• 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.

Video: Police speeds with no lights, kills 2 teens

Jay walking is against the law, as obstacles in the roadway, they provided a deadly threat to the officer if he was to swerve. The police need to live above anyone else, he had to run them over, or risk spinning out and injuring himself and whomever was in the car.
 
Brigandier said:
Jay walking is against the law, as obstacles in the roadway, they provided a deadly threat to the officer if he was to swerve. The police need to live above anyone else, he had to run them over, or risk spinning out and injuring himself and whomever was in the car.
Click to expand...

What?

Did you watch the video?
 
i love it when morons make comments without reading/watching the item being discussed

why are we commenting on jaywalking?
 
Eh? This happened a year ago. Last I heard the cops defense were that the 2 teens were drinking, and the cop (although speeding) had the right of way.

Don't know how it ended up.
 
94 in a 40, speeding through what is essentially a stop sign (blinking red light), and killing two teenagers, pleading not guilty despite the video evidence.

Scumbag. Hope he gets the maximum, which my Googling tells me would be 10 years per charge.
 
JujuFish said:
94 in a 40, speeding through what is essentially a stop sign (blinking red light), and killing two teenagers, pleading not guilty despite the video evidence.
Click to expand...

They're blinking yellows.

Indeed, the cops did not exercise caution in entering those intersections as the light directs, but they did have the right of way.
 
Last edited:
Alone said:
They were in a car..
Click to expand...

Oh, that's fucked up. If the police were doing something, they still have the "right of way" even if they were un-lit. They could have been doing that to catch up with a suspect inconspicuously, which I think gives them the right of way in some circumstances, especially if a car was turning.

I'll refrain from further unrestrained comment, my bad.
 
There was a story on 60 minutes maybe 2 years ago where a cop was responding to a call of some sort at night, speeding, with no lights. He hit a car and killed a girl. There is a law in some areas that allows police to speed without lights, referred to as 'closing speed' or something.
Really shitty if these cops were just dicking around though.
 
JujuFish said:
94 in a 40, speeding through what is essentially a stop sign (blinking red light), and killing two teenagers, pleading not guilty despite the video evidence.

Scumbag. Hope he gets the maximum, which my Googling tells me would be 10 years per charge.
Click to expand...

nope. he will get off since he was running silent to a call or some other bullshit.
 
Brigandier said:
Oh, that's fucked up. If the police were doing something, they still have the "right of way" even if they were un-lit. They could have been doing that to catch up with a suspect inconspicuously, which I think gives them the right of way in some circumstances, especially if a car was turning.

I'll refrain from further unrestrained comment, my bad.
Click to expand...

He was not responding to a call, he was returning back to the station. State Law requires them to obey posted speed limits if the sirens and lights are off if they're no pursuing an incident.

Also, he was fired.
 
Alone said:
He was not responding to a call, he was returning back to the station. State Law requires them to obey posted speed limits if the sirens and lights are off if they're no pursuing an incident.

Also, he was fired.
Click to expand...

If there was enough evidence for the police to actually fire him, that's pretty damning.
 
Brigandier said:
Oh, that's fucked up. If the police were doing something, they still have the "right of way" even if they were un-lit. They could have been doing that to catch up with a suspect inconspicuously, which I think gives them the right of way in some circumstances, especially if a car was turning.

I'll refrain from further unrestrained comment, my bad.
Click to expand...

The cop had the right of way because the light facing him was blinking yellow, not because he was a cop. The car that got hit would have had a blinking red (i.e. stop sign).
 
Brigandier said:
Oh, that's fucked up. If the police were doing something, they still have the "right of way" even if they were un-lit. They could have been doing that to catch up with a suspect inconspicuously, which I think gives them the right of way in some circumstances, especially if a car was turning.

I'll refrain from further unrestrained comment, my bad.
Click to expand...

Cops do not have "right of way" unless they are lit.
 
Cheesetogo said:
The cop had the right of way because the light facing him was blinking yellow, not because he was a cop. The car that got hit would have had a blinking red (i.e. stop sign).
Click to expand...

He wasn't responding to an incident so I don't know why you're even trying to argue. He was in the wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top