• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Victims family releases graphic video of his death

1.) fired? vs "due process"??? yes im fine with that because he like everybody else in the case of being fired can fight or appeal and im sure he also has a union.
2.) i would say thats not normal, id say it varies quit a bit depending on charges, union, state, agency etc. SOrry.
it happens in cases where the chief or someone in charge feels theres not enough yet or the suspension/firing is dependent on criminal charges. Sometimes they are fired then reinstated. There is definitely no uniformity in these types of things. The video was viewed and it was clear protocol was violated so he was terminated. im fine with that, im actually great with that.

wrong doing was already determined, what is left now is HOW MUCH wrong doing.

What protocol does it "clearly" violate?
 
1.)I watched the video you linked to.
Is that the one you're talking about?
I have difficulty watching a lot of online vids here at work because of Flash issues on my work PC but the first one you linked to I was able to view.
In that vid I didn't see anything that would indicate to me that he (the cop) deliberately sped up. No engine rev, no obvious increase in the rate of speed at which "the background" was passing by outside his window (if that makes sense).

2.) I don't claim to be a video testimony expert of any sort though so while I may not have seen it I'm not going to argue that you couldn't have seen it or that you're mis-seeing it, or anything like that.

3.)I disagree with you that any such deliberate, let's say malicious, effort was made to squash the dude.

4.) On a different note, I did see earlier in the convo that you and someone else were discussing the fact that there was no "dip" of the hood which would indicate a rapid application of the brakes.

I would expect to see that in any kind of "oh ****! need to stop NOW!" <slams on brakes>, type of situation. Which is about what you'd expect to see at the point where it becomes obvious that the car is on a collision course with a "pedestrian" at a high rate of speed.

5.) But as the two of you concluded, and I find myself in the same boat, I'm not expert in rapid deceleration of motor vehicles to the extent that I know what I should expect to see or can speak intelligently to what I actually saw.

I'll tell you what though.

There are VERY few "cop gone bad" videos where I come down on the side of the cop, even if only from a tentative "let's all calm down and see how this plays out" perspective.

This is one of them.

This is certainly an unfortunate incident and at a minimum I believe that this particular cop is guilty of not packing the gear necessary to do the job.

7.) But I'm not convinced he's necessarily guilty of any crime.

1.) yes that the video and there is clearly an engine rev, many people here heard it and couple articles talk about it. You should watch again maybe where video plays well, the engine rev is obvious.
2.) im certainly not either, besides the engine rev and no hood dip the rest is guess work for me
3.) deliberate? im not sure about that either besides the engine REV. but absolutely not caring and negligence im on board that ship!
4.) dont know if that was me or not because at least a hand full of people talked about that
5.) I agree and i feel the same.
6.) currently i dont side with the cop at all because rationally and logically i have no reason too based on reports and video and violated protocol.
7.) well i myself cant make him guilty but this needs to go to court not be dismissed.
 
1.)The cop having a justifiable reason for pursuit would have a clear impact on the story

2.)Again, I've watched the video a few times and it seems more a case of reckless as opposed to intentional behavior

1.) false if it violates protocol which this did. his pursuit can continue on foot. like the other senior office knew and choose to do. Protocol determines this and this is why he was fired, he violated protocol.
2.) besides the obvious engine rev and no evidence of using brakes i tend to agree but recklessness, violating protocol is all that is needed for a crime.
 
What protocol does it "clearly" violate?

all the ones he was factually fired for violating, a common sense guess would be pursuit protocols, ask his chief
“The actions taken by officer Harris that night are not consistent with our department’s training, directives or accepted practices or techniques,” Chief of Police William E. Ridgway said in a statement.
Harris was fired soon after by Deland Police Chief Bill Ridgway for violating department protocols.[/QUOTE]

heres a link
City of DeLand, FL - William Ridgway
 
If you wish to discuss this as a topic, feel free to start a thread on it. Otherwise, any further post along this line of debate/discuassion would be derailing to the topic of this thread.

My bad. I digress. You may continue your psychopathic analysis of how people should be killed for no apparent reason.
 
1.) false if it violates protocol which this did.

The very question addresses the issue of protocal


besides the obvious engine rev and no evidence of using brakes

1) heard no engine rev

2) as stated in the beginning, the window of action was very small


tend to agree but recklessness, violating protocol is all that is needed for a crime.

The family is claiming it was intentional
 
all the ones he was factually fired for violating, a common sense guess would be pursuit protocols, ask his chief

“The actions taken by officer Harris that night are not consistent with our department’s training, directives or accepted practices or techniques,” Chief of Police William E. Ridgway said in a statement.
Harris was fired soon after by Deland Police Chief Bill Ridgway for violating department protocols.
heres a link
City of DeLand, FL - William Ridgway

This is the same chief whose department according to the OP article,

"...are conducting an internal review of the incident. This week, law enforcement officials have been going over more than 2,000 documents to determine whether appropriate tactics were used, whether police policies were followed and if those policies reflect the best way to deal with similar situations." Again, how was he fired for not following protocol when the department is not even investigating until this week whether policies were followed or not?

I'm asking you because you are the one that stated

The video was viewed and it was clear protocol was violated so he was terminated. im fine with that, im actually great with that.

1.) false if it violates protocol which this did. his pursuit can continue on foot. like the other senior office knew and choose to do. Protocol determines this and this is why he was fired, he violated protocol.
 
