^^nice, i was waitin for the MCV reference

^^^^Nah but maybe they'd be less likely to plow into somebody at 120mph if they were on a bike and knew they'd die too

5/27/2010 3:36:21 PM

do we know if the trooper's sirens were on? or just lights?

either way - i still think there is a problem with the fact that there are NO LIMITS on officer's speed during traffic enforcement efforts. is it really worth risking the lives of others (whether they FAIL TO YEILD to a patrol car coming 120mph or not) to hand someone going 15 over a speeding ticket? no, it isn't. i think it is totally unreasonable. i wonder what other officers would have done in this situation.

of course its easy to distinguish this from a police chase with someone armed and dangerous or a kidnapping suspect or whatever - then the officer's actions become more reasonable. but just for a speeding ticket? come on, quag. do you always take the side of law enforcement?

[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 3:38 PM. Reason : .]

5/27/2010 3:36:33 PM

Quote :

"the trooper did not have a green light"

i'm pretty sure he did...she had a green light that allowed her to turn (yielding to oncoming traffic), not a protected one

5/27/2010 3:36:51 PM

Quote :

"especially since he had a green light"

Refer to:

Quote :

"Sandra Allmond was northbound on the highway and made a left turn at a green light onto River Road"

[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 3:37 PM. Reason : eh, nevermind, it would seem you actually read it. this article is too light on info]

5/27/2010 3:36:53 PM

I'm still trying to find where [user]quagmire[/user] found that the trooper had the green light

5/27/2010 3:37:25 PM

Looks like this trooper wasn't having a good night.

5/27/2010 3:38:23 PM

^^it's a pretty easy assumption to make, considering they're saying the other person turned left at a green light and failed to yield to the trooper

[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 3:38 PM. Reason : ^^]

5/27/2010 3:38:46 PM

yeah you're right, they both had green but she was supposed to yield because she was turning left

my bad

but this still stands: neither a green light nor flashing lights on the vehicle guarantee right of way - the law still requires that ALL drivers exercise due caution

5/27/2010 3:39:38 PM

Quote :

"i still think there is a problem with the fact that there are NO LIMITS on officer's speed during traffic enforcement efforts."

Some municipalities do actually have laws in place to call off a chase once it reaches a certain speed if it is for a minor crime such as speeding.

The problem with this is that once you put such a policy in place people will know about it and criminals will use it to their advantage. If you know the police will call off a chase once it reaches 85 MPH then you just go 100 for a minute and you're practically guaranteed to get away. It ends up creating more chase scenarios than you would see without such a policy.

Just because there isn't an official policy doesn't mean that caution and restraint shouldn't be used in certain situations.

5/27/2010 3:40:11 PM

Quote :

"i still think there is a problem with the fact that there are NO LIMITS on officer's speed during traffic enforcement efforts. is it really worth risking the lives of others (whether they FAIL TO YEILD to a patrol car coming 120mph or not) to hand someone going 15 over a speeding ticket? no, it isn't. i think it is totally unreasonable. i wonder what other officers would have done in this situation. "

Agreed... there should be a speed limit for cops unless they get some sort of official go-ahead to initiate a high-speed chase from a higher-up... a go-ahead which would be intended to be used only in legitimately important high-speed chases and never a minor traffic offense.

Quote :

"Just because there isn't an official policy doesn't mean that caution and restraint shouldn't be used in certain situations."

True, but the whole point of having an official policy would be to enforce said caution and restraint among people who otherwise would not use it (like Trooper Goodnight).

[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 3:43 PM. Reason : .]

5/27/2010 3:40:42 PM

^agreed

5/27/2010 3:41:45 PM

Quote :

"Killing someone while driving drunk will get you manslaughter charges."

Read the news. There are activist DAs that are constantly trying to pin murder charges for this. There are already cases of it.

Quote :

"By definition, if a death (guy having a heart attack) occurs during the commission of a felony (armed robbery, et al), that's murder."

