-speed chases and taking hostages. From now on, whenever a cop tries to pull me over, I'll just drive over 100mph because they'll never be able to do a damn thing about it in your rose-colored world.

Quote:

THE PEOPLE IN THE SUV HADN'T KILLED ANYONE, THEREFORE THEY DO NOT DESERVE TO DIE!

We know that now. The cops didn't then. People don't generally run like that for no damn good reason.

What is they had killed someone. What if the cops let them go because it "got dangerous". And then they killed someone else? You'd be on your little box yelling about how the cops should have stopped them before.

[censored] hypocrit.

Originally posted by arch:
Helicopter

WTF about it?

Do you think rural Georgia is just full of choppers?

Originally posted by Red92784:
THE COPS HAD NOTHING ON THE PASSENGER. THEREFORE HE/SHE (I CANT REMEMBER) IS INNOCENT!!!!! THE COP KILLED AN INNOCENT PERSON.

ALSO IF ALL THEY HAD ON THE DRIVER WAS A SUSPENDED LICENCE, THAT IS NOT ENOUGH REASON TO KILL THEM. SOME COPS NEED TO LEARN WHEN ITS TIME TO BACK OFF!!!

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO "INNOCENT BEFORE PROVEN GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW". COPS DONT HAVE THE RIGHT TO SENTANCE SOMEONE TO DEATH, UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING IN SELF DEFENCE TO PROTECT THEIR OWN LIFE. THE DRIVER OF THE SUV WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENDANGERING ANYONE IF THE COPS HAD KNOWN WHEN TO BACK OFF.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, COPS ARE BEING GIVEN WAY TOO MUCH POWER.

THE PEOPLE IN THE SUV HADN'T KILLED ANYONE, THEREFORE THEY DO NOT DESERVE TO DIE!

So the cops should have just backed off and let these people haul a$$ on outta there? Well damn I'm gonna remember that the next time a cop wants to pull me over for running a red light. I'll just speed away and expect the cop to know when to back off and eventually he'll just let me go right? That's some seriously PISSPOOR logic man.

I'm willing to bet you'd change your story real quick of the cops had let them run away and the SUV ended up running over a friend or family member of yours. Then you'd be whining about cops not doing their job and got your friend/family member killed.

Originally posted by sigma:

Originally posted by arch:
Helicopter

WTF about it?

Do you think rural Georgia is just full of choppers?

I see copters pretty often.

Call me a [censored] hypocrit all you want. There are other things the cops could have done becides killing them.

I saw this thing on TV several years ago; unfortunately I can't find anything by google search on it. Basically, it was about Italian (I think) police rigging up their cars with this harpoon type thing. It was mounted to the front folded in for normal driving but with the flip of a switch it would pop straight out from the front. The police would then ram into a car during a chase and hit their brakes causeing the runaway vehicle to stop. They also were working on a system that would allow them to spray some sort of tear gas through the harpoon to incapacitate the occupants of the vehicle. I thought it was brilliant but will never happen in the U.S. because of excessivle whiney people. They'll whine about a cop having to run some fool off the road but if you post another alternative "OMG that's inhumane and not safe and wah wah wah wah"

I think some people just like to whine for the sake of hearing their own voices.

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:

Originally posted by sigma:

Originally posted by arch:
Helicopter

WTF about it?

Do you think rural Georgia is just full of choppers?

I see copters pretty often.

Not police choppers, I'm sure. Even Atlanta only has 2, , IIRC.

Originally posted by Red92784:
Call me a [censored] hypocrit all you want. There are other things the cops could have done becides killing them.

And you've yet to think of one.

For someone with all the right answers you sure seem to be wrong a lot.

How the [censored] am I wrong. I came up with ome good ass alternatives!!!

Edit: Police comendeer news choppers all the time!

Originally posted by arch:
Damn it....
You're all missing my point.

THE COP DID NOT DO HIS JOB.

Just because a car doesnt pull over when a cop tells it to, doesnt give the cop the right to kill the occupants.

You guys are not going to change his mind. He has it that cops are the devil incarnate, and we are out to take away everyone's rights. We were all picked on in school and now feel that our badge and gun give us the right to get even.

The officers did not intend any harm to the driver/passenger, period. The officers ended the chase with the best methods available at the time, period. We are not the boogey-man.

Time to learn a lesson about personal responsibility. You run, you are responsible for the outcome. Had the driver pulled over and stopped, none of this would have happened. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY! It's so lacking in today's society. I can't believe we are debating who is at fault here. Hey! I was running because the police were chasing me. It's their fault I crashed! Can't you see how completely stupid that sounds?

Let's sue gun manufacturers because their product was used to kill someone.

Next, let's sue auto and alcohol manufacturers because their product was used to kill someone.

Tell you what, take everything you own and get rid of it now, because it can be used to hurt someone in one fashion or another. Let's not take personal responsibility for our actions, let's continue to blame everything on someone else. I know, the police have the deepest pockets, let's sue them!

Originally posted by Red92784:
How the [censored] am I wrong. I came up with ome good ass alternatives!!!

Edit: Police comendeer news choppers all the time!

Like I said...how would you feel if the cops "just let em go and caught em later" and the idiots ran over your mom or someone? I'm sure then you'd be crying about "stupid po po aren't doing their jobs"

Originally posted by arch:

Quote:

Yes he did, he put an end to a chase without anybody not involved getting hurt, that's the best outcome. The safety of the runners is a distant second.

The cops only duty is not to stop the chase.

I fail to see where I said that was his only duty.

Quote:

Quote:

I'm sure that wasn't the intended outcome but when you decided to run from the cops at 100 mph, all bets are off.

Wasnt the intended outcome.... B S

Wow, I guess you were in contact with the officer and knew he intended on killing them. Do you have some crystal ball or something?

Originally posted by Sandman333:
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY! It's so lacking in today's society. I can't believe we are debating who is at fault here. Hey! I was running because the police were chasing me. It's their fault I crashed! Can't you see how completely stupid that sounds?

Let's sue gun manufacturers because their product was used to kill someone.

Next, let's sue auto and alcohol manufacturers because their product was used to kill someone.

Tell you what, take everything you own and get rid of it now, because it can be used to hurt someone in one fashion or another. Let's not take personal responsibility for our actions, let's continue to blame everything on someone else. I know, the police have the deepest pockets, let's sue them!

Right on brother! We were just arguing about lack of personal repsonibilty at work the other day; sick of people blaming everyone else for their mistakes.

Originally posted by Red92784:
How the [censored] am I wrong. I came up with ome good ass alternatives!!!

Edit: Police comendeer news choppers all the time!

You've been watching WAAAAAAAAAAAY too much TV!

Quote:

How the [censored] am I wrong. I came up with ome good ass alternatives!!!

You've yet to come up with anything that is feasible or has less potential to be lethal than the PIT maneuver.

Quote:

Edit: Police comendeer news choppers all the time!

Did you see any news chopper footage on that chase? Again -- rural Georgia -- only places that are going to have news choppers are metro Atlanta. In 20 minutes, the time it would take before the police would give up on him stopping and call the chopper for help, that chopper couldn't have gotten more than 50 miles outside of downtown Atlanta.

Originally posted by Sandman333:
Tell you what, take everything you own and get rid of it now, because it can be used to hurt someone in one fashion or another. Let's not take personal responsibility for our actions, let's continue to blame everything on someone else. I know, the police have the deepest pockets, let's sue them!

Howabout you get rid of your computer so that you cant post anymore.

Aww... You hurt his feelings, Sandman.

Originally posted by Red92784:

Originally posted by Sandman333:
Tell you what, take everything you own and get rid of it now, because it can be used to hurt someone in one fashion or another. Let's not take personal responsibility for our actions, let's continue to blame everything on someone else. I know, the police have the deepest pockets, let's sue them!

Howabout you get rid of your computer so that you cant post anymore.

How about you show a little respect for a guy who has put his life on the line not only as a Soldier in the Army but as a Police Officer? Without people like him you wouldn't even have the right be to a pain in everyone's as$es.

Like Ive said before, there are always alternatives to killing someone.

And yes anyone with a brain and a drivers licence knows that pitting someone at 100mph is going to kill them.

Quote:

Like Ive said before, there are always alternatives to killing someone.

Yet you still haven't come up with any good ones.

Come on, we're waiting to be educated by our little resident Keyboard Cop.

Quote:

And yes anyone with a brain and a drivers licence knows that pitting someone at 100mph is going to kill them.

I've seen PITs done numerous times above 100mph that went perfectly. Would you like me to find the video of the guy who was PITd several times in a row at high speed and recovered from every one of them? The unknown equation in a PIT is how the driver is going to react and, unfortunately, there's little that can be done there. A good driver will recover every time at any speed. A bad driver, like in the video, overcorrects and flies off the road. In between is where most occur and lethality isn't very high at all.

Originally posted by Red92784:
Like Ive said before, there are always alternatives to killing someone.

And yes anyone with a brain and a drivers licence knows that pitting someone at 100mph is going to kill them.

Not always.

Originally posted by Red92784:
How the [censored] am I wrong. I came up with ome good ass alternatives!!!

Edit: Police comendeer news choppers all the time!

LOL! WHAT????

Dude, back away from the Starsky & Hutch DVD slowly....

17 pages of this bullsh!t.

Originally posted by popecruz:
17 pages of this bullsh!t.

I only got 8...I'm gettin ripped off!

I know a few cops.

Most of the cops I have encountered can only see what is in front of them. They have lost the ability to see or think of any other alternatives. This is after years of being on the police force. There are a few exceptions though, but they are spread far too thin.

And I would expect sandman to back up the cop if he is one. All officers stick up for eachother.

My uncle is a county officer almost 20 years now and over the years he has developed a major stick up his ass.

Originally posted by Red92784:

Originally posted by Sandman333:
Tell you what, take everything you own and get rid of it now, because it can be used to hurt someone in one fashion or another. Let's not take personal responsibility for our actions, let's continue to blame everything on someone else. I know, the police have the deepest pockets, let's sue them!

Howabout you get rid of your computer so that you cant post anymore.

Lol, I think that, on these forums, you have just done the equivilant of commiting suicide. I have a long established reputation around here, and by your post count, I'm guessing you don't. I am a police officer, and know what is practical and what is not. Some of your suggestions just make no sense from a practical standpoint. If you have come to this type of attack, it is clear that you have lost the debate. Good day.

Quote:

Most of the cops I have encountered can only see what is in front of them.

And apparently you lack the ability to see what is in front of you.

Quote:

They have lost the ability to see or think of any other alternatives.

And some people spend so much time thinking of alternatives that it's too late once they get around to acting.

Quote:

My uncle is a county officer almost 20 years now and over the years he has developed a major stick up his ass.

Apparently it's hereditary.

Originally posted by Red92784:
My uncle is a county officer almost 20 years now and over the years he has developed a major stick up his ass.

Evidently it runs in the family.

I had an uncle who was the same way. It turned out he really DID have a stick up his ass.

Originally posted by Sandman333:
Lol, I think that, on these forums, you have just done the equivilant of commiting suicide. I have a long established reputation around here, and by your post count, I'm guessing you don't. I am a police officer, and know what is practical and what is not. Some of your suggestions just make no sense from a practical standpoint. If you have come to this type of attack, it is clear that you have lost the debate. Good day.

What type of attack? I am not saying that you have a stick up your ass. I am saying that cops who have been in the force a long loose the ability to not think like a cop.

In other words cops dont know whats going through other peoples heads. They try to think of what would be the best outcome for them.

The way that cop looked on the video, I dont think he gave two s*its about the two people who were killed.

70 mile chase.... 13 miles into GA.
45 Minute chase... 10 minutes into GA.
Yup I guess you're right. Cops wouldnt have been able to get a helicopter to pick the car up with a magnet. Because you know, chase 'copters always do that. Spike Strips wouldnt have been able to be used in that 70 miles ethier. And I guess the presence of all those cop cars and 18 wheelers, they couldnt have boxed the car in ethier. There is ALWAYS another viable alternative. In this case there were many and the cop chose the wrong one. And if you're seriously going to tell me that the cop didnt know he was going to kill the people inside of the car, or at least criticaly injure them, then you are the most ignorant person I have ever known of.

Preservation of Life. Cops do not have any more authority to kill somebody than anybody else does.

By the way cudos for Iraq and I hope you are one of the few cops that arn't [censored].

Quote:

The way that cop looked on the video, I dont think he gave two s*its about the two people who were killed.

"The way he looked", huh? Wow, so much for your whole "innocent until prove guilty" spiel. So.. looking guilty is enough to proclaim guilt, but running from the cops isn't. Man, and all this time I thought that running from the cops made someone look a little guilty of something.

You've got to be the biggest [censored] hypocrit I've ever seen.

Quote:

In other words cops dont know whats going through other peoples heads. They try to think of what would be the best outcome for them.

You apparently have no [censored] clue how likely it would be for that cop to have killed himself attempting the maneuver he did. I sure as hell know that I wouldn't be trying to run into a car twice my size at 100mph.

The best outcome for that cop would have been not endangering his own life and not have to go through all the crap (and rightful crap) that one wades through after causing two fatalities while on the job.

Originally posted by Red92784:

Originally posted by Sandman333:
Lol, I think that, on these forums, you have just done the equivilant of commiting suicide. I have a long established reputation around here, and by your post count, I'm guessing you don't. I am a police officer, and know what is practical and what is not. Some of your suggestions just make no sense from a practical standpoint. If you have come to this type of attack, it is clear that you have lost the debate. Good day.

What type of attack? I am not saying that you have a stick up your ass. I am saying that cops who have been in the force a long loose the ability to not think like a cop.

In other words cops dont know whats going through other peoples heads. They try to think of what would be the best outcome for them.

The way that cop looked on the video, I dont think he gave two s*its about the two people who were killed.

UM, this type:

Quote:

Howabout you get rid of your computer so that you cant post anymore.

That tells me you understand your position is without merit, and have nothing further to add to the discussion.

Quote:

Spike Strips wouldnt have been able to be used in that 70 miles ethier.

Spike Strips at that speed are more lethal than the PIT manuever.

Quote:

And I guess the presence of all those cop cars and 18 wheelers, they couldnt have boxed the car in ethier.

What MOVIE did you watch to get this bright idea? Semi-Trucks and Boxing people in a 110mph? Man, I gotta catch that movie, because it sure as hell couldn't happen in real life.

When you stop watching so many movies and join us in the real world, you can participate in the conversation.

Originally posted by arch:
70 mile chase.... 13 miles into GA.
45 Minute chase... 10 minutes into GA.
Yup I guess you're right. Cops wouldnt have been able to get a helicopter to pick the car up with a magnet. Because you know, chase 'copters always do that. Spike Strips wouldnt have been able to be used in that 70 miles ethier. And I guess the presence of all those cop cars and 18 wheelers, they couldnt have boxed the car in ethier. There is ALWAYS another viable alternative. In this case there were many and the cop chose the wrong one. And if you're seriously going to tell me that the cop didnt know he was going to kill the people inside of the car, or at least criticaly injure them, then you are the most ignorant person I have ever known of.

Preservation of Life. Cops do not have any more authority to kill somebody than anybody else does.

Wrong, police do have much more authority to use deadly force than civilians. That is well established in every state (lol, well, maybe not Texas). And yes, the PIT maneuver is considered deadly force, but so is attemping to shoot out the tires, or using spike strips at that speed.

Originally posted by sigma:
...after causing two fatalities...

Done and done.

You know everyone picks on grammar, and plays mind games with other peoples words trying to make them look stupid. So dammit I have the right to do it to!

Come now, that is not what you were doing. Your argument is without merit, and your post shows how desperate you are to prove your point. You are arguing for argument's sake.

WITHOUT MERIT?
Did you seriously just say that?
A cop KILLED two people, and you're saying its ok, because he was on the job at the time? Or are you saying that because you're a cop, and all cops stick together?
Cops are just a legalized gang.

Quote:

Cops are just a legalized gang.

Bwaaahahahahaa.

It's official! You truly are the most ignorant [censored] ever! Congratulations!

prove me wrong?

yes, of course, we are the devil incarnate, and I want to take away all your rights and bully you like I was bullied in high school...

sigh...

Then what are you doing. We are both trying to make different points here. This will go on forever. I have my opinion and you have yours. Your opinion is from a cops point of view, and mine is from a civilians point ov view. There are many variables here. If the cops backed off sure they might have lost them but an innocent life would have been saved. This argument can go on forver and you can try to discredit me all you want but I will stand my my beliefs.

Quote:

WITHOUT MERIT?

Yes, "WITHOUT MERIT". As in, your argument is that it's wrong, but you have no solution to make it right. That would be WITHOUT MERIT.

Quote:

A cop KILLED two people,

No... A cop killed two criminals in an effort to save innocent people.

Patently different case.

Now he is just say things to get us upset. I for one vote on a two week stupidity / flamebait ban =)

Quote:

If the cops backed off sure they might have lost them but an innocent life would have been saved.

Where is this "innocent life"?

Quote:

two criminals

Hypocrite

Did we forget about the passenger or do we have to go over that again. The passenger was innocent and probably scared shitless.

Originally posted by arch:

Quote:

two criminals

Hypocrite

Please explain how that is "hypocritical". I believe you must be using that world incorrectly.

No, its actually not. He is calling them criminals because they are guilty of running from the police. That is a crime that they were in fact guilty of, making them criminals. Now why they ran, we don't know, they could have been inncocent of anything else.

Because it takes two people to control a SUV.

Originally posted by Red92784:
Then what are you doing. We are both trying to make different points here. This will go on forever. I have my opinion and you have yours. Your opinion is from a cops point of view, and mine is from a civilians point ov view. There are many variables here. If the cops backed off sure they might have lost them but an innocent life would have been saved. This argument can go on forver and you can try to discredit me all you want but I will stand my my beliefs.

Stand by them all you want. I have years of experience as a police officer to back up my position. Where is your experience specifically relating to this case? Do you have years of being chased by the police? 'twould explain a great many things.....

Quote:

Did we forget about the passenger or do we have to go over that again. The passenger was innocent and probably scared shitless.

We know that the passenger was innocent now. Hindsight is 20/20 and can be a real [censored] sometimes too. At the time all the cops knew was that they tried to pull someone over and they took off. They didn't know if they were DUI, bank robbers, serial murderers, or just plain stupid. It appears it was more the latter.

Quote:

Because it takes two people to control a SUV.

You're right it only takes one person to run from the cops.

It could take two to commit murder, or rob a bank, or maybe they were serial rapists. Get it through your head that you're basing your argument on knowledge learned after the fact.

At the time everyone in that car was a criminal. If they had pulled over, they both would have been thrown to the ground and they both would have gone to jail until everything was straightened out.

Exactly. There is a point when you start being able to only think like a cop, and stop being able to think like a regular citizen.

and your scientific study of this is where? Sorry, no one is going to buy that. Being an officer in no way makes me less of a citizen. Police are there to serve the public interest. We are not the ogres you would make us out to be. I spend far more time as a citizen than I do as an officer. I don't want my rights violated any more than you do. The difference is, I recognize the responsibility of the citizen to obey the law.

