Man Killed after tossing baby from his car....

[HumorMe]

Link here. Also has a video of the incident.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5999042/

I don't know what he was thinking.

Man dies in crash after tossing baby from car
8-month-old, in car seat, was unhurt; Wis. cops were chasing driver
The Associated Press
Updated: 2:51 p.m. ET Sept. 14, 2004GREEN BAY, Wis. - A man dropped his fiancee’s 8-month-old daughter out of a car as he fled police after being accused of domestic violence, authorities said. The girl, strapped in a car seat, was unhurt but the man was fatally injured in a crash.

Dana Bettin, 23, died Sunday, three days after the dramatic highway chase that ended when he crashed his fiancee’s car into an unoccupied squad car.

At one point, he slowed down, opened the car door and dropped the baby in the car seat onto the highway, sending it tumbling toward the middle of the roadway.

“As the baby was flying toward me I noticed that she was crying very hard and looked scared,” Wisconsin State Patrol Sgt. David Catalano said Tuesday on NBC’s “Today” show, which aired video of the incident.

“Fortunately she was seat-belted into the child seat so that as it slid forward on the highway and then rolled over she escaped without any injuries,” he said.

Sheriff’s Sgt. Dan Pamenter told The Post-Crescent in Appleton that the man at first tried to put the baby out of the car on the shoulder, but the door car was in his way. He eventually pulled back into traffic and pushed the baby out as he was accelerating.

“His car was jerking back and forth,” Pamenter said. “I didn’t know what he was doing. He seemed to care for the baby.”

“I was pretty certain he wasn't going to stop until he crashed,” Pamenter said.

© 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

 

[Seashell]

I think he meant well...

 

[chewyxrage]

"At one point, he slowed down, opened the car door and dropped the baby in the car seat onto the highway, sending it tumbling toward the middle of the roadway."

Oh wait, I thought he TOSSED it from the car. and if you watch the tape it didn't tumble toward the middle of the road. He set the baby down and the baby seat fell on it's side. I FUCKIN HATE THE NEWS EXAGGERATIONS

 

[HumorMe]

"At one point, he slowed down, opened the car door and dropped the baby in the car seat onto the highway, sending it tumbling toward the middle of the roadway."

Oh wait, I thought he TOSSED it from the car. and if you watch the tape it didn't tumble toward the middle of the road. He set the baby down and the baby seat fell on it's side. I FUCKIN HATE THE NEWS EXAGGERATIONS

Me too. I almost didn't quote the title of the article because I watched it and at least he slowed almost to a stop and then placed it on the ground. The baby carrier did turn on it's side. Neverless, it was dangerous to say the least.

Maybe he knew he was going to die but he didn't want to hurt his child. You never know what might be going through their minds when they do things like this. Sad.

 

[Razorguns]

That wasn't *tossing*. Fucking media.

The guy was in a high speed car chase, and he didn't want his daughter to get hurt. And since he DID crash and die later on -- he actually saved his daughter's life. So if anything -- he should be heralded for caring about his daughter in such a tense moment.

So where's all the anti-car chase people now? Is it different cuz this guy wasn't a cute 21 y/o chick? Maybe cops shouldn't chase cars if the driver is a young cute white female.

 

[AAP]

Media sensationalism. Sucks.


Did you see the old fart that was climbing the fence at the zoo and threatening the animals with the Bible?

 

[gab9681]

Yeah, I don't live too far from where this happened. What a moron though at any rate. At least he was smart enough to get the kid out of the situation.

 

[XBiker]

I am surprised the cops didn't do the pit manuever on the baby for fear of public safety.

 

[strongsmartsexy]

That wasn't *tossing*. Fucking media.

The guy was in a high speed car chase, and he didn't want his daughter to get hurt. And since he DID crash and die later on -- he actually saved his daughter's life. So if anything -- he should be heralded for caring about his daughter in such a tense moment.

So where's all the anti-car chase people now? Is it different cuz this guy wasn't a cute 21 y/o chick? Maybe cops shouldn't chase cars if the driver is a young cute white female.

Yeah, hell if they'd done the pit maneuver sooner, they could have killed both the father AND the baby! What were they thinking? That fucking criminal should have been pit maneuvered right to the promised land!

 

[Razorguns]

Yeah, hell if they'd done the pit maneuver sooner, they could have killed both the father AND the baby! What were they thinking? That fucking criminal should have been pit maneuvered right to the promised land!

You have a better solution? Keep chasing him at 100mph, putting everyone on the road at risk?. Sorry if i care more about innocent people on the road, then the guilty one.

 

[strongsmartsexy]

You have a better solution? Keep chasing him at 100mph, putting everyone on the road at risk?. Sorry if i care more about innocent people on the road, then the guilty one.

The difference is you're willing to DEFINATELY cause injury or death in order to avoid the POTENTIAL of injury or death.

