PDA

View Full Version : Failing to stop USA style



XP@
25th October 2005, 14:57
This is just stupid, potential of 60 years because a cop following lost a tyre at 150mph...

Ok, so the guy was speeding and ran from the law but there is no way he should be done for killing the cop...

http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Headlines/03NewsHEAD03101905.htm

zadok
25th October 2005, 15:24
Must agree, sets a dangerous precedent. Plenty of charges there, but not vehicular homicide I would have thought.

Darlios
25th October 2005, 17:48
Thats bloody stupid. Why is the motorcyclist responsible? The trooper shoulda just stopped chasing him if he wasn't going to catch him anyway!

HenryDorsetCase
25th October 2005, 20:39
I dont think its unreasonable: I dont obviously know the statutory background, but if the death or injury was reasonably foreseeable (i.e. is it foreseeable that if someone speeds, an officer will pursue? answer yes. If that pursuit involves high speed and the possibility of accident, is it foreseeable that someone might be injured or killed? answer yes. QED he goes down.

I believe the same would apply in NZ, though I doubt he would get the 60 year penalty.

The other issue would be contributory negligence on the part of the highway patrol maintenance people, tyre manufacturer, whoever made the highway, the trooper himself etc for the INEVITABLE civil suit that will follow.

God bless america.

XP@
26th October 2005, 09:11
I dont think its unreasonable: I dont obviously know the statutory background, but if the death or injury was reasonably foreseeable (i.e. is it foreseeable that if someone speeds, an officer will pursue? answer yes. If that pursuit involves high speed and the possibility of accident, is it foreseeable that someone might be injured or killed? answer yes. QED he goes down.

I believe the same would apply in NZ, though I doubt he would get the 60 year penalty.

The other issue would be contributory negligence on the part of the highway patrol maintenance people, tyre manufacturer, whoever made the highway, the trooper himself etc for the INEVITABLE civil suit that will follow.

God bless america.

If I was doing 160kph and I passed a cop, I would expect said cop to radio ahead and get his mates to set up a rolling block or position a car to get up to speed or crack out the chopper, it is their job to stop lives from being endangeroured not to do the damage.

Karma
26th October 2005, 09:19
Copper should have weighed up the options-

1. Persue - Never catch the bike anyways, drive way beyond his control, endanger other road users

2. Let him go - setup a road block further up (was a 7 mile chase), don't endanger road users, get the chopper out.

I would've gone for 2 personally.

bugjuice
26th October 2005, 09:22
imho, I think that's a load of crap too. It's a shame the cop died, but the biker can't be held accountable for that. If it's unsafe to pursue, they call it off. No way is a crusier gonna catch up to a bike in heavy traffic, he should have just called air support and got them to follow the biker. It's no ones fault the tyre blew out. Could have been driving normally and it could have blown.. Do him for running, speeding, and the bike etc by all means, but not the death of a cop like that. It's no ones fault, just really bad luck

gamgee
26th October 2005, 09:44
dumb bitch he might have been being payed to be doing his job, but i'll bet he wasn't following his training, any cops want to elaborate on what standard proceedure would be if a bike was lane splitting at 130mph and clearly only showboating for the cop in pursuit? i'm guessing it would be as the others said, drop off and set up a road block further on

Postie
26th October 2005, 10:33
he must have a really shit lawyer if he can't get off for that. i don't understand the states, plenty of people literally get away with intentionaln murder thanks to bent laywers and loop holes, yet some guy riding his bike gets chased and a cop dies and he killed him? so how does that work?

bugjuice
26th October 2005, 10:37
or people fall from the sky and land in your windscreen, but it's ok if you're old and haven't seen them in there for the last 10 minutes.. It's not your fault, and you shouldn't be punished..

Smorg
26th October 2005, 11:04
God Bless America and its Justice System! :argh: What a load of shit i agree with buggy.
Get him on all the other charges but killing a cop? Fuck that, my pet rat could have got me off that charge :argh:

Sniper
26th October 2005, 11:14
I can see where they are coming from but its bloody unfair. The pattern of thinking here indicates that because he got sentanced because the cop died, he should be able to sue the cops family because it "allegably" was the cop that prompted himto speed.

bugjuice
26th October 2005, 11:21
if you look at it from the cops' family's point of view, I can see their frustration at wanting some form of justice to their loved ones untimely death. But sometimes you just have to see that there's no justice or understanding in a freak accident.

