Deputy Going 110 Mph Before Fatal Crash

[Otter]

The cops are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they rush to the scene and get into the accident, they get blamed. If they do the speed limit and get to the scene after someone is killed in a preventable crime, they're blamed.
That said, 110 is still pretty unreasonable.

Agree with all of that.

 

[Go G-Men]

From Channel 7 web site.

Bet he is going to get a slap on the wrist.

Anyone here get a speeding ticket for doing 110MPH?

Isnt that an automatic loss of license...red lights, siren or not...
Who is going to have time to hear and see them and have time to respond?

Wonder where he was going that doing 110 would have made a huge time difference instead of doing 80?

If everyone is out to place blame... Let's find the man who initiated the call (guy trying to break in) and arrest him for manslaughter.

 

[foodcritic]

The cops are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they rush to the scene and get into the accident, they get blamed. If they do the speed limit and get to the scene after someone is killed in a preventable crime, they're blamed.
That said, 110 is still pretty unreasonable.

I tend to agree with you. But "what if" it was an active shooter in the local high school or church or what ever. Would we be arguing about speed?

I don't blame the victim here. I don't think the officer did anything criminal either. If he did 80 and had side impacted her she most likely would have been killed even doing 50 probably so.

Where does the finger-pointing end? Was the road poorly designed? Should the county put governors on the police car? Should the state have placed lights or eliminated the turn lanes? Have there been accidents at the site before and nothing was done by the county?

Should we charge the suspect of the domestic for causing deputies to respond "code" if there is an accident? It's a never ending game of "what if"

The fact is there is no easy answer and the family of the victim will never be satisfied, sadly. Truly a sad situation.

 

[mAlice]

If everyone is out to place blame... Let's find the man who initiated the call (guy trying to break in) and arrest him for manslaughter.

Ya' know, that's a good idea. Had it not been for criminal activity, the girl would still be alive, and the officer wouldn't be injured, not to mention the mental anguish he must deal with every day, and will for the rest of his life.

 

[G1G4]

I tend to agree with you. But "what if" it was an active shooter in the local high school or church or what ever. Would we be arguing about speed?

I don't blame the victim here. I don't think the officer did anything criminal either. If he did 80 and had side impacted her she most likely would have been killed even doing 50 probably so.

Where does the finger-pointing end? Was the road poorly designed? Should the county put governors on the police car? Should the state have placed lights or eliminated the turn lanes? Have there been accidents at the site before and nothing was done by the county?

Should we charge the suspect of the domestic for causing deputies to respond "code" if there is an accident? It's a never ending game of "what if"

The fact is there is no easy answer and the family of the victim will never be satisfied, sadly. Truly a sad situation.

It's always a what if situation, and your right, there is usually never a definitive answer because varying situations can always change the outcome of situations. Your right, even if he was doing 50 or the speed limit (which is 55? in that area -- someone correct me if I'm wrong), the girl still could've recieved fatal injuries. Once again, it's the what if.

 

[cattitude]

It's always a what if situation, and your right, there is usually never a definitive answer because varying situations can always change the outcome of situations. Your right, even if he was doing 50 or the speed limit (which is 55? in that area -- someone correct me if I'm wrong), the girl still could've recieved fatal injuries. Once again, it's the what if.

Did you read the report? It gives the speed limit and it's not 55. And if you did, you would see what happened and the "what if" is removed. You can always say what if. But it's now known what happened.

 

[kwillia]

Did you read the report? It gives the speed limit and it's not 55. And if you did, you would see what happened and the "what if" is removed. You can always say what if. But it's now known what happened.

Exactly. We aren't talking a t-bone at 55 that deployed airbags and bruised ribs. We are talking a t-bone at 110 that ROLLED her car causing it to immediately become engulfed with flames... flames so hot the first arriving deputy couldn't get near the car.

 

[eddy1]

Did you read the report? It gives the speed limit and it's not 55. And if you did, you would see what happened and the "what if" is removed. You can always say what if. But it's now known what happened.

Ok, so the cop was wrong. Is that what you want to hear? What you like to see done?

 

[kwillia]

Ok, so the cop was wrong. Is that what you want to hear? What you like to see done?

I don't think anybody wants heads to roll... I would think the expectation involves multi-departmental review of procedures and protocol followed by a refresher course in proceeding to the scene without endangering others...:shrug:

 

[cattitude]

Ok, so the cop was wrong. Is that what you want to hear? What you like to see done?

I would like to see the department admit it. I'm sure the officer is devastated so perhaps that's punishment enough, I certainly don't think he intended to hurt anyone but he was definitely negligent. Officers need more training and to be more aware of the conditions of the roads they travel.

 

[eddy1]

I would like to see the department admit it. I'm sure the officer is devastated so perhaps that's punishment enough, I certainly don't think he intended to hurt anyone but he was definitely negligent. Officers need more training and to be more aware of the conditions of the roads they travel.