Why are you telling me this? I obviously already know that. I'm disagreeing with it, you know....

Quote :

"Chasing a criminal down the highway and accidentally killing two people in a car that didn't hear sirens and see lights and know that they needed to stop is regretful collateral damage caused in the line of duty."

NO. This cop violated his training, and killed two innocent people. He should jailed. PERIOD.

Quote :

"PS - idiots who don't know how to act when police are running down the road (or any other emergency response vehicle, for that matter) deserve whatever they get."

At 120 MPH? STFU you god damn idiot. You just called the driver that died an idiot. I hope your dick rots off.

Quote :

"Flashing lights do not insure the right-of-way. Especially not at 120 mph."

Quote :

"Flashing lights do not insure the right-of-way. Especially not at 120 mph."

Quote :

"Flashing lights do not insure the right-of-way. Especially not at 120 mph."

Quote :

"these guys receive training on when and in what manner to pursue speeders this asshole ignored that training and killed two people including a kid he should be hung"

Quote :

"these guys receive training on when and in what manner to pursue speeders this asshole ignored that training and killed two people including a kid he should be hung"

Quote :

"these guys receive training on when and in what manner to pursue speeders this asshole ignored that training and killed two people including a kid he should be hung"

Quote :

"why should the trooper? regardless of your OPINION, the person he hit was breaking the law, while the trooper was not i'm not defending him, just pointing out that of the two people who actually broke the law, one is dead and the other, i presume, got away"

Wow. You are actually saying that the driver that died because they didn't yield to a silent 120MPH-traveling car, is at fault? Fuck you, sir. Fuck you to hell.
Just, wow.

Hey everybody!!1

quagmire is blaming the victim!

Read for yourself!


I don't have the time or patience for you heartless trolls.

[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 3:45 PM. Reason : ]

5/27/2010 3:42:21 PM

Quote :

"Agreed... there should be a speed limit for cops unless they get some sort of official go-ahead to initiate a high-speed chasefrom a higher-up... a go-ahead which would be intended to be used only in legitimately important high-speed chases and never a minor traffic offense. "

definitely agree. i understand that if (and that is a big if) a criminal knows the law in a jurisdiction with the limits, then perhaps it could give him an advantage. but this is assuming the law can't be designed to protect against that. obviously nothing is ever going to be perfect but this situation just seems completely unreasonable. and its giving the cops an advantage - they can be unreasonable and reckless in their pursuits of speeders with no consequences. i just think this situation shows the need for more of a balance between the interests at stake.

Quote :

"It ends up creating more chase scenarios than you would see without such a policy."

i'm inclined to say maybe. maybe in a place like LA or something, but in thomasville NC? how many high speed criminal chases are happening around here? i think it totally depends on the jurisdiction. location should definitely be something taken into account when creating laws. i think your point would definitely apply in some situations - again, assuming that criminals know the law and assuming that the law could not be designed with this issue in mind. but i think in greensboro, nc the risk of creating MORE high speed chases is probably lower than the risk of injuries (and death) resulting from the complete lack of restraint on the speed of an officer in traffic enforcement. and i think that is the key phrase. traffic enforcement. go ahead and throw in a different law for following suspected armed and dangerous criminals, kidnappers, whatever. but for mere traffic enforcement - such as speeding - i think it is reasonable to have limits on the speed of officers in place.


[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 3:51 PM. Reason : .]

5/27/2010 3:45:46 PM

Quote :

"the law still requires that ALL drivers exercise due caution"

...because the person who was actually BREAKING the law was doing what she was supposed to? please.

again, i'm not defending the trooper...but y'all seriously need to get out of your "RAWR ALL COPS ARE DOUCHEBAGS I AM STILL BUTTHURT OVER THAT TICKET I GOT 5 YEARS AGO RAWR" mood and realize that it's not as simple as you make

it's a tragedy and an accident, but that's ALL it is...the trooper has to assume that people will do what THEY'RE supposed to do when he's doing his job...if the bystanders get involved intentionally or accidentally, against the laws they SHOULD know, then it's not his FAULT that they did it

also, i am by no means saying that the woman "deserved" this...just trying to make it clear that just because he's an officer doesn't make him scum of the earth who set out to kill someone

