Video: Police speeds with no lights, kills 2 teens

Brigandier

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2008
4,394
2
81
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.
 

fstime

Diamond Member
Jan 18, 2004
4,382
5
81
This is old news, you can see the video is dated 2009.

Yes, I believe they were racing.
 

fstime

Diamond Member
Jan 18, 2004
4,382
5
81
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.

What?

Did you watch the video?
 

NeoV

Diamond Member
Apr 18, 2000
9,504
2
81
i love it when morons make comments without reading/watching the item being discussed

why are we commenting on jaywalking?
 

amdhunter

Lifer
May 19, 2003
23,332
249
106
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.
 

JujuFish

Lifer
Feb 3, 2005
11,284
953
136
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.
 

DominionSeraph

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2009
8,386
32
91
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.

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:

Brigandier

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2008
4,394
2
81
They were in a car..

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.
 

dawks

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,071
2
81
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.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
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.

nope. he will get off since he was running silent to a call or some other bullshit.
 

Alone

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2006
7,490
0
0
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.

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.
 

Brigandier

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2008
4,394
2
81
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.

If there was enough evidence for the police to actually fire him, that's pretty damning.
 

Cheesetogo

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2005
3,822
10
81
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.

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).
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
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.

Cops do not have "right of way" unless they are lit.
 

Alone

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2006
7,490
0
0
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).

He wasn't responding to an incident so I don't know why you're even trying to argue. He was in the wrong.