Phaedrus correctly notes that given the excellent communication systems that police enjoy today, most agencies in major population areas have set policy to NEVER get into a high speed chase.
Statistics show that for every 'Tim McVeigh' that is caught, too many otherwise innocent people are subject to death and injury.
In effect, the incident cited here resulted in the Death Penalty for Failure To Stop, plus as noted the passenger in the lead vehicle who likely never had a chance.
Finally, I agree with Phaedrus' glum prediction here, but note it is not unusual. Police in the U.S. routinely skate after killing civilians without proper cause.
Statistics show that for every 'Tim McVeigh' that is caught, too many otherwise innocent people are subject to death and injury.
In effect, the incident cited here resulted in the Death Penalty for Failure To Stop, plus as noted the passenger in the lead vehicle who likely never had a chance.
Finally, I agree with Phaedrus' glum prediction here, but note it is not unusual. Police in the U.S. routinely skate after killing civilians without proper cause.
The issue is one of limits to police authority and behavior.
If speeding is the only crime in question, then it must be asked, is it o.k. for a police officer to kill a speeder in order to stop them?
The officer may claim he does not *know* that his action will result in death, that he merely takes a risk and hopes it won't. However, if options such as a roadblock or other means are available to him, then I would think the parents of the child would have a good lawsuit on their hands.
Put yourself in their shoes, when the police call on the phone, "Hello, Ma'am. We're sorry, but your daughter was speeding last night so we had to kill her to stop her. We're sure you'll understand".
Obviously they would not phrase it that way, but the reaction of a parent to such news would roughly be translatable from reading the imagined dialogue above.
The police of course could defend as follows: "Hello ma'am? We're sorry but your daughter was killed last night. You see someone else's daughter was speeding and as we chased that person, she hit and killed your child. We're sorry but we're sure you understand". In other words, they have to chase to speeders to protect innocents.
Truth is in many urban areas, high-speed chases have been outlawed, due to the severe collateral damage that often results. Police simply have other means at their disposal in this high-tech era to deal with speeders, and in my opinion, killing them, accidentally or otherwise, is not an acceptable option.
If speeding is the only crime in question, then it must be asked, is it o.k. for a police officer to kill a speeder in order to stop them?
The officer may claim he does not *know* that his action will result in death, that he merely takes a risk and hopes it won't. However, if options such as a roadblock or other means are available to him, then I would think the parents of the child would have a good lawsuit on their hands.
Put yourself in their shoes, when the police call on the phone, "Hello, Ma'am. We're sorry, but your daughter was speeding last night so we had to kill her to stop her. We're sure you'll understand".
Obviously they would not phrase it that way, but the reaction of a parent to such news would roughly be translatable from reading the imagined dialogue above.
The police of course could defend as follows: "Hello ma'am? We're sorry but your daughter was killed last night. You see someone else's daughter was speeding and as we chased that person, she hit and killed your child. We're sorry but we're sure you understand". In other words, they have to chase to speeders to protect innocents.
Truth is in many urban areas, high-speed chases have been outlawed, due to the severe collateral damage that often results. Police simply have other means at their disposal in this high-tech era to deal with speeders, and in my opinion, killing them, accidentally or otherwise, is not an acceptable option.
I think that most of us here agree that they didn't deserve to die just for running away from a speeding ticket....
Maybe there could have been some measures taken, as Skyweasel eluded to, to end this chase.....stop sticks or spikestrips combined with helicopter pursuit.....
I've talked to people who have been stopped and charged with drunk driving, and some of them are grateful afterwards that they were taken off the road for the mere fact that they could have killed someone else by thier reckless act.
Bottom line, the driver started the sequence of events that led to her death and the death of her passenger....as others have already said, why didn't she just stop, take the ticket for speeding, and get on with life?
Maybe there could have been some measures taken, as Skyweasel eluded to, to end this chase.....stop sticks or spikestrips combined with helicopter pursuit.....