Colapop
26th October 2005, 11:31
The attached link clearly states that in high speed pursuits there not rules only guidelines when it comes to whether or not to continue the pursuit. If the officer considers that the offender is a risk to the public he has the right to continue pursuit unless given a direct order by a superior officer to abandon the pursuit.
The main problem in this case is the Rambo Road Warrior Police Officer. (I'm sorry he died) BUT he did not have to continue the pursuit. The motorcyclist was not on suburban streets, he was on a highway. In the testimony there was at least one "Semi trailer" swerving around on the road. Has anyone seen a motorcyle v truck come out in the bikers favour? Yes the biker is an idiot but killing the policeman?? Hmmm I don't think so.
http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/fcjei/slp%20papers/smith,%20d.pdf

Matt Bleck
26th October 2005, 11:35
It's against the law to speed! If your caught speeding you will be chased!

If man dies as a result off that, then its your fault!! ie. if you weren't speeding and doing a runner then it wouldn't have happened....

Now there's whole lot of if, buts and maybe's, but at the end of the day it's a public road and it's against the law to speed!!

Good job, lock him up and throw away the key!!

bugjuice
26th October 2005, 11:53
It's against the law to speed! If your caught speeding you will be chased!

If man dies as a result off that, then its your fault!! ie. if you weren't speeding and doing a runner then it wouldn't have happened....

Now there's whole lot of if, buts and maybe's, but at the end of the day it's a public road and it's against the law to speed!!

Good job, lock him up and throw away the key!!
yes, it's against the law to speed and flea police, but it's the chasing officer who decides when enough is enough. All walks of life - you live for the next day, not go at it at all costs. That's what helicopters are for, and the US has squillions of them. Plus radio backup for rolling road blocks etc, which would be pretty useless against a bike. Choppers are pretty much the only way to stop the chase by letting the biker think they got away with it, so they slow down. When they stop, the cops will get him/her then.

If the bike hadn't have been speeding, then the chase wouldn't have happened, very true, and I completely agree. But, it is down to the officer to call it off. It's been demonstrated in every country where the law has been chasing, and there's been a huge crash. They are taught to call it off for their safety and the publics'. He carried on at his own risk, not the bikers. As terrible as it is, the biker shouldn't have to take the flack for this.

Smorg
26th October 2005, 12:02
It's against the law to speed! If your caught speeding you will be chased!

If man dies as a result off that, then its your fault!! ie. if you weren't speeding and doing a runner then it wouldn't have happened....

Now there's whole lot of if, buts and maybe's, but at the end of the day it's a public road and it's against the law to speed!!

Good job, lock him up and throw away the key!!

Dont be such a penis! "If" for arguments sake say you were going for a ride with your mate and he was behind you as you took a corner..............he hits a diesel patch slides in front of an oncoming car and dies, would you think it was fair if his family blamed you for going on a ride with him that day???? Or would it be the right thing to say it was his decision on the day? Same thing with the cop it was his decision to give chase not the guys on the bike. I'm not try to justify the fact that he was doing a runner, just that he should be charged with what was his fault. An accidents an accident whether a cops involved or not :done:

Biff
26th October 2005, 12:10
Cause and effect.
What caused the cop to speed? A speeding biker
Effect? The cop died

Using this basic logic it's difficult to say that the biker isn't guilty. He (the biker) was speeding. He knew the cop would chase him. He knew that speeding was dangerous. He knew someone could get killed.

A nasty verdict, a sad story - but what kind of message would letting the biker off send out?

Matt Bleck
26th October 2005, 12:13
Dont be such a penis! "If" for arguments sake say you were going for a ride with your mate and he was behind you as you took a corner..............he hits a diesel patch slides in front of an oncoming car and dies, would you think it was fair if his family blamed you for going on a ride with him that day???? Or would it be the right thing to say it was his decision on the day? Same thing with the cop it was his decision to give chase not the guys on the bike. I'm not try to justify the fact that he was doing a runner, just that he should be charged with what was his fault. An accidents an accident whether a cops involved or not :done:

Thats different, no law broken there...wasn't doing a runner....

bugjuice
26th October 2005, 12:16
Cause and effect.
What caused the cop to speed? A speeding biker
Effect? The cop died

Using this basic logic it's difficult to say that the biker isn't guilty. He (the biker) was speeding. He knew the cop would chase him. He knew that speeding was dangerous. He knew someone could get killed.

