Don't run from cops, mang (video)

[curling]

Sure, whether or not they win is another story..

They should sue the driver that didn't stop.

Yea.

But seriously I think they have a good case against the cops because obviously they were protecting and serving the passenger in the car.

 

[WalkingBeast]

Don Dixon, regional manager of Winn Dixie, if you are reading this, I HOPE YOU DIE A SLOW AND PAINSTAKING DEATH!!

Now Im off to the Winn Dixie woods for a snack!

 

[strongsmartsexy]

FUCKHEAD, you are hopeless. I take it you don't know anyone who has ever been killed by a speeding motorist fleeing police? Well I do.

A good friend of mine from high school who's name was Adam was killed 6 years ago by an illegal immigrant fleeing police in a stolen vehicle. All Adam was doing was changing his flat tire along route 78 in PA. The illegal had been chased by police for many miles and was swerving in and out of traffic at high speed, while the cops chased but did not attempt to stop him. He tried to pass a rig on the outside and ran out of room, hitting Adam. My friend was killed instantly. The fucking illegal came away without a fucking scratch on him. This guy had no license, no insurance, hell he wasn't even a citizen. If the cops chasing him had done what these cops have done, Adam would be alive today.

You are advocting that the criminals should get more consideration than the innocents, wake the fuck up. ALL THIS WOMAN HAD TO DO WAS PULL THE FUCK OVER!!!! I'm sure if she had hit your mother along the way you would be blaming the police for inaction and demand their badges be turned in, hypocrite. What the police did here was insure that another Adam wasn't killed by her stupidity, and I applaud their actions.

Listen little boy. If you're not adult enough to participte in a civil discussion then I suggest you refrain from them. Your assertions are patently false as I've lost two friends from a speeding driver. That isn't relevant to the discussion and your personal wounds with this don't make the cop killing the two people in that car any better. Personal tragedies or yours or mine are not justifications or rationalizations for actions. It's clear you're not only adult enough to discuss it rationally and with enough thought to the overall ramifications to society and the policies of agencies overal but that you're also not adult enough to do so without personal attacks. In this case I suggest you lock your keyboard away until you're adult enough to do so.


That was NOT the only option for the cop to take. In this case it was CLEARLY a bad move on his part. Now if the cop had waited the women in that vehicle would be alive today. Whether they may or may not, or the cops may or may not have hit someone along the way is not to be known in this case. What is known is that the judgement of that cop was to do a pit maneuver on a high profile vehicle going at 100mph. That was HUGELY bad judgement on his part. The result of that bad judgement was the death of these women. What has happened to you or I personally or to those we know personally aren't relevant to this situation. Hell, they weren't even illegals.

She didn't pull over as many don't. Whether the cop acted according to established policy should and will be examined by the police force and likely the women's parent and their respresentative attorneys.

 

[Forge]

Listen little boy. If you're not adult enough to participte in a civil discussion then I suggest you refrain from them. Your assertions are patently false as I've lost two friends from a speeding driver. That isn't relevant to the discussion and your personal wounds with this don't make the cop killing the two people in that car any better. Personal tragedies or yours or mine are not justifications or rationalizations for actions. It's clear you're not only adult enough to discuss it rationally and with enough thought to the overall ramifications to society and the policies of agencies overal but that you're also not adult enough to do so without personal attacks. In this case I suggest you lock your keyboard away until you're adult enough to do so.


That was NOT the only option for the cop to take. In this case it was CLEARLY a bad move on his part. Now if the cop had waited the women in that vehicle would be alive today. Whether they may or may not, or the cops may or may not have hit someone along the way is not to be known in this case. What is known is that the judgement of that cop was to do a pit maneuver on a high profile vehicle going at 100mph. That was HUGELY bad judgement on his part. The result of that bad judgement was the death of these women. What has happened to you or I personally or to those we know personally aren't relevant to this situation. Hell, they weren't even illegals.