Hmm, so for a simple example. I was pulled over by an undercover officer a few monthes back. I saw him pull out behind me because he had just finished giving someone a ticket. I obeyed the speed limit used my turn signal every time and obeyed every street sign. He told me I was pulled over for excessive speed and failure to signal.(BS!!) I knew for a fact that I had done nothing wrong. He saw a nice car with four people in it and in his opinion we were up to no good. In reality I was coming home from the grocery store.

This is abuse of power!

Quote:

Quote:

A cop KILLED two people,

No... A cop killed two criminals...

ATTENTION!: Criminals are no longer people.

Quote:

At the time everyone in that car was a criminal

Exactly how cops think.
Innocent until proven guilty. Unless you're a cop. Then anybody and everybody is guilty until proven Innocent.

Quote:

At the time all the cops knew was that they tried to pull someone over and they took off. They didn't know...

THEY DIDNT KNOW. Which means, they assumed they were guilty.
Which is WRONG.

Originally posted by sigma:

Originally posted by arch:

Quote:

two criminals

Hypocrite

Please explain how that is "hypocritical". I believe you must be using that world incorrectly.

They were not both criminals. The cops had no way of knowing what the passengers relationship was. Therefor, Like it was said eariler, The passenger could've been kidnapped for all they know. And they would've killed an innocent person. What if that passenger was your daugther? You would be on the other side of the argument. My arguement is based on facts known prior to the end of the chase.
Boxing a car in, is a non-lethal option, and yes it can be done safely at that speed. With or without the help of truckers. Getting infront of the car and slowly braking the cop car is another way of slowing the car down. It was mentioned that its possible to live from a PIT at high speeds like was done before when a helicopter was chasing a stolen car with police trying. However this was a SUV, and that car was a mustang. The SUV will FLIP at those speeds. The mustang will spin. The cop killed two PEOPLE. At the very least, The passenger had no right to die, no reason to die.

Quote:

Exactly how cops think.
Innocent until proven guilty. Unless you're a cop. Then anybody and everybody is guilty until proven Innocent.

When you run from the cops you're guilty of something flat-out, even if it's nothing more than running from the cops, it's still something.

Now, I know you're going to say "But the passenger didn't do anything" -- Well the Cops don't know that. For all they know they were holding a gun to the driver's head. So they take the driver off the jail and tell the passenger to take a taxi home. Smart move there, huh?

Quote:

THEY DIDNT KNOW. Which means, they assumed they were guilty.
Which is WRONG.

This has nothing to do with cops that's our law. You run from the cops and everyone in the car is assumed to be guilty of something until everything's straightened out. Have a problem with that, then when you actually get old enough to vote, you can do something to change it.

Quote:

Boxing a car in, is a non-lethal option, and yes it can be done safely at that speed. With or without the help of truckers. Getting infront of the car and slowly braking the cop car is another way of slowing the car down.

No [censored] way. You try getting in front of a car going 110mph and stopping, see what happens. You're not only going to kill the people in the SUV, you're likely to kill the cops too. Jesus Christ man, how many [censored] cop chase movies do you watch?

Quote:

They were not both criminals. The cops had no way of knowing what the passengers relationship was. Therefor, Like it was said eariler, The passenger could've been kidnapped for all they know. And they would've killed an innocent person. What if that passenger was your daugther?

Or maybe it was the othe way around. Or maybe. Or maybe.

Get off your damn "maybes" and look at reality. When you've got the education to make some real suggestions, come back to me. But it'll be a while, I'm sure.

Originally posted by Sandman333:
Lol, I think that, on these forums, you have just done the equivilant of commiting suicide. I have a long established reputation around here, and by your post count, I'm guessing you don't. I am a police officer, and know what is practical and what is not. Some of your suggestions just make no sense from a practical standpoint. If you have come to this type of attack, it is clear that you have lost the debate. Good day.

So let me get this straight. If I have a low post count I get no respect? And if someone has too high of a post count they are a post whore.

You know I came to CEG over FContour.org because I thought you guys were a little more mature. Mabey I was wrong.

Quote:

You know I came to CEG over FContour.org

Oh. Well that explains it.

Quote:

So let me get this straight. If I have a low post count I get no respect?

No, you get the respect that you earn. Sandmann's contributed a lot here and you haven't. Pretty simple really. We all start at zero, some are held higher and some are held lower -- but it's earned, not given.

And it sure as hell has nothing to do with post-count. Sandmann's been here years and has 600 posts -- you've been here a month and have 200. If it was post count you'd be ahead by a mile.

WTF does that mean. I checked out Fcontour.org and CEG and decided I would rather be part of CEG. You f*cking moron.

Originally posted by Red92784:
You f*cking moron.

Any you say we are not mature?

Quote:

Well the Cops don't know that.

Point Proven.

Quote:

You run from the cops and everyone in the car is assumed to be guilty of something until everything's straightened out.

Point Proven.

Quote:

No [censored] way. You try getting in front of a car going 110mph and stopping, see what happens. You're not only going to kill the people in the SUV, you're likely to kill the cops too. Jesus Christ man, how many [censored] cop chase movies do you watch?

Sad part is, you're serious.

Quote:

look at reality.

Quote:

NO.

Quote:

WTF does that mean. I checked out Fcontour.org and CEG and decided I would rather be part of CEG. You f*cking moron.

That's "WTF" I mean.

Quote:

Quote:

No [censored] way. You try getting in front of a car going 110mph and stopping, see what happens. You're not only going to kill the people in the SUV, you're likely to kill the cops too. Jesus Christ man, how many [censored] cop chase movies do you watch?

Sad part is, you're serious.

Yeah, I'm serious. What's your background in high speed chases? Vehicle Dynamics? Anything relevant at all? Hell, I'd take a purported background in Common Sense from you if that's all you had.

Ok that was a little harsh, but I got my feelings across. Would you rather me just call you a plain old moron.

Quote:

Ok that was a little harsh, but I got my feelings across. Would you rather me just call you a plain old moron.

Whatever suits your fancy. But I wonder if I'm a "moron" just what word would describe someone of your embarrasingly poor intellect?

Im glad that you agree with me, sigma.

Oh what great stregnth it requires for me to hold my toung.

So the personal bashing begins.

Aw. Does that mean you're not going to regale me with your vast knowledge bank of situational applications of various solutions to this problem? Because all this time I've been waiting to hear an actual intelligent solution to the problem of high-speeed chases and I've yet to hear one.

HOW TO BOX IN A CAR.

car is doing 110... cop #1 does 115 and gets infront.
cop #2 gets on the left side
cop #3 gets on the right side
cop #4 gets behind

#1 lets off the gas, and gradually slows down....
The car will have to slow down, and wont be able to go anywhere. IF The car tries to go somewhere, the car will most likely hit a police car. That can be considered attempted murder on a police officer. Then the arguement of using deadly force to stop the car would be void.

If thats not intelligent to you, then you're not very intelligent yourself. And have nothing to contribute to this thread, or the world in general. Please leave this world. It will be much better for all who you have spoken to in your 10 years of life. If you're not 10 years old, then you're intelligence level stoped developing a long time ago.

Quote:

So the personal bashing begins.

"Poor Intellect" isn't really personal. "Moron" is personal.

Poor Intellect isn't your fault, it's a fault of your upbringing. So, just like you do in this particulation situation here, you can shun personal responsibility and blame the problem on someone else.

I am starting to believe that literacy is the problem here because It does not seem that you have read anything said before. There were many logical suggestions. All of which had there variables. But none were even attempted. You will get more than one chance to stop a car if the first thing you try isn't wrecking it.

Where in that video did it say exactly that they hadn't attempted anything before???

Quote:

HOW TO BOX IN A CAR.

car is doing 110... cop #1 does 115 and gets infront.
cop #2 gets on the left side
cop #3 gets on the right side
cop #4 gets behind

#1 lets off the gas, and gradually slows down....
The car will have to slow down, and wont be able to go anywhere. IF The car tries to go somewhere, the car will most likely hit a police car. That can be considered attempted murder on a police officer. Then the arguement of using deadly force to stop the car would be void.

It's various obvious that you've never attempted such a maneuver. If you were running from the cops, would you stay still long enough for that to happen? Have you ever tried to surround a car veering from side to side? Ever tried to drive three cars abreast at 120mph through traffic? Ever see what happens when an SUV locks bumpers with a police car at 100+mph?

Jesus Christ man, is that the best suggestion you've got?

Quote:

I am starting to believe that literacy is the problem here because It does not seem that you have read anything said before. There were many logical suggestions. All of which had there variables. But none were even attempted. You will get more than one chance to stop a car if the first thing you try isn't wrecking it.

If literacy is the problem, it is on your end my friend. I not only have read every suggestion you've made, I've offered reasoning why they would never work either. You're welcome to go through and find each of them.

sorry if this posted twice.

HOW TO BOX IN A CAR.

car is doing 110... cop #1 does 115 and gets infront.
cop #2 gets on the left side
cop #3 gets on the right side
cop #4 gets behind

#1 lets off the gas, and gradually slows down....
The car will have to slow down, and wont be able to go anywhere. IF The car tries to go somewhere, the car will most likely hit a police car. That can be considered attempted murder on a police officer. Then the arguement of using deadly force to stop the car would be void.

If thats not intelligent to you, then you're not very intelligent yourself. And have nothing to contribute to this thread, or the world in general. Please leave this world. It will be much better for all who you have spoken to in your 10 years of life. If you're not 10 years old, then you're intelligence level stoped developing a long time ago.

If they had attempted anything Im sure the reporter would have mentioned it. Its a bigger story if the car keeps on going after the cops attempt to stop it.

Quote:

It's various obvious that you've never attempted such a maneuver. If you were running from the cops, would you stay still long enough for that to happen? Have you ever tried to surround a car veering from side to side? Ever tried to drive three cars abreast at 120mph through traffic? Ever see what happens when an SUV locks bumpers with a police car at 100+mph?

MY POINT IS, IT IS POSSIBLE. They didnt try, just because something is hard to do, doesnt mean the cops cant do it.
It wasnt tried. Therefore you cannot be certain.

I said that they all had their variables. I also said that you can have more than one chance to stop the car if the first thing you try isn't wrecking it.

You guys are missing the point of the post and picking on the suggestion itself.

Im giving examples to make a point.
The points of which sigma has already agreed with.
Why he continues to debate the cops decision is beyond me.

This is really still going on? No wonder some of the people on CEG have so many posts. A few debates like this and your number explodes. Red registered just over a month ago and he's already at 147. I wonder how many of those were in this post?

Originally posted by RyeLou:
I wonder how many of those were in this post?

I just went and looked actually. 42. Over 25% of all of his posts have taken place in this thread.

Whats the obsession this forum has with post numbers?

No, the bigger story is the crash...besides that any attemps to stop it would have been ignored, seing as they only have so much air time for a story.

Well I think Im done arguing. The person I was arguing with ended up agreeing with me. So Im glad that Im right. And Im glad that it was realized how he was wrong.

Im sorry, I thought that the goal of the station was to get better ratings.

Wouldn't covering a huge police chase bring more people to the tv. I think they would have made time if there was more to cover.

Quote:

It wasnt tried. Therefore you cannot be certain.

Yeah, and the magnet on the helicopter is "possible" too -- not very likely.

Your "idea" is likely to result in more fatalities than just two. Spend some time behind the wheel of a car going that speed and maybe you'll understand the stupidity of that suggestion.

Quote:

Im giving examples to make a point.
The points of which sigma has already agreed with.
Why he continues to debate the cops decision is beyond me.

Very simple -- because the cops were right. They were acting well within their rights as cops and the full legal system. If you disagree with our laws, take it up with someone who can change them -- not with the men tasked with enforcing them.

Quote:

Well I think Im done arguing. The person I was arguing with ended up agreeing with me. So Im glad that Im right. And Im glad that it was realized how he was wrong.

Your logic abilities are dumbfounding. When you get out of High School try taking some college courses in Logic and Debate. They might help you along in your illustrious career as a manager at McDonald's.

Originally posted by sigma:

Quote:

It wasnt tried. Therefore you cannot be certain.

Yeah, and the magnet on the helicopter is "possible" too -- not very likely.

Your "idea" is likely to result in more fatalities than just two. Spend some time behind the wheel of a car going that speed and maybe you'll understand the stupidity of that suggestion.

Quote:

Im giving examples to make a point.
The points of which sigma has already agreed with.
Why he continues to debate the cops decision is beyond me.

Very simple -- because the cops were right. They were acting well within their rights as cops and the full legal system. If you disagree with our laws, take it up with someone who can change them -- not with the men tasked with enforcing them.

Im still confused. Why do you continue to post?

Quote:

Your logic abilities are dumbfounding. When you get out of High School try taking some college courses in Logic and Debate. They might help you along in your illustrious career as a manager at McDonald's.

Oooh, now im moving up in the world.

I believe you're just mad because you realized that you did agree with me. Its ok, your ego will grow back. Most likely more than it should. As was.

My point was that there is no proof that the cops did or didn't attempt to stop the SUV earlier. The media, particulary local TV stations, tend to leave out little details.

Quote:

Im still confused.

Don't fret. You probably will be for a very long time.

Quote:

Why do you continue to post?

Because I find your ignorance amusing.

You see, I received my training in Defensive Driving, Offensive Driving, and Vehicle Dynamics from the JFK Special Warfare Training School at Fort Bragg.

While I certainly don't consider myself an expert in the field, I am particularly well educated in virtually all manner of offensive driving manuevers, having both studied the theory and conducted more than my fair share of the maneuvers in reality as well.

Aside from my own comic relief, I like to take your wonderful suggestions and forward them to my old instructors for their amusement as well.

So, hey, if nothing else you can say you did some patriotic duty today and made some old soldiers laugh.

And my point was [insert previous post here].

You're laughing at my posts, yet agreeing with them.
Isnt that just laughing at yourself then?

Quote:

wonderful suggestions

why... thank you.

Quote:

You're laughing at my posts, yet agreeing with them.
Isnt that just laughing at yourself then?

Never once did I agree with you.

You did take some things out of context (see the above post) and try to make it sound that way, all while dodging the point, but you really were very poor at it. You seriously are the worst debater I've ever had the misfortune of coming across. I mean, you think your clever, but damn you're stupid.

But that's not the point -- It's not your ignorance that I find laughable -- I find that dumbfounding. It's your suggestions that are laughable.

Originally posted by arch:

Originally posted by sigma:
Well the Cops don't know that.

Point Proven.

Originally posted by sigma:
You run from the cops and everyone in the car is assumed to be guilty of something until everything's straightened out.

Point Proven.

Quote:

No [censored] way. You try getting in front of a car going 110mph and stopping, see what happens. You're not only going to kill the people in the SUV, you're likely to kill the cops too. Jesus Christ man, how many [censored] cop chase movies do you watch?

Sad part is, you're serious.

Quote:

look at reality.

Quote:

NO.

Oh, no, you never agreed.

Again -- Out of Context.

Your point is that the cops were taking matters 'into their own hands', 'like a legalized gang' -- my point is that they are acting as the law prescribes.

Again -- if you have a problem with our laws as written, when you reach voting age you can try to change it.

Originally posted by Red92784:
Hmm, so for a simple example. I was pulled over by an undercover officer a few monthes back. I saw him pull out behind me because he had just finished giving someone a ticket. I obeyed the speed limit used my turn signal every time and obeyed every street sign. He told me I was pulled over for excessive speed and failure to signal.(BS!!) I knew for a fact that I had done nothing wrong. He saw a nice car with four people in it and in his opinion we were up to no good. In reality I was coming home from the grocery store.

This is abuse of power!

mmkay, so you take one ba example (being that I wasn't there, I will take your word for the events as you described them) and blanket all officers with that stereotype? Can't you see the problem there?

Originally posted by Red92784:

Originally posted by Sandman333:
Lol, I think that, on these forums, you have just done the equivilant of commiting suicide. I have a long established reputation around here, and by your post count, I'm guessing you don't. I am a police officer, and know what is practical and what is not. Some of your suggestions just make no sense from a practical standpoint. If you have come to this type of attack, it is clear that you have lost the debate. Good day.

So let me get this straight. If I have a low post count I get no respect? And if someone has too high of a post count they are a post whore.

You know I came to CEG over FContour.org because I thought you guys were a little more mature. Mabey I was wrong.

Let me explain this for you:

It means that I have been here for quite some time, and others know who I am and what I stand for. You, being relatively new, ought to consider that before you make such childish attacks.

Dont tell me that you didnt agree, when you did. In or out of your definition of context.

Quote:

Your point is that the cops were taking matters 'into their own hands', 'like a legalized gang' -- my point is that they are acting as the law prescribes.

Dont tell me what my point is.

Do you have so much ignorance that you ignore the point of the post?

Originally posted by arch:
HOW TO BOX IN A CAR.

car is doing 110... cop #1 does 115 and gets infront.
cop #2 gets on the left side
cop #3 gets on the right side
cop #4 gets behind

#1 lets off the gas, and gradually slows down....
The car will have to slow down, and wont be able to go anywhere. IF The car tries to go somewhere, the car will most likely hit a police car. That can be considered attempted murder on a police officer. Then the arguement of using deadly force to stop the car would be void.

If thats not intelligent to you, then you're not very intelligent yourself. And have nothing to contribute to this thread, or the world in general. Please leave this world. It will be much better for all who you have spoken to in your 10 years of life. If you're not 10 years old, then you're intelligence level stoped developing a long time ago.

The 2 of you seem to be fans of "Cops", and should see how well that works the majority of the time. Given that, don't know why you even suggested it.

Quote:

Dont tell me that you didnt agree, when you did. In or out of your definition of context.

When you take 2 quotes right out of the middle of sentences/paragraphs and try to reach a conclusion from them, that is "our of context". Have they not reached that chapter yet in your textbook?

Quote:

Dont tell me what my point is.

I just had to be sure you were straight on it yourself. You seem to lose track a lot.

For one thing I dont care who knows you. Second I am slowly begining to understand what you stand for.

Just because you are in the military and are a cop doesn't grant you more respect than others. I thank you for fighting for this country so that I can have the right to be a pain in your ass. After 911 I think this generation finally understands how much we have to be thankfull for.

But Im telling you that from my point of view the officer acted irrationaly.

Preservation of life is a police officers FIRST duty to society.

PROTECT.... and serve.

I am saying, that the choice that was made, was wrong. And that I would've said that before the action of the choice was carried out. I am saying, there are other actions that could've been taken to end the chase, most of which would not involve the loss of life.

Quote:

But Im telling you that from my point of view the officer acted irrationaly.

Couldnt have said it better myself.

COPS is TV. again you're missing the point.

How can you guys be missing the point after me explaining it several times?

I believe this is where the word moron comes back into 'context'

Me taking select words out, is me further proving my point.
The 'context' you speak of, is well within what I quoted, and the subject of your post was shown very well with my quotes.

Quote:

Preservation of life is a police officers FIRST duty to society.

PROTECT.... and serve.

Woohoo -- We can agree on something.

Quote:

I am saying, that the choice that was made, was wrong.

Okay... fair reasoning as long as you have an alternative solution that would be "right"...

Quote:

I am saying, there are other actions that could've been taken to end the chase, most of which would not involve the loss of life.