In my opinion, the department should conduct training for their officers in reference to responses. Unfortunately because there is pending litigation, the department can't admit they are wrong, because the lawyers would never let them do so.

Having said that though, if you don't think that every officer responding to an emergency call in that county, and likely every county in Southern Maryland isn't thinking of that situation, then you are mistaken.

 

[G1G4]

Did you read the report? It gives the speed limit and it's not 55. And if you did, you would see what happened and the "what if" is removed. You can always say what if. But it's now known what happened.

Re-read what I wrote. I said even if he was, which is what my entire post about -- 'what if' situations.

 

[Rael]

I don't think anybody wants heads to roll... I would think the expectation involves multi-departmental review of procedures and protocol followed by a refresher course in proceeding to the scene without endangering others...:shrug:

Exactly. And I get the impression that this is what the Sheriff appears to be dancing around, or he'd be much clearer on it. If I remember correctly, his initial reaction before this report (when it happened) was that the officer was NOT driving at an unreasonable speed (above the speed limit). It was just that the young lady came out in front of him.

 

[cattitude]

Having said that though, if you don't think that every officer responding to an emergency call in that county, and likely every county in Southern Maryland isn't thinking of that situation, then you are mistaken.

I'd like to know what the unmarked (non-responding) officer was thinking today when he blew through the yield sign (at approximately 5 p.m.) and cut off the bus in which I was a passenger as it was turning left from 4 onto Route 2 with the green light. The bus had to jam on his breaks and of course there were cars behind the bus making the same turn. The officer just didn't want to wait for the bus. After he passed the bus practically on the shoulder, he didn't continue to gain speed but went on about the normal speed limit.

I'm very familiar with the police and fire department and I believe in cowboys.

I'm done with this thread and I'm satisfied with the findings of the investigation.

 

[eddy1]

I'd like to know what the unmarked (non-responding) officer was thinking today when he blew through the yield sign (at approximately 5 p.m.) and cut off the bus in which I was a passenger as it was turning left from 4 onto Route 2 with the green light. The bus had to jam on his breaks and of course there were cars behind the bus making the same turn. The officer just didn't want to wait for the bus. After he passed the bus practically on the shoulder, he didn't continue to gain speed but went on about the normal speed limit.

I'm very familiar with the police and fire department and I believe in cowboys.

I'm done with this thread and I'm satisfied with the findings of the investigation.

Good, seems like you just want to biatch anyway. Now go away!

 

[Otter]

Re-read what I wrote. I said even if he was, which is what my entire post about -- 'what if' situations.

Your post said if he was doing 50 or 55..He wasn't. You're assuming that she would have been in the intersection with him doing 55..The point is, he was doing 110, according to the reports, she had .5 of a second to see him before she went through the intersection. Can you judge speed at the distance he was from her? If he was doing 50 to 55, she would have been through the intersection. If he was doing 100, she would have been through the intersection. Saying after the fact that hitting her broadside at 55 would have killed her is a strawman argument. Without a doubt, she would have been at fault then.

Facts speak for themselves and its irritating as hell when the 'what if' game is played. I will go to my grave knowing that 110 up that hill into Dunkirk was totally wrong no matter what the situation. Cops have a hard enough job without lame explanations/excuses given, as far as I'm concerned, you're not doing any LEOs any favors.

 

[G1G4]

Your post said if he was doing 50 or 55..He wasn't. You're assuming that she would have been in the intersection with him doing 55..The point is, he was doing 110, according to the reports, she had .5 of a second to see him before she went through the intersection. Can you judge speed at the distance he was from her? If he was doing 50 to 55, she would have been through the intersection. If he was doing 100, she would have been through the intersection. Saying after the fact that hitting her broadside at 55 would have killed her is a strawman argument. Without a doubt, she would have been at fault then.

Facts speak for themselves and its irritating as hell when the 'what if' game is played. I will go to my grave knowing that 110 up that hill into Dunkirk was totally wrong no matter what the situation. Cops have a hard enough job without lame explanations/excuses given, as far as I'm concerned, you're not doing any LEOs any favors.

Once again -- re-read what I wrote. I was replying to a post before that asked where the fingerpointing ended. I simply said that it wouldn't, because what-if situations already exist. I was hardly making any excuses for him, and I haven't. As I said before, 110 is excessive, so why would I make an excuse for him hitting her?

 

[Otter]

Once again -- re-read what I wrote. I was replying to a post before that asked where the fingerpointing ended. I simply said that it wouldn't, because what-if situations already exist. I was hardly making any excuses for him, and I haven't. As I said before, 110 is excessive, so why would I make an excuse for him hitting her?

duh on me...I see it now...My apologies..

 

[G1G4]

duh on me...I see it now...My apologies..