She didn't pull over as many don't. Whether the cop acted according to established policy should and will be examined by the police force and likely the women's parent and their respresentative attorneys.

Sorry I attacked you, but your reasoning really pissed me off.

So what would you have done differently? Say you were the officer in that car, would you have simply stopped chasing them and let them go? What if they ran down a pedestrian a few miles down the highway, or caused a severe traffic accident resulting in the injuries or death of innocent drivers? Then whose fault would it be, the fleeing woman driver or yours for not stopping her?

Being an officer of the law requires you to make hard decisions. Do you act to keep the lawbreakers safe, or do you act to prevent the lawbreakers from hurting others? IMHO the innocents should always come before the felons. Someone who chooses to break the law (and run from the police) has given up the right to protection. The police can't always act to save both, sometimes it has to be one or the other.

Sure it was a horrible tragedy, but I simply don't understand why you think the cops were in the wrong here. For God's sake they gave her 70 miles to change her mind. And it's not like they tried to kill her, only stop her.

So I'm curious, how would you have handled this scenario?

 

[Razorguns]

I wonder if people knew that if cops are prevented from chasing people -- it will would actually INCREASE the amount of people running from the cops.

Note the word INCREASE.

And most "chase deaths" occur on city streets within the first 10 minutes btw. On the highway it's actually much safer.

btw: On the border, border patrol chase ANY CAR that runs the border. They perform probably 5-7 a day. Imagine if they had the policy of not doing car chases. Hello Osama Bin Laden. Would you like fries with that?

You can't conjure up new policies without thinking of the ramifications. If you don't -- it reeks of total ignorance and lack of knowledge of what's involved.

 

[strongsmartsexy]

Sorry I attacked you, but your reasoning really pissed me off.

So what would you have done differently? Say you were the officer in that car, would you have simply stopped chasing them and let them go? What if they ran down a pedestrian a few miles down the highway, or caused a severe traffic accident resulting in the injuries or death of innocent drivers? Then whose fault would it be, the fleeing woman driver or yours for not stopping her?

Being an officer of the law requires you to make hard decisions. Do you act to keep the lawbreakers safe, or do you act to prevent the lawbreakers from hurting others? IMHO the innocents should always come before the felons. Someone who chooses to break the law (and run from the police) has given up the right to protection. The police can't always act to save both, sometimes it has to be one or the other.

Sure it was a horrible tragedy, but I simply don't understand why you think the cops were in the wrong here. For God's sake they gave her 70 miles to change her mind. And it's not like they tried to kill her, only stop her.

So I'm curious, how would you have handled this scenario?

The reasoning is this.
1) Doing a pit maneuver on a vehicle doing 100mph is NOT allowed in CA. I'm not sure what policy is in other states or the differing state jurisdictions. That would have been against policy and rightfully so. Just think for a moment about the fact that you have 3000+lbs of vehicle, a high center of gravity vehicle at that, going at 100mph. Just a simple understanding of physics and accidents in general, which the police should have, will tell you the likelyhood of survival of the people in that vehicle are almost zero.
2) Police just HATE having people not OBEY their authority. And people who get pulled over have a higher chance of getting beat etc, as a result of the anger and general adreniline of the cops at that time. We've seen and heard enough examples of this through time to know it's true. And they're given training about this to help them.
3) She maneuvered through 70 miles of traffic already. What was the KEY factor that the cop HAD to do that then and not 10 or 20 or 70 miles more from there?
4) That was NOT the only course of action that could have been taken.
5) There are many "what ifs" that are possible. The cops had as much chance of causing the "what if" scenario as the driver of the vehicle. And they had MORE of a chance since there was more than one officer in pursuit.
6) The cops DO have to make hard decisions. But that simple statement by itself is not a good rationalization for them just acting without thinking or acting against established policy. Every action they take does and will get examined, especially in a civil court. Did they act according to policy. Is the policy up to currrent standards, etc. This is a GOOD thing for society since it provides the necessary checks and balances for deadly force power. If the pit maneuver is found to kill people every time it's used what would you expect police forces to do with that. They have policies for when and how much force they can use. It gets examined every time someone is killed or force is used. This is a good thing.
7) You are not a felon until convicted and go through due process of law. Your rights to live or be treated appropriately within the guidelines of the law are not suspended because you choose to run. If that were the case then why not just KILL everyone who does? The notion is absurd.