And yet you've provided none that would do so.

If you could come up with an idea that would have worked better, I will concede that you were correct and the cops should have done something else. BUT, as someone with more education in offensive driving and vehicle dynamics than your average police officer, I can think of nothing else that would have worked better than what they did. And I've heard nothing else presented that would create a lesser potential for fatalities than the PIT maneuver in this case.

Just out of curiosity how old are you guys?

Originally posted by Red92784:
For one thing I dont care who knows you. Second I am slowly begining to understand what you stand for.

Just because you are in the military and are a cop doesn't grant you more respect than others. I thank you for fighting for this country so that I can have the right to be a pain in your ass. After 911 I think this generation finally understands how much we have to be thankfull for.

But Im telling you that from my point of view the officer acted irrationaly.

Never said being an officer or my military service had anything to do with it. Nice try, anyway.

Eh, you missed it sigma. Arch doesn't even know who he is replying to (himself in at least one case, lol).

Look... Im saying that the choice the cop made, was not the best choice, there were other methods of slowing/stopping the car that should've been employed. Im saying that based on what the cops knew at the time, a better decision should've been employed. If you cant agree to that, then Im done talking to you, because I cannot speak to someone with intellgence that a 3rd grader could undermine. Listen to yourself, you're advocating the death of people by cops.

Dang, this is a long thread... It's nice to see other people who like to argue for the sake of arguing - I do it all the time!

What's the record for longest thread?

Quote:

Eh, you missed it sigma. Arch doesn't even know who he is replying to (himself in at least one case, lol).

Just because I click on the closest 'reply' means I dont know who im replying to? Geez... how immature can you get?

quote=Sandman333]Lol, I think that, on these forums, you have just done the equivilant of commiting suicide. I have a long established reputation around here, and by your post count, I'm guessing you don't. I am a police officer, and know what is practical and what is not. Some of your suggestions just make no sense from a practical standpoint. If you have come to this type of attack, it is clear that you have lost the debate. Good day.

Well the cop part was implyed. You might want to choose your words a little better so we dont have to argue about it later.

lol, well, it would help to know who you are slinging the poo at, lol.

Quote:

Look... Im saying that the choice the cop made, was not the best choice, there were other methods of slowing/stopping the car that should've been employed.

Like what?

That's all I'm saying -- I will concede that the cop should have done something else if you can tell me what that something else is.

What should the cop have done that had a less likely chance of fatalities and still resulted in their arrest?

You are right, a better decision should've been employed -- but one doesn't exist to my knowledge. I've been waiting for, what, 2 days now to hear one from someone. I know a lot about offensive driving and stopping cars but I won't say I know everything, I'll concede that you just might think of something that would work that myself and the instructors at Fort Bragg can't think of. But it's nothing you've said so far, that's for sure.

Thats where intelligence comes into play.

what? deciphering your cuniform?

hardly.

so, if we were having this conversation IRL, you would not bother to turn your head to the person you were addressing, and instead look at only one person the whole time, and expect everyone else to know who you were talking to? No wonder you are failing in your point here.

Just because something is hard to do, or maybe injure a cop, doesnt mean that they cant do it. Cops sign up to risk their lives every day, they know they have to, to preserve life. Boxing the car in is definately a pluasable soultion. Spike strips would also work, there are spikes that rip apart the tire at low speeds to stop a car, and there are spike strips that are just large needles which deflate the tires for high speeds. Letting the cops back off and following the car with a chopper is another pluasable soultion. How many more soultions do you want me to give you? Granted there is no easy way to do it. But if everything was easy for cops, then they wouldnt be chasing a car down the highway in the first place.

Quote:

No wonder you are failing in your point here.

huh?
Open your eyes... maybe you need to re-read what has been said.

Originally posted by arch:
Just because something is hard to do, or maybe injure a cop, doesnt mean that they cant do it. Cops sign up to risk their lives every day, they know they have to, to preserve life.

EXACTLY! By eliminating the nutcase in the Pathfinder they were preserving the life of the law abiding motorists; motorists like you, me, and our friends and family.

Furthermore, LEOs do risk their life everyday and know that when they sign on, but they also have a desire to go home to their family too; and given the choice between a LEO acting lawfully in the line of duty and a criminal in the act of a crime I'd pick the life of the LEO every single time.

Originally posted by arch:

Quote:

No wonder you are failing in your point here.

huh?
Open your eyes... maybe you need to re-read what has been said.

arch, you and red are the only two at planet CEG who see this situation as you purport. The fact that the both of you are relative newcomers to CEG and are getting lambasted in this discussion should be a hint that this isn't a forum stacked with your fellow Fast&theFurious wannabe's.

Quote:

Just because something is hard to do, or maybe injure a cop, doesnt mean that they cant do it. Cops sign up to risk their lives every day, they know they have to, to preserve life. Boxing the car in is definately a pluasable soultion.

Boxing in is not about injuring a cop; it's about killing a cop, and the perpetrator, and innocent bystanders. Boxing in just isn't done often anymore. It has nothing to do with how "hard" something is, but how likely someone is to be killed.

If it was just about how "hard" it was, I'm sure the cop would rather not have to go through the investigation process after having killed someone. And if it was all about how "hard" it was he definetely wouldn't be doing something as difficult and self-endangering as the PIT maneuver on an SUV at 110MPH.

Quote:

Spike strips would also work, there are spikes that rip apart the tire at low speeds to stop a car, and there are spike strips that are just large needles which deflate the tires for high speeds.

Spike Strips are far from 100% safe. Even the hollow ones designed to deflate over a short distance. Drivers, particularly in SUVs, lose control and flip with greater frequency than during the PIT maneuver which generally does not go as badly as in this case. When effective, most drivers continue on despite their blown tires, usually pulling off the freeway and into city traffic (not a concern here). And there's been dozens of occassions where the officers deploying the strips have been struck and killed by the perpetrator.

This is probably the 'best' option to go with aside from the PIT maneuver, but would require extensive coordination with surrounding departments which is difficult at best and would have meant continuing the chase likely an additional 15-25 miles to where additional officers would be at and the conditions of the roadway met guidelines meeting the requirements for spike strip deployment.

Quote:

Letting the cops back off and following the car with a chopper is another pluasable soultion.

Possibly. Except we had no chopper in this case and were over 75 miles away from Atlanta. Even if a chopper had been called within the first 10 minutes, the chase would still continue for over an hour before a chopper would be on scene.

Oh because we're new to the forum, we have no intelligence now.
Geez, you guys will come up with anything. First its post numbers, now its when the name was regged?

DAMN, the point is SOMETHING else SHOULDVE BEEN DONE
AND there were many other soultions that COULD've BEEN EMPLOYED.
How much more simply would you like me to put it?

Originally posted by arch:
DAMN, the point is SOMETHING else SHOULDVE BEEN DONE

How much more simply would you like me to put it?

The point is you haven't come up with anything that would have likely resulted in less fatalities than their solution did.

If they did the spike strip and the SUV rolled and they died -- we'd still be having this argument.

If they did the chopper thing, and in the midst of the hour long chase 4 cars were forced off the road and killeed 4 people -- we'd still be having this argument.

If they boxed in the car and the SUV rammed the front car, locking bumpers with the cop and spinning out of control killing the occupants and the cop -- we'd still be having this argument.

No matter what the cops did, if the people in the SUV or any innocent bystanders were killed, you'd still be having a cow over the whole thing. And all the available options were at least as likely to result in fatalities as the PIT maneuver was.

Originally posted by sigma:

Originally posted by arch:
DAMN, the point is SOMETHING else SHOULDVE BEEN DONE

How much more simply would you like me to put it?

The point is you haven't come up with anything that would have likely resulted in less fatalities than their solution did.

If they did the spike strip and the SUV rolled and they died -- we'd still be having this argument.

If they did the chopper thing, and in the midst of the hour long chase 4 cars were forced off the road and killeed 4 people -- we'd still be having this argument.

If they boxed in the car and the SUV rammed the front car, locking bumpers with the cop and spinning out of control killing the occupants and the cop -- we'd still be having this argument.

No matter what the cops did, if the people in the SUV or any innocent bystanders were killed, you'd still be having a cow over the whole thing. And all the available options were at least as likely to result in fatalities as the PIT maneuver was.

BULL $H*T

There's a whole lot of shoulda coulda woulda going on in this thread. What's done is done. My sister's fiance was a passenger in a car where his friend was getting pulled over for speeding, but his friend decided to make a run for it. They were both arrested.

In the case of the police using the PIT maneuver, which resulted in the deaths of the occupants of the car, the determination was made to remove the threat to others on the road. Yes, police are to protect and serve, and they were protecting the public. It's called choosing the lesser of two evils. Should you remove the threat that one SUV was posing to the general public at large? Or should you allow them to continue on their merry way, endangering the lives of countless drivers and passengers on the roads? They chose to remove the one vehicle from the road, which resulted in death for those that were in that vehicle, also resulting in safer roads at the time-being for the greater good.

Were there safer measures that could have been used? I've seen several suggestions. Spike strips at that rate of speed would have caused the SUV to lose control, just like the PIT maneuver did. Maybe they should have got those really cool electrical cut-off thingies like in 2F2F - all the way from Hollywood! And if they do exist in real life, chances are those things are expensive, and not every department can afford them. Heck, there are still some fire departments who don't have thermal cameras yet, and still others are in the process of purchasing "jaws-of-life" equipment. You use what's available to you.

I've seen some good points made in this argument, and I won't regurgitate what was said, but I will repeat this, I don't think either side is going change its mind. But hey! it's still fun to read!

Carry on!

Yeah, because your opinion of what could/should have been done in a situation you have no direct knowledge of really outweighs that of the experts in offensive driving, ATO, and vehicular dynamics...

Originally posted by sigma:
Yeah, because your opinion of what could/should have been done in a situation you have no direct knowledge of really outweighs that of the experts in offensive driving, ATO, and vehicular dynamics...

Become a comedian, because I just cant stop laughing.

Since I assume it's not you that we're laughing at, please let me in on your part of the joke.

The logic you are using is cause enough.

How is the logic that "The likelihood of you being right when experts in the field disagree with you is so very small" poor logic?

Please tell me. Aside from entertaining my old CTTC and ADT instructors maybe I can track down my logic professors from college somehow and you can entertain them with your wondrous throught processes as well.

It amazes me that your brain is still able to function.

Some simplistic words even you can understand...

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Going by your logic, cops should be allowed to kill anybody that they THINK did something wrong. Goes back to the whole 'shoot first ask questions later' thing. Guilty until innocent right? F-ing cops. They assume that everybody is guilty until they're all dead or in jail. So much damn BS. I can not believe you're an actual person, with such disfunction. Im sorry, maybe you'll be able to re-learn the procedures cops operate under, since you're such an advocate of death by cop.

Originally posted by arch:
It amazes me that your brain is still able to function.

Some simplistic words even you can understand...

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Going by your logic, cops should be allowed to kill anybody that they THINK did something wrong. Goes back to the whole 'shoot first ask questions later' thing. Guilty until innocent right? F-ing cops. They assume that everybody is guilty until they're all dead or in jail. So much damn BS. I can not believe you're an actual person, with such disfunction. Im sorry, maybe you'll be able to re-learn the procedures cops operate under, since you're such an advocate of death by cop.

There is not doubt in this case. She was caught speeding, ran, and killed herself and her passenger. She was a criminal, no doubt about it.

Had she hit your families car and killed everyone in it. What would you have said then?

Your only point to these posts is to prove cops are bad. They aren't they protect and serv. I openly admit there are corrupt cops. But not in the this case.

-Andy

In God We Trust... everyone else we run through NCIC.

Originally posted by Red92784:
If the cops backed off sure they might have lost them but an innocent life would have been saved. This argument can go on forver and you can try to discredit me all you want but I will stand my my beliefs.

Are you really that stupid; really???? So now the criminals that run from the legal authorities are the innocent ones? See I always thought that it was the person or people that the ones RUNNING from the cops end up killing that are the innocents; not the people that committed the crime of running! It's morons like you and your buddy arch that make me scared for my own well being when you become old enough to vote.... Or hell, drive for that matter since you think the cops are the bad guys!

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Originally posted by arch:
It amazes me that your brain is still able to function.

Some simplistic words even you can understand...

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Going by your logic, cops should be allowed to kill anybody that they THINK did something wrong. Goes back to the whole 'shoot first ask questions later' thing. Guilty until innocent right? F-ing cops. They assume that everybody is guilty until they're all dead or in jail. So much damn BS. I can not believe you're an actual person, with such disfunction. Im sorry, maybe you'll be able to re-learn the procedures cops operate under, since you're such an advocate of death by cop.

Great way to change the subject. What? You give up on providing an actual solution to your b1tching?

And please tell me procedures that cops operate under, Mr. Expert. Please endow me with your vast knowledge of the law, Mr. Middle School student. Please do.

I never said cops are bad. I said there are more a**hole cops than there are good ones.

I think we forgot about the passenger again. THEY WERE INNOCENT!

Maybe its like a bad mother in-law?

You just want to get away from them. No particular reason, aside from just not wanting to be bothered by the police today.
Hell, I hate being bothered by cops... its annoying. And besides, the adreneline rush of running is absoultely spectacular.

Quote:

I never said cops are bad. I said there are more a**hole cops than there are good ones.

Yeah, because you have such a huge life experience with police with which to reach that conclusion...

Ive decided that the ignoramuses cannot be shown they are wrong. So I've then decided that I will now become immature like them to somehow communicate with them on a level slightly higher than thier own.

Quote:

Ive decided that the ignoramouses cannot be shown they are wrong. So I've then decided that I will now become immature like them to somehow communicate with them on a level slightly higher than thier own.

Before insulting one's intelligence, it's always better to make sure that you are using proper spelling and grammar. Just a little FYI.

So, are you ever going to answer the questions or are you going to continue to act like you know everything when you've in fact the only thing you've proven is that our public school system is shoddy beyond repair?

Because you rant and rave an awful lot but you never actually get anywhere. And when you get called on your ignorance you fall back to another subject really quick.

IM trying to eat here.... i got a sandwhich in one hand and the keyboard in the other....

And to answer your question: I like bread.

You must've been eating the past 6 hours.

I have had enough encounters with the police to form a revelent conclusion.

Ive never been arrested and have never been charged with a crime. But I have met many police officers on power trips. I have even "matched a discription" because I had a bebe gun in my car, and there were some punks robing 711's in that area with a bebe gun. But it turned out that they were mexican. The cop was ready to take me away before he got the correct information over the radio. He wa acting irrationaly and on the spurr of the moment.

In this chase, Im sure there were cell phones, radios, and computers. At least one of these had to be in every car. They could have coordinated something somehow. It was not worth the loss of life.

Quote:

I never said cops are bad. I said there are more a**hole cops than there are good ones.

Going into into a situation with a cop with that opinion of them is probably why they act that way. Cops treat people two ways, the way you talk to them and they way you act.

If a cop pulls you over for doing something you know is wrong and you admit it as a lapse in thought, they are 99% of the time cool.

But in the same situation you get smart and insist you did nothing wrong, your gonna get an [censored].

I've been pulled over a few times in my life and not once have I felt I was wrongly treated.

Once I was pulled over cause my car swirved coming off the line, badly ruted road. The cop pulled me over thinking I was drunk and I can't blame him. He asks me if I was drinkin, I said no, that I just got off work and I was heading home. He says ok cause you took off a little funny. I said np. The road is rutted back their and my car doesn't handle them well. He said goodbye and be careful.

-Andy

Originally posted by sigma:
You must've been eating the past 6 hours.

Im a hungry guy.

Or you get cops that leave their spot light on your car so that you can't safely pull off and when you do, you see spots for the rest of your drive home.

Quote:

But I have met many police officers on power trips. I have even "matched a discription" because I had a bebe gun in my car, and there were some punks robing 711's in that area with a bebe gun.

It is mighty unusual to keep a BB gun in the car.

Quote:

The cop was ready to take me away before he got the correct information over the radio.

A true [censored] cop would've taken you away even with the correct information. This guy just didn't have a full description yet and he found a BB gun in your car -- probable cause to hold you for a bit until he gets clarification, for sure.

Quote:

He wa acting irrationaly and on the spurr of the moment.

I don't know what exactly he did to you that was 'irrational'. If he threw you on the hood and cuffed you -- Yes. If he asked you to wait or maybe even loosely put cuffs on you until he got clarification from the dispatcher that's not irrational at all. What if you were the real robber and he just let you go because "he wasn't really sure"? A minor inconvenience is not being an [censored].

Quote:

In this chase, Im sure there were cell phones, radios, and computers. At least one of these had to be in every car. They could have coordinated something somehow.

Agreed - at least in theory. In reality thoughit is unfortunate that most departments don't coordinate. They don't share cell numbers, and their computers and radios don't talk to one another. In a Post-9/11 world the problem of department cooperation is slowly being worked on. I would imagine rural Georgia is one of those areas that it hasn't really caught on yet.

I enjoy being right.

And yet your not

Good for you.

The feeling, even if not justified, must be few and far between for you.

Originally posted by arch:
And besides, the adreneline rush of running is absoultely spectacular.

ban, please!

I can think of about 2 times Ive been wrongly treated right now. I can tell you about them if you want.

Ok I will.

1: I was driving up a road in my civic, following a soccor mom going under the speed limit when I knoticed a police officer shooting lazer. Another black civic, same year, flew up next to me then slammed on his brakes and got behind me. The cop pulled me over and gave me a ticket for 15 over. My laser detector never went off, I told him this and also about the other car that flew up next to me and he said "better luck next time". I was completly nice to him untill then. I told him to [censored] off and I'd see him in court. I hired a lawer and won!

2: I was making a left turn across 2 lanes on a flashing red light with tall bushes in the median that are almost impossible to see over at 2 in the morning. I made the turn as an officer came flying up behind me with no headlights. He swerved to miss me almost lost control then pulled me over and gave me a ticket for faliur to yield. I had 2 whitnesses in the car that saw him with out his headlights on. He was a [censored] and didn't want to be put to shame in court so he diddn't even show up.

Although I have proven Several people wrong, given them explanations to what they have asked for. And described in detail how something else COULD've been done. AND I was agreed with several times by the very people telling me I was wrong. You still have the nerve to tell me im wrong? Wow... talk about anal. How you people operate is just amazing to me.

Originally posted by bigMoneyRacing:

Originally posted by arch:
And besides, the adreneline rush of running is absoultely spectacular.

ban, please!

Why? Cant admit when you're wrong?

Quote:

Although I have proven Several people wrong, given them explanations to what they have asked for. And described in detail how something else COULD've been done.

None of which were plausible.

Quote:

AND I was agreed with several times by the very people telling me I was wrong.

BS and you know it.

You might as well say that we both agree that the Nissan Pathfinder in question was White so we must agree -- that doesn't mean I agree with your point.

Quote:

You still have the nerve to tell me im wrong?

It's not really "nerve" if it's fact.

Do you even know what my point is?

Originally posted by arch:
You still have the nerve to tell me im wrong?

Your not wrong, you are just dilusional. We are only talkin opinions here. Now on the facts, you are wrong.

"HELLO MCFLY!"

What facts am I wrong about?

