It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Tacoma officer runs over man lying on street

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 07:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Daedalus




badges do not make you immune to the law.


Au contraire.....apparently they do. Well, apparently the badge makes this one immune to procedure. This cop isn't even being put on leave while an investigation takes places. The fact that an "investigation" is a foregone conclusion in the department's mind is what pisses me off. It is like they just accept, without question, that this cop did this accidentally. That speaks quite a bit about the way things are run in that department.

He gets a free pass in regards to "distractions" because.....well, protecting and serving and all. Can't do his job if he isn't immersed in those distractions. One of which, was running plates on parked cars, might I add. Like I said previously, harassing the locals and calling it "looking for prowlers". Checking for unpaid tickets while people sleep. That is just dirty....




posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 07:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

How often have you stopped twice while approaching something, run over something large enough to actually raise the entire frame of your vehicle as you went over it...then kept on going a few vehicle lengths before apparently realizing there was something worth getting out to look at back there?

I can say I felt something as small as a rabbit under my steer tires, and as you know those alone carry twice the weight of an average full size passenger car.

We can say it was pure negligence...and if I ran someone clean over like that? Imagine that car as a chevy impala or a lexus. Anything but a Police vehicle ...would much of anything get a normal person out of the damage done to the guy by not JUST running over him, but dragging him 10 feet or so as well? (I'm judging distance by starting point to resting place as the cop walked back to look at the body)

I don't even particularly say his being a cop had anything to do with it. Cops are humans..and there are just under a million Police Officers in our nation. Among that population will be everything from Saints to Psychos...altho we hope far less of the latter than general population for all the screening, of course. That many people in any group will get all kinds..and I DO wonder what kind this guy is on or off duty.



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 07:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Jakal26

It IS different for private citizens than for people who are required to be in vehicles for long periods of time.

You can say I'm using that argument to ostracize people, but just look at the replies, including you. If this had been an average Joe, it wouldn't have made the news, and if it had people would be rushing to defend him. Since it's a cop, he's guilty until proven innocent.



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 07:19 AM
link   


Since it's a cop, he's guilty until proven innocent.
a reply to: Zaphod58

Nope, sorry. That is the way it works for the average guy, not this cop. That is kind of obvious when the department has a foregone conclusion about what happened.




It IS different for private citizens than for people who are required to be in vehicles for long periods of time.


Truck drivers are in their vehicles for long periods of time as well....they don't get the same passes this guy did. I know all too well about that.

More excuses....


What replies of mine do you speak of where I am "rushing to judgment"?
If you mean the few slight blows I have took at the cops in general, you are misinterpreting me. I would apologize for having a bit of a bad taste in my mouth for SOME of those within the ranks of law enforcement, but it would be a lie. When it is guilty until innocent for average Joe and I see that over and over again, it takes a level head just to stay grounded and not be one of the group think cop haters (and yes, I agree there are quite a few of those here on ATS and abound on the net...easy to hate from a distance).....

I won't be apologetic for asking questions and demanding accountability. I also won't be pigeon-holed as a cop hater for asking those questions.



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 07:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000




I don't even particularly say his being a cop had anything to do with it. Cops are humans..and there are just under a million Police Officers in our nation. Among that population will be everything from Saints to Psychos...altho we hope far less of the latter than general population for all the screening, of course. That many people in any group will get all kinds..and I DO wonder what kind this guy is on or off duty.


Precisely!


I find it a bit scary when some will ask a question like, "what on earth would a cop just run a guy over for".
Apparently, these people that ask such a thing have missed the countless threads and news blips about rouge cops doing messed up things for the sake of doing messed up things. Just like average messed up Joe that does the same messed up mess just to make a mess and get a thrill out of the entire ordeal. It happens. The fact that some think it cannot or seem to express that thinking it could is crazy, honestly, makes me a bit ill.



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Jakal26

Hmm.. I've agreed with ya right up to this point, on most things..but that 'Innocent until proven guilty' concept doesn't have an * next to it with a footnote of excluded classes. Everyone gets the presumption, even this cop.

That doesn't mean our opinions have to presume that, and mine sure won't by what I see with my eyes here...but his status and official investigation where his future is decided absolutely must start from innocence to prove guilt, IMO, and then determine which class of guilt it would be. (Pure negligence for an accident? Worse for fatigue or some other oddball factor? who knows).

Just my thoughts on the principle of due process where it matters.