Quote :

"Wow. You are actually saying that the driver that died because they didn't yield to a silent 120MPH-traveling car, is at fault? Fuck you, sir. Fuck you to hell."

that's actually not what i'm saying, but i'm not surprised that you don't get that...you've got sand in your vagina and cotton in your ears...you'll think whatever you want to think regardless of what anyone says...how sad for you

but please, by all means, don't spend any additional time on THIS heartless troll...i'd MUCH prefer your sorry ass ignore every post i make...they're obviously too far above your head, anyway

seriously, you people

[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 3:50 PM. Reason : .]

5/27/2010 3:46:10 PM

nah, you're being a douche, but that's business as usual

5/27/2010 3:47:25 PM

Quote :

"HE SHOULD JAILED"

Just because the guy died doesn't mean I owe him any respect. He fucked up, and he died as a result.

Score 1-0, Goodnight.

He has to live with killing people as it, he doesn't deserve anything else.

You're supposed to check both ways before you enter an intersection... I that intersection didn't look like it was right after a blind curve, driver should have seen him and stopped.

PS - indy, you seem to be real bent out of shape about this... You need to man the fuck up.

[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 3:49 PM. Reason : I can't believe I actually agree with Quagmire...]

5/27/2010 3:48:35 PM

*sigh*

5/27/2010 3:48:38 PM

using your logic, quags, outside of self preservation there is no reason for cops to exercise any caution during a pursuit

shut the fuck up with that weak shit

[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 3:49 PM. Reason : s]

5/27/2010 3:49:10 PM

quagmire you seem to be harping on the fact that the car that was hit was BREAKING THE LAW and you make sure to capitalize BREAKING THE LAW when you mention this again and again

if you want to harp on someone breaking the law, how about the guy speeding in the first place, not the lady that accidentally turned left at a green light and was immediately killed by a car going 120 mph

5/27/2010 3:49:14 PM

^ Because we don't give a shit about him anymore

I'd also like to change the pronouns referencing a man in my previous post to pronouns referencing the woman, because apparently it was a woman.

And that makes it make so much more sense

[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 3:51 PM. Reason : ]

5/27/2010 3:50:26 PM

DOUBLE

[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 3:51 PM. Reason : POAST]

5/27/2010 3:51:29 PM

it was a lady and a kid that died

who is "he"?

5/27/2010 3:51:29 PM

but he was BREAKING THE LAW

^he is the guy who was speeding in the first place

[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 3:52 PM. Reason : .]

5/27/2010 3:52:09 PM

yeah, my bad, he/she... Doesn't matter now


Because HE wasn't going 120 mph, and HE didn't hit an old lady and kill her

[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 3:52 PM. Reason : ]

5/27/2010 3:52:16 PM

i'm confused

anyway

fuck the police

5/27/2010 3:53:28 PM

^^^i'm just saying why harp on the dead lady BREAKING THE LAW by turning left, instead of the guy speeding for BREAKING THE LAW since thats what started teh chase

[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 3:54 PM. Reason : .]

5/27/2010 3:53:32 PM

I incorrectly labeled the deceased as a man, my fault.

I am also trying to explain to twista why we don't care about the guy going 80 in the 65 anymore


Because it's not his fault someone died

[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 3:54 PM. Reason : ]

5/27/2010 3:54:16 PM

i'm not saying you have to care about the guy going 80mph

what I am saying is you should care more about him breaking the law by speeding, than the dead woman breaking the law by turning left, and dying

the last 10 posts ITT look like someone took a dump on the internet

[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 3:55 PM. Reason : .]