I've talked to people who have been stopped and charged with drunk driving, and some of them are grateful afterwards that they were taken off the road for the mere fact that they could have killed someone else by thier reckless act.
Bottom line, the driver started the sequence of events that led to her death and the death of her passenger....as others have already said, why didn't she just stop, take the ticket for speeding, and get on with life?
I absolutely agree that she should have stopped, and if she was doing something she shouldn't have been -- even just the driving suspended, which is known but that's a minor charge in Georgia -- she should have had sense enough to not run 86 in a 70 zone.
Nothing about that makes what the trooper did any less reckless or irresponsible.
Phaedrus
Nothing about that makes what the trooper did any less reckless or irresponsible.
Phaedrus
what the officer did was not right. wrong - ??????able
to me the question that will never be answered is "why did she 'run' from the cops?" what she did was stupid and if she had just pulled over she'd be alive today.
whatever it is she was trying to run away from most likely wasn't gonna result in that big a penalty anyway.
all around a tragic and stupid way for this to end!
wonder how much the parents of theses kids will end up suing for.
to me the question that will never be answered is "why did she 'run' from the cops?" what she did was stupid and if she had just pulled over she'd be alive today.
whatever it is she was trying to run away from most likely wasn't gonna result in that big a penalty anyway.
all around a tragic and stupid way for this to end!
wonder how much the parents of theses kids will end up suing for.
Pigs are nothing more than overpaid garbage collectors who show up to fuck up the investigation. They have no interest in reducing crime but in fact the police create more crime than they prevent because they know their worthless unemployable asses wouldn't be stuffing their faces with donuts paid for by the taxpayer. Police are for disarming the population because they know that an unarmed populace is no threat to the criminal element and that's how the pigs keep their power... by disarming you and keeping you in fear from the criminals who they fail to protect you from.
It's almost time for the people to start shooting back.
It's almost time for the people to start shooting back.
"wonder how much the parents of these kids will end up suing for".....
Maybe the kids parents are lucky they aren't facing a lawsuit from thier own kids killing someone innocent in the process of being a fugitive.
If the parents sue over this issue......this would be one case of jury duty I'd like to be in on, because the parents wouldn't receive one red cent of reward.
All you coddlers out there with the attitude of "kids will be kids" would probably carry an attitude that anyone else that got killed by the actions of "these darling kids" were just not supposed to be there and should have known better than to be minding thier own business and living responsibly within the laws of the land....
While we're coddling these kids, why don't we make it a law that troopers need to carry a jar full of change in thier car so when they chase them up to a toll booth the trooper can kindly step out of his cruiser and throw some change in the hopper.....the fugitives could be running a little short on money....
Also when it looks like they're running out of gas they could all just pull into a gas station, and the trooper could just offer to pump the gas....we wouldn't want to have any static charge set off the gas, and besides that, who wants to end a multistate car chase with two ton vehicles travelling 100 miles per hour? Certainly no one else is in danger.... Maybe when they get to Seattle they can just turn around and go all the way back to the Florida keys.....
Maybe the kids parents are lucky they aren't facing a lawsuit from thier own kids killing someone innocent in the process of being a fugitive.
If the parents sue over this issue......this would be one case of jury duty I'd like to be in on, because the parents wouldn't receive one red cent of reward.
All you coddlers out there with the attitude of "kids will be kids" would probably carry an attitude that anyone else that got killed by the actions of "these darling kids" were just not supposed to be there and should have known better than to be minding thier own business and living responsibly within the laws of the land....
While we're coddling these kids, why don't we make it a law that troopers need to carry a jar full of change in thier car so when they chase them up to a toll booth the trooper can kindly step out of his cruiser and throw some change in the hopper.....the fugitives could be running a little short on money....
Also when it looks like they're running out of gas they could all just pull into a gas station, and the trooper could just offer to pump the gas....we wouldn't want to have any static charge set off the gas, and besides that, who wants to end a multistate car chase with two ton vehicles travelling 100 miles per hour? Certainly no one else is in danger.... Maybe when they get to Seattle they can just turn around and go all the way back to the Florida keys.....
