ps: State didn't fire Herb

5/27/2010 5:26:36 PM

pps: I seriously doubt he would have left had the majority of the student body and general fan base not been been calling for his head. Sure, he said the words "I quit" before we said the words "you're fired,"

but we were glancing from him to the door expectantly and raising our eyebrows in a suggestive manner



[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 5:29 PM. Reason : ppps: I was not one of those fans]

5/27/2010 5:28:35 PM

Herb Sendek ITT

5/27/2010 5:28:44 PM

five pages later, how did herbie get in the discussion?

5/27/2010 5:29:31 PM

Quote :

"wishing for my death"

??
What are you talking about?

Quote :

"Yo dawg, earlier in dis thread you be accusin bitches of deserving execution for they opinions."

No, I didn't. I said this cop should be.

What the fuck is wrong is both of you that you think I said shit I most clearly didn't say?

5/27/2010 5:29:49 PM

Oh, nevermind. I'm thinking of the smoking thread where you called for someone's execution.

My B, dawg.

5/27/2010 5:31:57 PM

My bad, too. You didn't wish me dead, you just wished that my dick would rot off...

Just as bad, imho

5/27/2010 5:32:20 PM

I knew my ears were burning.

5/27/2010 5:34:34 PM

^^^
I'm sure you're wrong, there, too.
Keep thinking it's funny to misquote someone until you get sued for defamation. (not funny)
(If I called for someone's execution, I was calling for them to be legally killed by the state.)

^^
Thank you for clearing that up. (and yes, I think dick rot would be as bad or worse.)

[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 5:37 PM. Reason : ]

5/27/2010 5:34:51 PM

I can't believe that I looked at 2-3 pages of baseball analogies and no one stated the obvious..

DISTANCE PEOPLE, DISTANCE!

Hitting a 60 mph fastball and a 100 mph fastball is different, yeah. The distance from the mound to the plate is 60.5 feet. It takes solid reflexes to hit a pitch at either speed. Only the best can hit a 100 mph fastball.

Now pull the mound back to 300 feet. If a ball was released from that distance and could cross the mound going 60 mph and 100 mph respectively, it would be much easier to make contact with the balls. There's time to prepare, gauge what's happening, and make the necessary adjustments.

Now to the whole turning thing...it's common sense to look at oncoming traffic to determine if they can safely make a left turn. You can tell when a car is going fast or slow and whether you need to wait or gun it and get by. Some people are better at this decision making than others. There are plenty of fender benders that result from somebody trying to make a left turn when they shouldn't have.

The lady made a poor choice by deciding to go left. If she couldn't look ahead and see flashing blue lights, AND determine the vehicle was going at a high rate of speed, I would bet that she wasn't 100 percent focused on her driving. The officer is also at fault for going as fast as he was, but certainly shouldn't take all of the blame. If we find a report that the woman was on her cell phone or was yelling at her 3 kids in the back, or doing anything else that proved that she wasn't focused on DRIVING, people wouldn't be so quick to hang someone.

It was an unfortunate accident, which is further amplified by the fact that the collision happened at a high speed. Interstates are the safest roads to travel, but collisions that occur on these roads end up on the front page due to the high rate of speed involved. If the same thing happened at 50 mph, I think people would still be ready to lynch this guy. The difference is that the woman's death would be the more important thing, instead of how fast the officer was going.

Also, what kind of road has a speed limit of 65 and has lights and intersections? I'm assuming that there was a speed change from 65 to 55 somewhere close by..

5/27/2010 6:35:08 PM

All I know is, those kids who survived are going to be rolling in $Texas

5/27/2010 6:45:47 PM

elevator in my crib cause it's five floors
i don't expect you to have one inside yours
vince young suicide doors
life's a bitch, now die for her

5/27/2010 7:22:18 PM

^^^

Except the difference between the two is that she's a civilian and he's an officer trained in operating a vehicle.

He should not expect anything less than the absolute worst driving from civilians. To do any different is to put everyone's lives at risk.

5/27/2010 7:27:38 PM

Quote :

"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."

I'm pretty sure NC is still a contributory negligence state. Which means ANY negligence negates the tort action. It is an absolute bar to recovery in a civil case.

5/27/2010 8:41:00 PM

^ you are right.

i'm reviewing torts now but i haven't gotten to the NC distinctions yet. but i'm 99.8% sure it is still a contrib state.

so there is no weighing of the negligence. that would be comparative neg. so yea, absolute bar to recovery w/ contrib.