5/27/2010 3:54:51 PM

EVERYONE WHO BREAKS THE LAW (however minor) DESERVES TO DIE

5/27/2010 3:54:52 PM

Quote :

"f you want to harp on someone breaking the law, how about the guy speeding in the first place, not the lady that accidentally turned left at a green light and was immediately killed by a car going 120 mph"

oh, i see...because she died, her "accident" is immaterial while his "accident" is condemning

SHE fucked up, TOO...again, i realize many of you just get your panties wet when the opportunity arises to hate on a LEO, but please please PLEASE try to realize that had SHE done what she is legally obligated to do, she likely would not be dead

that is completely independent of the fact that had he been going slower, she likely would not be dead, either

it's a tragedy, but anyone who makes this out to be the fault of a single person is a complete and utter asshole that cares more about the crucifixion of someone they don't know but hate anyway than the facts

Quote :

"EVERYONE WHO BREAKS THE LAW (however minor) DESERVES TO DIE"

that is exactly what i'm trying to say, thanks for simplifying it for me...i wasn't sure how to convey this amongst all the facts to the contrary, you know?

[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 3:55 PM. Reason : .]

5/27/2010 3:54:57 PM

Well, between the two of them, the lady's mistake did get her killed

5/27/2010 3:55:55 PM

when making an unprotected left turn i always check for traffic, but probably not far enough up the road to make sure its clear of anyone doing 120mph.

i don't think its fair to say that she didn't yield, she could have checked and missed the car travelling twice the speed limit

[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 3:56 PM. Reason : .]

5/27/2010 3:56:06 PM

quagmire not everybody hates cops

we're just pointing out how much of a dumbfuck you come across as when you all but blame the woman for dying

should she have been more aware and could that have saved her life? possibly, i don't know. its just a pretty shitty thing to do to basically blame the woman for getting hit at 120mph

[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 3:57 PM. Reason : .]

5/27/2010 3:56:12 PM

Yes and if he had been going 1000mph, she would have been "failing to yield" while he was just going through Charlotte NC.

The speed is totally relevant here, dude.

5/27/2010 3:56:26 PM

Quote :

"The speed is totally relevant here, dude."

5/27/2010 3:57:03 PM

IF HE HAD BEEN GOING SLOWER SHE MAY HAVE SEEN HIM AND YIELDED

DUE TO THIS POSSIBILITY I AM WILLING TO PLACE 100% OF THE BLAME ON THIS IDIOT COP

FUCK THE GOD DAMN POLICE STRAIGHT TO HELL

5/27/2010 3:57:55 PM

Not really. Looking down the road at a guy traveling 120 miles an hour with his lights flashing should be fairly obvious

5/27/2010 3:57:59 PM

she was probably fixing her lipstick and reading a romance novel

5/27/2010 3:58:35 PM

and eating a sandwich

5/27/2010 3:58:59 PM

police apologists totally ignoring physics itt

5/27/2010 3:59:21 PM

Quote :

"Not really. Looking down the road at a guy traveling 120 miles an hour with his lights flashing should be fairly obvious"

haha, no.

Dude, he was going 120mph. That means he travels a quarter of a mile in 7.5 seconds. By the time you've seen him coming over the top of the hill, he's already there.

5/27/2010 4:00:14 PM

^ i agree. i think speed is insanely important here.

Quote :

"it's a tragedy and an accident, but that's ALL it is...the trooper has to assume that people will do what THEY'RE supposed to do when he's doing his job...if the bystanders get involved intentionally or accidentally, against the laws they SHOULD know, then it's not his FAULT that they did it "

i think maybe people aren't butt hurt over a ticket they got 5 years ago (i've never gotten a ticket thank you! ) but the fact that you seem to ALWAYS think that just because a law is in place that it is "RIGHT" and should be followed. here (the people that aren't trolling or being completely retarded) are just saying that while they understand that the general public is required (by law) to yield to emergency vehicles, this situation shows some flaws with the law. the fact that two people died because an officer had NO restrictions on his speed when going after someone to hand out a SPEEDING ticket. i think most people just feel dude's actions were a little (A LOT) unreasonable and that PERHAPS there should be some type of policy to limit speed when enforcing routine traffic violations. we get that home girl didn't yield. but yielding to someone going 120mph is kinda difficult, for one. and second, does catching a speeder really warrant the deaths of 2 people? no.