I believe they were wrong because they did a pit maneuver on a vehicle traveling 100mph. That is INSANE. The next question is WHY did they have to do it then instead of in another 70 miles, or 50 miles before? What made that point critical? They could have let her run longer. It may or may not have had consequences. They could have tried to box her in with more than one vehicle. They could have used any number of other stopping options they're trained to use.

 

[strongsmartsexy]

I wonder if people knew that if cops are prevented from chasing people -- it will would actually INCREASE the amount of people running from the cops.

Note the word INCREASE.

Thank you captain obvious. I don't believe that anyone is advocating NOT chasing people.

And most "chase deaths" occur on city streets within the first 10 minutes btw. On the highway it's actually much safer.

btw: On the border, border patrol chase ANY CAR that runs the border. They perform probably 5-7 a day. Imagine if they had the policy of not doing car chases. Hello Osama Bin Laden. Would you like fries with that?

Imagine that. 5 - 7 chases a day and they follow policy that doesn't KILL people. They're not even allowed to perform a pit maneuver on a vehicle travleing 100mph.

You can't conjure up new policies without thinking of the ramifications. If you don't -- it reeks of total ignorance and lack of knowledge of what's involved.

Who's conjuring up new policies? Or are you just rambling on?

 

[Razorguns]

Who's conjuring up new policies?

Those who say we shouldn't be chasing and stopping fleeing criminals in cars. Those who are disagreeing with the current policies in place. If you disagree, that means you want a NEW policy in place.

Lots of whining. Very few suggestions. Typical of people these days.

 

[Big Rick Rock]

Note no cops were killed during this process. Come to think of it, I don't recall cops being killed during one of these kinds of operations, however, the death toll on those being pursued is very high. Let's see, the death penalty for speeding... hmmmmmm Interesting.

I know that there are places on the 5 where if you're going 90, you should be in the SLOW lane.

I wouldn't say it is the death penalty for speeding... Put yourself in the position of the innocent people just trying to get to work, or home from a picnic... Their lives are being put in danger by a person driving at 100mph running from the cops.

I have seen a bunch of these chases on TV where innocent people get hurt.

I'm sorry to say but I think the cops did the right thing. They chased her for 70miles till they decided it was time to put and end to it.

I know if I was that same highway with my son and wife in the car... I would wan't those guys off the road, by any means.

 

[strongsmartsexy]

I wouldn't say it is the death penalty for speeding... Put yourself in the position of the innocent people just trying to get to work, or home from a picnic... Their lives are being put in danger by a person driving at 100mph running from the cops.

I have seen a bunch of these chases on TV where innocent people get hurt.

I'm sorry to say but I think the cops did the right thing. They chased her for 70miles till they decided it was time to put and end to it.

I know if I was that same highway with my son and wife in the car... I would wan't those guys off the road, by any means.

In CA they wouldn't have been allowed to do the pit maneuver on a vehicle going that speed. It's against policy.

Their lives were in as much danger from having 2 or more cop cars involved in the pursuit driving at the same rate of speed. Their lives were in danger when the cop intentionally performed a pit maneuver at that rate of speed.

Why did they wait until 70 miles? Why didn't they stop her at 10? I mean, by that time then KNEW she wasn't stopping. Or how about 20? Maybe 30? Hmmmmm, well since they let her go 70 miles, why not 80, or possibly 90 or more? What other options did they take they could have which would have been safer than doing a pit on a vehicle at that rate of speed?

Just for fun it would be interesting to find out the policy of the police department that did the pit to see if it's within their policy to do that.