[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 8:43 PM. Reason : .]

5/27/2010 8:42:59 PM

^Glad to see I still remember 1L year!

5/27/2010 8:43:59 PM

haha i know. i hope i am remembering right too since i'm studying for the bar

but i'm pretty sure you're correct. lol. at least i hope for both of our sakes

5/27/2010 8:44:55 PM

Wow, 120MPH without siren to catch someone doing 80MPH in a 65MPH zone.



Over-zealous, much?

5/27/2010 8:56:11 PM

Listen, if Tom Cruise would have stopped you in Minority Report then you committed a murder.

So the only question that really needs to be answered is... Would Tom Cruise have arrested Officer Goodnight before this happened?

5/27/2010 9:31:04 PM

People that run from a simple traffic stop usually have something to hide...

5/27/2010 9:32:44 PM

I thought Tom Cruise would only arrest you if you were guilty of pre-meditated murder? I don't know if this would even fit the description.

5/27/2010 9:39:46 PM

give all cops and state troopers motorcycles mario karts instead of cars

5/27/2010 9:39:54 PM

so let me get this straight

-he had no siren
-he ran a red light

if those two prove true, then the dude is a shitbag.

5/27/2010 9:59:02 PM

^ under any situation he's a shitbag.

You don't cruise at 120MPH to catch a speeder at 80mph on the highway.

5/27/2010 10:03:26 PM

^I'm not a cop;I wouldn't know.

5/27/2010 10:04:36 PM

not that i have a side in this issue but for all you smart folks out there, how much longer does it take for the cop to catch the speeder going 90 mph assuming the driver doesnt slow down than it would if he was going 120?

just curious

5/27/2010 10:26:23 PM

Quote :

""Highway Patrol spokesman Sgt. Jeff Gordon""

ahahahahahaha Mr. Joshua

5/27/2010 10:37:41 PM

^^ It takes less time to catch the speeder going 90 mph because the cop's car isn't a crumpled ball on the side of the road.

5/27/2010 10:39:32 PM

not having a siren on is pretty much irrelevant. just about useless at highway speeds.

5/27/2010 10:43:40 PM

Quote :

"-he ran a red light"

looks like it was green

5/27/2010 10:44:45 PM

so he didnt get the skylark..

5/27/2010 10:56:40 PM

I don't care if the light was purple, when you nearly double the speed limit you're being irresponsible. Maybe thats a risk worth taking in some cases, not in this one.

5/27/2010 10:56:43 PM

This is really a push...

The Trooper should have used better judgment in his decision to catch the violator. However, he did not violate his agencies policy based on what I know. The Trooper had the right of way but he still has to enter an intersection with due caution.

The driver should have used better judgment in her decision to cross the highway. She has to yield the right of way to oncoming traffic.

No charge of murder or anything will come of this and it shouldn’t.

As far as cops speeding to catch violators...

When a target is coming at you at 80 mph and you are doing 55, and you decide to turn around on the vehicle, you will have to speed to catch it. The decision to turn around is a personal one and the officer should keep in mind the traffic in his direction of travel, the oncoming lane and if the road has ample area to safely turn around.

Someone might blow your doors off going 25+ over but in the totality of the circumstances (actual violation, road conditions) is the apprehension of the violator worth the risk to the motoring public.

As far as cops speeding everyday...

I suggest you take a ride-a-long with a good size department, on a busy night in a busy neighborhood. Sometimes cops speed to catch up with a suspect, to intercept a BOL, to back up another officer or because they need to get the flow of traffic to seek out different violators. Not every call is emergency or regular traffic. The world of law enforcement is not black and white but gray.

Sometimes it’s a no win situation with the public...they want the police to be the perfect enforcer in an imperfect world.

5/27/2010 11:04:08 PM

Mr. Joshua bringin majors lawls ITT

5/27/2010 11:39:55 PM

Quote :

"People that run from a simple traffic stop usually have something to hide..."

nobody ran from a fucking traffic stop

the target vehicle definitely had no clue Trooper Shitdick was a mile back trying to catch up to him

5/28/2010 1:01:47 AM

So just to confirm, the Trooper was approx this far away from intersection when car began left turn:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=&daddr=35.973648,-79.916203&geocode=&hl=en&mra=dme&mrcr=0&mrsp=1&sz=18&sll=35.97472,-79.913317&sspn=0.003529,0.006968&ie=UTF8&t=h&ll=35.972836,-79.916069&spn=0,0.006968&z=18&layer=c&cbll=35.972244,-79.918412&panoid=o7LzEBVawC778wx7oOtKmA&cbp=12,69.1,,0,3.48

5/28/2010 1:19:08 AM

Goddamn this thread is

What it comes down to is:

Quote :

"Wow, 120MPH without siren to catch someone doing 80MPH in a 65MPH zone. Over-zealous, much?"

