• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Cop runs red light, causes fatal accident - found not guilty

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
If they're moving quickly then they should definitely have to have the sirens on.
Click to expand...

The problem is that then people complain (and loudly) that they are being disturbed by the lights and sirens.

ZV
Click to expand...

Well, uh... fuck them?
 
Based on the linked article and the video and ElFenix's post, I still think the cop was proximately and primarily responsible for the collision.

1. She went through a yellow light at high speed at the intersection before the intersection where the collision took place. This helps demonstrate that the officer was hurrying, and that she was consciously willing to ignore traffic signals. Running the red light was a deliberate and conscious decision.

2. It's hard to judge from the video, but I didn't notice any dramatic speed difference just before she entered the fatal intersection (i.e. no tell-tale dip in the front of the car which you get when you stand on your brakes).

3. She was responding to a shoplifting call. Without any other information, I'd say that speeding through red lights at high speed was just plain stupid.

4. She recognized that she should have the siren on, and tried to flip the switch. Even though she wasn't able to hit the switch, she didn't slow down.

5. She hit the victim. The victim didn't hit her.

6. With all the cars stopped near the intersection in the rain, it's probable that neither the officer nor the victim could possibly have seen one another before entering the intersection.

I am curious as to what the actual law regarding sirens says. Odds are good that the law doesn't say "Police officers can decide not to use sirens when speeding through red lights, without regard to safety." I'd expect a phrase about "prudent and reasonable safety precautions" to be in there.

Of course, we don't have much info from the trial itself, but that video is pretty d*mning. I kind of hope the judge gets hit by an emergency vehicle running a redlight on the way to apprehend a shoplifter.
 
Originally posted by: Jumpem
Originally posted by: CrackRabbit
Read that, and then STFU, thank you.
Click to expand...

So she didn't have a seatbelt on. The cop still should not have been speeding through a red light.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously having this big of a problem with reading comprehension? NVM, you're probably just trolling, enjoy.
 
Originally posted by: Jumpem
Originally posted by: CrackRabbit
Read that, and then STFU, thank you.
Click to expand...

So she didn't have a seatbelt on. The cop still should not have been speeding through a red light.
Click to expand...


Damnit you just made me realize that I violated rule number 1.

DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS. :|

You are welcome to keep your idiotic hard-on against cops. I won't be bothering with you anymore.
 
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Jumpem
Originally posted by: CrackRabbit
Read that, and then STFU, thank you.
Click to expand...

So she didn't have a seatbelt on. The cop still should not have been speeding through a red light.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously having this big of a problem with reading comprehension? NVM, you're probably just trolling, enjoy.
Click to expand...

You're surprised that someone who hopes for the murder of another person due to an accidental car crash doesn't have the capacity to comprehend a couple of paragraphs? I'm not.
 
Originally posted by: tk149
Based on the linked article and the video and ElFenix's post, I still think the cop was proximately and primarily responsible for the collision.

1. She went through a yellow light at high speed at the intersection before the intersection where the collision took place. This helps demonstrate that the officer was hurrying, and that she was consciously willing to ignore traffic signals. Running the red light was a deliberate and conscious decision.

2. It's hard to judge from the video, but I didn't notice any dramatic speed difference just before she entered the fatal intersection (i.e. no tell-tale dip in the front of the car which you get when you stand on your brakes).

3. She was responding to a shoplifting call. Without any other information, I'd say that speeding through red lights at high speed was just plain stupid.

4. She recognized that she should have the siren on, and tried to flip the switch. Even though she wasn't able to hit the switch, she didn't slow down.

5. She hit the victim. The victim didn't hit her.

6. With all the cars stopped near the intersection in the rain, it's probable that neither the officer nor the victim could possibly have seen one another before entering the intersection.

I am curious as to what the actual law regarding sirens says. Odds are good that the law doesn't say "Police officers can decide not to use sirens when speeding through red lights, without regard to safety." I'd expect a phrase about "prudent and reasonable safety precautions" to be in there.

Of course, we don't have much info from the trial itself, but that video is pretty d*mning. I kind of hope the judge gets hit by an emergency vehicle running a redlight on the way to apprehend a shoplifter.
Click to expand...

You should try reading.

It says that the person who was struck was in a left turn only lane, but went straight through the intersection. That's illegal as well as reckless.
 
How are officers not required to turn on the siren before running a red light? What if there's a huge semi truck in the left turn lane and no one can see the flashing lights? If there's anything at all blocking the view of any one of the drivers going through the green they will just drive through at full speed suspecting nothing.
 
Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
Wow, that's pretty damning evidence against the other driver. Signal on, in the turn lane, but didn't turn? No seatbelt? Sounds like she was obviously not paying attention. Not that she deserved to die, but she definitely holds some (most?) of the blame for the collision
Click to expand...

"Deserved" has nothing to do with reality. She caused her own death.
 
Tragic accident. Judge ruled correctly by the law. What's even more tragic is it would probably be no big deal if a seatbelt were worn. 🙁
 
Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
If they're moving quickly then they should definitely have to have the sirens on.
Click to expand...

The problem is that then people complain (and loudly) that they are being disturbed by the lights and sirens.

ZV
Click to expand...

Well, uh... fuck them?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, those people vote and can turn legislators out of office, so they end up getting what they want a lot of the time.

ZV
 
Originally posted by: Balr0g
Originally posted by: tk149
Based on the linked article and the video and ElFenix's post, I still think the cop was proximately and primarily responsible for the collision.

1. She went through a yellow light at high speed at the intersection before the intersection where the collision took place. This helps demonstrate that the officer was hurrying, and that she was consciously willing to ignore traffic signals. Running the red light was a deliberate and conscious decision.

2. It's hard to judge from the video, but I didn't notice any dramatic speed difference just before she entered the fatal intersection (i.e. no tell-tale dip in the front of the car which you get when you stand on your brakes).

3. She was responding to a shoplifting call. Without any other information, I'd say that speeding through red lights at high speed was just plain stupid.

4. She recognized that she should have the siren on, and tried to flip the switch. Even though she wasn't able to hit the switch, she didn't slow down.

5. She hit the victim. The victim didn't hit her.

6. With all the cars stopped near the intersection in the rain, it's probable that neither the officer nor the victim could possibly have seen one another before entering the intersection.

I am curious as to what the actual law regarding sirens says. Odds are good that the law doesn't say "Police officers can decide not to use sirens when speeding through red lights, without regard to safety." I'd expect a phrase about "prudent and reasonable safety precautions" to be in there.

Of course, we don't have much info from the trial itself, but that video is pretty d*mning. I kind of hope the judge gets hit by an emergency vehicle running a redlight on the way to apprehend a shoplifter.
Click to expand...

You should try reading.

It says that the person who was struck was in a left turn only lane, but went straight through the intersection. That's illegal as well as reckless.
Click to expand...

that, and she accelerated up to 24mph at the time of impact from a dead stop--in the distance of ~ 1/2 the intersection
 
I know I'll get flamed for this but good riddance. I see more and more assholes cutting people off by making everyone think they're going to turn but fly straight through the intersection when it turns green. As long as it doesn't hurt other innocent drivers I don't care what happens to these people.

Darwin award ftw.
 
Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
Originally posted by: darkxshade
Regardless... both drivers were women, so that explains everything. 😀
I kid...
Click to expand...

LOL I was just going to post this.
Click to expand...

me too. I kinda feel bad, but not really because I wasn't the one to post it 🙂
 
Responding to a shoplifting call?

You've gotta be fucking kidding me. Clearly, this was worth putting other peoples' lives in danger.

What a crock of shit.

Edit: Well, she wasn't wearing her seatbelt, no excuse for that.. It wouldn't have been any big deal otherwise.

I still don't think it is appropriate to endanger others' lives for a shoplifting call.
 
This cop was a stupid sack of shit.

Shoplifting call? Non-emergency.

Speeding through a red-light intersection at 50MPH without a siren for a non-emergency call? Certified idiot.

Another cop getting a "get out of jail free card"? Not surprising.
 
I think the biggest issue I have with this is the response to a non-emergency call. There was no need to blow through intersections, that's ridiculous. There is no excuse for the person not wearing a seatbelt, though.

You have to count the faults in order. The person that was hit wouldn't have died if the cop wasn't being reckless, it doesn't matter if she wasn't wearing her seat belt. If the cop would have hit her, and she was wearing her seatbelt, her attempt to get to this ultra-urgent shoplifting call would have been foiled anyway.
 
Anybody have proof she wasn't wearing her seatbelt?

Also a 50MPH side-impact collision, especially with a police cruiser that has a reinforced front bumper, would produce severe trauma regardless. There is no evidence that the woman who died would have survived that kind of extreme trauma even if she wasn't ejected from her car.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top