I'm sorry (I'm not saying sorry to everyone, I'm saying sorry to those making intelligent remarks, whether I agree/disagree/don't care about them) for helping to spur this arguement. Moderators, feel free to lock it, doesn't really seem to be going anywhere now.

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
I'm sorry (I'm not saying sorry to everyone, I'm saying sorry to those making intelligent remarks, whether I agree/disagree/don't care about them) for helping to spur this arguement. Moderators, feel free to lock it, doesn't really seem to be going anywhere now.

Agreed

Awww, No dont lock it. Im enjoying this. Plus it would be exciting just to see how many pages it will get up to before some one admits their wrong.

They wont admit they're wrong... They know it, but they cant. They've been proven wrong, time and time again. If they still cant admit it, then they never will... its turned into BS anyways.

HOW TO BOX IN A CAR.

car is doing 110... cop #1 does 115 and gets infront.
cop #2 gets on the left side
cop #3 gets on the right side
cop #4 gets behind

Deserpate suspect rams cop on either side sending him into the ditch and killing him/her.

Better yet, the desperate suspect rams into the semi helping, jack knifing it, killing the driver, and possibly the other cops or travelers near by.

As you saw in the video at those speeds any contact between vehicles can send one of them flying off the road. You have no training in this technique. Boxinging in on a two lane highway would require someone to be off the road endangering another life.

Spike strips are not normal eq for rural state police. And having a similar vehilce to that truck she would have rolled. My truck scares the hell out of me with 20psi in the tires from going off road. 91 hardbody to be exact.

The fact is she need to be stopped before she killed innocent bystandards. Unfortuneately they could prevent her from killing her passenger.

The fact is failing to act is more dangerous than acting. Especially in the law enforcement field.

-Andy

Hell, Im done with it.

The stupidity on this thread comming from 'death by police' advocates is overwhelming.

Originally posted by arch:
The stupidity on this thread comming from 'death by police' advocates is overwhelming.

Criminial death by police, as a result of criminal act and failure to comply. It's comes with the territory! Both would be alive and well had she not run.

-Andy

I think I'm with arch. Im out. We keep the ideas coming and you keep picking them apart.

Every idea could have thousands of variables some of which are good and some of which are bad. But you can have more than one chance to stop a speeding car.

The people that have been arguing against me would rather shoot first and ask questions later. That is all there is too it. Like the guy in NY who was shot 21 times for trying to pull out his I.D. card, because he matched a description.

I'm outy.
Ive made my point.
Now pick this apart.

Wow. Just read this post from where I left it, and good god. I don't want to get in a flame war, but I just have to say something.

arch, you are an idiot with big words. You have no complete thoughts, you have yet to back up your arguments, and from the looks of it, all the intelligent people that WERE trying to help you make a good argument have left because you are just that stupid.

Red, you've been alot better than arch, but the only argument you disagree with is that the passenger was innocent.
Should they have let the car go, simply because if the driver had just killed someone, the passenger was innocent? Should they have assumed that these are good, honest people, who just didn't want to be "bothered by the cops" today, and they decided to just NOT STOP, and run from them?
Should we let people driving to work die before we go after someone who has been in the company of someone who commited a criminal act, and now is in the same car as them, without fight or attempt to flee?

Truely, this is just inane how far this thread has gone. Most of it is petty name calling, and it's hard NOT to do when there is such a huge showing of ignorance. Kremit, kudos to you for apologizing, but I should probably already apologize for this thread, since I know it won't go without a disagreement. Red, you are getting the point I believe, or at least are not posting any more incoherent arguments. arch will never understand why his arguments make no sense, and I will never understand half his posts, mainly cuz he typically posts once, responds to himself, and in that response just says something incredibly intelligent like "You're a moron", or "BULL SH*T"

Anywho, just had to get that out, and a pre apology for contributing to this little fight.

Oh and whoever said something along the lines of

Quote:

Just because you're a cop and have served in the military, I'm supposed to give you respect?

Yes. They are risking their lives to protect yours. Why can't you just see that?

Originally posted by PlatoSVT:

Oh and whoever said something along the lines of
Quote:

Just because you're a cop and have served in the military, I'm supposed to give you respect?

Yes. They are risking their lives to protect yours. Why can't you just see that?

Agreed, maybe not fully on the cop part (though in sandman's case, he's not crooked, and I do respect respectable cops) because I just know too many crooked cops, but definitely on the military part.
I think arch and red both might sorta be feeling the same way I do, but expressed it a lot worse way than I did. I started off badly and learned more and I got my arguement to the point that I was satisfied with my position. This thread sucks now. I'm gonna go drive drunk and run from the cops.

Originally posted by arch:
Maybe its like a bad mother in-law?

You just want to get away from them. No particular reason, aside from just not wanting to be bothered by the police today.
Hell, I hate being bothered by cops... its annoying. And besides, the adreneline rush of running is absoultely spectacular.

Freudian slip, anyone?

I wanted to throw my .02 in.

I think that everyone would have a different opinion on the situation if that had been a family member in the passenger seat. I am not disagreeing with what the cops did, they did what they had to do. A great tragedy has happened (even if the driver should be nominated for the Darwin award). I know I would be just as upset had that driver killed my mom on the freeway.

I said.

Originally posted by Red92784:
Just because you are in the military and are a cop doesn't grant you more respect than others.

Hell I help local cops chase down drunk drivers all the time. Should I be more respected than others. No.

I also said I appreciate what all the soldiers are doing in Iraq.

What most of us don't understand is how arch and red can be so angry with the police, and have yet to demonstrate any anger at the driver. The responsibility of the accident and deaths lies with the driver. She had a duty to obey the law. She had a duty to pull over.

Game, set, match.

Last laugh.

Haha!

Ok, I totally skipped pages 28-33 and I'll probably pay the price for that.

Hell, I'll pay the price for even getting involved.

But did anybody (especially red/arch) consider that the cops did not execute the PIT knowing that the two occupants inside the Pathfinder were going to die?

On a side note, I saw that Pathfinder on the back of a flatbed going through Savannah a few weeks ago and thought to myself, "Somebody is damn lucky if they survived that." Blew me to find out that this was the origin.

P.S. Credit to Ross for yet again starting what will be a 400+ post thread.

Yes we did think of that. But you pit an SUV at 100+ and their gonna flip.

My apoligies... If anything I said was incomplete or misinformed or misspelled. I have a retard that cant stop talking to me in the backround, so its hard to complete a thought.

Originally posted by SAV-ZX2:

P.S. Credit to Ross for yet again starting what will be a 400+ post thread.

Is that a compliment?

HAHA arch, that's a great excuse. I have a retard......

"My bicycle has four wheel disc brakes"

Time to take off those training wheels

Good times though, thanks for stickin to your guns.

Originally posted by Red92784:
Yes we did think of that. But you pit an SUV at 100+ and their gonna flip.

Yeah, they're going to flip but flips are survivable.

Quote:

Police say the PIT maneuver is used as a last result

Quote:

"Your overall goal is to immobilize the vehicle so it's no longer a threat," said Mike Maul, a traffic officer

Quote:

Police also learn to avoid using the PIT with certain types of vehicles, such as SUVs or large passenger vans. Vehicles with a high center of gravity easily roll when hit from behind.

Officers in Georgia last week followed neither of the above. State troopers on Interstate 95 attempted to PIT a Nissan Pathfinder on Aug. 17 at speeds in excess of 110 miles per hour. Two people in the SUV died.

Quote:

Originally developed by the Fairfax County, Virginia, Police Department, the PIT maneuver is taught as a low speed (less than 35 mph), precision technique, requiring a clear location and careful timing.

Quote:

Jasper County won't use the "Pursuit Intervention Technique" performed by Georgia state troopers, he said. They also won't chase suspects for more than a short time in traffic unless they know a serious crime has been committed.
"If they had just murdered someone, that's different," Hughes said. "If it's just a traffic violation and it's too dangerous to pursue someone, we terminate the chase."

"We have a no-chase policy," said Port Royal Police Chief James Cadien. "Unless it is a felony, or a serious crime, and (officers) know the person they are chasing was involved in that crime, what they are allowed to do is get a tag number, back off and let them go."

The Port Royal Police Department adopted the no-chase policy about 10 years ago to protect police officers and innocent bystanders who could get hurt in chases, he said.

"You attempt to stop a car and if they decide they're going to go 110 mph, they're not going to go that fast if you're not behind them, pushing," Cadien said. "The harder you chase them, the faster they're going to go."

Calling off a police chase doesn't necessarily mean a suspect is going to get away.
Armed with a tag number, vehicle description and suspect description, officers can track down culprits later and pursue charges, said Beaufort County Sheriff P.J. Tanner. Supervisors in Beaufort County must approve and monitor every chase, he said. They are also supposed to call off any chase that endangers the public unless the suspect would pose a greater danger if allowed to go free.

"You have to evaluate every chase situation," Tanner said. "Police don't like to be outrun. Their hearts start pumping and their adrenaline starts going. And sometimes it takes a supervisor to call it off."

That doesn't give anyone a green light to flee. Just because one officer abandons a chase doesn't mean another won't be on the lookout just down the road or knocking on a suspect's door a few hours later. But Tanner said the dangers of chases are too great to pursue suspects who may be wanted for minor crimes.
Many South Carolina agencies, including the Colleton County Sheriff's Office, sometimes use spiked "stop sticks" to puncture a suspect's tires. Tisdale said deputies couldn't use them Tuesday because they couldn't get ahead of Sharp's vehicle to put them down.

Good enough?
How many more times would you like me to prove you wrong?
Advanced Driving? Police training?
Along with my other posts you were sending to your instructors, please send this one along with it.

Tell me one more time that I have nothing to backup what im saying. Just to show how ignorant you are again.
Game, Set, Match.....
Right?

DAMN I FEEL GOOD.

Direct from www.policedriving.com
And the other site the image is from.
And from a news site.

Originally posted by arch:

Quote:

Police say the PIT maneuver is used as a last result

Quote:

"Your overall goal is to immobilize the vehicle so it's no longer a threat," said Mike Maul, a traffic officer

Quote:

Police also learn to avoid using the PIT with certain types of vehicles, such as SUVs or large passenger vans. Vehicles with a high center of gravity easily roll when hit from behind.

Officers in Georgia last week followed neither of the above. State troopers on Interstate 95 attempted to PIT a Nissan Pathfinder on Aug. 17 at speeds in excess of 110 miles per hour. Two people in the SUV died.

Quote:

Originally developed by the Fairfax County, Virginia, Police Department, the PIT maneuver is taught as a low speed (less than 35 mph), precision technique, requiring a clear location and careful timing.

Quote:

Jasper County won't use the "Pursuit Intervention Technique" performed by Georgia state troopers, he said. They also won't chase suspects for more than a short time in traffic unless they know a serious crime has been committed.
"If they had just murdered someone, that's different," Hughes said. "If it's just a traffic violation and it's too dangerous to pursue someone, we terminate the chase."

"We have a no-chase policy," said Port Royal Police Chief James Cadien. "Unless it is a felony, or a serious crime, and (officers) know the person they are chasing was involved in that crime, what they are allowed to do is get a tag number, back off and let them go."

The Port Royal Police Department adopted the no-chase policy about 10 years ago to protect police officers and innocent bystanders who could get hurt in chases, he said.

"You attempt to stop a car and if they decide they're going to go 110 mph, they're not going to go that fast if you're not behind them, pushing," Cadien said. "The harder you chase them, the faster they're going to go."

Calling off a police chase doesn't necessarily mean a suspect is going to get away.
Armed with a tag number, vehicle description and suspect description, officers can track down culprits later and pursue charges, said Beaufort County Sheriff P.J. Tanner. Supervisors in Beaufort County must approve and monitor every chase, he said. They are also supposed to call off any chase that endangers the public unless the suspect would pose a greater danger if allowed to go free.

"You have to evaluate every chase situation," Tanner said. "Police don't like to be outrun. Their hearts start pumping and their adrenaline starts going. And sometimes it takes a supervisor to call it off."

That doesn't give anyone a green light to flee. Just because one officer abandons a chase doesn't mean another won't be on the lookout just down the road or knocking on a suspect's door a few hours later. But Tanner said the dangers of chases are too great to pursue suspects who may be wanted for minor crimes.
Many South Carolina agencies, including the Colleton County Sheriff's Office, sometimes use spiked "stop sticks" to puncture a suspect's tires. Tisdale said deputies couldn't use them Tuesday because they couldn't get ahead of Sharp's vehicle to put them down.

Good enough?
How many more times would you like me to prove you wrong?
Advanced Driving? Police training?
Along with my other posts you were sending to your instructors, please send this one along with it.

Tell me one more time that I have nothing to backup what im saying. Just to show how ignorant you are again.
Game, Set, Match.....
Right?

DAMN I FEEL GOOD.

Direct from www.policedriving.com
And the other site the image is from.
And from a news site.

You've proven squat. But you can go ahead and live in your little world that you have proven something if you want.

The CHP PITS vans and SUV's all the time.

Besides, what occurs in Jasper County, South Carolina has [censored] all to do with Georgia State Patrol policy.

Game, set, match!!!

Rip that apart MoFo.

Damn this guys good. Props to arch!

Originally posted by Red92784:
Game, set, match!!!

Rip that apart MoFo.

Damn this guys good. Props to arch!

Why don't you two pinheads go get a room. You two remind me of this assclown they had at ClubSi, who would post something and then claim to be correct like an [censored].

PackRat, Dude youve just lost all credibility. How can you ignore facts, and statements from POLICE OFFICERS!

Originally posted by Red92784:
PackRat, Dude youve just lost all credibility. How can you ignore facts, and statements from POLICE OFFICERS!

Ok, the statements from the police officers you provided were the Jasper County officers stating THEIR policy on pursuits. What does that have to do with the Georgia State Patrol?

You've yet to provide any evidence that this use of the PIT manuever is a violation of Georgia State Patrol policy.

If anything, you've proven several of your fanboys wrong, particularly in regards to spike strips:

Quote:

Tisdale said deputies couldn't use them Tuesday because they couldn't get ahead of Sharp's vehicle to put them down.

Quote:

"Your overall goal is to immobilize the vehicle so it's no longer a threat," said Mike Maul, a traffic officer

And THAT'S exactly what the officer did.

Originally posted by red:
PackRat, Dude youve just lost all credibility. How can you ignore facts, and statements from POLICE OFFICERS!

man if i were anybody else:

Originally posted by some people:
because the officers were the problem!!!! thats why i cant!!!

but im not any other person. i agree totally with tha actions the officers took, every time a thread with questionable ethics is posted, it leads to bad blood and internet fistfights...FWIW i think this should be locked. i have seen it many times in my short time here. cut it out. whats done is done, get over it. its not a who's right and who's wrong situation. the police officer did what he felt wasw in the best interests of the general public, can we all agree on that at least??? my uncle is a California Highway Patrol officer, and i refuse to believe that an officer would willingly endanger his own life unless he had no other choice...would you???

that said, you wont convince me otherwise, so dont try.

people are going to believe whatever they want.
now cut it out.

sheesh.

It's interesting how a thread can go 18+ pages and not be on the original subject.

Originally posted by arch:

Quote:

Police say the PIT maneuver is used as a last result

Quote:

Police also learn to avoid using the PIT with certain types of vehicles, such as SUVs or large passenger vans. Vehicles with a high center of gravity easily roll when hit from behind.

Officers in Georgia last week followed neither of the above. State troopers on Interstate 95 attempted to PIT a Nissan Pathfinder on Aug. 17 at speeds in excess of 110 miles per hour. Two people in the SUV died.

Quote:

Originally developed by the Fairfax County, Virginia, Police Department, the PIT maneuver is taught as a low speed (less than 35 mph), precision technique, requiring a clear location and careful timing.

Quote:

Jasper County won't use the "Pursuit Intervention Technique" performed by Georgia state troopers, he said. They also won't chase suspects for more than a short time in traffic unless they know a serious crime has been committed.
"If they had just murdered someone, that's different," Hughes said. "If it's just a traffic violation and it's too dangerous to pursue someone, we terminate the chase."

"We have a no-chase policy," said Port Royal Police Chief James Cadien. "Unless it is a felony, or a serious crime, and (officers) know the person they are chasing was involved in that crime, what they are allowed to do is get a tag number, back off and let them go."

"You attempt to stop a car and if they decide they're going to go 110 mph, they're not going to go that fast if you're not behind them, pushing," Cadien said. "The harder you chase them, the faster they're going to go."

Calling off a police chase doesn't necessarily mean a suspect is going to get away.
Armed with a tag number, vehicle description and suspect description, officers can track down culprits later and pursue charges, said Beaufort County Sheriff P.J. Tanner. Supervisors in Beaufort County must approve and monitor every chase, he said. They are also supposed to call off any chase that endangers the public unless the suspect would pose a greater danger if allowed to go free.

Just because one officer abandons a chase doesn't mean another won't be on the lookout just down the road or knocking on a suspect's door a few hours later. But Tanner said the dangers of chases are too great to pursue suspects who may be wanted for minor crimes.

That is everything I was saying before, right out of a police officers mouth. Hey sandman are you going to stick up for these cops too? Cause you know that would mean you would have to contradict yourself.

Huh? Howabout it?

Again, this has nothing to do with what GSP considers it's policy on PIT manuevers.

Quit being an [censored] and trying to bait Sandman. He's twice the man you'll ever be.

Originally posted by PackRat:

You've yet to provide any evidence that this use of the PIT manuever is a violation of Georgia State Patrol policy.

Quote from the GA Police Dept:"The State Patrol's policy on pursuits says the ramming maneuver used on Sharp's vehicle "should only be used at reasonable speeds and in locations where it is reasonable to expect that the maneuver can be safely accomplished."

You want the web address???

Originally posted by Red92784:

Originally posted by PackRat:

You've yet to provide any evidence that this use of the PIT manuever is a violation of Georgia State Patrol policy.

Quote from the GA Police Dept:"The State Patrol's policy on pursuits says the ramming maneuver used on Sharp's vehicle "should only be used at reasonable speeds and in locations where it is reasonable to expect that the maneuver can be safely accomplished."

The manuever was safely accomplished. No other motorists were involved. The GSP has already stated on that video that the manuever was done properly.

You just proved yourself wrong..

So 100+mph is a reasonable speed?

Performing that manuver over 35mph is concered deadly force.

I feel better now. Because now that all the FACTS have been posted I can rest.

Now me and arch really get the last laugh.

Pick at the FACTS all you want but they are FACTS. Any one who reads this now will understand that the cops did not act correctly and they caused the death of an innocent minor.

Originally posted by RT and his SE:
OK suppose they where allowed to continue and after the spike strip did work, this 4500 lb moving at 100 mph piles into a car caring your family? THEY ALL DIE! Who do you blame? The cops? I mean it certainly by your logic it couldn't be the people in the other car breaking the law. There must have been something else they could have done. Well spiking them in heavy traffic is not an exact science but Kremi said it would work so how come it didn't?
I said earlier that in MY eyes the 17 after 60-some miles is an accomplice. That's MY opinion, bite me if you don't like it!
As far as life goes I care a lot but I care far less for those breaking the law and endangering other because of what amounts to their own selfishness.