I've avoided expressing my opinion on this issue as there is never "one correct response" to chases. As deputy chief of patrol in a 1,000 person department, believe me when I say emotions run high when there is a tragedy as described above. Obviously law enforcement can't just unilaterally refuse to chase any vehicle who decides not to stop, for this would lead to an untenable situation.
The majority (if not all) of the law enforcement agencies have developed a "chase policy" that contains criteria for supervisors to call the chase off in many situations that would put citizens (or officers) at undue risk. As you might imagine, many of these decisions have to be made without benefit of hindsight. As an example, a fleeing felon would have the highest priority (bank robber, etc.) and teenage joyrider the least. But there are many other factors that have to be considered when deciding whether or not to call the chase off. I can tell you from experience, the chasing officers seldom want to stand down from a chase, which is one of the reasons we have field supervisors make the call.
From a strictly pragmatic perspective, chases expose the city (maybe even the chasing officers) to civic liability for both property damage and personal injury resulting from the chase. I guess, in the final analysis, these types of situations are generally handled as professionally as possible, without usurping the agencies mandate of maintaining order through the enforcement of laws.
Just as a side note, these damn chases account for a disproportionate number of officer injuries (not to mention damaged cruisers).
The majority (if not all) of the law enforcement agencies have developed a "chase policy" that contains criteria for supervisors to call the chase off in many situations that would put citizens (or officers) at undue risk. As you might imagine, many of these decisions have to be made without benefit of hindsight. As an example, a fleeing felon would have the highest priority (bank robber, etc.) and teenage joyrider the least. But there are many other factors that have to be considered when deciding whether or not to call the chase off. I can tell you from experience, the chasing officers seldom want to stand down from a chase, which is one of the reasons we have field supervisors make the call.
From a strictly pragmatic perspective, chases expose the city (maybe even the chasing officers) to civic liability for both property damage and personal injury resulting from the chase. I guess, in the final analysis, these types of situations are generally handled as professionally as possible, without usurping the agencies mandate of maintaining order through the enforcement of laws.
Just as a side note, these damn chases account for a disproportionate number of officer injuries (not to mention damaged cruisers).
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Just another sidenote, me thinks "blabbermouth" has been " bitch-slapped by the boys in blue" at some point in his life (gee, I wonder why?)! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
An incorrect assumption. I merely understand what useless slugs the cops are, and how the only people who would want the job are frustrated ex-football players with power trips, and who are generally unemployable in fields outside of (what is called) "law enforcement".
An incorrect assumption. I merely understand what useless slugs the cops are, and how the only people who would want the job are frustrated ex-football players with power trips, and who are generally unemployable in fields outside of (what is called) "law enforcement".
BMouth, having a disrespect for individual cops, a group of cops or even an entire agency might have merit if you could be more specific.
But painting all law enforcement officers with the brush you do suggests you are a moron.
Anyone who has followed my time in here knows I am one of the first to step up and aggressively criticize sloppy and unprofessional police. It's not hard to do unfortunately, because there's plenty of sloppy and unprofessional officers to choose from.
But as a whole, the business of law enforcement is filled with professionals and people who respect the public and have respect for the very important responsibilities that come with being able to wear the uniform, the weaponry and the badge.
Any time you want to meet a host of excellent officers - current and retired, you can check out the website in my avatar. I base my statements above on my experiences working with these individuals. I also was raised by a career police officer (Detective/Inspector) who does not match your degrading descriptions above one iota.
But painting all law enforcement officers with the brush you do suggests you are a moron.
Anyone who has followed my time in here knows I am one of the first to step up and aggressively criticize sloppy and unprofessional police. It's not hard to do unfortunately, because there's plenty of sloppy and unprofessional officers to choose from.
But as a whole, the business of law enforcement is filled with professionals and people who respect the public and have respect for the very important responsibilities that come with being able to wear the uniform, the weaponry and the badge.