 

[AristotleBC]

Comparing this to firing a gun in a crowded area is patently retarded.

Once you pull the trigger on that gun, you have no control over where that bullet goes. The driver of that vehicle obviously had competent enough control over the vehicle to maneuver around other vehicles on that freeway as was demonstrated on teh video.

LOL are you kidding me? You called my argument retarded and then followed up with that ^ ?


Truthfully if anything is patently retarded here it's the direction you took in your response.


Nuances about whether a guy can aim a gun better than a driver careening down a highway is well.. " " .. Any number of words but none of them kind.

Especially silly considering how many pursuits end in crashes, which is what this is all about. There was one on the news last night in fact, and the poor innocent bystanders in the other car are in the hospital now.


The point that when people are acting erratically and breaking the law, and putting the lives of innocents at grave risk in the process, consideration of their wellbeing is subordinated to consideration for the wellbeing of the innocent people they threaten, and they are stopped with whatever means possible.


Period.

 

[fyxgel2]

Those who say we shouldn't be chasing and stopping fleeing criminals in cars. Those who are disagreeing with the current policies in place. If you disagree, that means you want a NEW policy in place.

Lots of whining. Very few suggestions. Typical of people these days.

How about this? Why don't we just become like Germany, and say "to hell with speed limits!" drivers can use their own judgement!

Granted their may be a few deaths at first, cuz people may go fast, and not be used to going that fast, but I'm sure that after awhile we would get the hang of it, and become better drivers at faster speeds(like the folks down in germany)

 

[strongsmartsexy]

LOL are you kidding me? You called my argument retarded and then followed up with that ^ ?


Truthfully if anything is patently retarded here it's the direction you took in your response.


Nuances about whether a guy can aim a gun better than a driver careening down a highway is well.. " " .. Any number of words but none of them kind.

Especially silly considering how many pursuits end in crashes, which is what this is all about. There was one on the news last night in fact, and the poor innocent bystanders in the other car are in the hospital now.


The point that when people are acting erratically and breaking the law, and putting the lives of innocents at grave risk in the process, consideration of their wellbeing is subordinated to consideration for the wellbeing of the innocent people they threaten, and they are stopped with whatever means possible.


Period.

Ok, I'll type this more slowly so you might understand it better.

If you're in a crowd of people and aim a gun then pull the trigger, it is going to go in the direction the gun is aimed. Once you've pulled that trigger you no longer have control of the bullet. Control it out of your hands at that point. When you're driving a vehicle down a freeway, you have control of that vehicle. You can and do manuever the vehicle around other obstacles in your path, which is normally other vehicles. This is done daily to great effect on freeways across america. On some freeways there are people who are doing 20mph faster than the rest of the traffic. On one stretch of Interstate 5, if you're doing the speed limit of 65, you're running about 15 - 25 mph slower than the rest of the traffic. This happens daily all day long. The cops love this stretch of road since it provides a phenominal revenue stream for them. Now, try that trick with a bullet.

The policies of police forces don't have an any means possible policy. They have well laid out policies of engagement for most everything they might encounter and provide extensive training for them, so that they can not only recognize the situations and react properly but keep themselves and others safe in the process. In CA for instance they can't perform that manuever on a vehicle going 100mph. This shouldn't be much of a surprise to anyone who is able to grasp the simple basics.

 

[Dial_tone]

SSS is determined to get in the last word. lol

 

[Razorguns]

SSS is determined to get in the last word. lol

I noticed that trait too.

 

[AristotleBC]

Ok, I'll type this more slowly so you might understand it better.

If you're in a crowd of people and aim a gun then pull the trigger, it is going to go in the direction the gun is aimed. Once you've pulled that trigger you no longer have control of the bullet. Control it out of your hands at that point. When you're driving a vehicle down a freeway, you have control of that vehicle. You can and do manuever the vehicle around other obstacles in your path, which is normally other vehicles. This is done daily to great effect on freeways across america. On some freeways there are people who are doing 20mph faster than the rest of the traffic. On one stretch of Interstate 5, if you're doing the speed limit of 65, you're running about 15 - 25 mph slower than the rest of the traffic. This happens daily all day long. The cops love this stretch of road since it provides a phenominal revenue stream for them. Now, try that trick with a bullet.