Maybe when you grow up you'll understand but I doubt it!

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
After the spike strip did work? Well their vehicle would be decellerating prettyt quickly at that point. Why would they hit a vehicle then as opposed to the 70 miles they already went?
This is all opinion, we need to both bite each other.
DUDE, you think that 17 yr old was breaking the law? You have some weird logic to me. I know that if I was driving there are many people that could TRY to stop me, but I could easily get them to stop, by hitting,etc. (Many could also stop me by hitting,etc.)
Like I said the cops weren't completely wrong. But in that 70 mile chase, they could have tried strips or something else. Did they keep doing that chase just hoping at some point the SUV would decide to stop? They should have tried something before then.
You really really have bad logic when you think because someone is in a vehicle they are a law breaker and should die. Sad thing is you're already grown up and have that logic.

I hate to bring this whole arguement back up but, if those Georgia Troopers would have used the spike strip on that Pathfinder, just given the height, size, and weight of it, when those tires shred after hitting the spikes that 100+ mph it was going would have instantly made it flip and roll down the interstate at a 100+ mph. and that would have still killed the 2 suspects and prolly would have taken out a couple of other vehicles. so either way those 2 were going to die since they didn't stop. i know i am adding to this post a couple of days late but i just read it today. and that is just my opinion of what would have happened.

Originally posted by Red92784:
You just proved yourself wrong..

So 100+mph is a reasonable speed?

Performing that manuver over 35mph is concered deadly force.

I feel better now. Because now that all the FACTS have been posted I can rest.

Now me and arch really get the last laugh.

Pick at the FACTS all you want but they are FACTS. Any one who reads this now will understand that the cops did not act correctly and they caused the death of an innocent minor.

How did I prove myself wrong?

"reasonable speed" is rather vague. If the GSP didn't consider the manuever to have been performed properly, THEY WOUDLN'T HAVE SAID THAT IT HAD BEEN.

You and Arch have proven nothing other than the fact that you two are complete horses asses.

I think the spike strip idea was abandond early this morning.

Hmm... FACTS! FACTS! FACTS!

Originally posted by Red92784:
Hmm... FACTS! FACTS! FACTS!

I've already dealt with your "facts". Besides, I thought you were done.

The title of this post should be "Don't Drink and Make Babies," or "Don't Drink While Pregnant." My proof is most everything Red92784 has said, and EVERYTHING Arch has said.

Originally posted by PackRat:

Originally posted by Red92784:
Hmm... FACTS! FACTS! FACTS!

I am right and it feels good. This just proves you guys couldn't except the facts even when presented with them.

You asked for them and you got them. But you still refuse to except them. You pick at them all you want but they are the facts.

I am not going to argue anymore just point you too the FACTS.

Originally posted by Red92784:

I am right and it feels good. This just proves you guys couldn't except the facts even when presented with them.

You asked for them and you got them. But you still refuse to except them. You pick at them all you want but they are the facts.

I am not going to argue anymore just point you too the FACTS.

Most of what was posted was the opinion and policy of other agencies. Those aren't "facts".

All your doing now is running around in circles like a complete idiot.

Nooooooo..... Should I quute the GA STATE POLICE again?

Originally posted by Red92784:
Nooooooo..... Should I quute the GA STATE POLICE again?

They stated on video that the pit was within department policy. It doesn't get any clearer than that.

Originally posted by Red92784:
Quote from the GA Police Dept:"The State Patrol's policy on pursuits says the ramming maneuver used on Sharp's vehicle "should only be used at reasonable speeds and in locations where it is reasonable to expect that the maneuver can be safely accomplished."

You want the web address???

Originally posted by PackRat:

Originally posted by Red92784:
Nooooooo..... Should I quute the GA STATE POLICE again?

They stated on video that the pit was within department policy. It doesn't get any clearer than that.

own3d.

im with packrat on this one...

Originally posted by Red92784:

Originally posted by Red92784:
Quote from the GA Police Dept:"The State Patrol's policy on pursuits says the ramming maneuver used on Sharp's vehicle "should only be used at reasonable speeds and in locations where it is reasonable to expect that the maneuver can be safely accomplished."

You want the web address???

Quote:

â�?��?The trooper did his job to disable the vehicle and unfortunately, we lost the life of two individuals,â�?� (Georgia State Patrol officer) Schnall said. â�?��?We're very sad about that, but the trooper did his job. We took a dangerous driver off the roadway and we feel confident we saved the lives of motorists.â�?�

I can play the same game too.

I have more facts than you.

Oooo...One lowsey quote.

Ill play right back...

My "lousy" quote is all that matters in this situation.

Originally posted by PackRat:
My "lousy" quote

All that matters...?

Keep embarasing yourself, its hilarious.

Originally posted by Red92784:

Originally posted by PackRat:
My "lousy" quote

All that matters...?

Keep embarasing yourself, its hilarious.

You've done a good job of embarrasing yourself throughout this thread.

Originally posted by PackRat:

Originally posted by Red92784:

Originally posted by PackRat:
My "lousy" quote

All that matters...?

Keep embarasing yourself, its hilarious.

You've done a good job of embarrasing yourself throughout this thread.

HaHa... Looserssaywhat?

Originally posted by Red92784:

Originally posted by PackRat:

Originally posted by Red92784:

Originally posted by PackRat:
My "lousy" quote

All that matters...?

Keep embarasing yourself, its hilarious.

You've done a good job of embarrasing yourself throughout this thread.

HaHa... Looserssaywhat?

Now you're just being an ass. I wouldn't suprise if Perry accidentally hits the ban button.

Originally posted by PackRat:

Originally posted by Red92784:

Originally posted by PackRat:

Originally posted by Red92784:

Originally posted by PackRat:
My "lousy" quote

All that matters...?

Keep embarasing yourself, its hilarious.

You've done a good job of embarrasing yourself throughout this thread.

HaHa... Looserssaywhat?

Now you're just being an ass. I wouldn't suprise if Perry accidentally hits the ban button.

If someone will ban me for being right I want no part of CEG.

FACTS! FACTS! FACTS!

No, you'd be banned for wasting bandwidth, being an ass, and disrespecting a fellow member.

Originally posted by PackRat:

Now you're just being an ass. I wouldn't suprise if Perry accidentally hits the ban button.

Accidentally?!

C'mon Pat... give Perry some credit...

So I'm being disrectfull because I'm right?

FACTS! FACTS! FACTS!

Threatening to ban me isnt going to make me change my mind.

I have seen the facts, and so have you. The only difference between you and me is I choose to accept them.

Originally posted by Red92784:
So I'm being disrectfull because I'm right?

No, you were being disrepectful to Sandman.

No I wasn't. I was simply asking him if he was going to back up the other cops who dissagreed with the manuver. That way I could discredit him for contradicting himself.

That is all.

Originally posted by Red92784:
No I wasn't. I was simply asking him if he was going to back up the other cops who dissagreed with the manuver. That way I could discredit him for contradicting himself.

That is all.

You were trying to bait him into an argument. It would have been ok though, he would have own3d you like a little [censored] regardless.

Originally posted by PackRat:

Originally posted by Red92784:
No I wasn't. I was simply asking him if he was going to back up the other cops who dissagreed with the manuver. That way I could discredit him for contradicting himself.

That is all.

Cops back up other cops, weather right or wrong. I have personal experience with that.

He would have effed up and I would have OWNED HIM as I owned you!

Originally posted by Red92784:
Cops back up other cops, weather right or wrong. I have personal experience with that.

He would have effed up and I would have OWNED HIM!

There's a difference between backing up an officers actions and acknowledging the DIFFERENT policy of the Jasper County officers.

So now your backing up the Jasper county officers?

Wow make up your mind... So now you agree that the officer was wrong?

Originally posted by Red92784:
So now your backing up the Jasper county officers?

Wow make up your mind... So now you agree that the officer was wrong?

They were describing their own departmental policy on pursuits. That's neither right nor wrong. I think you're confusing yourself.

I think your getting confused. So how do you not expect me no to be?

FACTS! FACTS! FACTS!

You have no one else backing you up now. A little strange?... I think not. Everyone else saw the facts and realized they were wrong. So just give it up. You dont have to admit it, just stop posting. I will undestand.

**jumps in with both feet**

1.) Red, Kremi, everyone else claiming the driver and passenger were innocent or "could have used something else) are NOT cops. Granted, neither are a majority of the rest of us. But given the situation, the cops did what they had to do- they ENDED A CHASE. Simple, clean, done.

2.) "What if the passenger was innocent?" What's the 0-60 speed of a Pathfinder? When he knew they were getting away from the cops, it'd have been smarter to get the f*ck out of the truck even if it was going 30 and take a couple of broken bones than an arrest, or in this case, death.

3.) With all of the "what if's," there hasn't been the question of what if the cops called off the chase, these two ran out of gas, carjacked and killed someone, stole THEIR car, and continued on this sick joyride? Oh, I'm sorry, you didn't think of that, because you assume both of the people in the Pathfinder were innocent. More "what if's," follow.

4.) What if the cops pulled them over, and the driver and passenger were armed, killed the cops, then took off? A cop was killed simply for pulling someone over? Yep, that's a right smart, nice thing for a person to do, isn't it?

5.) If you're going to start a high-speed chase with the cops, you've got something to hide. I don't care if you're 17 or 70. If the cops try to pull you over, and you've got nothing to hide to make it worse, you pull the F over. Plain and simple. You deal with whatever ticket comes your way.

The FACT of the matter is this- none of your solutions will, for 100% certainty, cause fewer casualties than what transpired. The cops unfortunately caused the truck to flip over. Yes, lives were lost. But, I'm not about to claim innocence here. No way. The cops didn't kill the two in the SUV. The driver did. The cops DID THEIR JOB by attempting to stop the car. You'd rather these two numbskulls continued on what they were doing and killed more people than they be taken out (even if it WAS intentional!)?

What if YOU were driving down the road and these two slammed into your car paralyzing you and (god forbid) kill whoever else you're with- parents, siblings, fiancee's, or even a pregnant wife?

At what point is it worth the risk? When these two have already left a trail of bodies behind them?

And a box maneuver? Why so the driver could slam into the cops on their own, kill them, and then keep going about their merry way? Yeah, that's smart. And, have you EVER fired a gun in your life? You try placing that kind of pressure onto a trigger while you're going 100mph. No road is smooth enough to guarantee a clean shot at ANYTHING, let alone the radiator of the truck. Nevermind the fact that they're nervous as hell already and their aim is going to be off. Spike strip? What if it doesn't work at all? The cops are already backing off at that point so they don't blow out THEIR tires. Then they're even further behind. Run the plates? What if the car was stolen? That move sure as hell wouldn't work.

There's no guarantee that they wouldn't have lost control on their own. At 100mph, what is 1/4 inch turn on the wheel? How about a pothole?

The cops stopped two people from potentially killing more people. It's unfortunate that two lives were taken. But it's NOT a tragedy. They used the only option at the time, and it unfortunately proved fatal to both driver and passenger. Quit trying to be the "good guys" and deal with facts, not the fantasy world you live in where EVERYTHING is perfect. The world is imperfect, and in a lot of ways it sucks. Buy a helmet.

Originally posted by Red92784:
I think your getting confused. So how do you not expect me no to be?

FACTS! FACTS! FACTS!

You're right, those were facts. However, they were meaningless when applied towards the GSP, since the GSP doesn't follow Jasper county policy.

Originally posted by Red92784:
You have no one else backing you up now. A little strange?... I think not. Everyone else saw the facts and realized they were wrong. So just give it up. You dont have to admit it, just stop posting. I will undestand.

This may come as a complete shock to you but consider the fact that guys like Sandman have families and OMG, have OTHER THINGS TO DO!!!!

And I don't need help, I can hold my own against your sorry ass.

Originally posted by Red92784:
You have no one else backing you up now. A little strange?... I think not. Everyone else saw the facts and realized they were wrong. So just give it up. You dont have to admit it, just stop posting. I will undestand.

Nobody was backing anybody up, genius. People were seeing what was an extremely dangerous situation and recognizing the ONLY thing the cops could have done to stop it.

Originally posted by Red92784:
Quote from the GA Police Dept:"The State Patrol's policy on pursuits says the ramming maneuver used on Sharp's vehicle "should only be used at reasonable speeds and in locations where it is reasonable to expect that the maneuver can be safely accomplished."

You want the web address???

We've already been over this.

you may not need help, but i got your back Packrat...

i got one for ya red...

if you were the passenger and this madman accelrated to 100 + MPH in ANY CAR...would you not then at least buckle your seatbelt???

i know i would.

Originally posted by Red92784:
Quote from the GA Police Dept:"The State Patrol's policy on pursuits says the ramming maneuver used on Sharp's vehicle "should only be used at reasonable speeds and in locations where it is reasonable to expect that the maneuver can be safely accomplished."

You want the web address???

You can quote something from a police "procedure." You want a cookie?

And, as was pointed out to your stupid ass a few pages ago, it was safely accomplished- no other cars or people were injured. Sounds accomplished to me.

Yes and its a shame that we have to go over it again.

I would probably too scared to think of a seatbelt.

IT WAS NOT COMPLETED SUCCESFULLY. THE PIT MANUVER IS ONLY SUPPOSED TO BE USED UNDER 35MPH.

Done, finished. The cop was wrong!!! I have the facts that you asked for. If you choose not to accept them thats your problem not mine. Im done here.

Originally posted by Red92784:
IT WAS NOT COMPLETED SUCCESFULLY. THE PIT MANUVER IS ONLY SUPPOSED TO BE USED UNDER 35MPH.

It depends on department policy. That 35mph limit applies ONLY to Fairfax, VA.

Originally posted by Red92784:
Im done here.

Somehow I doubt that.

Originally posted by Red92784:
IT WAS NOT COMPLETED SUCCESFULLY.

Did it end the chase? No ands, ifs, buts, or anything else. A simple yes or no. Did it end the chase?

Originally posted by Red92784:
You have no one else backing you up now. A little strange?... I think not. Everyone else saw the facts and realized they were wrong. So just give it up. You dont have to admit it, just stop posting. I will undestand.

Actually I think everyone is sick of your idiotic childish actions red. There's no point in continuing to argue with a mindless child who can only say "I'M RIGHT I'M RIGHT LOOK AT ME I'M RIGHT"

Besides, didn't you say that you were done with this thread about 4 times now? Yet you still post...grow up and act at least SEMI Adult like or go find a different forum that caters to prepubescent attention whores like yourself.

Originally posted by Freakshow:

Originally posted by Red92784:
You have no one else backing you up now. A little strange?... I think not. Everyone else saw the facts and realized they were wrong. So just give it up. You dont have to admit it, just stop posting. I will undestand.

grow up and act at least SEMI Adult like or go find a different forum that caters to prepubescent attention whores like yourself.

own3d again, dam, thats like 12 times...in the SAME thread...

And Freakshow and I agree on something else. Dear god does the madness never end?!?!!?

Shall I post even more facts proven everybody wrong?

Originally posted by arch:
Shall I post even more facts to prove red and I are dumbasses?

No you and Red should go back to beating each other off and let this thread die!

I think we have plenty.

Wait...

@ self.

Eh, I'm at work, but just had to check in and update myself on the 77 post circus since my absence.

Anway:

"It was a decision made in the interest of safety.

Members of the Georgia state patrol say its troopers were not able to use these devices, called stop Stix, to flatten the tires of the vehicle they were pursuing for 66 miles.

"This police pursuit we were not able to get in a position to use stop Stix. You have to be well in front of the violators to plan putting the stop Stix in front of the violator for them to advance."

Riner says at some points the driver's speed exceeded 100 miles an hour, often using the emergency lane and at one point, almost hitting a South Carolina d-o-t worker.

Once we saw that the violator was not going to stop she was causing major safety concerns with other motorists on i-95 it was chosen then to use the pit maneuver."

From http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:t1uENlnOQfsJ:www.wjcl.com/global/story.asp%3Fs%3D2194705%26ClientType%3DPrint+pit+maneuver&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Seems to me that GSP is standing behind its officer. There will be a wrongful death suit (there always is, no matter how painfully obvious it is that deadly force was required), and the only way that GSP can sheild itself is if it were to claim that the officer acted outside departmental policy. Since they are not doing that, and are rather defending the actions of the officer, it would seem to me that the actions were justified by their departmental policy. Above, they clearly explain that letting her continue to drive in that manner was deemed a greater threat to the public than using the PIT maneuver against her.

And no, anyone who knows me on here will tell you that I will never defend a bad cop. Sorry, but I hold myself to a higher standard than that.

Good stuff, but I still wonder if it really was impossible to get a trooper in front of the vehicle. Were all the GSP in the area really behind the vehicle at the time?

Actually I don't wonder, I hope this thread dies. I suck.

more:

"The Georgia State Patrol is answering questions Wednesday about a high-speed chase that ended in the deaths of two young people near Savannah.

The chase started when the driver of a Nissan Pathfinder, 21-year-old Katie Sharp, was clocked at 86 mph on Interstate 95 in South Carolina by a Colleton County deputy. The driver refused to pull over.

â�?��?Erratic lane changes, cutting in and out of traffic, high speedâ�?�¦We had to get this vehicle stopped before someone got killed in the motoring public,â�?� said Georgia State Trooper Larry Schnall.

Thirteen miles inside Georgia, a Georgia trooper used a PIT maneuver to nudge the Pathfinder off the road. The vehicle slammed into a tree killing Sharp and her 17-year-old passenger, Garrett Gabe.

â�?��?The trooper did his job to disable the vehicle and unfortunately, we lost the life of two individuals,â�?� Schnall said. â�?��?We're very sad about that, but the trooper did his job. We took a dangerous driver off the roadway and we feel confident we saved the lives of motorists.â�?�

The PIT maneuver is dangerous and can have varying results. Just eight months ago, trooper Tony Lumley died after a crash in Spalding County. He had used the PIT maneuver on a fleeing robbery suspect and lost control.

A month after Lumley's death, a trooper used the same maneuver to knock Jerry Jones off the road in north Georgia. Jones was on the run after investigators say he killed four relatives and kidnapped his three children.

Georgia State Patrol officials said they remain confident in the maneuver.

Law enforcement officials said they did not know why Sharp decided to run. The only trouble they have found so far is a suspended driverâ�?��?�s license."

From: http://www.11alive.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=50743

Demonstrates how dangerous this is for officers as well, and why they do not undertake such actions lightly.

Originally posted by Stryker:

Originally posted by Freakshow:

Originally posted by Red92784:
You have no one else backing you up now. A little strange?... I think not. Everyone else saw the facts and realized they were wrong. So just give it up. You dont have to admit it, just stop posting. I will undestand.

grow up and act at least SEMI Adult like or go find a different forum that caters to prepubescent attention whores like yourself.

Just stop red, you know that just about everyone here on CEG disagrees with you, and you sure aren't helping your newbie status. Let the thread die out, and you keep an eye for when this goes to trial. Let's let the justice system determine who was right.

Cops were right no doubt when it comes to trial, but I still hope one day something is invented (who knows, I could be the one to do it) that would work better.

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
Cops were right no doubt when it comes to trial, but I still hope one day something is invented (who knows, I could be the one to do it) that would work better.

