This cop should be fired and jailed
- Thread starter Crazyhole
- Start date
If the driver COMPLETELY ignored the flashing lights on the officer's squad car and was traveling at a dangerously high rate of speed making her a danger to other drivers, MAYBE her actions would have been justified. But in this case, the driver was aware of the cop and a) lowered his speed; and b) turned on his blinkers. It looked to me like the side lanes on that interstate were awfully narrow so it was understandable why the driver would wait for an exit to pull over.
THIS is a prime example of the kind of "pull over when I tell you to pull over" macho BS that has no place in law enforcement.
THIS is a prime example of the kind of "pull over when I tell you to pull over" macho BS that has no place in law enforcement.
Last edited:
Seems like attempted vehicular homicide. These maneuvers are usually used to end a pursuit of someone suspected of violent crime or murder, not for a routine traffic stop.
She absolutely was speeding and did not stop. Now, that doesn’t justify a PIT maneuver, but she was doing wrong things. My wife’s squad was working a THI last night where the only thing the woman driving an SUV was doing wrong was speeding. She’s in critical condition in the hospital right now, so don’t come back with speeding is a nonviolent offense. As far as her not pulling over, it’s pull over now, not later. Most of the time the officer will wait to initiate the stop until you are in a safe area.
With all of that said, it’s hard to know everything from edited video. It certainly looks bad. Given today’s environment, I’m sure he’ll be charged for his actions and we’ll find out all of the information.
The problem was specifically the PIT maneuver. You don’t have to speculate since there is video. It’s blatantly obvious that there isn’t sufficient room on the shoulder to pull over safely and she slowed down and has her hazards on. Even if fleeing (she wasn’t), this isn’t an infraction that warrants a PIT maneuver which can be fatal at highway speeds.
Why pull over on a too-narrow strip of road (which is dangerous) instead of waiting until the next exit and stop safely? As was pointed out, the driver CLEARLY recognized the officer by slowing down and turning on her hazard lights.
We expect our law enforcement officers to be hyper-sensitive to traffic safety. The officer's actions in this case reflected zero concern -- and in my humble opinion -- should be considered attempted vehicular homicide.
Last edited:
I’m not defending the PIT maneuver. It was dangerous and I can’t see how it was warranted given the video that we have. In the video he mentions that they were coming up to a congested area and she wasn’t stopping. I’m not saying any reasonable officer would PIT right there but he didn’t do it just because he hated women.
As for warranted or not, I’m not an expert on PIT situations nor this department’s policies nor standard procedures across the nation to make that judgement, especially without all of the information. It looks bad but that doesn’t make it illegal or even out of policy all by itself.
I would bet money this officer has safely pulled people over in that same area many times and so I wouldn’t say that it is blatantly obvious. And if it was unsafe, after they were both stopped, he most likely would’ve gotten on the loudspeaker or directed her to a safer spot. She’s not getting out of the vehicle anyways.
CBS Miami - Breaking News, NEXT Weather & Community Journalism
Latest breaking news from WFOR-TV CBS Miami.
miami.cbslocal.com
You’re a troglodyte that basis his decisions on 30 second edited video clips and gaslights anyone who can present more than a superficial look at any issue. A perfect image of the term useful idiot.
This cop was a stupid shit for doing this. Full stop.
Can't wait for more dramatic videos that have absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand!!!
Can't wait for more dramatic videos that have absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand!!!
I tend to agree with you. I’m just reserving final judgement for all of the evidence.
And that's fine. I've been burned enough with stuff that's edited for drama and the initial rage clouds everyone's judgement. The combination of her being pregnant and trying to pull over (albeit not right away) seems bad for this cop.
I've been pulled over on interstates and didn't stop immediately because the shoulder was too narrow or steep. I put on my hazzards and crawled to a 25mph so the highway patrol or whatever could see what I was doing. Each time, the cop was fine with it and didn't try to barrel into me.
Yeah dude. You can use your eyes and see that when she was spun the shoulder width was too narrow to pull over safely. Particularly at night. If the roads are congested that is actually even more reason to find a place where you can pull off safely. For sure the full video will be available, but I can’t envision a situation where this action was warranted. It’s clear the car slowed and had its signals on and was halfway into the shoulder when it was spun out. That’s not a car that is initiating a pursuit.
I have no idea why he did what he did, Maybe he hates white women. But He needs to lose his job over it. She was not evading him and it is clear that she wasn't, My guess is you got a guy with more testosterone than brains.
Every time I see someone pulled over on an interstate with a tight shoulder, I think how it probably pisses the cop off that the driver didn't continue to the next exit or at least until there is more room. Stopping there puts the officers at more risk than her as he gets out of the car and walks around.
Context per this article
I'm really curious what the actual law is both in this case and states generally. I always remember hearing - even from cops that would come and talk to us in high school - that it's OK to continue driving until you feel the location is safe to stop. This was more in reference to like a dark unlit road and driving until there's a well lit parking lot or something. That's much safer for the LEO officer also.
- PIT occurred "less than two minutes" after turning on his lights.
- They were 1 mile away from an exit and wider shoulder
- From officer's body mic:
- "Why didn't you stop"?
- "Because I didn't feel it was safe."
- "Well, this is where you ended up."
- "I thought it would be safe to wait until the next exit."
- "No ma'am, you pull over when law enforcement stops you."
I'm really curious what the actual law is both in this case and states generally. I always remember hearing - even from cops that would come and talk to us in high school - that it's OK to continue driving until you feel the location is safe to stop. This was more in reference to like a dark unlit road and driving until there's a well lit parking lot or something. That's much safer for the LEO officer also.
Bingo!
No, he should be charged with road rage-induced, attempted vehicular homicide.
