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.

 

Woman fined $400 for killing police officer

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2008 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Woman fined $400 for killing police officer


www.examiner.com

McMahon said police had to prove that Stephanie Grissom, 25, of High Tor Hill in Columbia, acted with gross negligence when she struck Wheeler, 31, while he flagged her over for speeding in June 2007 on Route 32 near Route 1 in Howard County.

“To lose somebody liked that — doing what they’re supposed to be doing — it’s very difficult,” McMahon said.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 8 2008 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Is this justified?

www.examiner.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 04:30 PM
link   
If you read the article, the police then had a "step out" policy, where they stepped into the road/traffic to enforce the speed limit. Not a really bright policy, IMO. Drivers are often distracted, checking lanes and such, and the driver might not have known it was a traffic stop.

And you can bet, if a cop had run over a civilian under similar circumstances, there would have been no indictment.

I think justice was served.

Now the widow needs to sue the department for a dangerous and idiotic policy that resulted in an accident that could have been avoided. Stupidity is playing chicken with a speeding automobile.



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 04:31 PM
link   
The first time I saw this 'Step-Out-Technique' used i nearly hit the guy. The speed limit was 45, and I was going probably about 50ish.

Sorry, this technique should be banned all-together.....



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by NGC2736
If you read the article, the police then had a "step out" policy, where they stepped into the road/traffic to enforce the speed limit. Not a really bright policy, IMO. Drivers are often distracted, checking lanes and such, and the driver might not have known it was a traffic stop.

And you can bet, if a cop had run over a civilian under similar circumstances, there would have been no indictment.

I think justice was served.

Now the widow needs to sue the department for a dangerous and idiotic policy that resulted in an accident that could have been avoided. Stupidity is playing chicken with a speeding automobile.


Well said.

Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 8-5-2008 by elevatedone]



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Holy bejezus I wouldnt think you could even consider steping out to flag someone speeding down a technique. Lets see they are traveling faster than normal = les time to brake and you want me to step out where?? Definatly agree that Department needs to take the brunt of this as its just an inane idea. Im kind of amazed anyone would actually try this "technique".



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 04:40 PM
link   
I had never seen this before moving to the state of Washington. They'd never consider doing the step out in New Mexico or Arizona and for good reason. I was doing 36 in a 30 zone and the cop actually stepped out from behind a sign structure. If I had been looking anywhere but directly at him the second or two it would have taken to realize he was in the road would have caused me to run him over. Even after he did this, because I'd never seen such a thing I was somewhat perplexed as to what I was supposed to do and so I ended up stopping in the middle of the road, which caused him to scrutinize me a little, probably wondering if I was under the influence of something. When I explained (respectfully) that I hadn't ever seen that done before and had just moved here he said it was pretty much common procedure here.

Personally I think the case in question here was handled very fairly. Had she either been doing the speed limit or at least paying closer attention, she might have not hit him. But there was no sinister intent here nor was their gross negligence on her part any moreso than there would have been if she had struck a jaywalker.



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Maybe this technique is really a method used to weed out cops with low IQ's who are willing to do such a thing.

CONSPIRACY!!!!!!!!


just kidding...



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quarantine
Maybe this technique is really a method used to weed out cops with low IQ's who are willing to do such a thing.

Actually, alot of jurisdictions perform IQ tests prior to hireing new officers, in order to weed out people who may be too intelligent and not follow orders.



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Choronzon

Originally posted by Quarantine
Maybe this technique is really a method used to weed out cops with low IQ's who are willing to do such a thing.

Actually, alot of jurisdictions perform IQ tests prior to hireing new officers, in order to weed out people who may be too intelligent and not follow orders.


If I'm not mistaken they're also put through a series of psychological tests and evaluations, at least in Washington they are. I've actually seen a state patrol officer using this technique in the middle of I-90. It's just common sense that this is a stupid idea and that's why it floors me that they use it. Could there really be a valid reason out there?



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by NGC2736
 


I think we need to all sue the hell out of the woman who hit it officer. Take everything she has and lock her up and throw away the key.



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 05:00 PM
link   
I can't believe that any police department is actually embracing a policy that puts its officers in such obvious danger. It's amazingly dumb.