Agreed.

Hey Packrat and Sandman,

You guys always make for great debates. I came across a Georgia Document I wanted to show you and see what your thoughts are. Most of the document agrees with what the cops did, maybe all, I am a little fuzzy on some of the wording.

Plus I figure this will really give your brain a work out in stead of making it go num.

Link

General Procedures #8 - This makes me wonder when the pathfinder used the Hazzard lane did the cops also use the same move. I don't know but, I guess he would if he wanted to keep up.

Prohibited Pratices #1 - They can shoot at the car. Thats not an option anymore.

Termination of Pursuit #a - Not really sure what to make of this one. Maybe the Supervisor has the ability to tell the officer to continue pursuit.

Engaging in pursuit #2 - Not sure what to think here. I think the officer added as much risk as the person running. Can't tell me that a cop running 100mph is in no way shape or form causing danger in itself.

Let me remind you guys that I agree with what the cop did. I would be upset if that crazy driver had killed my mom. I just want to see your thoughts on this paper. So please don't bash.

Also note: I tried to find a date on this or to see if any of this has changed, but couldn't. If you find info saying it has changed let me know. Knowledge is power. Trying to learn.

If you are anyone who intends to use this post to laugh or make fun pleease do not reply. This is for an open minded debate, not some childish game.

Quote:

Termination of Pursuit

A pursuit situation will be terminated when:

1. Upon weighing pertinent factors, the gravity of the offense, and the prospect of loosing the violator will not balance with the hazards to the officer and to the public;

2. The environmental conditions, e.g., time of day, road conditions, traffic (pedestrians or vehicular), location and neighborhoods, and weather conditions indicate the futility of continuing;

Hmm... did it again.

Quote:

Police also learn to avoid using the PIT with certain types of vehicles, such as SUVs or large passenger vans. Vehicles with a high center of gravity easily roll when hit from behind.

Officers in Georgia last week followed neither of the above. State troopers on Interstate 95 attempted to PIT a Nissan Pathfinder on Aug. 17 at speeds in excess of 110 miles per hour. Two people in the SUV died.

Quote:

Originally developed by the Fairfax County, Virginia, Police Department, the PIT maneuver is taught as a low speed (less than 35 mph), precision technique, requiring a clear location and careful timing.

Quote:

Calling off a police chase doesn't necessarily mean a suspect is going to get away.

Quote:

Just because one officer abandons a chase doesn't mean another won't be on the lookout just down the road or knocking on a suspect's door a few hours later. But Tanner said the dangers of chases are too great to pursue suspects who may be wanted for minor crimes.

Can you honestly sit there and continue to tell me that Im wrong?

The relevance of Jasper county: Jasper co. was the next county the chase was going into. The chase ended less then 1/2 mile from the county line. The reason the PIT maneuver was performed when it was, is they couldnt do it in jasper county, which was the reason for the quote.

The officers actions were not the first/best choice that should've been made. The suv originally did nothing more than 11 over the speed limit, as far as the cops are concerned. To continue a chase across state lines, let alone 60 miles, for a speeding ticket... stupid (For both parties involved). MINOR OFFENSE. Them chasing the suv for over 60 miles, escalated the situation, and from then on, the suv did nothing more than what the cop was doing. The foundation of your arguement is null.

And just because I dont have a high post count, or everybody else is telling me Im wrong. Doesnt mean I am. I have given everything asked for. Proof and facts that reinforce my statements. And to tell me that Im still wrong? What the hell else do you want? I cannot believe the ignorance of these people. Im simply amazed that anybody even bothered to reply to my quotes. They flat out prove that you're all wrong. And by your replys, after the quotes, about one or two setences that may/may not be just, Further proves my point that you're wrong. You see that you're wrong, and you have to find the one sentence in the entire post that COULD have relevence to your arguement, if you wish to maniuplate it.

Idiot with big words? HA. I have never seen such stupidity, ignorance, insanity, illogicality, absurdity, irrationality, double talk, & balderdash, in my life.

The best part is, I knew I was right. And you told me, "NO, wrong, you have nothing to back that up". So I get FACTS To reinforce my statements. Further proving that Im right. So now I know that Im right, with facts to amalgamate with my arguement.

Keep going, you're making me feel better with every post. Thank you.

In b4 da...

Originally posted by arch:

Can you honestly sit there and continue to tell me that Im wrong?

Yes. You're a day late and a dollar short dipstick.

Quote:

The relevance of Jasper county: Jasper co. was the next county the chase was going into. The chase ended less then 1/2 mile from the county line. The reason the PIT maneuver was performed when it was, is they couldnt do it in jasper county, which was the reason for the quote.

That's policy followed by Jasper county local PD. Policies of the State Patrol supercede that.

Quote:

The officers actions were not the first/best choice that should've been made. The suv originally did nothing more than 11 over the speed limit, as far as the cops are concerned.

16 over smart guy, the speed limit in South Carolina is 70, not 75.

Quote:

To continue a chase across state lines, let alone 60 miles, for a speeding ticket... stupid (For both parties involved). MINOR OFFENSE.

They didn't know what they were running for at the time, dumbass. Haven't we been over this and over this?

Quote:

Them chasing the suv for over 60 miles, escalated the situation, and from then on, the suv did nothing more than what the cop was doing. The foundation of your arguement is null.

In your eyes maybe, and that counts for squat.

Quote:

And just because I dont have a high post count, or everybody else is telling me Im wrong. Doesnt mean I am.

You are wrong, you just happen to have a low post count to go along.

Quote:

I have given everything asked for. Proof and facts that reinforce my statements. And to tell me that Im still wrong?

You've given evidence that, while informative, isn't really applicable other than to demonstrate how OTHER POLICE AGENCIES HANDLE THINGS.

Quote:

What the hell else do you want? I cannot believe the ignorance of these people.

Lemme guess, you're a Democrat. Something about that statement seems to point that way.

Quote:

Im simply amazed that anybody even bothered to reply to my quotes. They flat out prove that you're all wrong.

No it doesn.

Quote:

And by your replys, after the quotes, about one or two setences that may/may not be just, Further proves my point that you're wrong. You see that you're wrong, and you have to find the one sentence in the entire post that COULD have relevence to your arguement, if you wish to maniuplate it.

Pounding your desk and shouting "I'm right" doesn't make it so.

Quote:

Idiot with big words? HA. I have never seen such stupidity, ignorance, insanity, illogicality, absurdity, irrationality, nonsense, & balderdash, in my life.

I suggest you go join ClubSi and see how long you last with your attitude.

Quote:

The best part is, I knew I was right. And you told me, "NO, wrong, you have nothing to back that up". So I get FACTS To reinforce my statements. Further proving that Im right. So now I know that Im right, with facts to amalgamate with my arguement.

Your "facts" have already been dismissed.

Quote:

Keep going, you're making me feel better with every post. Thank you.

You really need to get out more if this kind of thing makes your day.

Quote:

I suggest you go join ClubSi and see how long you last with your attitude.

hahahahahahhahahahahahahahaha

nice democrat comment (touchy remark tho)

Judging by the "OMG I'M SOOOOOOOOO RIGHT YAY ME" attitude displayed by a few members in this post I'm kinda surprised one of them hasn't resorted to

"NYA NYA NYA NYA NYA I BEAT YOU"

although it has gotten quite close to that. As funny as all of this is I can't believe it hasn't been locked yet.

Originally posted by Freakshow:
As funny as all of this is I can't believe it hasn't been locked yet.

It needs to be...I can't get any work done, this is far too entertaining. I'd contribute, but seeing as how this has gotten sooo far off the original subject...crap, what was it anyway?

Originally posted by arch:
The best part is, I knew I was right.

No you're wrong!

Quitsies, no anti-quitsies, no startsies, triple stamp, no erasies, touch blue make it true!

Until you have something constructive and intelligent to say, shut up.

Originally posted by bigMoneyRacing:

Originally posted by arch:
The best part is, I knew I was right.

No you're wrong!

Quitsies, no anti-quitsies, no startsies, triple stamp, no erasies, touch blue make it true!

LMAO! Thanks for the laugh!

Originally posted by arch:
Until you have something constructive and intelligent to say, shut up.

Quote:

16 over smart guy, the speed limit in South Carolina is 70, not 75.

Even if you were right, which you're not.
Its still the same offense. 11-20 over. Moron.

Quote:

They didn't know what they were running for at the time, dumbass. Haven't we been over this and over this?

Yes, they did. At least to the extent of the reason for pulling them over for speeding, and them not wanting to.

Quote:

You've given evidence that, while informative, isn't really applicable other than to demonstrate how OTHER POLICE AGENCIES HANDLE THINGS.

I believe everything was from GSP, and ONE thing was from Jasper CO.

Quote:

What the hell else do you want?

You didnt anwser me.

Quote:

No it doesn.

Yes, I believe it does.

Quote:

Your "facts" have already been dismissed.

You can dismiss anything you want, that doesnt change the FACT or the fact that the FACT is true.

I feel stupider having said anything to your post. Grow up.

Wheres sandman or sigma, at least they were constructive and provided a good arguement with thier replies.

Packrat... I cant talk to you, 5th grade kids get on my nerves.

Originally posted by arch:

Quote:

16 over smart guy, the speed limit in South Carolina is 70, not 75.

Even if you were right, which you're not.
Its still the same offense. 11-20 over. Moron.

The speed limit is South Carolina is 70 mph, which makes me right.

Quote:

Quote:

They didn't know what they were running for at the time, dumbass. Haven't we been over this and over this?

Yes, they did. At least to the extent of the reason for pulling them over for speeding, and them not wanting to.

If they ran because of a speeding ticket, that means something ELSE is going on. The officers didn't know what THAT was.

Quote:

Quote:

You've given evidence that, while informative, isn't really applicable other than to demonstrate how OTHER POLICE AGENCIES HANDLE THINGS.

I believe everything was from GSP, and ONE thing was from Jasper CO.

Nope, it was all quotes from Jasper County. Didn't you bother to READ what you posted BEFORE you posted it?

Quote:

Quote:

What the hell else do you want?

You didnt anwser me.

I decided to be a bigger man and not say, but since you asked, I want you to stick your head up your anus and breath deeply.

Quote:

Quote:

No it doesn.

Quote:

Your "facts" have already been dismissed.

You can dismiss anything you want, that doesnt change the FACT or the fact that the FACT is true.

Again, your facts weren't really applicable because they were another agencies policy.

Quote:

I feel stupider having said anything to your post. Grow up.

I feel stupider knowing that your mother [censored] your father.

Originally posted by arch:
Wheres sandman or sigma, at least they were constructive and provided a good arguement with thier replies.

Packrat... I cant talk to you, 5th grade kids get on my nerves.

Jesus, you really are full of yourself.

Quote:

Jesus, you really are full of yourself.

Hypocrit.

Can you stand next to me so I can wear my "I'm with stupid" T-shirt?

Quote:

If they ran because of a speeding ticket, that means something ELSE is going on.

Its cops like you that give cops a bad name.

Quote:

Its still the same offense.

Quote:

Originally posted by arch:

Quote:

Police say the PIT maneuver is used as a last result

Quote:

"Your overall goal is to immobilize the vehicle so it's no longer a threat," said Mike Maul, a traffic officer

Quote:

Police also learn to avoid using the PIT with certain types of vehicles, such as SUVs or large passenger vans. Vehicles with a high center of gravity easily roll when hit from behind.

Officers in Georgia last week followed neither of the above. State troopers on Interstate 95 attempted to PIT a Nissan Pathfinder on Aug. 17 at speeds in excess of 110 miles per hour. Two people in the SUV died.

Quote:

Originally developed by the Fairfax County, Virginia, Police Department, the PIT maneuver is taught as a low speed (less than 35 mph), precision technique, requiring a clear location and careful timing.

Oh yeah, I guess it was all Jasper Co.. Did you even bother to read the post? THE REST WAS GSP.

Quote:

I feel stupider knowing that your mother [censored] your father.
Can you stand next to me so I can wear my "I'm with stupid" T-shirt?
I decided to be a bigger man and not say, but since you asked, I want you to stick your head up your anus and breath deeply.

Damn how old are you? 12? Grow up.

The GSP says that the PIT was kosher. That's all that matters. You can go on and browbeat till the cows come home.

Can you imagine being out on a morning walk and seeing a headless body in your neighbor's truck? And nearly two months before Halloween, for gosh sakes!

Quote:

The GSP says that the PIT was kosher. That's all that matters. You can go on and browbeat till the cows come home.

Oh yeah, ok. Because I dont think GSP would stand behind one of thier officers. I guess it all makes sense now. Just because GSP says so.
You're intelligence insults me.

Originally posted by Martin:
Can you imagine being out on a morning walk and seeing a headless body in your neighbor's truck? And nearly two months before Halloween, for gosh sakes!

LMAO! The first post on the actual subject of this thread in 23 pages.

Originally posted by arch:

You're intelligence insults me.

The irony in that statement is just dripping.

Quote:

The irony in that statement is just dripping.

Finally something a little better than the average 5 year old reply. Congratulations.

Originally posted by arch:

Quote:

16 over smart guy, the speed limit in South Carolina is 70, not 75.

Even if you were right, which you're not.
Its still the same offense. 11-20 over. Moron.

We've been over this!

Once they decided not to stop there were many more serious offenses, such as felony evasion, reckless driving, reckless endangerment, etc.

Telling people to shut up and calling them morons does not contribute to the discussion.

Grow up dude.

I had to get down to a level he would understand. If you couldnt see that, maybe you should re-read the posts.

Quote:

Once they decided not to stop there were many more serious offenses, such as felony evasion, reckless driving, reckless endangerment, etc.

agreed.

Originally posted by arch:
I had to get down to a level he would understand. If you couldnt see that, maybe you should re-read the posts.

Quote:

Once they decided not to stop there were many more serious offenses, such as felony evasion, reckless driving, reckless endangerment, etc.

agreed.

So wouldn't you agree that they needed to be taken off the road as soon as possible?

Quote:

So wouldn't you agree that they needed to be taken off the road as soon as possible?

Taken off the road. Yes, Agreed. ASAP? Agreeable. My arguement is it wasnt done correctly. And the GSPO is guilty of, at the very least, manslaughter.
The point to my arguement has yet to be realized. Even though it was stated several times.

Quote:

LMAO! The first post on the actual subject of this thread in 23 pages.

I've got the "View off-topic replies to original thread" set to "no" in my personal preferences.

Originally posted by arch:
I had to get down to a level he would understand. If you couldnt see that, maybe you should re-read the posts.

I don't appreciate your insinuations that I'm somehow less than average intelligence. Your little potshots are getting tiresome.

insinuations? lol. Ok, insinuations.

Originally posted by arch:
insinuations? lol. Ok, insinuations.

You heard me.

Originally posted by arch:
Because I dont think GSP would stand behind one of thier officers. I guess it all makes sense now. Just because GSP says so.
You're intelligence insults me.

I've seen many, MANY instances where the Dept. did not defend individual officers' actions. It happens all the time.

What other VIABLE option did they have? Should they have waited until the Car Stopping Fairy showed up and magically stopped that car?

The cops did what they could, plain and simple. Unfortunately, people died. $#!t happens. That's part of running from the cops. You take your life into your own hands.

Originally posted by PackRat:

Originally posted by arch:
insinuations? lol. Ok, insinuations.

You heard me.

even better, thanks

Originally posted by bishop375:

Originally posted by arch:
Because I dont think GSP would stand behind one of thier officers. I guess it all makes sense now. Just because GSP says so.
You're intelligence insults me.

I've seen many, MANY instances where the Dept. did not defend individual officers' actions. It happens all the time.

Wouldnt doubt it.

Quote:

What other VIABLE option did they have? Should they have waited until the Car Stopping Fairy showed up and magically stopped that car?

Asked and anwsered.

Quote:

The cops did what they could, plain and simple. Unfortunately, people died. $#!t happens. That's part of running from the cops. You take your life into your own hands.

Wrong. They did not do what they could.

Originally posted by arch:

And the GSPO is guilty of, at the very least, manslaughter.

Your stupidity never ceases to amaze me. You become dumber each post, why don't you just shut up with your rediculous 3rd grade insults on people that are far more intelligent than you. The officer acted well within departmental procedures. I, for one, am glad that these two wreckless idiots that endangered the lives of TRUELY innocent people on the roads, along with every officer that was involved, are off the roads perminantly. One post you made even went so far as to incinuate that their running was somehow okay and they shouldn't have been persued? You really don't realize how stupid this is right? What if those two people were running away from a homicide or some other crime that had yet to be discovered? Whether the cop was pulling them over for 1mph over the speed limit is a moot point. The FACTS are that when they disobeyed a lawful command by a police officer (displaying his overhead lights to initiate a stop) they commited a crime and were guilty of that crime right on the spot. Even if they weren't criminals before the lights went on, they were now criminals, BOTH OF THEM.

Until you have some real experiance with law enforcement you wouldn't understand how when a cop comes onto the scene of an unknown crime, everyone must be considered a potential threat. You stop and handcuff or detain everyone involved and THEN clear them of any wrong doing. You never know when the little old lady in a wheelchair could be carrying a gun and might want to shoot you for arresting her grandkids. (which happened to me on a ride-along one night on a drug bust that was initiated because of a broken tail light) You need to grow up and quit with your mindset that cops are around to take away your rights and want to kill people.

After explaining my point several times, it still seems very clear that it is beyond your grasp. Comprehend what I am saying, and then reply to it. Until then, I will be in awe at the dumbfoundedness that is being displayed.

Originally posted by arch:

Quote:

Police also learn to avoid using the PIT with certain types of vehicles, such as SUVs or large passenger vans. Vehicles with a high center of gravity easily roll when hit from behind.

Officers in Georgia last week followed neither of the above. State troopers on Interstate 95 attempted to PIT a Nissan Pathfinder on Aug. 17 at speeds in excess of 110 miles per hour. Two people in the SUV died.

Quote:

Originally developed by the Fairfax County, Virginia, Police Department, the PIT maneuver is taught as a low speed (less than 35 mph), precision technique, requiring a clear location and careful timing.

Quote:

Calling off a police chase doesn't necessarily mean a suspect is going to get away.

Quote:

Just because one officer abandons a chase doesn't mean another won't be on the lookout just down the road or knocking on a suspect's door a few hours later. But Tanner said the dangers of chases are too great to pursue suspects who may be wanted for minor crimes.

Can you honestly sit there and continue to tell me that Im wrong?

The relevance of Jasper county: Jasper co. was the next county the chase was going into. The chase ended less then 1/2 mile from the county line. The reason the PIT maneuver was performed when it was, is they couldnt do it in jasper county, which was the reason for the quote.

The officers actions were not the first/best choice that should've been made. The suv originally did nothing more than 11 over the speed limit, as far as the cops are concerned. To continue a chase across state lines, let alone 60 miles, for a speeding ticket... stupid (For both parties involved). MINOR OFFENSE. Them chasing the suv for over 60 miles, escalated the situation, and from then on, the suv did nothing more than what the cop was doing. The foundation of your arguement is null.