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 07:25 AM
link   


Secondly, if you have ever unexpectedly driven over something substantial in size, the car jumps, which means the accelerator is going to come up against your foot due to inertia, and you're going to get a surge of power before you can react an remove your foot.


Running into walls at sixty? No buying that is going to happen at 10 mph and make a difference. I''ve run over stuff at higher speeds and never had it happen.

edit:

As far as the idea of the car raising up, the seat and everything else also does, not just the accelerator.
edit on 6/16/2014 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 07:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Jakal26

And truck drivers are held to completely different standards than the average person is. I never said anything about a free pass, just that the average person isn't held to the same standards as people that are in their vehicles all the time.



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 07:32 AM
link   
The more think about it as signal still rubbish today cant view video .. but going over what read about it and putting pieces together am probably going to get flamed meh not the first time ..

Its sounding more and more like a tragic accident .. feel sorry for all involved in it ..



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 07:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Oh, I agree.




Everyone gets the presumption


My point was, that while this is true in principal, it doesn't always translate to reality in that way. There have been times that I (and others far more than myself) have been completely innocent, only to be harassed and have to prove ourselves innocent.




That doesn't mean our opinions have to presume that, and mine sure won't by what I see with my eyes here...but his status and official investigation where his future is decided absolutely must start from innocence to prove guilt


When I started this thread, my opinion was not really much of an opinion at all. It was an almost "neutral" starting point (almost neutral because of what I saw in the video) and some questions. Those questions weren't accusations, though apparently I need to do a better job conveying that because there are always those that think I stand on one side of the fence or the other. The truth is, I have no emotional attachment to any of it. I simply seen the video last night, came to ATS to search for a thread discussing it, in hopes of reading some valued opinions from this site and I saw there wasn't a thread on it....and the rest is how we ended up here.

My problem is with the "official investigation" part....which apparently ISN'T happening. THAT is my number one concern.
In the end, everything else IS just opinion and we all know about those.



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 07:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I'm curious, which "different standards" do you speak of?

Look, I am not saying that there isn't a gray area in the "distractions" argument. Cops obviously have to do things other than just drive around like everyone else. That is also where training comes in, to mitigate that.

My thoughts at this time, given time to sleep on it or whatever....is that this cop was indeed checking plates, etc. I think that his laptop had a lot to do with him not seeing this guy. I can see how the light of the laptop he was looking at sort of blurred his vision a bit. It is like looking into the sun and then down at the ground (very rough comparison...it's early, give me a break) it blurs the view for a second or two. Couple that with a few other things....1 - who expects a guy to be laying in the road at 2 am....2 - the search patterns that defcon5 did a good job describing with his drawings........I have leaned towards those things being the cause and this being an accident.

The only thing that still has me baffled is him speeding up and then taking so damned long to stop. Though, in regards to him stopping, I can totally understand that it very well might have shocked him and he momentarily stomped the gas as a sort of "fight or flight" reaction. Cops are not robots, I know......and given it was 2 am, I am sure it was a bit more than shocking. The noise would have been indistinguishable from someone, say, running into the car attempting to attack him (just a scenario that might have run through his mind...I don't know....no one knows what he was thinking in that split second)


ETA: well, actually to delete. My brain isn't on full power yet. Was racking it and thought better of that question. I already know my own answer there.
I still have a question or two.....

My concern is the foregone conclusion on the investigation.....just seems, rather hasty.


edit on 16-6-2014 by Jakal26 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 07:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Jakal26

How many private citizens have you seen charged for being hit by a drunk driver going the wrong way? Happened to a truck driver.

Hell just read the news about the Tracy Morgan accident and see the different standards for truck drivers.



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 07:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Yeah, well. I was in the process of editing my post as you were typing that up.
That was my fault. It was far too simplistic a response.



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 08:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Jakal26

Sounds good, and I guess we do agree on that then. Indeed, I do get tired of people demanding we, as private citizens and members of a website, must maintain the objectivity of a Juror sitting in a trial. It's absurd and beyond the pale. As long as we'd never actually carry our blog persona into a court room if we DID have Jury duty, right? That's the trick I think.


As a side note on the trucker status, I've done a decade and a half in a truck myself, that's absolutely true and the standards are radically different. They shouldn't be and it's not the least bit fair, but there it is.

I.E... If someone blows a red light and hits you..kills themselves and a couple kids in the car? What happened there?