Was the guy under his quota or something? The whole scenario seems like the cop was putting more people in danger trying to catch this guy than if he had traveled say, 85MPH and caught up with the guy at a light.

5/28/2010 4:45:55 AM

dude had a new badass car and wanted to use it like it was meant to be used, can't fault him for that.

what we can do, however, is fault the folks in charge when he gets away with what any other person in the country would get asshammered for

remember, it never comes down to wrong or right or even legality in these cases, all a lawyer has to do is convince the jury he "did not break protocol"

shit, if i was a cop i'd do stupid shit too, possibly get fired (unlikely) and get away with it for the most part. then get hired by ncsu public safety

5/28/2010 5:53:31 AM

Quote :

"I'm pretty sure NC is still a contributory negligence state. Which means ANY negligence negates the tort action. It is an absolute bar to recovery in a civil case."

Quote :

"Contributory negligence will not bar a plaintiff's recovery where the defendant's wilful and/or wanton conduct is a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. Fry v. Southern Utilities Co., 183 N.C. 281, 293, 111 S.E. 354, 361 (1922); Pearce v. Barham, 271 N.C. 285, 289, 156 S.E.2d 290, 294 (1967); Brewer v. Harris, 279 N.C. 288, 297, 182 S.E.2d 345, 350 (1971); Siders v. Gibbs, 39 N.C. App. 183, 185, 249 S.E.2d 858, 859 (1978); Jarvis v. Sanders, 34 N.C. App. 283, 285, 237 S.E.2d 865, 866 (1977). Wilful or wanton conduct in the context of the contributory negligence issue has sometimes been referred to as gross negligence, Jarvis, 34 N.C. App. at 285, 237 S.E.2d at 866; Bullins v. Schmidt, 322 N.C. 580, 582, 369 S.E.2d 601, 603 (1988), but the use of that term cannot be read to describe conduct less negligent than that suggested by the phrase "wilful or wanton conduct." [1] Indeed it is only where the term "gross negligence" is defined to "refer to misconduct which is . . . described as wilful, wanton or reckless . . . [that] the contributory negligence of the plaintiff is not a bar to recovery for an injury caused by such conduct on the part of the defendant." Stuart M. Speiser, et al, The American Law of Torts, [section] 12.11 (1986). "

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=nc&vol=appeals97\appeals0701\&invol=cissell

5/28/2010 7:40:28 AM

Quote :

"what we can do, however, is fault the folks in charge when he gets away with what any other person in the country would get asshammered for"

this would make sense if "any other person in the country" were also a LEO doing their job within its legal scope

but since they're not, your statement is retarded

5/28/2010 7:43:52 AM

The other night some cock knocker behind me was honking at me because I had a green left turn arrow and I yielded to a police car that was going in the opposite direction, which had it's blue lights & siren on. It was in plain view so there was no way he shouldn't have seen it.

Now I'm not blaming the driver of the other car I'm just saying, people tend to treat emergency vehicles like every other car on the road.

I do, however, believe that going 120 MPH to get a speeder is excessive. He should have backed off. You can't outrun the radio.

Quote :

"I think he just really wanted a goddamn liter of cola."

FTFW

[Edited on May 28, 2010 at 7:46 AM. Reason : s]

5/28/2010 7:45:55 AM

I was thinking today about how there should be more motorcycle cops.

This way it would solve both their problems and our problems.

Their problem: Cars are too fast!
Answer: Motorcycles are faster than cars most of the time. This way, we can catch those pesky speeders by going 120mph!

Our problem: Cops smash into us at 120mph and kill our family!
Answer: Car: 1, Motorcycle: 0.

[Edited on May 28, 2010 at 8:31 AM. Reason : ]

5/28/2010 8:30:10 AM

I know the exact intersection where this happened.

Coming south, as in goodnight's direction of travel, you are heading down a hill and is WAY easy to pick up speed. at the top of the hill is a slight left hand curve (as you are traveling in goodnight's direction)

If a vehicle is traveling northbound, as the victim was, you are in a slight depression before making that turn. additionally there is at least one or two billboards at the intersection, and one further up the hill. im not certain but most of these have some type of illumination on them.