And just because I dont have a high post count, or everybody else is telling me Im wrong. Doesnt mean I am. I have given everything asked for. Proof and facts that reinforce my statements. And to tell me that Im still wrong? What the hell else do you want? I cannot believe the ignorance of these people. Im simply amazed that anybody even bothered to reply to my quotes. They flat out prove that you're all wrong. And by your replys, after the quotes, about one or two setences that may/may not be just, Further proves my point that you're wrong. You see that you're wrong, and you have to find the one sentence in the entire post that COULD have relevence to your arguement, if you wish to maniuplate it.

Idiot with big words? HA. I have never seen such stupidity, ignorance, insanity, illogicality, absurdity, irrationality, double talk, & balderdash, in my life.

The best part is, I knew I was right. And you told me, "NO, wrong, you have nothing to back that up". So I get FACTS To reinforce my statements. Further proving that Im right. So now I know that Im right, with facts to amalgamate with my arguement.

Keep going, you're making me feel better with every post. Thank you.

Only problem is, some of your facts are made up. Fact: the chase at times reached 100 MPH, but in the quote above it states that the PIT was performed at 110. That is not established fact. Certainly, it was not performed at 35 or less, but watching the video, I highly doubt it was done at 110 either. Fact is, the chase was not at nor did it exceed 100 MPH during its entirety.

Further, there was never any proof that officers decided to use the PIT in that location because the next county would not allow it. State Police typically have superior authority to any county agency, and therefore the policies of the county would not apply to the GSP anyway, so your arguement is without basis.

And remember folks, arch has already told us what his true motivation is here. He enjoys running from police for the pure adreneline rush. Thereby, he has demonstrated his immaturity and inability to grasp why the driver had a duty to stop for law enforcement. He simply wishes for a world where he can mash the gas pedal, to hell with the consequences, and get his thrills any time he so pleases. It pisses him off every time someone doesn't get away, because next time that could be him. He is one of those you see rubbernecking at accidents, causing traffic backups, and flocking to chases, adding even more danger to the situation, all while pointing the finger at police for "making the poor, innocent, motorist run". Bad cop, no doughnut, eh? lol.

Originally posted by arch:

Quote:

So wouldn't you agree that they needed to be taken off the road as soon as possible?

Taken off the road. Yes, Agreed. ASAP? Agreeable. My arguement is it wasnt done correctly. And the GSPO is guilty of, at the very least, manslaughter.
The point to my arguement has yet to be realized. Even though it was stated several times.

Hate to say this bud, but I would have done the same thing. I'm not a cop, not nearly, but I can imagine what they have to go through. Getting that car off the road, like NOW, would be my biggest concern. Who knew that both of them would die? It's an acceptable risk to save innocent commuters from getting slammed. Sorry if you don't agree with me.

Originally posted by arch:
After explaining my point several times, it still seems very clear that it is beyond your grasp.

No kidding, because we're not of low enough intelligence to see it from your POV. Thanks for making our point for us.

Quote:

Only problem is, some of your facts are made up. Fact: the chase at times reached 100 MPH, but in the quote above it states that the PIT was performed at 110. That is not established fact. Certainly, it was not performed at 35 or less, but watching the video, I highly doubt it was done at 110 either. Fact is, the chase was not at nor did it exceed 100 MPH during its entirety.

Further, there was never any proof that officers decided to use the PIT in that location because the next county would not allow it. State Police typically have superior authority to any county agency, and therefore the policies of the county would not apply to the GSP anyway, so your arguement is without basis.

Quote:

Officers in Georgia last week followed neither of the above. State troopers on Interstate 95 attempted to PIT a Nissan Pathfinder on Aug. 17 at speeds in excess of 110 miles per hour. Two people in the SUV died.

That was a statement GSP made to a news agency that I quoted. How you can say that it isnt a fact is beyond me.

Quote:

Fact is, the chase was not at nor did it exceed 100 MPH during its entirety.

I must've missed that fact. The cars on the highway are obviously doing 70+ and the GSP cars are flying by those cars. Its clear that they're doing at least around 100, just from the video.

Quote:

so your arguement is without basis.

Again you seem to be missing the point of my arguement and end up getting on small sentences within the arguement.

Originally posted by arch:

Quote:

The GSP says that the PIT was kosher. That's all that matters. You can go on and browbeat till the cows come home.

Oh yeah, ok. Because I dont think GSP would stand behind one of thier officers. I guess it all makes sense now. Just because GSP says so.
You're intelligence insults me.

On the contrary, GSP standing behind their officer is a clear endorsement that the officer was acting within departmental policy. If he was not, they would drop him like a hot potatoe in order to shield themselves of liability in the impending lawsuit. But then, I've already stated this in a previous post.

Originally posted by shotwell:

Who knew that both of them would die? It's an acceptable risk to save innocent commuters from getting slammed. Sorry if you don't agree with me.

Nobody KNEW they would die, but Its common sense. How they handled the situation was wrong.

Why even bother responding to you.

Originally posted by arch:

Originally posted by shotwell:

Who knew that both of them would die? It's an acceptable risk to save innocent commuters from getting slammed. Sorry if you don't agree with me.

Nobody KNEW they would die, but Its common sense. How they handled the situation was wrong.

I couldn't disagree with you more. There is no faster way of getting that car off the road. I'm surprised they waited 60 miles. Must have tried other things first...

Originally posted by arch:

Quote:

Officers in Georgia last week followed neither of the above. State troopers on Interstate 95 attempted to PIT a Nissan Pathfinder on Aug. 17 at speeds in excess of 110 miles per hour. Two people in the SUV died.

That was a statement GSP made to a news agency that I quoted. How you can say that it isnt a fact is beyond me.

That's not a part of a statement by anyone. That's an clip from the lead paragraph of a news article. Don't be a douche.

Quote:

I couldn't disagree with you more. There is no faster way of getting that car off the road. I'm surprised they waited 60 miles. Must have tried other things first...

They did not. Im not going into an arguement about that ethier.

Quote:

That's not a part of a statement by anyone. That's an clip from the lead paragraph of a news article. Don't be a douche.

The news article said it was from GSP. But I guess they're wrong also.

Originally posted by arch:

Quote:

Only problem is, some of your facts are made up. Fact: the chase at times reached 100 MPH, but in the quote above it states that the PIT was performed at 110. That is not established fact. Certainly, it was not performed at 35 or less, but watching the video, I highly doubt it was done at 110 either. Fact is, the chase was not at nor did it exceed 100 MPH during its entirety.

Further, there was never any proof that officers decided to use the PIT in that location because the next county would not allow it. State Police typically have superior authority to any county agency, and therefore the policies of the county would not apply to the GSP anyway, so your arguement is without basis.

Quote:

Officers in Georgia last week followed neither of the above. State troopers on Interstate 95 attempted to PIT a Nissan Pathfinder on Aug. 17 at speeds in excess of 110 miles per hour. Two people in the SUV died.

That was a statement GSP made to a news agency that I quoted. How you can say that it isnt a fact is beyond me.
Quote:

Fact is, the chase was not at nor did it exceed 100 MPH during its entirety.

I must've missed that fact. The cars on the highway are obviously doing 70+ and the GSP cars are flying by those cars. Its clear that they're doing at least around 100, just from the video.
Quote:

so your arguement is without basis.

Again you seem to be missing the point of my arguement and end up getting on small sentences within the arguement.

There are several articles on the internet detailing this situation, and only one of them that I've seen says that they pitted at 110. I believe that to be either a typo or deliberate error on the part of the journalist. Actually, I am more inclined to believe the latter.

Further, many truckers (of which were many of the vehicles being passed) do not do more than 60 on any interstate, due to company policy. Roehl, out of WI, is one such major CMVC that has a policy rewarding its drivers with a bonus if the do not exceed that speed limit for a given period of time. Therefore, you cannot judge the speed of the chase based on how fast they were passing normal traffic, as you do not know how fast that traffic was going, regardless of any speed limit in place.

And I got your point long ago, you simply want to be able to run.

Originally posted by arch:

Quote:

I couldn't disagree with you more. There is no faster way of getting that car off the road. I'm surprised they waited 60 miles. Must have tried other things first...

They did not. Im not going into an arguement about that ethier.

How do you know...were you in one of the chase cars? You think they just followed them for 60 miles?

Come on man.

FACT #1: High Speed chase across state lines
FACT #2: White Nissan Pathfinder.
FACT #3: GSP Joined in after County police could not stop the SUV.
FACT #4: Two occupants in the SUV.
FACT #5: One was driving. One was in the passenger seat.
FACT #6: Driver is responsable for all occupants of the SUV.
FACT #7: Police did not know at the time what the relationship was, driver/passenger wise.
FACT #8: It is up to the police to determine said relationship BEFORE attempting anything to further endanger the passengers life.
FACT #9: Other non-lethal attempts COULD have been TRIED before resorting to a PIT.
FACT #10: A GSP officer caused the SUV to lose control resulting in the death of both occupants.

If you can not agree with those 10 FACTS. Then you no longer need to speak. If you can, Then my point has been made.

Originally posted by Sandman333:

Further, many truckers (of which were many of the vehicles being passed) do not do more than 60 on any interstate, due to company policy.

Mopst major trucking companies are governed at 70 mph or below, with a few at 72-75 mph.

Swift - 65 mph (this includes Owner Operators)
Schneider National - 65 mph
Roadway - 60 mph
Yellow Freight - 60 mph
ABF - 60 mph
JB Hunt - 62 mph
Old Dominion Freightlines - 64 mph
Stevens Transport - 68 mph
FFE - 65 mph
Werner National - 65 mph

What possible reason would these people have for running from the police? Think about that one. Why would ANYONE run from the police if they're being pulled over for a minor infraction? Because there's something else going on, that's why.

*At least one person in the car* was guilty of something other than a minor traffic violation.

Quit your whining that you're giving facts and nobody agrees with you. There's a reason- your facts have absolutely NO bearing on the case here. You've cited that one police dept's policies state one thing. But, you're not following local PD policy once you're on a state road. You're in state jurisdiction, so, the local PD policy is completely useless.

The ONLY fact is this- they used reasonable force to stop a dangerous situation. It had unfortunately fatal consequences for the f'ing morons who decided to run.

Basically if we don't agree with you then we shouldn't post? Do I have that about right?

Originally posted by arch:
Why even bother responding to you.

Don't. You're wrong, and that's all there is to it. Deal with that fact, then get back to us when you grow up.

Quote:

And I got your point long ago, you simply want to be able to run.

Wrong.

How I know they did not try anything....
There is another video of it somewhere else that is a full length video pretty much from start-finish. I would post a link, but I cant find it. Which Is why i havent mentioned it until now. That is as far as I will go into that subject.

Originally posted by arch:
FACT #1: High Speed chase across state lines
FACT #2: White Nissan Pathfinder.
FACT #3: GSP Joined in after County police could not stop the SUV.
FACT #4: Two occupants in the SUV.
FACT #5: One was driving. One was in the passenger seat.
FACT #6: Driver is responsable for all occupants of the SUV.
FACT #7: Police did not know at the time what the relationship was, driver/passenger wise.
FACT #8: It is up to the police to determine said relationship BEFORE attempting anything to further endanger the passengers life.
FACT #9: Other non-lethal attempts COULD have been TRIED before resorting to a PIT.
FACT #10: A GSP officer caused the SUV to lose control resulting in the death of both occupants.

If you can not agree with those 10 FACTS. Then you no longer need to speak. If you can, Then my point has been made.

For once, you posted FACTS, however your attempt to "own" us falls flat on it's face since none of those facts is really in dispute although #9 could be since the officers from SC abandoned the idea of using spike strips.

I don't think #8 is real. All the have to know is those people are endangering other people. Also, I seem to remember you saying that you were going to stop posting yesterday?

Once again. Those are Facts. That is my arguement. That is my point.

I did say I was done. But The stupidity of everyone else posting got to me. And I needed to post something to reinforce my statements.

Originally posted by arch:
I did say I was done. But The stupidity of everyone else posting got to me. And I needed to post something to reinforce my statements.

So you're a liar.

Changing my mind is hardly lying. And what that has anything to do with my point, I fail to see.

Originally posted by arch:

FACT #8: It is up to the police to determine said relationship BEFORE attempting anything to further endanger the passengers life.
FACT #9: Other non-lethal attempts COULD have been TRIED before resorting to a PIT.

How are they going to determine the relationship? Ask them to pull over nicely? String a pair of coffee cans between the cars and hold a conversation?

Other non-lethal attempts were made- it was called pulling them over in the first place for whatever infractions they were guilty of.

What else were they supposed to do? The strip was determined to not work, they couldn't box them in for fear of losing a half-dozen officers, they couldn't shoot at the car. What other magical option do you have to stop a speeding car? Standing in front of them asking them nicely to slow down?

If they dont know what the relationship is, they shouldnt be executing deadly force.

[cue=sonny/cher] It's groundhog day! [/cue]

will it ever end...

"don't drive angry..." or post for that matter

Sheriff Buford T. Justice would've chased them across state lines, through people's back yards, and even cheat death by driving underneath a tractor-trailer(thus slicing the top of the car off!). He never gave up! He'd catch that sombeech!

Originally posted by arch:
If they dont know what the relationship is, they shouldnt be executing deadly force.

Why not? Example please.

Originally posted by arch:
If they dont know what the relationship is, they shouldnt be executing deadly force.

They weren't. There was no guarantee that it WOULD kill the occupants, and that is what you are missing. Deadly force usually entails shooting someone. They weren't using deadly force, they were using a tactic. Unfortunately, people died in the process. That does NOT make it lethal force. Intent is what makes the difference. There was no intention of killing those two. It was designed to take them off of the road and it was successful in doing just that.

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.

people die and are seriously mamed from non-leathal weapons (like rubber bullets, wooden blocks, beanbags, stun guns, etc.) as well. they are still non-leathal. since when was spinning a car considered to be deadly force? what percentage of PITs result in death?

lastly, since when do officers have to know the relationship of everyone in the car???? fact? i think not.

i cant believe i actually read this whole thread. did it over two sittings, but dayum.

edit: yes, very well put sigma

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

PLEASE MOVE ALONG...THERE IS NOTHING TO SEE HERE

Originally posted by arch:
FACT #1: High Speed chase across state lines
FACT #8: It is up to the police to determine said relationship BEFORE attempting anything to further endanger the passengers life.
FACT #9: Other non-lethal attempts COULD have been TRIED before resorting to a PIT.

Lol, and just how were they supposed to do number 8? Somehow magically get her cell number and call her, asking if she is holding the passenger hostage? Then you would be ranting about how the police caused her to crash because they called her on her cell while she was fleeing at 100 MPH.

I have seen no other non-lethal suggestions here, or anywhere, for that matter.

Originally posted by arch:

Quote:

And I got your point long ago, you simply want to be able to run.

Wrong.

How I know they did not try anything....
There is another video of it somewhere else that is a full length video pretty much from start-finish. I would post a link, but I cant find it. Which Is why i havent mentioned it until now. That is as far as I will go into that subject.

Wait, you are replying to Packrat, and quoting me...

Anyway, until you produce this link, your claim is meaningless.

Originally posted by arch:
If they dont know what the relationship is, they shouldnt be executing deadly force.

Your ignorance is shining through here.

During the Bonnie and Clyde crime spree, there was (and continues to be to this date) debate over their relationship, whether or not Bonnie was accomplice or victim. I could cite many other such examples where the relationship of some parties involved with the clear suspect is ambiguous.

Charles Manson, anyone?

You have not the first clue as to police proceedure nor how dangerous it was for the officer to perform this maneuver. Stop stamping your feet in the corner, already.

Originally posted by bishop375:

Originally posted by arch:
If they dont know what the relationship is, they shouldnt be executing deadly force.

They weren't. There was no guarantee that it WOULD kill the occupants, and that is what you are missing. Deadly force usually entails shooting someone. They weren't using deadly force, they were using a tactic. Unfortunately, people died in the process. That does NOT make it lethal force. Intent is what makes the difference. There was no intention of killing those two. It was designed to take them off of the road and it was successful in doing just that.

I'd have to disagree, Bishop. At any speed above 35 MPH, the standard maximum for employing the PIT, it would be considered deadly force by the courts. But then, so would spike strips at that speed, or shooting the radiator or tires at any speed. Point- no other viable options.

Originally posted by Sandman333:
Point- no other viable options.

No, there were no other viable options. But, I doubt the INTENT was to kill them. The intent was simply to stop them. I'm nitpicking on the "lethal force" statement earlier.

Originally posted by arch:

If you can not agree with those 10 FACTS. Then you no longer need to speak. If you can, Then my point has been made.

So let me understand your "point" of the quoted sentence. Either we agree with you, or we shouldn't speak anymore??? You have got to be the supidest person I have ever seen on these boards...

I am waiting for a ( like Sandman, I am sure one will follow soon) court case. The court will tell us what to believe. I have this gut feeling that the parents of the passenger will win a case aginst the officer and the GSP. I hope I am wrong, but some crazy [censored] has happened in court cases. This case will tell us if the officer was wrong or right. The GSP can say he was right all they want (which I still believe he was) , but the court will have the final decision.

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

Quote:

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

Agreed. Very well put.

Sandman, apparently sigma saw the video if he mentioned the worker. Maybe he has the link?

Ill post more about each response to what I said, but Im in a rush right now.

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
I just wanted to make the 500th post in here.

This post has def gotton some responses over the past few days. 51 pages in 4 days??? Thats crazy.

whats going on here?

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

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.

Game, set, match.

3 point winning basket at the buzzer.

[enter additional sports cliche here]

Very good, Sigma.

Originally posted by Red92784:
Holy [censored]! This thing got long as hell. I mean I thought it was long last night, but WOW!!!

Are you going to start quoting yourself again?

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!

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!

Sigma handed both you and arch your asses. Deal with it.

Oh, and don't bother adopting arch's debate tactics, it didn't work out for him and it damn well won't work for you.

Point proved.

You did no such thing. I still stand by my argument and the facts at hand.

You just keep the flame burning.

You = Post Whore

Originally posted by Red92784:
Point proved.

You did no such thing. I still stand by my argument and the facts at hand.

You just keep the flame burning.

You = Post Whore

We did a good job of trashing your argument last night.

You diddn't trash our argument. Arch put up the facts and you chose to ignore them. You can TRY to trash our argument all you want but you cant change the facts.

Keep blowin on the fire dude.

You know what?...

Ill bet your some thirty year old intravert that lives in a little bum f*ck shack in n3w m3x1c0 a hundred and fifty miles from nowhere who's only purpose in life is to get on his computer every day and start internet wars just to ammuse that kidney bean you call a brain.

That was satisfying...

Originally posted by Red92784:
You diddn't trash our argument. Arch put up the facts and you chose to ignore them. You can TRY to trash our argument all you want but you cant change the facts.

Keep blowin on the fire dude.

You just keep telling yourself that.

Originally posted by Red92784:
You know what?...

Ill bet your some thirty year old intravert that lives in a little bum f*ck shack in n3w m3x1c0 a hundred and fifty miles from nowhere who's only purpose in life is to get on his computer every day and start internet wars just to ammuse that kidney bean you call a brain.

That was satisfying...

Is that the best you could come up with?

Aww did I hurt your feelings

No, I would just hope you'd use better material when walking on the tight rope you've been walking on lately.

