I just explained how it has clear impact on the story. Given that if he was justified in pursuit, or not, goes along way in establishing "negligence".
CLEARLY differentThat's a distinction without a difference here, being that elements of your argument concerned if it was intentional or not.
yes i have read it, and it doesn't change anything this additional investigation is about pursuing further matters, criminal matters. The articles refer to the request for a further and deeper internal investigations
wrong doings were already established for the firing now they are looking at how much wrong doing to see if there can be criminal charges, pretty simple
let us know what the chief wants to add to his comments. You got the link right and what he said"
here it is again
City of DeLand, FL - William Ridgway
im content with the firing based on facts that protocols were violated, you seem like you are not, try contacting him let us know what he says.
Generally speaking, police chiefs are responsible for oversight of their officers. If the chief says you violated procedure, you violated procedure.
What reverence are you using that declares the investigation as an "additional" investigation by the department?
So you are ok with a police officer being fired without being given due process?
Obvious maybe to those who don't agree.
Criminals are a danger and/or resource drain upon society. Therefore, they must be stopped from acting criminally. Criminals can either be reformed, warehoused or removed from society permanently. I see no evidence the the criminal justice system currently in place in this country has adequate punishments or procedures to actually reform very many at all. Warehousing criminals is itself a resource drain on society. So that leaves removing those who will not reform or cannot be reformed from society as the most logical option. Anytime that a criminal is permanently removed from harming society while in the commission of a crime, it is the most efficient means of handling criminals, however since we are "civilized" we give them the option to surrender and submit to possible being reformed. Failure to submit/surrender simply removes that option and the criminal has chosen then to be permanently removed from society.
Were you potty trained at gunpoint? What happens if your dog pee's on the rug? You beat it to death with a baseball bat?
You seem to be confused about a police officer's job description. They are not a judge, a jury, or an executioner. Their job is to secure a situation out in the field in the safest, least detrimental fashion possible given the circumstances.
Killing a person for the crime of eluding in a vehicle and on foot is not only excessive punishment, it was carried out without due process.
It doesn't make it ok because you get hard watching this video; getting some kind of revenge for your own perceived slights in your life.
If my dogs are in the house, and when the were puppies and did such a thing and I caught them. They had their noses rubbed in it, got spanked and then tossed out of the house. The lasttime my male dog marked his territory in the house, he spent twenty plus hours in a pet carrier, something he dearly hates and he never, ever did it again. Too bad criminals don't learn as easily as dogs do. Hmm, could be that criminals are actually dumber animals than dogs in a lot of cases?
The problem with your theory, at least in this case, is that the killing was not intentional, nor would it have happened had the stupid criminal simply surrendered to police.
Perhaps you should practice your reading by rereading what I posted and see if this time you can actually comprehend what is written. Police apprehend, I very much understand that concept, however, sometimes, a resisting criminal gets killed resisting. They bring it upon themselves, so I have no sympathy for them.
Easy solution. Then again...the driver was a lifetime thug who had a history of being in and out of prison. Could be he was just a teensy bit more concerned about something other than the 25$ fine.Maybe the guy should have stopped and took his $25 seatbelt fine instead of running and putting everyone's life in danger including the cops.
One would have to consider the thought process of an individual who would resist a $25 infraction by instigating a pursuit that may have severely endangered innocent bystanders and in this case, lead to his own death. The decision to run and endanger both himself and others is what actually lead to his death, not the $25 ticket. Why did this individual actually run? A $25 ticket hardly seems a logical reason to do so. In this case and probably many others, the illogical decision to run from a minor infraction simply indicates the possibility/probability that the individual running is also involved in other, more dangerous criminal activity.
Yes, the cop could of taken down his licenses plate number and cited him later. However, by running, the criminal gave police probable cause that a crime, other than a seatbelt infraction may be occurring and the fleeing itself became a crime which endangered others.
Maybe the guy should have stopped and took his $25 seatbelt fine instead of running and putting everyone's life in danger including the cops.
Yes - I have 0 passion, here.
The guy led them on a chase and bailed - all because of a seatbelt? What in the **** was he thinking :roll:
If you backpedal any faster you're going to warp into another dimension. You made it quite clear death was not only appropriate but desired. Not intentional huh? Nobody but the cop knows for sure what his intentions were, however the video clearly shows him to be either reckless or malicious. At a bare minimum what he did was manslaughter. There is no excuse and no need to use such wild tactics for a simple eluding offense. If he were a murder suspect you could make a case but not for something that... isn't it a misdameanor?
While there is not much I care for in deeply Islamic societies, I do indeed like they way they handle some criminals. I have issues on what they define as criminal activity, but not much in how they handle criminals. Go to Riyadh, during prayer call, you will see all kinds of shops open and unattended, some with even millions of dollars of inventory laying out. Try that in a US city. Saudi Arabia has a murder rate of 1 per 100,000, the US has 4.7.
I didn't see any recklessness or maliciousness. The only reason that criminal was not a "murderer" was he got lucky and didn't kill anyone while he was fleeing.
Funny how that works with authoritarianism ...
Well a police chief admitting that much is still a ****ing miracle in and of itself.No, it indicates the chief may believe there was a violation. His belief does not definitively prove that alleged violation is a fact.
What are you basing that one? His window of opportunity seemed 2-3 seconds at most(being very generous here)
If you can't react to a threat within 2-3 seconds, you don't belong on the road, period.
It can also be clearly seen that the vehicle does not slow down in relation to its surroundings or change course to avoid a collision when it was entirely possible, and other police vehicles are seen to do so in the video.
1) as I said, I was being generous with his window of opportunity there.
2) not belonging on the road doesn't indicate it was intentional
3) you're overplaying it: I doubt most people would have reacted in time, including you
1) ugh, there are no other police cars visible at that point of the video
2) Under those circumstances I can't see many people reacting in time, which is why the circumstances created by the chase are so dangerous and obviously reckless
There is footage of at least one other police car stopping and approaching on foot from a safe distance.
The driver of the car with the camera is still a complete idiot, even if he had no malicious intent.
Funny how that works with authoritarianism ...
I'm not sure how speeding towards someone on wet grass can be described as anything but reckless
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?