As you are sitting in the intersection, it is not difficult at all to give a brief glance up the hill to see if anyone is approaching. but with the geography of that intersection, the northbound driver would be very likely unable to see something coming down that hill, especially at that speed.

Lets also play devils advocate for a moment and consider that the victim was: a woman; 55; driving a Buick Skylark.

Any of these three factors could lead one to believe that she was not a pedal smasher and had come to nearly a complete stop before initiating her (fatal) left hand turn. Which would have then lead to her easing her foot off the brake to being making the turn.

Now, if you are basically just cruising through an intersection and you've already looked once to check for on-coming traffic and see nothing, and someone is moving down that hill as fast as Goodnight was, it is easy to start to see how she might not have seen him at all.


However, it looks like her car was hit from the front. Which kinda implies that she was at the beginning of her turn. Which kinda implies that Goodnight may have been much closer to the intersection...meaning that the driver started her turn without really giving proper consideration to traffic.

So maybe the victim was just being a 55 yr old woman driver and actually wasn't paying attention?

Cop was still being a fucking retard. Absolutely no reason for his actions, he needs full consequences.

(and i agree with "litercola" )

[Edited on May 28, 2010 at 9:20 AM. Reason : ]

5/28/2010 9:19:35 AM

5/28/2010 9:22:20 AM

^*jethromoore

Quote :

" wilful and/or wanton "

Wilful is a legal term of art--which essentially means the action was done deliberately to do harm; that the purpose of him speeding was to hit this woman and cause her harm. Which is not the case here. Wanton or reckless is quite similar--but it's more than just a normal state of recklessness. To qualify under this, the officer would have been acting purposefully reckless to such an extent that it would be reasonably certain to cause harm. That's a pretty high standard, and they're going to be hardpressed to prove that. Even if we weren't a contributory negligence state, there is still a question of suing a public entity. There are a lot of things that will prevent recovery in this instance. But we'll have to see how it turns out.

[Edited on May 28, 2010 at 9:23 AM. Reason : ]

5/28/2010 9:23:13 AM

Yeah I guess that's all subject to a civil case but has no bearing on possible criminal charges or inter-departmental punishment. Since Monday, this issue has literally been the talk of the town (Greensboro).

Quote :

"Also, what kind of road has a speed limit of 65 and has lights and intersections? I'm assuming that there was a speed change from 65 to 55 somewhere close by.."

Yeah the speed limit is 55 through that portion of Bus-85, not sure if it gets up to 60 or 65 as I don't drive it often. The Greensboro stations have more info than seen on WRAL:

Quote :

"The report shows the original traveling speed for the trooper's car reached 120 miles per hour. The speed limit on the road is 55 mph."

http://www.digtriad.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=142850

Quote :

"120 miles per hour is a speed many of us have never experienced or probably even seen. Investigators say a trooper was driving 120 mph on Business 85 in Jamestown when a car turned in front of him. He was only able to slow down to 95 mph before he crashed killing Sandy Allmond and 11-year-old Taylor Strange. What does 120 mph look like? Or feel like? We couldn't take an average car and just go anywhere to try and show you. So we went the only place we know of where that's legal, the Piedmont Dragway."

http://www.digtriad.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=142898

5/28/2010 9:55:12 AM

The hilarious irony is that most production cars normal people drive cant even reach 120mph on a standard 1/4 mile drag strip.

----

^ And the comment from that last article

Quote :

"Randy Glover, Colonel of State Highway Patrol, explains the exception, "Our troopers are trained for this specific thing. To apprehend people who are constantly in a violation which can endanger someone else. We've got to get this type of violater stopped or they will hurt somebody." "

Yeah, they will hurt somebody, eh? Last I checked that Skylark didn't kill two people.

[Edited on May 28, 2010 at 10:00 AM. Reason : ]

5/28/2010 9:57:29 AM

My question to everyone is this: If LE can't speed to catch a violator, when can they? What criteria needs to be met?

***Not be sarcastic or rhetorical , I'm curious.

[Edited on May 28, 2010 at 11:34 AM. Reason : ...]

5/28/2010 11:24:52 AM

No one can outrun a radio.

5/28/2010 11:33:22 AM

Police apologists being faggots ITT

5/28/2010 11:38:30 AM