CHARGES DISMISSED: State trooper- 100mph; kills one woman; injures another; child through windshield

page: 3
45
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by LeatherNLace
 


You need to have internal oversight. This should be obvious. You act as if internal oversight is not necessary to any of us. Oversight begins with with each individual and progresses within any functional chain-of-command situation. Just like a functional family. Not a dysfunctional family.




posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
The public often do not understand how the law or rights REALLY work, and tend to believe what they see on TV. The job can only be truly appreciated by people who have actually experienced it for themselves.


Wow, makes you wonder why they don't put 12 police officers on every jury....being that they know better than the accused's peers. I, being a tax paying citizen...one who pays for police protection, would think that there would be a citizen over site committee. You know, a committee that makes sure cops are doing what the people who pay them ask them to do.




Besides this, the state will always control these investigations because it in turn controls the public’s ability to sue them.


Eff the state.....If the state wants a gestapo, then let them "lean"on people and try to earn their "protection money"....you know, go legit, like the mafia.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by LeatherNLace
 


You need to have internal oversight. This should be obvious. You act as if internal oversight is not necessary to any of us. Oversight begins with with each individual and progresses within any functional chain-of-command situation. Just like a functional family. Not a dysfunctional family.


I have NO problem with internal oversight; however, where is the external oversight? It's synonymous with asking Washington D.C. to police themselves. It's a failed proposition from the beginning and is open for nothing but corruption. My stance is that anytime you give someone the right to self police, then they police everyone but themselves. To hell with that BS. If there is a complaint filed, then there should be an independent investigation; not a game of charades, masqueraded as an investigation. The only way to know is 100% transparency. The best way to obtain 100% transparency is to make the investigation an unbiased (citizen) investigation.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 


Yeah, I can understand that what I wrote may be confusing.

You cannot have these departments do internal investigations, but you also cannot just turn it over the the public either because they don't understand the job. Its a job, everyone screws up at times, everyone has bad days, etc... If they let the public do the investigations you'd be left with no police, and the state in constant lawsuits. So you need some neutral third party, outside the states control, who investigates these issues.

The state itself cannot even be involved because they have a vested interest in not getting sued. If you look at this case, what was the officers defense? That the state failed to do proper maintenance on his car, which puts any lawsuit back in the lap of the state. I guarantee that the BPA rep chose that defense because the state would be less likely to chance losing a lawsuit, and opening themselves to being sued by the family, if the officer can show that the state “cheaped out” on maintaining his vehicle.

In this instance, because the state was embarrassed by the actions of the officers in court, they are going to come down harder on them they they would otherwise. Basically they officers made the state look bad in the press, and showed what an inside joke that internal investigations are. If not for that, this whole thing would have been swept quietly under the rug, and the family could have only legally sued the officer himself.

So the question is, who should be used to police the police?



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeatherNLace
Wow, makes you wonder why they don't put 12 police officers on every jury....being that they know better than the accused's peers. I, being a tax paying citizen...one who pays for police protection, would think that there would be a citizen over site committee. You know, a committee that makes sure cops are doing what the people who pay them ask them to do.

I'm not talking about criminal cases, I'm talking about matters of internal investigation.
That's a big difference...
Again, cops are humans, they have good and bad days, they make mistakes. Just because the job is sometimes “life and death” does not mean that you can just ruin a mans life, and sentience him like you would a normal criminal, because he made a honest mistake at his job when his job is constantly filled with these types of situations.

Its like saying that your going to charge a doctor with murder because he could not save a patient, or an air traffic controller/pilot that caused an accident because they made an honest mistake...

They are given an amount of leniency because of what the job itself entails.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
Just because the job is sometimes “life and death” does not mean that you can just ruin a mans life, and sentience him like you would a normal criminal, because he made a honest mistake at his job when his job is constantly filled with these types of situations.


You must have an information bias; you or your family members a cop? Why should police be afforded the comfort of "shoot first, ask later" when, for the average citizen, that is not an option? All I am saying is that the same rules should apply for ALL. Don't tell me that a cops job is more stressful than a banker, a stock broker, a doctor, an insurance adjuster, a quick stop clerk....etc... they are all stressful, get held up at gun-point weekly, threatened daily; and, as such, should be viewed as equal under ANY law. Want to defend cops, then fine...they are still wage earning risk takers, just like the rest of us. When the "rest of us" have a bad day; we pay the penalty...when cops have a "bad day" they get a paid vacation. On my dime no less.
edit on 17-2-2013 by LeatherNLace because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by LeatherNLace
 
No, I don't have family that are police.
I know quite a few officers though, but I do not always agree with them.
That said, the rules do not apply the “same” for all, because a law enforcement officer is the only person in the country that has the right as a citizen to take your rights, as another citizen, away from you based on his best judgment at the time. The law gives him the right to violate your rights under various circumstances, and so the law does not apply the same to him as it does to you or I.

As to your list of other jobs, your making my point for me there. None of those professions require that if the person preforming them makes a mistake in the normal performance of their duties, that the person is to be arrested for them, yet that is what you are requiring of the police. They can be fired, they can be sued, but you will never see a person arrested for making a mistake in the performance of the normal duties as long as they did not do so with criminal intent or neglect (ie.. drunk, on drugs, etc).



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by guymontag
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I think "failed spectacularly" is an understatement. The situation risks a vindictive family member trying to get justice, among other things, least of which is spitting on the law itself.

What are your thoughts on the fellow officer refusing to testify?