Suicide by stupid for the driver and negligent homicide of the kids by the same, IMO. The law might agree...or they might not.

If your logbook shows you should have been in the truck stop another 30 minutes (and I don't know how that works with electronic now..I got out just before that became common) then it's not the fault of the person who ran the red light anymore. Not enough for the trucker to ever care, anyway..and I am NOT kidding.

By legal theory drivers have been convicted on, the logs say your truck shouldn't have physically been there, hence the car shouldn't have had anything to hit, ergo, the deaths are the TRUCKER'S fault for occupying space and time he shouldn't have, to be there to be hit at all.

Crazzzy ...but again, drivers go to prison on crap like that, and more in some states than others.


edit on 6/16/2014 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 08:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Jakal26

I had a longer reply, but my phone ate it.

Short version, I agree about an investigation, I'm just tired of "he's a cop, he's guilty". And if that wasn't what you were saying, then I apologize for reading it that way.



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Exactly, it's all about that logbook. Be over, even a couple minutes, and even if you're turning into a truck stop you're screwed beyond belief.



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000




As long as we'd never actually carry our blog persona into a court room if we DID have Jury duty, right? That's the trick I think.


Indeed it is. The trick is being able to separate emotions and facts. In my assessment, far too many use their emotions as a guide. Many times, those emotions are the blinders that never allow them to see the truth.

There was a time that my emotions blinded me, especially in regards to things such as this (yes, I mean cops...don't have to drag it out of me, I will admit it)
There was a time that rage and anger ruled me and I probably chanted with "the mob" more than once when I was younger. I generalized and fit the world in little boxes....yet, there was always "the gray". That "gray area" eventually became a place I feel more comfortable exploring. I find that, all too often, many just seek to BLAME...something, someone, somehow, some way.

That does not mean I do not seek answers and demand accountability. It just means that I do it without allowing my emotions to drive that desire for the aforementioned. Am I perfect? Hell no. It is ALWAYS a work in progress.

Thanks to all those who participated in this thread btw....

I still wonder though......What the HELL was this guy doing laying in the street to begin with.
And on that note, IF the guy was drunk rather than having some health problem that caused him to pass out right where he stood.....then, WOW! Stay. out. of. the. road. while. sleeping



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

It wasn't what I was saying but there is no need to apologize.
This is ATS and I see them everyday. I know what you are saying as well. I grow tired of that response as well.

On that note, I found a really disturbing site last night that I intend to create a thread about in the coming days.
I am all for accountability but the glorification of violence against one cop (who is just doing the job) all because another cop (one who overstepped the bounds) is violent and in the wrong....is just wrong.

This gross simplification of the way the world works that some thrive on....It also sickens me.



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 08:30 AM
link   
This seems to be a tragic accident. The part that makes it odd to me is that the driver is actually going slow and looking around the area and at cars. It's not as though a person is driving 30mph and rounds a curve with only seconds to react.

It seems very much like distraction, much like what is blamed on cell phone use.

I hope it's treated the same a the average citizen incident would be, would it have happened the same for the average driver.



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

But can those distractions truly be treated the same. It is the question that now remains in my head.
Can we say it is that black and white. That cops, when distracted by equipment given them, should be held to the same level of accountability that the average driver is? Maybe so.

I think that training is the key here. Much like when defcon5 mentioned the search methods used. Is there not some way to combat that? If they are training these guys and up to 90% of the time they are missing what is right in front or above them, isn't there a way to counter that with some kind of training? I don't know the answer, it is a legitimate question.

(And don't get me started on cell phones....I just spent an hour on the side of the road with some cops the other day. A lady [mid 50s maybe] nearly hit us on the highway as we attempted to pass her. I slowed to get a tag because I recognized her a lady, who days early had ran through the scene of an accident as myself and 2 others were carrying the injured crash victim to the other side of the road. She nearly hit us that day. I slowed to get the tag.....she is doing less that 20 mph, in a 55 mph zone. I allow her in front of me, nearly stopping to do so. She gets off the four-lane, drives [ALL over the road] for a few hundred yards and pulls over. At that point I pulled over and called the cops, thinking she was severely intoxicated and using the cell phone I had seen in her hand when she nearly hit us. She apologized and was trying to leave. I wasn't having it. She finally submitted and stayed until the police came...She was not intoxicated, they did some roadside tests and gave her a talking to. Hopefully it doesn't happen again. It was all to do with her damned cell phone. Nearly killing others to read a text...smh.)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join