Where is the FOP on this?

Hopefully the cop's family will sue the city



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 05:01 PM
link   
But I dont like this step out into the road policy.



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


So you think that just because he was a cop doing something stupid and bordering on the insane, we should mess up her life. Why is this cop worth more than the average citizen? If a civilian had purposely stepped into traffic and been hit, it would have been "too bad, so sad", but when it's a cop, someone has to pay?

It is sad. Sad that his department put him up to doing this. The fault lies with a policy that a bright twelve year old wouldn't follow.

And sad that some folks would want her life ruined over a stupid and ill thought policy by this police department.



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by NGC2736
 


VERY VERY TRUE!!! A POLICE OFFICER THAT STEPS OUT ONTO THE ROAD TO STOP A SPEEDING VEHICLE IS NOT VERY SMART... IF A CITIZEN DID THIS WOULD YOU REALLY BE READING ABOUT IT? A STUPID ACT IS A STUPID ACT JUST BECAUSE YOUR A COP DOESNT MEAN THE LAWS OF PHYSICS WONT APPLY TO YOU!



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Yes people who are there to protect are doing something that someone else did not want...or they got a higher paying job or whatever. What they do is more meaningful than and she should be in jail for that. I am not sure if she was looking or not when she hit the officer. If she was looking then it is murder. If she wasn't it was negligent homicide. If she tried to stop but didnt she should still go to jail for a bit. People sue the police for high speed chases. Why cant the police sue her?



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Not only is this technique extremely dangerous, but it's just not smart. The measures departments go to in order to protect their officers are out of this world, so with all the technology at their fingertips (literally) why this? "Hey! Watch this Cleatus, I'mma jump out in front of this here 70MPH semi truck with my bullet proof vest on! Yeehaw!" (as the officer is standing less that 20 feet from a perfectly good patrol car.) This makes zero sense to me. There is no logical reason for such a stupid technique.



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


So she should never take her eyes off the road ahead for any reason? Never look in the mirrors for traffic behind her? Never look at her instrament cluster? Never glance right or left?

Your screen name indicates you have some feeling for being a professional. I was once a professional truck driver, and I assure you, I spent a great amount of time watching areas other than straight ahead; and for good practical reasons.

A driver has no reason to expect that a person will step into passing traffic, so it is NOT negligent to fail to concentrate on that possibility. If the cop had been on the road walking, where she could have seen him for some moments before this, then it would be reasonable to expect her to take his potential movements into account. But when anyone makes an unexpected move into traffic, then the fault lies with the one acting unexpectedly.

And please, every idiot action a cop makes doesn't need to be excused with how they sacrifice so much for everyone else. That doesn't excuse them from being as idiotic as the next person on occasions, nor does it repeal the laws of physics.



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
[more I agree with you that being a "good" police officer is in fact a meaningful job, however that does not give any more value to his life than anoyone elses . The thread however wasn't about the police dept. sueing the woman, it was about bringing her up on criminal charges. The police dept can't sue her as they have lost nothing more than an employee. The officer's family will be able to sue the woman in civil court if they so choose, as they have actually lost something, ie husband, father, son, source of income, etc. The police dept however is the ultimate party to be named in a civil suit as it was there wreckless practice of mandating that an officer put himself in harms way by stepping into the path of an oncoming speeding vehicle that ultimitely cost him his life. Such a blatant disregard for the lives of thier officers is unforgivible. I understand why it may be thought that her punishment wasn't severe enough, and it may not have been, they could have revoked her licence for a set time and then reissued it on probationary terms, as well as community service, or other things. As far as her doing jail time i don't think that is called for as i'm sure though that she is punishing herself quite enough, she will have to live with the fact that she took another person's life through her reckless actions for the rest of her life.



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 05:49 PM
link   
This policy has been changed and I agree it was a stupid policy to begin with. As for the intelligence of the officers, it' just not up to officers to individually challenge public policy.


Following Wheeler’s death, a committee of officers amended the policy for the “step-out” technique. The technique, which involves a team of officers who step into the roadway to flag down speeding drivers, is now prohibited on roadways with a speed limit greater than 35 mph, said Sherry Llewellyn, police spokeswoman.

/3slxg4



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join