I suggest re-reading my post slowly, rather than repeating the exact same thing you said in the last post. Even if you 'typed it slower' this time.

I say that because must not have read my last post. If you had read it, you'd have seen that the details of whether or not you can steer a bullet better than you can steer a car is not at all relevant or related.

Since you have posted nothing new here, I will move on. Refer to my previous post for my response to your quote above.

The policies of police forces don't have an any means possible policy. They have well laid out policies of engagement for most everything they might encounter and provide extensive training for them, so that they can not only recognize the situations and react properly but keep themselves and others safe in the process. In CA for instance they can't perform that manuever on a vehicle going 100mph. This shouldn't be much of a surprise to anyone who is able to grasp the simple basics.

Well again you're doing this semantics thing and avoiding the issue. I'm not sure whether it's purposelful avoidance or not.

What's funny is you've insulted my intelligence twice in a row now, while at the same time managing to miss the issue at hand also twice in a row. Perhaps a better strategy would be to focus less on my intelligence and tossing little insults my way, and focus more on what your actual point is.

We are not debating whether or not police stations use an "any means possible" strategy or a "only specific means available" strategy.


It's unclear now based upon this post what general point you're trying to get across, but I will restate mine:

When a person has taken criminal action and is recklessly risking the lives of innocent people, with a high (or IMO even minor) probability that some wife, child, father, will be hurt or killed, that person has forfeited any consideration to their safety, and whatever action is necessary to stop that person from threatening others must be taken.

The safety of the criminal is a factor as well, but one that is absolutely secondary.

 

[strongsmartsexy]

When a person has taken criminal action and is recklessly risking the lives of innocent people, with a high (or IMO even minor) probability that some wife, child, father, will be hurt or killed, that person has forfeited any consideration to their safety, and whatever action is necessary to stop that person from threatening others must be taken.

The safety of the criminal is a factor as well, but one that is absolutely secondary.

When using an analogy the analogy has to be at least paralell enough and useful enough to demonstrate a point. In the case of shooting into a crowd was useless as an analogy.

The police are not allowed to use "whatever" means necessary. They are to use appropriate levels of the tools at their idisposal based on a set of policies and guidelines they are given. Secondarily the WHEN they use them is as important as what they use at the time.

Using the pitt manuever on a vehicle moving at 100mph was inappropriate and created more potential danger to the rest of the people moving on that freeway than continueing the pursuit. Once again, the WHEN he used it also comes into play. They waited unitl 70 miles into the chase. They could likely have waited another 70 miles. Now for a moment let's make the assumption that it increased the risk by waiting. Then the question becomes, why didn't they take her out at the 10 mile mark instead of keeping the people on that freeway at risk for another 60 miles?

Once again the "probability" of innocent people getting hurt rests on the shoulders of the criminal as well as the law enforcement officers taking action. Multiple cop cars engaged in the pursuit increased the probability of said occcurance. Just because they are pursuing a criminal, doesn't negate the fact that they are also part of the probability dynamics of the situation.

 

[Y_lifter]

Analogy Y style....


Person has a Weapon in a crowd and is threatening with it, but not firing it.
Maybe even holding a hostage( the passenger in the car?)

Cops show up, tell him to put down the gun.

He says "F.U. Pigs"

Cops back off and negotiators try for quite a while to talk him down for a while because they don't want to kill him.

Someone shows up with a long distance Tazer gun per policy and again tells them to give up. (Trooper that was well trained and able to performthe Pit that showed up after 70 miles?)

They fire the Tazer, and the person dies due to having an unknown heart condition.
(This happens all the time, and police are getting heat about it as well)
Add to the drama that the person when hit with the tazer fires the gun and kills a hostage.