A nasty verdict, a sad story - but what kind of message would letting the biker off send out?
but the cop manual clearly says (somewhere) that if it's endangouring lives or safety including their own, they must swich off sirens and lights, and discontinue the chase ASAP. Exactly to avoid stuff like this happening. And that's also why they have helicopters, to make it safer for ground units so they don't have to put themselves on the line in a senseless chase. They could have let him go, and just catch him another day. Yeah, he broke the law and needs to be punished, but no one needs to die over doing it.

Smorg
26th October 2005, 12:26
Thats different, no law broken there...wasn't doing a runner....

:mellow: Its not the runner i was talking about,i said he should be charged for that. Its the fact that he is being charged for the policeman's death. We appear to be going round in circles with this :blink:

Matt Bleck
26th October 2005, 12:33
:mellow: Its not the runner i was talking about,i said he should be charged for that. Its the fact that he is being charged for the policeman's death. We appear to be going round in circles with this :blink:

Yes I'm getting dizzy...

All I'm trying to say is that if he wasn't speeding, the cop would not have died....

Now I understand that he (the cop) could have, and should have called of the chase, BUT if the motorcyclist had of stopped it would not of happened, instead HE made the choice to carry on, endangering him, the cop and every one else who has the RIGHT to use the road.

Colapop
26th October 2005, 12:34
:mellow: Its not the runner i was talking about,i said he should be charged for that. Its the fact that he is being charged for the policeman's death. We appear to be going round in circles with this :blink:

It can't but go round in circles. Both parties, the copper and the biker, were at fault. Unfortunately the officer got died but the biker got done. The guy gives a bad rep to bikers (probably wearing shorts and jandals too) and the killed himself while doing his job. I notice though, that there were no supporters in court for the biker.

bugjuice
26th October 2005, 12:37
Yes I'm getting dizzy...

All I'm trying to say is that if he wasn't speeding, the cop would not have died....

Now I understand that he (the cop) could have, and should have called of the chase, BUT if the motorcyclist had of stopped it would not of happened, instead HE made the choice to carry on, endangering him, the cop and every one else who has the RIGHT to use the road.
The biker and the cop both have the right to stop the chase. Both have the choice to carry on, or abandon it (with different end results, granted). Neither of them exercised their right to stop. It's their own decision to do that, no one elses. The control room could have even told the cop to break the chase off. Would it still be 'the bikers fault' then?

Matt Bleck
26th October 2005, 12:47
The cop was doing his job......

Smorg
26th October 2005, 12:50
The cop was doing his job......

But not correctly :dodge:

bugjuice
26th October 2005, 13:02
The cop was doing his job......
which has strong guidelines set out, so s/he can continue with their career without injury

Matt Bleck
26th October 2005, 13:05
so then that makes it right does it?

Matt Bleck
26th October 2005, 13:07
it seems to easy to avoid responsabilty these days...

bugjuice
26th October 2005, 13:07
makes what right?

if anything, it's far from it. It's a job, not a kamikazi force. If it's beyond the guidelines set out to continue with the chance, they must give it up. Doesn't matter what they're chasing. Just so happens to be a bike this time. I bet, if you went back thru all the chases where a cop has been unfortunately killed during a highspeed chase, how many of the crims have been charged with the cops death?

It's not about responsibility in this case. It's about being wrongly accused of doing something he had no control over. Yes, he had control over running or not, but he had no control over the officer chasing him, nor his bloody tyre blowing out! If you want responsibility for it, look at who decided to keep on with the chase. Look at who trainined the HP for high speed chases. Look at who manufactured the car. Look at the mechanics who maintain the car. Look at the tyre manufacturer. Look at the tyre conditions. Those are direct influences on the outcome. Not what he was chasing.