It depends on what exactly they observed. If they are nothing more than co workers and were not present for the incident or the investigation afterwards, then there is nothing they can testify to. The flip side of the coin is if they were present can their testimony be trusted in light of what is occurring.

There is a reason outside agencies are used to investigate officer actions from another agency. It is done to avoid improprieties and conflicts of interest.

In light of whats going on, the Officers should be investigated by IA to determine if their actions in court violated any policies. If its determined they did, then they should be disciplined.

Having an agency investigate itself would be like having the SS investigate Auschwitz.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 

When we live in upside down land, what else is there to expect?
edit on 17-2-2013 by ErgoTheConclusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 10:31 PM
link   
If this were in my state I'd find the bastard and put him in the ground. No citizenry should stand for such blatant abuses of power and justice. I can only hope that in the near future this man receives the end he deserves and that it is at the hands of a mob of militiamen.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 03:56 AM
link   
This happened in my town as well, it does happen much more often than
many people realize, in my town a young man was killed, i believe he was
in his late teens 18+ to early 20s, the officer in that case was also going
over 100mph, nothing ever came of it so far as i know, they tried very hard
to place the blame on the young man but outside lab tests proved him
to be sober at the time of the accident.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kyrios0Zero
If this were in my state I'd find the bastard and put him in the ground. .


Making you no better than the cops in this case...

Ironic..



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Kyrios0Zero
 


exactly.

we all should be responsible for carrying out justice on the bad cops in our areas.
i'm tired of seeing them get away with brutality and murder, but if they knew that some citizen would come out of the blue and beat them down, then i'll bet they think twice about #ing with anyone again.

its up to us



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 07:46 AM
link   
LEO's get away with breaking the law a lot.

We usually don't see it, because it doesn't ever make the news.

I have seen cases where the relatives and friends of LEO's have gotten away with drunken driving involving property damage and injuries.... with no charges at all.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 08:08 AM
link   
I hate that I hate police officers, but I've lost all trust for them and its kinda sad when you figure that they're put in place to give you a sense of security, but the total opposite seems to happen.... I get that there are good cops out there who don't bend/break the laws they enforce, but with a cops (like most things in the world) a few bad apples can ruin in for the rest....

The cop fraternity just makes me sick... Protect each other in the line of duty, but don't lie/cheat/break laws to get one another off crimes they commit... That's not being a good cop, that's being a criminal...



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Gross negligence. I'd put manslaughter on the speeder's record if I were in charge. It's just the consequences of the action, nothing personal. I always thought, if you got in an accident that bad, you lost your ability to drive for a while; the shame of being such a screw up would afflict your conscience and you'd volunteer compensation for it somewhere.

This is the badge bias that turns this event into a non-badge bias crime. Big problem in many countries right now.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by Malcher
 


So a physician has no responsibility to perform his duties in a non-negligent manner as long as he is trying to do something important?
edit on 17-2-2013 by loam because: (no reason given)


Everyone is responsible to perform whatever they are doing in a non-negligent manner.

I recommend you look up the term "imminent danger" and "exigent circumstances".

Suppose you are driving at the speed limit, hit a patch of ice, loose control of your vehicle and cause an accident that results in someones death.

What should your punishment be?

Suppose a fire truck is racing to the scene of a house fire and the truck goes out of control and hits and kills a pedestrian? Many years ago i saw that happen, the truck skidded on wet pavement and the woman was standing on the median. From that day on i am always hesitant to stand on those medians.

What is your recommendation, no emergency vehicles over 55 mph?
edit on 18-2-2013 by Malcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Malcher

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by Malcher
 


So a physician has no responsibility to perform his duties in a non-negligent manner as long as he is trying to do something important?
edit on 17-2-2013 by loam because: (no reason given)


Suppose you are driving at the speed limit, hit a patch of ice, loose control of your vehicle and cause an accident that results in someones death.

What should your punishment be?

Suppose a fire truck is racing to the scene of a house fire and the truck goes out of control and hits and kills a pedestrian? Many years ago i saw that happen, the truck skidded on wet pavement and the woman was standing on the median. From that day on i am always hesitant to stand on those medians.

What is your recommendation, no emergency vehicles over 55 mph?

Read this from the link in the OP:


The crash that landed McClellan in court happened on a two-lane road in rural Gadsden County, west of Tallahassee, with a speed limit of 55 mph. The trooper, who joined FHP in 2006, was on duty the afternoon of Feb. 10, 2012, when he responded to a call about someone throwing rocks from an overpass. Accelerating with no emergency lights, the trooper reached 102 mph in his Crown Victoria, heading toward a curve with a recommended speed limit of 35 mph, according to FHP records. Coming the other way was the Mitsubishi with two women and a 12-year-old girl, on their way home to Quincy after picking the child up from school, relatives said.
He was traveling at 102 mph. No emergency lights. Accelerated into a curve that is posted at 35 MPH.

He was responding to a call about someone throwing rocks from an overpass. The culprits were most likely already gone from the scene, if most police response is an indicator here.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 10:20 AM
link   
He can't escape the civil suit, though.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 10:27 AM
link   
I already read the link. I dont know the policy regarding the emergency lights or if that would have changed anything.

It looks like you are reading your off site quote wrong. It states he reached speeds of 102 mph, not that he was taking the turn at 102 mph. We already know he lost control of his vehicle. My point is that as long as emergency vehicles respond to emergencies there will be accidents.

I was bringing out some common sense points in my other post, which you ignored.




new topics
top topics
 
45
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join