?
What could the police have done differently in this case keeping the COPS, the Perp and the Hostage all safe ?

 

[Forge]

Using the pitt manuever on a vehicle moving at 100mph was inappropriate and created more potential danger to the rest of the people moving on that freeway than continueing the pursuit. Once again, the WHEN he used it also comes into play. They waited unitl 70 miles into the chase. They could likely have waited another 70 miles. Now for a moment let's make the assumption that it increased the risk by waiting. Then the question becomes, why didn't they take her out at the 10 mile mark instead of keeping the people on that freeway at risk for another 60 miles?

Bah, you have no point. If they had taken her out at 10 miles then you would be complaining that they didn't give her any chance, if they let it go another 70 and someone got hurt you'd be complaining that they didn't do their job. If they used the pitt at 55 mph and she still died then you'd probably still say they were wrong. I'm convinced that you just hate cops and they can do no right in your eyes, maybe you just hate authority figures? In any case this is going no where, we must agree to disagree and simply move on.

Now post your response so you can get the last word, I'm done with this thread.

 

[strongsmartsexy]

Bah, you have no point. If they had taken her out at 10 miles then you would be complaining that they didn't give her any chance,

False. She had her chance in the first mile or so with lights on.

if they let it go another 70 and someone got hurt you'd be complaining that they didn't do their job.

False My issue is with them doing the pitt maneuver on a vehicle going 100mph.

If they used the pitt at 55 mph and she still died then you'd probably still say they were wrong.

False. 55mph is an appropriate rate to use pitt. Whether she died or not.

I'm convinced that you just hate cops and they can do no right in your eyes, maybe you just hate authority figures?

FALSE I don't hate cops. A few of them are pure scum just like any subset of people in society. Most just do their jobs, and then a few get gung ho. They make far to little money for what they do. So long as they're doing things within established guidelines they're doing there job well. I will always challenge and look at what they're doing and how. Unchecked power leads to abuse. Any time someone dies in a confrontation, the facts and details surrouding that should be critically evaluated for their appropriateness. Fortunately LE organizations have some of those mechanisms in place. However, it still requires civilian oversight to protect against potential abuse by the "brotherhood" of officers. I'm sure with just a little bit of thinking you can recall recent examples of things being uncovered that were occuring with the police that shouldn't have been. The reasoning is simple oversight. Oh, and I am an authortiy figure.

In any case this is going no where, we must agree to disagree and simply move on.

Now post your response so you can get the last word, I'm done with this thread.

*snap* Dang, then you wont' get to see my reply. I think I need a tissue.

 

[strongsmartsexy]

Analogy Y style....


Person has a Weapon in a crowd and is threatening with it, but not firing it.
Maybe even holding a hostage( the passenger in the car?)

Cops show up, tell him to put down the gun.

He says "F.U. Pigs"

Cops back off and negotiators try for quite a while to talk him down for a while because they don't want to kill him.

Someone shows up with a long distance Tazer gun per policy and again tells them to give up. (Trooper that was well trained and able to performthe Pit that showed up after 70 miles?)

They fire the Tazer, and the person dies due to having an unknown heart condition.
(This happens all the time, and police are getting heat about it as well)
Add to the drama that the person when hit with the tazer fires the gun and kills a hostage.


?
What could the police have done differently in this case keeping the COPS, the Perp and the Hostage all safe ?

Let's agree that they followed established procedure.

If in the evaluation this is an isolated incident, then sure there will be a fuss, but the particular sequences of events are unpredictable and unfortunate. Naturally if this occurance happened most of the time, it would be an unwise thing for them to continue doing since it defeats the purpose of protecting the victim.

However, you're bringing in another element important in evaluating the use of a Tazer. That is the relative safety of it's use overall from which you're admitting they're already getting heat for. It would seem to me that the use of the tazer should be more critically evaluated in it's use and the policy adjusted appropriately.