Every time you get into your car and drive, you have the POTENTIAL of killing someone with it. Every time you go through an intersection or make a turn, you have the POTENTIAL of injuring or killing someone. So, before you step into your car next time, just shoot yourself in the head so that won't happen.

 

[Razorguns]

avoid the POTENTIAL of injury or death.

Potential yes. But you need to clarify it more. HIGH CHANCE POTENTIAL of injury.

It's the same reasoning that SWAT will shoot someone holding a hostage. Sure he could probably let go of the person if you talk enough hours with him -- but the SAFETY of the public is paramount. So if an opportunity comes out to take out the person -- cops (ie: the State. Cops only do what's told on paper. Paper which is created by politicians that you vote) will take him out.

And what happens when the gov't FAILS to protect the public? Lawsuits. Eg: 9/11.

The real solution which is best for ALL involved -- is for the gov't to increase funding to find newer and safer ways to disable and take down a vehicle. Clamps. Electric Shocks. etc. Heck, i'd rather have every new car be forced to include a remote police disabler if it'll save lives.

 

[strongsmartsexy]

Potential yes. But you need to clarify it more. HIGH CHANCE POTENTIAL of injury.

It's the same reasoning that SWAT will shoot someone holding a hostage. Sure he could probably let go of the person if you talk enough hours with him -- but the SAFETY of the public is paramount. So if an opportunity comes out to take out the person -- cops (ie: the State. Cops only do what's told on paper. Paper which is created by politicians that you vote) will take him out.

And what happens when the gov't FAILS to protect the public? Lawsuits. Eg: 9/11.

Are you seriously trying to equate a speeder to someone taking a hostage or what happened in 9/11? You have got to be joking.

The real solution which is best for ALL involved -- is for the gov't to increase funding to find newer and safer ways to disable and take down a vehicle. Clamps. Electric Shocks. etc. Heck, i'd rather have every new car be forced to include a remote police disabler if it'll save lives.

Now THAT I can agree with you on.

 

[NJjuice22]

thank god it wasnt the same troopers from the other case, those dumb hicks woulda put the pit maneuver on the baby's car seat to ram the seat off the road.

 

[AristotleBC]

The difference is you're willing to DEFINATELY cause injury or death in order to avoid the POTENTIAL of injury or death.

Every time you get into your car and drive, you have the POTENTIAL of killing someone with it. Every time you go through an intersection or make a turn, you have the POTENTIAL of injuring or killing someone. So, before you step into your car next time, just shoot yourself in the head so that won't happen.

You've got to be kidding. Once someone decides to run and cause a high speed chase, they've forfeited any considerations for their safety while they are still a danger to everyone else on the road.

 

[strongsmartsexy]

You've got to be kidding. Once someone decides to run and cause a high speed chase, they've forfeited any considerations for their safety while they are still a danger to everyone else on the road.

They don't forfeit anything. The charges against them escalate, but their lives are not forfeit as a result of this. The cops are also a danger to everyone else on the road at this time, something that's often overlooked. And there is rarely ONE cop in pursuit thereby hugely compounding the danger to people on the road. BAD COPS creating more danger.

 

[MAX 300]

Props to the police for not running over and killing the 8 months old baby.

Got to give credit to them when they don't kill somebody.

 

[AristotleBC]

They don't forfeit anything. The charges against them escalate, but their lives are not forfeit as a result of this. The cops are also a danger to everyone else on the road at this time, something that's often overlooked. And there is rarely ONE cop in pursuit thereby hugely compounding the danger to people on the road. BAD COPS creating more danger.

When someone is firing a gun wildly in a crowded area, they have forfeited, by law, their right to live if killing them will prevent the LIKELY (not definite) but likely injury of innocents. This is similar and I believe the same standard applies.

And that is not even counting the fact that the chasee has a lesser chance of dying from a pitt manuever to stop them than a shooter has from being shot.

Further, their actions escalate their own danger to their person. Slow speed pursuits also occur, and a pitt manuever here is not likely to cause great harm.


Someone speeding at 100 already takes great personal risk aside from the pitt action. The police are stopping them, the perpetrator decides at what speed this occurs. I strongly suspect they were already warned by loudspeaker.

 

[PBR]

if there was a "no pursuit" policy, what do you think would actually happen?
Bad guys do whatever they want to and get away, because all they have to do is drive...just like guns, gun control is a fucking joke- bad guys always have guns...laws or no laws...

 

[Mr. dB]

Are you seriously trying to equate a speeder to someone taking a hostage or what happened in 9/11? You have got to be joking.

Don't you know? Speed kills!

 

[RADAR]

Its time,RIGHT NOW......... To activate all cars with kill switches Via GPS They can get the tag call in and by remote control disable the vehicle.
Problem solved!!!!!
This Technology is available.

RADAR

 

[georgie24]

media hype.