Any time you want to meet a host of excellent officers - current and retired, you can check out the website in my avatar. I base my statements above on my experiences working with these individuals. I also was raised by a career police officer (Detective/Inspector) who does not match your degrading descriptions above one iota.
Barman, don't waste your breath responding to someone like "blabbermouth". During my 25 years on the department (now retired)I've dealt with a thousand like him. They're the ones with the chip on their shoulder and cop an attitude when they're stopped for some infraction. Then they wonder why they were given a full body cavity search when they were booked:>
His comment about only ex-jocks being the only ones who would take the job is also pretty funny. We typically have several thousand applicants test for about 30 positions a year. Only the best and brightest make it (most have at least an associates degree, many with bachelors). To advance up the ranks past lieutenant you need a masters degree in a relative discipline. Of course the pay is commensurate to these educational requirements (commanders and up are all six figure salaries).
Back to people like "blabbermouth", they really have no clue of what a professional law enforcement agency deals with on a day to day basis and probably base their perceptions by watching a few episodes of "Cops".
Many of the other comments relating to this incident are just plain silly and are not worth responding to. Suffice to say that all professional law enforcement personnel mourn the loss of life that occurs during the performance of their duties.
His comment about only ex-jocks being the only ones who would take the job is also pretty funny. We typically have several thousand applicants test for about 30 positions a year. Only the best and brightest make it (most have at least an associates degree, many with bachelors). To advance up the ranks past lieutenant you need a masters degree in a relative discipline. Of course the pay is commensurate to these educational requirements (commanders and up are all six figure salaries).
Back to people like "blabbermouth", they really have no clue of what a professional law enforcement agency deals with on a day to day basis and probably base their perceptions by watching a few episodes of "Cops".
Many of the other comments relating to this incident are just plain silly and are not worth responding to. Suffice to say that all professional law enforcement personnel mourn the loss of life that occurs during the performance of their duties.
A lot of apparent misunderstanding or over-reading of my comments seems to be going on here. Clarify a couple of things, some of which I already thought I'd covered:
1) She should have stopped. And if there was any reason for her to be genuinely afraid of getting pulled over, like having drugs in the car or whatever, she should have had sense enough to not be driving 16 over the limit.
2) Anyone who sees the loss of two human lives under circumstances such as this as anything other than a tragedy, even if one significantly contributed to by (one of) the victims, is a piece of shit. I hope you lose someone close to you under identical circumstaces, so you can report back to us on how you are glad that person finally learned a lesson about avoiding the cops.
3) Despite my generally anti-government attitude, I do believe that policeman on the whole are doing their jobs because they are trying to make a difference. This sets them apart from pretty much all other government employees, from filing clerks to the president. There are of course exceptions to that premise, on both sides of it (there are bad cops, and good Congressmen.)
4) None of this changes one single iota the fact that the manuever in question was entirely inappropriate, and it is only luck of the draw that the officer in question was not himself seriously injured or even killed. It was a stupid thing to do, and two people are dead because of it.
5) Last point, and here's where my problem lies. The GSP is already running the spin machine on this one, stating that the trooper's actions were appropriate for the circumstances and that the loss of life, while unfortunate, was a necessary evil that might have saved other lives which could theoretically have been put into danger. This is utter nonsense, and utterly inexcusable. Fortunately for the GSP, the driver's father is an ex-cop and has already gone on record parroting that same line, that it sucks she's dead but they were just doing their job etc. Hopefully the other victim's family are not statist apologists who do not think that law enforcement and leadership are supposed to be held to higher standards of competence, intergrity and thoughtfulness.
Phaedrus
1) She should have stopped. And if there was any reason for her to be genuinely afraid of getting pulled over, like having drugs in the car or whatever, she should have had sense enough to not be driving 16 over the limit.
2) Anyone who sees the loss of two human lives under circumstances such as this as anything other than a tragedy, even if one significantly contributed to by (one of) the victims, is a piece of shit. I hope you lose someone close to you under identical circumstaces, so you can report back to us on how you are glad that person finally learned a lesson about avoiding the cops.