Now, I'm not sure how that relates to doing a pitt maneuver on a vehicle going 100mph. Unless you're saying that is within established guidelines and policies.

 

[AristotleBC]

When using an analogy the analogy has to be at least paralell enough and useful enough to demonstrate a point. In the case of shooting into a crowd was useless as an analogy.

The police are not allowed to use "whatever" means necessary. They are to use appropriate levels of the tools at their idisposal based on a set of policies and guidelines they are given. Secondarily the WHEN they use them is as important as what they use at the time.

Using the pitt manuever on a vehicle moving at 100mph was inappropriate and created more potential danger to the rest of the people moving on that freeway than continueing the pursuit. Once again, the WHEN he used it also comes into play. They waited unitl 70 miles into the chase. They could likely have waited another 70 miles. Now for a moment let's make the assumption that it increased the risk by waiting. Then the question becomes, why didn't they take her out at the 10 mile mark instead of keeping the people on that freeway at risk for another 60 miles?

Once again the "probability" of innocent people getting hurt rests on the shoulders of the criminal as well as the law enforcement officers taking action. Multiple cop cars engaged in the pursuit increased the probability of said occcurance. Just because they are pursuing a criminal, doesn't negate the fact that they are also part of the probability dynamics of the situation.

Again, (3rd time) are you arguing against the specific actions of the cops HERE, or the philosophy that I stated in my last post?

 

[strongsmartsexy]

Again, (3rd time) are you arguing against the specific actions of the cops HERE, or the philosophy that I stated in my last post?

Yes.

 

[Y_lifter]

Dude, I've seen SUV's roll at 40 MPH...
55 or 155 , its not gonna be good for the people in the vehicle getting pitted.

Much like a tazer shot is not a GOOD thing to have done to you, its better than being shot with a real gun. Hence it's continued use until something Safer comes along..

Same with the PIT..

Back in the old days they would use a shotgun to shoot at the car or the tires and people got killed. Someone developed the pit to spin out the car and in a large percentage of use it causes no or less human injury risk.

Stop Sticks are safer and work well in non traffic situations but if they can't be used then the must turn up the heat with the pit or ramming the car.

Probable cause and Logic says since she did not stop for 70 miles, she must have done something very very bad to want to get away from the police that badly..

Going back to my post of a nirvana solution..
The driver should have simply stopped when Lit up..

 

[strongsmartsexy]

Probable cause and Logic says since she did not stop for 70 miles, she must have done something very very bad to want to get away from the police that badly..

Going back to my post of a nirvana solution..
The driver should have simply stopped when Lit up..

Yes, she should have stopped. EVERYONE should stop.

If I recall correctly, she had an expired license/registration.

I was wondering why the officer struck her on the left side instead of the right so she wouldn't go across those lanes of traffic or worse yet tumble in the lanes of traffic causing an even bigger potential mess. Then it occured to me that even with the ~4 - 6 lanes width of separation between the two sides, it would have been even worse if she had spun into oncoming traffic.

I know they're coming up with better technologies for handling these kinds of general stupidity, but even then they departments require the budget to purchase said technology. Sadly most barely have enough budget to run a sizeable enough force.

 

[strongsmartsexy]

Dude, I've seen SUV's roll at 40 MPH...
55 or 155 , its not gonna be good for the people in the vehicle getting pitted.

Living through a roll at 40 or 55 miles an hours is significantly higher than at 100 let alone 155mph. I'm not sure what the survivability probability is for a rollover at 100mph, but I'm willing to guess it's near zero.

When I first saw that video, I was mentally running through my head, that the traffic was likely going 65 or so and she was driving 20 - 30mph faster than traffic. (poorly calibrated eyeballs). When I saw him pitt her, I was stunned he took that action at that speed, then I said "There is no way they survived that!" I had only seen the video and hadn't known of the other information surrounding the incident.

 

[Y_lifter]

.

 

[AristotleBC]

Yes.

You must be voting for John Kerry

 

[georgie24]

cops are gay