i think it'd be reasonable to just do a little thinking, maybe put officer awesome on some paid administrative leave or something while investigating. i mean, just because she "failed to yield" doesn't mean that he didn't act recklessly/unreasonably. i know the law, AS IS, doesn't place any restraints on his actions, but that is probably something they should evaluate because of this accident. put him on leave, pay him, whatever, then when he comes back implement a new policy.

[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 4:01 PM. Reason : .]

5/27/2010 4:00:36 PM

It's not like the man was traveling at the speed of light, man.

I'll tell you what, you show me the calculations, with work, that show how far away from the intersection the cop was when the old lady started the left hand turn and then we will all judge whether or not she should have seen him.

Otherwise, I'ma just keep assuming that any person with at least moderate amounts of intelligence would have seen a really fast fuckin object coming at them and not turn.

[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 4:02 PM. Reason : There doesn't look like there's a hill, and it should take about 5 seconds (MAX) to complete the tur]

5/27/2010 4:00:50 PM

Quote :

"By the time you've seen him coming over the top of the hill, he's already there."

do you even have a CLUE as to what that intersection looks like? because i actually DO

i don't care whether you agree with or believe me, but it's bullshit to say he was going too fast for her to notice him

the problem is that people are far from perfect...i myself have looked both ways, gotten distracted only momentarily by something, and started to move my car thinking nothing had changed...just to find out i'm about to cut someone off or something

but hey, i'm sure none of you ever make mistakes like that

5/27/2010 4:03:25 PM

whats the distance to the hill?

quagmire chokes on the backpedal dick itt

[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 4:04 PM. Reason : .]

5/27/2010 4:03:35 PM

No hill

5/27/2010 4:04:03 PM

i don't think the specifics of an intersection should matter.

5/27/2010 4:04:25 PM

Quote :

"§ 20-157. Approach of law enforcement, fire department or rescue squad vehicles or ambulances; driving over fire hose or blocking fire-fighting equipment; parking, etc., near law enforcement, fire department, or rescue squad vehicle or ambulance. (a) Upon the approach of any law enforcement or fire department vehicle or public or private ambulance or rescue squad emergency service vehicle giving warning signal by appropriate light and by audible bell, siren or exhaust whistle, audible under normal conditions from a distance not less than 1000 feet, the driver of every other vehicle shall immediately drive the same to a position as near as possible and parallel to the right-hand edge or curb, clear of any intersection of streets or highways, and shall stop and remain in such position unless otherwise directed by a law enforcement or traffic officer until law enforcement or fire department vehicle or public or private ambulance or rescue squad emergency service vehicle shall have passed. Provided, however, this subsection shall not apply to vehicles traveling in the opposite direction of the vehicles herein enumerated when traveling on a four-lane limited access highway with a median divider dividing the highway for vehicles traveling in opposite directions, and provided further that the violation of this subsection shall be negligence per se. Violation of this subsection is a Class 2 misdemeanor."

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_20/GS_20-157.html

That's why it's important that witnesses say there was no siren.

Oh yeah and at 120 mph, it would only take 5.7 seconds to traverse 1000 feet. So if his siren was on, she could have had at least a ~6 second warning to stay out of the intersection. I mean yes she has the duty the yield the right-of-way but I have a feeling this will come down to 12 North Carolinians having to make the decision of whether the gross negligence of the officer outweighs the contributory negligence of the lady that died.

5/27/2010 4:04:26 PM

Quote :

"but hey, i'm sure none of you ever make mistakes like that"

neither do cops...they always drive the right way...they never make mistakes either, and therefore they're never at fault for slamming into somebody at 120mph and killing women and children

5/27/2010 4:04:28 PM

if the other direction whats the distance to that curve

5/27/2010 4:04:28 PM