 

[strongsmartsexy]

When someone is firing a gun wildly in a crowded area, they have forfeited, by law, their right to live if killing them will prevent the LIKELY (not definite) but likely injury of innocents. This is similar and I believe the same standard applies. [/QUOTE}
It's phenominally retarded to compare firing a gun in a crowded area to a this.

And that is not even counting the fact that the chasee has a lesser chance of dying from a pitt manuever to stop them than a shooter has from being shot.

Doing tha pit maneuver on a car going 100mph on a 3000lb+ vehicle is overwhelming stupid, unsafe and puts the people in that vehicle and the other people on the road at grave and deadly risk. That was NOT the only option they had at that time. It was the WRONG option to take.

Further, their actions escalate their own danger to their person. Slow speed pursuits also occur, and a pitt manuever here is not likely to cause great harm.

Pit maneuvers used in slower speed chases are less likely to cause injury or death, yes. Once again, it still comes down to is that the appropriate action at that time or are there other viable options than putting them and others on that freeway at risk. The risk to a cop doing the pit maneuver is very minimal. If the risk to the cop was the same as the risk to the vehicle they're hitting they would NOT be doing the pit maneuver.

Someone speeding at 100 already takes great personal risk aside from the pitt action. The police are stopping them, the perpetrator decides at what speed this occurs. I strongly suspect they were already warned by loudspeaker.

Ok, so they were warned. It still comes down to what other options they had at the time and why it "HAD" to be done then. They did that maneuver at the 70 mile mark. Why didn't they do it at the 10mile mark? OR wait until the 140 mile mark? The thing that surely happened is the decision of that officer at that time took the lives of the two people in that vehicle. That was not the only and inevitable outcome or course of action. It was in reality the one that occured. Now that action needs to be looked at critically to evaluate it for use in similar circumstances in the future.

The cop CHOSE that action at THAT time. His direct action KILLED the people in that vehcle as surely as him/her drawing a gun and shooting them dead.

 

[PBR]

strong, i agree 100%....they had alot of other options...that was not the best choice, nor was it the best timing....doing a pit manuver at 100mph is not adviseable and not done here in calif.....(at that speed)...im considered a very good driver when it comes to cars and bikes and have alot of ability to drive both to extremes...i would NEVER have done that manuver at 100mph, even if it had been a direct order.

 

[Mr. dB]

Its time,RIGHT NOW......... To activate all cars with kill switches Via GPS They can get the tag call in and by remote control disable the vehicle.
Problem solved!!!!!
This Technology is available.

Nice police-state mentality. The technology also exists to put red-light cameras at every intersection, and speed cameras on every straightaway. We could have 100% compliance. Wouldn't that be something?

 

[strongsmartsexy]

Its time,RIGHT NOW......... To activate all cars with kill switches Via GPS They can get the tag call in and by remote control disable the vehicle.
Problem solved!!!!!
This Technology is available.

RADAR

Well a kill switch is not a good thing. You still need to have steering and breaking control of the vehicle.

 

[AristotleBC]

Doing tha pit maneuver on a car going 100mph on a 3000lb+ vehicle is overwhelming stupid, unsafe and puts the people in that vehicle and the other people on the road at grave and deadly risk. That was NOT the only option they had at that time. It was the WRONG option to take.

So now you agree that an out of control vehicle is a danger to others?

Ok, so they were warned. It still comes down to what other options they had at the time and why it "HAD" to be done then. They did that maneuver at the 70 mile mark. Why didn't they do it at the 10mile mark? OR wait until the 140 mile mark? The thing that surely happened is the decision of that officer at that time took the lives of the two people in that vehicle. That was not the only and inevitable outcome or course of action. It was in reality the one that occured. Now that action needs to be looked at critically to evaluate it for use in similar circumstances in the future.

The cop CHOSE that action at THAT time. His direct action KILLED the people in that vehcle as surely as him/her drawing a gun and shooting them dead.

Are you arguing against the Pitt manuever or when the cop used it? (Or both?)

 

[strongsmartsexy]

So now you agree that an out of control vehicle is a danger to others?

Naturally an out of control vehicle is a danger. She was in very good control of her vehicle. At least until she was hit by the cop.

Are you arguing against the Pitt manuever or when the cop used it? (Or both?)

That manuever is useful in certain cases. A vehicle traveling 100mph is NOT one of those cases. I would venture to guess he used it more out of sheer anger than from rational thought. One of the questions still there is why did they wait until 70 miles into the chase? Why not at mile 10? Surely by then it was clear she wasn't going to stop. Or why didn't he wait until the 140 mile mark? What was critical at that point in time for him/her to perform that manuever? Especially on a vehicle at that high rate of speed. After all, one of the other tactics available to him was to get in front of her vehicle and use his vehicle to stop her. Except he likely knew that at that speed that was basically a suicide move. He clearly had the acceleration to get ahead of her and use his own position to force her to slow down.