Matt Bleck
26th October 2005, 13:11
makes what right?

if anything, it's far from it. It's a job, not a kamikazi force. If it's beyond the guidelines set out to continue with the chance, they must give it up. Doesn't matter what they're chasing. Just so happens to be a bike this time. I bet, if you went back thru all the chases where a cop has been unfortunately killed during a highspeed chase, how many of the crims have been charged with the cops death?

It's not about responsibility in this case. It's about being wrongly accused of doing something he had no control over. Yes, he had control over running or not, but he had no control over the officer chasing him, nor his bloody tyre blowing out!

:argh: OK, OK call the dogs off...

bugjuice
26th October 2005, 13:14
I don't want it to be quite like that, and I'll agree that we disagree here (also added more to the last post!), but I just feel that it's an injustice.

Don't get me wrong. It's a crying shame that someone has died as a result of trying to do his job, but you can't pin it on someone in circumstances like this. He ran, it got dangerous, let him go, get him another day.

Lou Girardin
26th October 2005, 14:04
It'll almost certainly get reversed on appeal. It's the price we now pay for dumbed down juries.
Something similar has happened here though. A driver who was racing another car in Glendene that then hit a third car, killing it's driver, has been charged with aiding and abetting the offence.

Colapop
26th October 2005, 14:09
It'll almost certainly get reversed on appeal. It's the price we now pay for dumbed down juries.
Something similar has happened here though. A driver who was racing another car in Glendene that then hit a third car, killing it's driver, has been charged with aiding and abetting the offence.
Is it going to be a case of having juries full of lawyers to interperet the law? Or is it more of a case of a lack of what was once 'common' sense. If sense was as common as the phrase suggests then perhaps the biker would not have gone that fast, the chase would not have been pursued for the distance that it was at the speed that it was .... you get the gist

FROSTY
26th October 2005, 14:24
Im missing something here--A person chose to get behind the wheel of a motor car. They CHOSE to drive said car at high speed They killed themselves doing so.How on earth is someone else accountable ??
Yes the biker should get done for running but only one person was pushing down on that pedal

HenryDorsetCase
26th October 2005, 14:30
I would have thought if this had happened here that a jury would be the last people to hear it. youd want a dispassionate judge alone, not a bunch of people too dumb to get out of jury service who sit there thinking, that could have been my brother/father/cousin/son/whatever.

Toast
26th October 2005, 15:02
Cause and effect.
What caused the cop to speed? A speeding biker
Effect? The cop died

Using this basic logic it's difficult to say that the biker isn't guilty. He (the biker) was speeding. He knew the cop would chase him. He knew that speeding was dangerous. He knew someone could get killed.

A nasty verdict, a sad story - but what kind of message would letting the biker off send out?

That people have to be responsible for their OWN actions (slightly different if the person is a caregiver/parent/guardian), and that you can't assign a single direct cause to everything (i.e. biker speeds, cop dies, thus biker bad man he kill cop)...and that shit happens, not everything is part of God's grand plan or 'cos Satan sent a really evil bastard to Earth with the intent of killing that cop.

Like BJ said...so many other facotrs involved.

Pixie
28th October 2005, 08:49
dumb bitch he might have been being payed to be doing his job, but i'll bet he wasn't following his training, any cops want to elaborate on what standard proceedure would be if a bike was lane splitting at 130mph and clearly only showboating for the cop in pursuit? i'm guessing it would be as the others said, drop off and set up a road block further on
It was Florida after all.
The cop would be the type that would introduce you to his wife and sister at a BBQ,and there would be only one woman standing there.

Pixie
28th October 2005, 08:54
Thats different, no law broken there...wasn't doing a runner....
not riding at a speed to suit the conditions

Pixie
28th October 2005, 08:58
:mellow: Its not the runner i was talking about,i said he should be charged for that. Its the fact that he is being charged for the policeman's death. We appear to be going round in circles with this :blink:
In many US jurisdictions,a death caused in the commission of a crime results in all the perpetrators (including ones not on the scene of the death such as the get away driver at a bank robbery) being charged with murder