“You were speeding, which is dangerous. So I’m going to intentionally crash your car.”
I'm telling you what I'm told from actual real-life law enforcement officers about how they do their job on a daily basis. You can take that however you'd like.
I can only think this is warranted in the timeframe of the video (assuming it wasn't edited to shorten the amount of time that he followed her) if she was about to drive into the back of dead stopped traffic.
The officer will assume whatever risk they're comfortable with. Generally, they won't turn on their lights until they are in a place where they know they will be safe. Now, if the person won't pull over for 10 miles, then that goes out the window. But, like I said, if the officer doesn't feel safe to get out of the vehicle, they have a loudspeaker and will generally tell the person to pull forward to another location.
As for the not stopping but not speeding up, you have to honestly put yourself in that officer's shoes as well as the other driver's shoes and ask yourself in that moment: why isn't this person stopping? In this case, the woman was making a benignly bad decision. But it also could be because whoever in the vehicle was preparing a nasty surprise. That still probably doesn't justify a PIT maneuver though, just a heightened sense of awareness and maybe a slight escalation of force, or at least a preparedness to do so. Most likely, he should've called out the situation on the radio and just waited until she actually stopped and then possibly performed a felony stop although those are very dangerous to the suspect on the edge of a highway.
Unless, like I said in another post, there is a wall of stopped traffic just ahead that it looks like she is about to drive into and he's been following her for miles and she just isn't stopping. That's the only scenario where something like this even remotely makes sense.
Glad that she sued civilly. If he's found to be out-of-policy, he will lose his house, job, and any money he has saved up. That's probably the very least of what's warranted here.
Of course, now that this is blowing up, he'll probably be charged criminally which may also be appropriate. At least the state representatives are taking a fair-minded approach with their statements about a further investigation being needed.
I just wanted to post the state trooper's spokesman statement since you put up the DL's study guide quote. The ambiguity between the driver trying to determine where a safe place to stop is and the department's policy of actively stopping the car upon failure to stop needs to be resolved immediately.
"Over the past five years, Arkansas State Troopers have documented a 52 percent increase in incidents of drivers making a conscious choice to ignore traffic stops initiated by the troopers. Instead of stopping, the drivers try to flee. In more populated areas of the state, the incidents of fleeing from troopers have risen by more than 80 percent. The fleeing drivers pull away at a high rate of speed, wildly driving, dangerously passing other vehicles, showing no regard for the safety of other motorists, creating an imminent threat to the public.
The Arkansas State Police began using the Precision Immobilization Technique (PIT) over two decades ago. Trooper recruits while attending the department’s academy receive comprehensive initial training in the use of PIT. All incumbent troopers receive recurring annual training in emergency vehicle operations which includes PIT instruction.
There’s a fundamental state law none of us should ever forget. All drivers are required under Arkansas law to safely pull-off the roadway and stop when a police officer activates the patrol vehicle emergency lights and siren. The language of the law is crystal clear. Upon the immediate approach of an authorized emergency vehicle displaying the signal to stop, the driver must pull-over and stop. *(see Arkansas statutes ACA §27-51-901 & §27-49-107)
Should a driver make the decision to ignore the law and flee from police, state troopers are trained to consider their options. Based on the totality of circumstances a state trooper could deploy spike strips to deflate the tires of the vehicle being pursued, execute a boxing technique to contain the pursuit slowing the driver to a stop, execute a PIT maneuver or terminate the pursuit.
Most Arkansas State Police pursuits end without a PIT maneuver being utilized.
PIT has proven to be an effective tool to stop drivers who are placing others in harm’s way. It has saved lives among those who choose to obey the law against those who choose to run from police.
In every case a state trooper has used a PIT maneuver, the fleeing driver could have chosen to end the pursuit by doing what all law-abiding citizens do every day when a police officer turns-on the blue lights – they pull over and stop."
Oooookay. Good luck convincing a jury that the driver was attempting to flee arrest after the State trooper car's blue lights came on despite lowering her speed and turning on her blinking hazard lights.
No statute can trump common sense.
Last edited:
I’d like to see the raw numbers on those stats. Using percentages can be misleading. Let’s say you had an average of 10 people fleeing police 5 years ago, last years it was 15. That’s a 50 percent increase, but it’s only 5 more people in a sea of tens of thousands of stops. The CDC used this trick to try and convince teenagers to get vaccinated. Percentages look way scarier than raw numbers.
You have a good point. I've been digging a bit deeper into this and it certainly looks like the TTPs for the Arkansas State Police needs to be overhauled. In most of Central Florida, the agencies forbid pursuit for anything other than a severe crime, most of them being violent felonies. You also have to be PIT certified and the conditions are limited. The ASP apparently are all certified but they have very few limitations on the maneuver. So, I agree with what a lot of people on here are saying.
As for this suit, I'm guessing that the suit names both the officer and the state. The officer generally has qualified immunity from civil suit if he is following the law. The assumption is that, if he is following his training and the policies and procedure of his department, then it is objectively reasonable that he is following the law because the state agency would write policies that are conformant. But, if the officer should've known that what he was doing is beyond the law, such as the jury found Chauvin's actions, then the qualified immunity is removed and he is liable for damages and punitive fees.
As for criminal, qualified immunity doesn't apply to criminal charges (even though you'll hear a bunch of activists try to say that it does). If he knowingly breaks the law, he can and should be criminally charged. Again, though, if he is following procedures and training, then it is objectively reasonable that the officer is not breaking the law and that's why a lot of these are handled through internal investigations rather than criminal charges. Sometimes, the internal investigation recommends charges to the state/district attorneys office.
Officer seems to be in the wrong here, no reason for that at all
You’re an asshole, GFYS
You’re an asshole, GFYS