3) Despite my generally anti-government attitude, I do believe that policeman on the whole are doing their jobs because they are trying to make a difference. This sets them apart from pretty much all other government employees, from filing clerks to the president. There are of course exceptions to that premise, on both sides of it (there are bad cops, and good Congressmen.)
4) None of this changes one single iota the fact that the manuever in question was entirely inappropriate, and it is only luck of the draw that the officer in question was not himself seriously injured or even killed. It was a stupid thing to do, and two people are dead because of it.
5) Last point, and here's where my problem lies. The GSP is already running the spin machine on this one, stating that the trooper's actions were appropriate for the circumstances and that the loss of life, while unfortunate, was a necessary evil that might have saved other lives which could theoretically have been put into danger. This is utter nonsense, and utterly inexcusable. Fortunately for the GSP, the driver's father is an ex-cop and has already gone on record parroting that same line, that it sucks she's dead but they were just doing their job etc. Hopefully the other victim's family are not statist apologists who do not think that law enforcement and leadership are supposed to be held to higher standards of competence, intergrity and thoughtfulness.
Phaedrus
PHAEDRUS, we were diverted a bit by BMouth's rant, but to amplify our initial post in this thread, likely our biggest complaint about police agencies is their adamant refusal to be honest and deal with integrity when one of their own commits a crime against a civilian.
When an officer steals or commits other non-violent crimes, he is usually brought to task and appropriately suspended and/or fired. But when he crosses the line to assault and/or homicide while on the Job, every conceivable effort is made by the higher-ups to block and impede honest investigation.
We've seen over a dozen civilians murdered by police under the guise of the 'drug war' and not a single officer has served time for these murders.
The case you cite is of course not as insidious as a cop shooting an unarmed civilian during a raid of a wrong address, but it's just as tragic for all concerned.
It's regrettable, but I think that having just a couple officers brought to honest justice - in this case perhaps a firing and heavy civil damages against the agency - would do a lot to remove this one dark spot on the public image of most agencies which otherwise deserve solid respect from the public they serve.
Unfortunately, I think I'm whistling in the dark. But it doesn't keep me from speaking out and I appreciate your posting this item.
Thanks also to BILL for your input. Until this Topic, I must have missed your previous participation here at the RX. Do you mind telling me what state you work in?
When an officer steals or commits other non-violent crimes, he is usually brought to task and appropriately suspended and/or fired. But when he crosses the line to assault and/or homicide while on the Job, every conceivable effort is made by the higher-ups to block and impede honest investigation.
We've seen over a dozen civilians murdered by police under the guise of the 'drug war' and not a single officer has served time for these murders.
The case you cite is of course not as insidious as a cop shooting an unarmed civilian during a raid of a wrong address, but it's just as tragic for all concerned.
It's regrettable, but I think that having just a couple officers brought to honest justice - in this case perhaps a firing and heavy civil damages against the agency - would do a lot to remove this one dark spot on the public image of most agencies which otherwise deserve solid respect from the public they serve.
Unfortunately, I think I'm whistling in the dark. But it doesn't keep me from speaking out and I appreciate your posting this item.
Thanks also to BILL for your input. Until this Topic, I must have missed your previous participation here at the RX. Do you mind telling me what state you work in?
Barman, I'm a retired deputy chief of police (chief of patrol) from the Colorado Springs police department after 25 years of service. I still live in Colo.Spgs. where I have several business interests.
A little background. Colo. Spgs. is a city of about 500,000 in central Colorado (along the rocky mountain front range). Our department has around 1,000 sworn/civilian employees and is considered quite progressive by our peers (i.e., neighborhood policing, etc.).
A little background. Colo. Spgs. is a city of about 500,000 in central Colorado (along the rocky mountain front range). Our department has around 1,000 sworn/civilian employees and is considered quite progressive by our peers (i.e., neighborhood policing, etc.).