Pixie
28th October 2005, 09:02
The biker and the cop both have the right to stop the chase. Both have the choice to carry on, or abandon it (with different end results, granted). Neither of them exercised their right to stop. It's their own decision to do that, no one elses. The control room could have even told the cop to break the chase off. Would it still be 'the bikers fault' then?
Expecting a cop to voluntarily to give up a chase is like expecting a bull to ignore a red rag.
We're not talking mammilian level intelligence here (except for the bull I suppose)

bugjuice
28th October 2005, 09:06
Expecting a cop to voluntarily to give up a chase is like expecting a bull to ignore a red rag.
We're not talking mammilian level intelligence here (except for the bull I suppose)
The level of intelligence of either party isn't what's under the light here. There's rules and guidelines to avoid disaster in such conditions. The guides were not adhered to by the officer. His level of intelligence in this case, cost him his life then, if that is what you're implying. It is still not the direct actions of the biker that he crashed and died.

TLDV8
28th October 2005, 09:13
I wonder if the person minding their own business in the car that was hit sued the family of the officer or police force..it could go on and on,pointing the finger,as soon as the speeds got to the reported "130 mph" decisions by both parties were made.

"Trooper Darryl Haywood, 49, was killed Oct. 2, 2004, when his tire blew out at 130 mph, causing his Camaro cruiser to crash into another car and then a tree on Interstate 4 near DeLand."

"Now Mr. Williams will be held accountable for the death of my husband," she said. "who was doing his job."

Gremlin
29th October 2005, 17:47
*insert all pc crap here, yes what he was doing was wrong etc etc* This pisses me off.

down to one fact. HOW can one person be charged (i.e. be held accountable) for another's actions?? That is simply bullshit.

Extend. Help the garbage man pick up the bin outside in case you have made it too heavy and you put out his back?? It could get soo much worse :angry2:

Each person is in charge of their own actions. The cop was never forced to continue the chase. He could always have stopped chasing.

That's the way I see it.

Biff
31st October 2005, 14:57
but the cop manual clearly says (somewhere) that if it's endangouring lives or safety including their own, they must swich off sirens and lights, and discontinue the chase ASAP.

I don't know what the rules of engagement are in some US states. I can only go by what I see on those cop (bad boyz, bad boyz, what u gonna do....)progs.

Anyway - I digress. My point being that you can safely assume that if you take off from a cop, he will pursue you. So in the eyes of the court - the bikers action resulted in the cop chasing him, which in turn resulted in the cops tyre blowing at 130mph ish, and the cop losing his life. So the jury were probably given a logical thought process to work through.

Hid he run? Yes. An offence.
Did he yield? No. An offence.
Was he riding dangerously? Yes. An offence.
Did his riding and the subsequent pursuit result in the death of a cop going about his duties? Yes

Based upon these facts - he was found guilty under US law.

I'm not condoning the cops actions in pursuing him, especially if things were getting dangerous, because I wasn't there. But as far as we know this pursuit happened on a relatively empty freeway when the cops tyre blew. I’m not even saying that ‘directly blaming the biker for the cops death was right, although it’s understandable why people would blame the bikie chap. But rules iz rules. As harsh as they may appear.<o =""></o>

scumdog
1st November 2005, 04:10
Hmmm, mental quandry here, - cop chases car (or bike), car crashes, driver killed and all the dogs say "cops fault, shouldn't have chased him"... cop chases car, car hits other car and other driver killed and all the dogs say "cops fault, shouldn't have chased him"
cop chases bike, cop crashes and dies, and all the dogs say "cops fault, shouldn't have chased him" WTF?????

If the the bike being chased had caused another driver to panic, hit the brakes and skid under a truck and die - well we all know WHO is going to be blamed them too - the cop eh? - even if he'd stopped chasing 5 minutes ago but the bike rider didn't realise it and was still going balls-out.

Kickaha
1st November 2005, 06:01
well we all know WHO is going to be blamed them too - the cop eh? .

If the cop didn't get out of bed that morning it is still his fault as he should have been out on the roads catching nasty speeders and preventing things like this from happening

If he gets out of bed that morning and chases a speeder that crashes and dies/kills someone it is the cops fault, if he hadn't chased him there would have been no crash

Rule 1, accept no personal responsibilty for your actions and the effect they may have on yourself or others
Rule 2, It is always the cops fault
Rule 3, See the above rules

right I hope I've made that clear Scumdog, it is always going to be "the cops fault" :bleh: