|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,203
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,203 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 21,653
I have no life
|
|
OP
I have no life
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 21,653 |
98.5 SVT
91 Escort GT (almost sold)
96 ATX Zetec (i brake to watch you swerve)
FS: SVT rear sway bar
WTB: Very cheap beater
CEG Dragon Run - October 13-15
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,361
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,361 |
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! 
'98 SVT Contour, in at least 639 pieces 
4 Speed MTX...synchro and shift fork replacement in progress 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 21,653
I have no life
|
|
OP
I have no life
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 21,653 |
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.
98.5 SVT
91 Escort GT (almost sold)
96 ATX Zetec (i brake to watch you swerve)
FS: SVT rear sway bar
WTB: Very cheap beater
CEG Dragon Run - October 13-15
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,785
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,785 |
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.
Just a Plain SE.
AKA Big Country
I maybe path914's B**** now, but wait until he needs his clutch done. We will see WHO is WHO's B**** then!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 226
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 226 |
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.
Quote:
My bicycle has four wheel disc brakes
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 226
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 226 |
oh, and maybe Im reading the chart wrong, but doesnt 'disengage as an option' go up the more serious it gets?
Quote:
My bicycle has four wheel disc brakes
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 4,397
b0x @dm1n
|
|
b0x @dm1n
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 4,397 |
Andy W.
The problem with America is stupidity.
I'm not saying there should be a capital punishment
for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety
labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 4,899
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 4,899 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,149
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,149 |
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
-- 1999 SVT #220 --
In retrospect, it was all downhill from here. RIP, CEG.
|
|
|
|
|