Tight rope??

Keep blowin.

My opinion is my own. Anyone who knows me knows that it cannot be changed and that I am usually right in the long run.

Your have been arguing just as much as me, so dont tell me I'm on a tight rope.

Just get over the fact that you have no idea what your talking about, and dont spend so much time in the sun. I think It damaged your sense of logic.

Originally posted by Red92784:
Tight rope??

Keep blowin.

My opinion is my own. Anyone who knows me knows that it cannot be changed and that I am usually right in the long run.

Your have been arguing just as much as me, so dont tell me I'm on a tight rope.

Just get over the fact that you have no idea what your talking about, and dont spend so much time in the sun. I think It damaged your sense of logic.

Newbies like you haven't earned your "stripes" to be as smartmouthed as you have been.

Red, you and arch have done absolutely nothing to prove your points. It is not that we ignored your "facts," it's that your "facts" are wrong, and just plain stupid.

FACT: You are the 30 year old introvert that has no life and has to come on here talking this $hit and that $hit.

FACT: Your parents should have never had you because all you will do in your lifetimes is become worse and worse *ucktards everyday you are living.

FACT: You need to go back and read Sigma's lengthy post, which completly tore to shreads and "facts" you might have thought you had.

FACT: You should both be banned from here as you will have nothing to add to anything that goes on here.

In conclusion, GO THE HELL AWAY.

Originally posted by Red92784:

You (Packrat)= Post Whore

Packrat
Member since 5/31/00 (1554 days)
2566 posts
1.649 Posts per day

Red92784
Member since 7/11/04 (52 days)
198 posts

An astonishing posts per day average of 3.788!

You post 2.29 times more than he does, and yet you call HIM a post whore?

Why the f*ck are you back. I will defend my argument too the death.

Ill bet you guys are voting for Kerry. Hence, despite the facts that he is incompetent you still stand by him.

(Im not starting a political debate, just making an example)

Well your example absolutely sucks because "you guys," as you refer to, are all devout Bush supporters. You would know that if your ass was around here for more than a month or two.

Originally posted by mbTDI:

Originally posted by Red92784:

You (Packrat)= Post Whore

Packrat
Member since 5/31/00 (1554 days)
2566 posts
1.649 Posts per day

Red92784
Member since 7/11/04 (52 days)
198 posts

An astonishing posts per day average of 3.788!

You post 2.29 times more than he does, and yet you call HIM a post whore?

Thanks bro.

And that doesn't count the posts I made under my first username in the pre-UBB days.

Coulda' fooled me.

Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
Well your example absolutely sucks because "you guys," as you refer to, are all devout Bush supporters. You would know that if your ass was around here for more than a month or two.

I bet red's voting for Nader.

Quote:

Ill bet you guys are voting for Kerry. Hence, despite the facts that he is incompetent you still stand by him.

Oh God... You called PackRat and 99blacksesport liberals... Now you've done it.

Nope Im votin for Bush.

Originally posted by sigma:

Quote:

Ill bet you guys are voting for Kerry. Hence, despite the facts that he is incompetent you still stand by him.

Oh God... You called PackRat and 99blacksesport liberals... Now you've done it.

Mah bishes gonna git you now!

Originally posted by Red92784:

Ill bet you guys are voting for Kerry.

Actually I am voting for YOU...

TO SHUT THE HELL UP!

Originally posted by sigma:

Oh God... You called PackRat and 99blacksesport liberals... Now you've done it.

LMAO LOL. Sigma, you're my favorite liberal, this post by you just made my day.

Originally posted by arch:

Quote:

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

Agreed. Very well put.

Sandman, apparently sigma saw the video if he mentioned the worker. Maybe he has the link?

Ill post more about each response to what I said, but Im in a rush right now.

The worker was mentioned in the text of at least 2 articles I found, but not seen in the video. Given that she almost killed this guy, she was not guilty of mere speeding, but also reckless driving, disorderly conduct, aggravated fleeing and eluding, and attempted manslaughter.

In short, she is a wanted fleeing felon. Plenty of reasons to get her stopped.

During this entire free-for-all, you have consistantly missed the rational conclusion: Don't run from the police.

Quote:

During this entire free-for-all, you have consistantly missed the rational conclusion: Don't run from the police.

I think someone stated that way back on page one but I'm not sure who that intelligent individual was!

Originally posted by Red92784:
My opinion is my own. Anyone who knows me knows that it cannot be changed.

Your opinion, yes. Nobody is denying that you can have your opinion. When you start bringing "facts" to the table that are refuted successfully time and time again with legitimage fact and logic, you run back to your original argument, slamming your fist on the desk, screaming for attention.

Nobody is trying to change an OPINION. We're asking you to pull your head out of your ass and actually READ something thoroughly. You're getting too caught up in the detail of someone dying to realize that the ONLY thing that could be done in that situation was the PIT. There are absolutely no other options. Boxing was determined too risky to the officers and other motorists, you cannot shoot at a car at that speed and expect to hit anything, They could not back off for fear of endagering the lives of legitimate innocent (meaning NOT INVOLVED IN THE CHASE) people. If they let these f*cks go, who knows what would have happened? Nobody. And now this drunk driver got what they deserved. To die because of their own stupidity, and not cause the deaths or injuries of other people.

The options they had were to either let them go or to stop them using any means available and necessary. There was NO WAY to seal off the highway for enough time to setup a spike strip. I don't know how many times you've driven 95 or how much of it you've driven, but, I've driven it between Maine and Georgia several times. The ONLY time I saw fewer than hundreds of cars on it was between the hours of 3am and 5am on a Saturday morning. Cars travelling at 60mph are going to flash by you in a heartbeat. That spike strip may take a second to deploy and another second to retract, but, you've also run the risk of blowing out the tires of no fewer than 10 other completely innocent drivers, passengers, carpoolers, etc. So let's do the math... possibly kill two people, at least one of which is guilty of SOMEthing bad enough to run from the cops, or send out a strip and possibly kill 20. 2 is a risk worth taking. And THAT was the decision that had to be made. The cop driving the car that took them out will live with that for the rest of his life. The knowledge that he did "the right thing" will most likely NEVER be enough to counter the fact that he inadvertently killed two people.

And as far as you trying to knock Pack Rat... you should pick your battles much more wisely.

And, do us all a favor, and let us know how we can move to the wonderful land of utopia and ignorance. Everything must work perfectly there for you all the time. Every rule is perfect, no crime is EVER committed, because, gee, there is no such thing as a guilty person.

You guys suck.

I'd rather hit myself in the nads with a hammer than listen to you girls b!tch.

On the other hand, it is very amusing at the same time.

Ok, nevermind! Back to b!thin!!

The spike strip idea has been abandond for a while now.

But let me ask you this. Would you put a gun to your best friends head and pull the trigger if it meant you would save 10 other lives?

Besides that isn't even relevant. They diddn't know what they were running for. All the cops new is that the girl was trying to get out of a minor speeding ticket. If they backed off when things got dangerous no lives would have been lost. Sure the dumbass driver MIGHT (not likely)have gotten away but there would have been no loss of life.

Or if she would have stopped in the first place there would have been no loss of life.
You REALLY seem to want to absolve the driver of any responsibility in this. Why?

I not absolving the driver of any responsibilities. But the chase should have been terminated when it was clear that she was willing to put lives at risk to keep running.

Which brings us full circle back to the fact that this is a brilliant idea, red (Which we've already covered and refuted, much like your other ideas).

In your world, Should I get pulled over, I should just start endangering some lives. At that point, cops should back off. Who cares if I continue to do it, and kill off a few folks. Oh BTW, what was your address again? I'm gonna get pulled over by your house, run from the cops, shoot your family, then they'll back off. Good idea.

I haven't read any of the recent posts. Can someone just tell me why this thread is still going?

Who knows. From most people's standpoint, the argument is pretty much over. Red seems to just keep bring up the same ol chit and bait, and I just keep biting, can't help it.

Ima tape your mouf shut.

Originally posted by Red92784:
I not absolving the driver of any responsibilities. But the chase should have been terminated when it was clear that she was willing to put lives at risk to keep running.

You're missing the point. NO officer IN THE WORLD will back off pursuit of a suspect just because they start to endanger lives. If that ever happens

it's suddenly no longer a minor speeding offense! You're also missing the point that people don't just run from the police for no reason. If you're evading to this extent, you've got something to hide. These points are crystal clear to me. What planet are you on?

If it was any other way then people would run from the cops all the time.

I'm starting to think you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. This isn't about a point of view anymore. Reality check!

There are actually plenty of times cops will back of when it becomes dangerous, mainly in California, but they also usually have a helicopter in there.

Originally posted by shotwell:

Originally posted by Red92784:
I not absolving the driver of any responsibilities. But the chase should have been terminated when it was clear that she was willing to put lives at risk to keep running.

You're missing the point. NO officer IN THE WORLD will back off pursuit of a suspect just because they start to endanger lives. If that ever happens it's suddenly no longer a minor speeding offense! You're also missing the point that people don't just run from the police for no reason. If you're evading to this extent, you've got something to hide. These points are crystal clear to me. What planet are you on?

If it was any other way then people would run from the cops all the time.

I'm starting to think you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. This isn't about a point of view anymore. Reality check!

Shotwell,

I would like 2 say I agree with you and I believe what the cop did was the only option. The only thing that makes me have a second thought on what happened is what I found in this link on Georgia's Gov web sight. As I have stated before, I think the cop did what was right, I would have been very upset had that driver killed a family memeber.

Quote:

Officers proceed with due regard to other vehicles. It is understood that the officer's ability to supervise or control other motorists is limited by the nature of existing circumstances, and it is their duty to avoid contributing to the danger already created by the violating motorist.

Quote:

To avoid being arrested, some violators will take unnecessary risks. The pursuing officer shall not duplicate these hazards regardless of the extenuating circumstances.

Now I am not claiming to completely understand Georgia's policies. Maybe I am reading them worng and someone can correct me. If I am correctly me nicly please.

Hmm... Ok... Back to the topic.

Originally posted by sigma:
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.

Correct. I dont think it said the VA dept. invented it, but if it it, its wrong. Im to lazy to go look at it again. But you're right.

Originally posted by sigma:
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.

Again, right.

Originally posted by sigma:
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.

Right, However, If the pursuit was terminated BEFORE the SUV got that close to the worker, whos to say that the SUV would've ever gotten that close to the worker? If you watch the video with the worker in it, you can see they had already been in the chase for awhile beforehand.

Originally posted by sigma:
But that's really beside your main point.

Correct.

Originally posted by sigma:
Your point is that the Cop committed manslaughter, correct?

In a sense, yes.

Originally posted by sigma:
Well, this isn't a cut-and-dry case, and while he did not commit manslaughter (by definition) he may have commited Wrongful Death

Agreed. Better said. Perhaps manslaughter was the wrong term.

Originally posted by sigma:
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.

Nobody with common sense, and knowledge of the PIT would say those were reasonable speeds at which it could be performed safely. The only 'safe' part about it is they waited for the road to open up a bit and keep it away from other cars. Just because GSP says so? Sorry, no. I believe the law is more defined than that also, but Im lazy, and I dont feel like shifting through the internet finding GA law. But ALL police agency's are taught the PIT based on what the VA police have done, and over 35 OR on an SUV, the PIT is not to be used, Several sites/agencies say that.

Originally posted by sigma:
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.

Possibly.

Originally posted by sigma:
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.

Ok, I can agree with that.
------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Sandman333:
I'd have to disagree, Bishop. At any speed above 35 MPH, the standard maximum for employing the PIT, it would be considered deadly force by the courts. But then, so would spike strips at that speed, or shooting the radiator or tires at any speed. Point- no other viable options.

Thank you for telling him. I thought common sense would've.
---------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by bishop375:
I'm nitpicking

Exactly why you should not be in this debate.
---------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
So let me understand your "point" of the quoted sentence. Either we agree with you, or we shouldn't speak anymore??? You have got to be the supidest person I have ever seen on these boards...

You obviously dont understand. Sigma did.
--------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by myfastse:
I am waiting for a ( like Sandman, I am sure one will follow soon) court case. The court will tell us what to believe. I have this gut feeling that the parents of the passenger will win a case aginst the officer and the GSP. I hope I am wrong, but some crazy [censored] has happened in court cases. This case will tell us if the officer was wrong or right. The GSP can say he was right all they want (which I still believe he was) , but the court will have the final decision.

Yup. However, whatever the outcome may be, I stand by my statement that the GSPO decision was not the best one.
----------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by PackRat:
Game, set, match.

3 point winning basket at the buzzer.

[enter additional sports cliche here]

How so? Sigma finally saw what I was saying. Thats all that really happened.
--------------------------------------------------
PackRat, Please stop being childish.

Originally posted by PackRat:
Sigma handed both you and arch your asses. Deal with it.

I fail to see how. {read above}
---------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
Red, you and arch have done absolutely nothing to prove your points. It is not that we ignored your "facts," it's that your "facts" are wrong, and just plain stupid.

Sigma doesnt seem to think so.
---------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Sandman333:
The worker was mentioned in the text of at least 2 articles I found, but not seen in the video. Given that she almost killed this guy, she was not guilty of mere speeding, but also reckless driving, disorderly conduct, aggravated fleeing and eluding, and attempted manslaughter.

In short, she is a wanted fleeing felon. Plenty of reasons to get her stopped.

You're still missing the point. But that statement is correct. As far as the worker being mentioned elsewhere, I've seen so much about this I wouldnt doubt it. But he's also on the other video.
---------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by bishop375:
Nobody is trying to change an OPINION. We're asking you to pull your head out of your ass and actually READ something thoroughly. You're getting too caught up in the detail of someone dying to realize that the ONLY thing that could be done in that situation was the PIT.

I believe I said that exact same thing 20 pages ago. Just not as blunt.
---------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by bishop375:
And as far as you trying to knock Pack Rat... you should pick your battles much more wisely.

I think we can deal with a 12 year old.
---------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by shotwell:
You're missing the point. NO officer IN THE WORLD will back off pursuit of a suspect just because they start to endanger lives.

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
There are actually plenty of times cops will back of when it becomes dangerous, mainly in California, but they also usually have a helicopter in there.

Enough said.
---------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by myfastse:

Quote:

Officers proceed with due regard to other vehicles. It is understood that the officer's ability to supervise or control other motorists is limited by the nature of existing circumstances, and it is their duty to avoid contributing to the danger already created by the violating motorist.

Quote:

To avoid being arrested, some violators will take unnecessary risks. The pursuing officer shall not duplicate these hazards regardless of the extenuating circumstances.

---------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by bishop375:

Why not? Example please.

If the passenger is a kidnapped victim, and the cop performs a PIT on an SUV. The GSP wouldnt be so quick to backup the trooper.
---------------------------------------------------

All in all, it took 50 pages for ONE person to realize what I was saying. And once he did, several of my arguements were agreed with. That says alot about the intelligence of the rest.

oh, and maybe Im reading the chart wrong, but doesnt 'disengage as an option' go up the more serious it gets?

http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=70327

Reead the entire article!

Originally posted by arch:

All in all, it took 50 pages for ONE person to realize what I was saying. And once he did, several of my arguements were agreed with. That says alot about the intelligence of the rest.

That's NOT what you were saying at all. You were saying the cops were in the wrong. Sigma's post clearly showed that NOT to be the case.

Originally posted by PackRat:

Originally posted by arch:

All in all, it took 50 pages for ONE person to realize what I was saying. And once he did, several of my arguements were agreed with. That says alot about the intelligence of the rest.

That's NOT what you were saying at all. You were saying the cops were in the wrong. Sigma's post clearly showed that NOT to be the case.

And it'll take another 500 posts for him to figure that out

all of the videos I have seen are hardly complete, and are so grainy as to be all but useless.

as for the poster earlier who mentioned GSP policy not to match the reckless maneuvers of a fleeing suspect- that goes to not driving by that same construction worker at those high speeds, clearing intersections no matter if you have lights/siren, etc...

Quote:

That's NOT what you were saying at all. You were saying the cops were in the wrong. Sigma's post clearly showed that NOT to be the case.

Exactly why it took 500 posts... How can you tell me what I am saying? You still have no idea what I was saying if you believe that.

This thread rocks.

Like Totaly!!

i'm hungry for some pork chops and applesauce.

In Arch's mailbox today...

Got a question you'd like to ask? Problem with somebody in your life? Well you're in luck! With help, a sentence has been composed that will guaranteed fit as the answer to any question you may have:

Damn it, shut the hell up!

PS: Please note that this means I really don't give a chit if you have a problem, because hopefully you'll learn sooner rather than later that the world does not revolve around just you. Do yourself a favor, close this thread since I don't care what you have to say in the first place, and utilize your two legs to get as far away from CEG as possible. Maybe then, and only then, will one of us be happy.

...and your chances aren't looking good bud.

did you hear about the guy that was decapitated by a telephone pole guidewire? I blame the cops for not patrolling that area & nabbing drunk drivers...an innocent life could've been spared

Originally posted by arch:

Quote:

It's various obvious that you've never attempted such a maneuver. If you were running from the cops, would you stay still long enough for that to happen? Have you ever tried to surround a car veering from side to side? Ever tried to drive three cars abreast at 120mph through traffic? Ever see what happens when an SUV locks bumpers with a police car at 100+mph?

MY POINT IS, IT IS POSSIBLE. They didnt try, just because something is hard to do, doesnt mean the cops cant do it.
It wasnt tried. Therefore you cannot be certain.

Possible, but more dangerous than doing a pit. You can't control as easily where in traffic they are, you put INNOCENT OFFICERS at risk, along with all the rest of the people on the road!! Its not because its hard to do, its because its DANGEROUS! I'd rather have two dead kids that were running from the cops than two dead cops that were trying to stop the kids. They sealed their own fate.

Quote:

Possible, but more dangerous than doing a pit..

Another person that agrees.

Originally posted by arch:

Quote:

Possible, but more dangerous than doing a pit..

Another person that agrees.

Yes, agrees that your solution is even more dangerous than the one employed.

Agreement none the less.

Originally posted by bigMoneyRacing:

Originally posted by arch:

Quote:

Possible, but more dangerous than doing a pit..

Another person that agrees.

Yes, agrees that your solution is even more dangerous than the one employed.

hehe. He doesn't realize that the guy is making a point against him.... Just because someone agrees that your wrong, does not mean they are on your side arch.

Are you stupid? You obviously dont know what my point was. I still believe sigma to be the only one to truely understand. I know what he was saying.

OMG!!! The thread almost got pushed to the third page!!!

I think someone fell assleep at the keyboard,

Originally posted by arch:

Quote:

That's NOT what you were saying at all. You were saying the cops were in the wrong. Sigma's post clearly showed that NOT to be the case.

Exactly why it took 500 posts... How can you tell me what I am saying? You still have no idea what I was saying if you believe that.

Would you please reply to the corret person. I did not post this... really, it's easy...

Originally posted by Red92784:
OMG!!! The thread almost got pushed to the third page!!!

I think someone fell assleep at the keyboard,

You are a douche.

Quote:

Would you please reply to the corret person. I did not post this... really, it's easy...

Nah Im good.