1.)The very question addresses the issue of protocal
2.) heard no engine rev

3.)) as stated in the beginning, the window of action was very small




4.) The family is claiming it was intentional

1.) there is no question though, the answer has been determined and protocol was violated hence the statements by his department and his firing. so wanting to know what this individual ran has no impact to the story
2.) then you need your hearing check, your ISP is poor, your speakers arent quality and or you need to listen again. Many heard it here and a couple articles comment on it. Its very obvious that the engine REVS. we could debate WHY it does but it revs.
3.) meaningless really for a couple reason

if he follows protocol no need to worry about this
if he was really worried about stopping he should have already been breaking, the guy falling is meaningless to the fence right behind him. if the guy doesnt fall the cop still hits the fence no doubt without some type of lucky power slide.
even after impact there doesnt seem to be a great hurry to stop, now this one is just my opinion.

4.) they can claim what ever they want, doesnt impact the law
 

This is the same chief whose department according to the OP article,

"...are conducting an internal review of the incident. This week, law enforcement officials have been going over more than 2,000 documents to determine whether appropriate tactics were used, whether police policies were followed and if those policies reflect the best way to deal with similar situations." Again, how was he fired for not following protocol when the department is not even investigating until this week whether policies were followed or not?

I'm asking you because you are the one that stated[/QUOTE]

already answered this in an earlier post, the extra investigation is being conducted now because of the possible escalation . its to see if there can be a trail without the corners report, this isnt hard to understand

nothing has changed and deflecting from that isnt going to work.

write the chief and get back to us and let us know
 
My bad. I digress. You may continue your psychopathic analysis of how people should be killed for no apparent reason.

Who said anything about people being killed. The article references a criminal and I did mention Liberals. How is it that you someone how translate that to mean people?
 
This is the same chief whose department according to the OP article,

"...are conducting an internal review of the incident. This week, law enforcement officials have been going over more than 2,000 documents to determine whether appropriate tactics were used, whether police policies were followed and if those policies reflect the best way to deal with similar situations." Again, how was he fired for not following protocol when the department is not even investigating until this week whether policies were followed or not?

I'm asking you because you are the one that stated

already answered this in an earlier post, the extra investigation is being conducted now because of the possible escalation . its to see if there can be a trail without the corners report, this isnt hard to understand

nothing has changed and deflecting from that isnt going to work.

write the chief and get back to us and let us know

Not deflecting. Try reading the quoted portion. It says the department is investigating whether or not policies were followed. It does not say that they are investigating further, ie additional, policies were not followed. As written it clearly denotes that the department is just now investigating it, not that it is investigating additional failures to follow policy.

Further, you declared the violation of procedure, you did not quote, you did not reference or anyway declare that you were referencing anything but rather was making the statement yourself.
 
It's obvious that the officer didn't attempt to brake, even if he did not accelerate. It would have been quite possible to stop without hitting the guy, even after going after him on the grass. Furthermore, you can see that the car was stopped very suddenly by impacting a chain-link fence, visible just before the suspect was struck by the car.

We have a court system. Suspects are to be brought in front of a judge to determine their crimes and sentence, alive and intact. This officer did nothing to prevent his vehicle from striking the suspect at a high rate of speed, while the only threat to said officer was his reckless and criminal behavior.

It's somewhat reassuring to see that the department fired him, at least.
 
Last edited:
1.) there is no question though, the answer has been determined and protocol was violated hence the statements by his department and his firing. so wanting to know what this individual ran has no impact to the story
2.) then you need your hearing check, your ISP is poor, your speakers arent quality and or you need to listen again. Many heard it here and a couple articles comment on it. Its very obvious that the engine REVS. we could debate WHY it does but it revs.
3.) meaningless really for a couple reason

if he follows protocol no need to worry about this
if he was really worried about stopping he should have already been breaking, the guy falling is meaningless to the fence right behind him. if the guy doesnt fall the cop still hits the fence no doubt without some type of lucky power slide.
even after impact there doesnt seem to be a great hurry to stop, now this one is just my opinion.

4.) they can claim what ever they want, doesnt impact the law

Yes, the engine revs, however, there is not a way to determine why. So you admit that you are assuming the engine revs because of acceleration and not because of reduction of load when drive wheel/s spin or are bounced out of contact.
 
Not deflecting. Try reading the quoted portion. It says the department is investigating whether or not policies were followed. It does not say that they are investigating further, ie additional, policies were not followed. As written it clearly denotes that the department is just now investigating it, not that it is investigating additional failures to follow policy.

Further, you declared the violation of procedure, you did not quote, you did not reference or anyway declare that you were referencing anything but rather was making the statement yourself.

yes i have read it, and it doesn't change anything this additional investigation is about pursuing further matters, criminal matters. The articles refer to the request for a further and deeper internal investigations

wrong doings were already established for the firing now they are looking at how much wrong doing to see if there can be criminal charges, pretty simple

let us know what the chief wants to add to his comments. You got the link right and what he said"
here it is again
“The actions taken by officer Harris that night are not consistent with our department’s training, directives or accepted practices or techniques,” Chief of Police William E. Ridgway said in a statement.
Harris was fired soon after by Deland Police Chief Bill Ridgway for violating department protocols.

City of DeLand, FL - William Ridgway



im content with the firing based on facts that protocols were violated, you seem like you are not, try contacting him let us know what he says.
 
Not deflecting. Try reading the quoted portion. It says the department is investigating whether or not policies were followed. It does not say that they are investigating further, ie additional, policies were not followed. As written it clearly denotes that the department is just now investigating it, not that it is investigating additional failures to follow policy.

Further, you declared the violation of procedure, you did not quote, you did not reference or anyway declare that you were referencing anything but rather was making the statement yourself.
Generally speaking, police chiefs are responsible for oversight of their officers. If the chief says you violated procedure, you violated procedure.
 
1.)Yes, the engine revs
2.) however, there is not a way to determine why.
3.) So you admit that you are assuming the engine revs because of acceleration and not because of reduction of load when drive wheel/s spin or are bounced out of contact.

1.) yes this is definitely a fact
2.) i pointed that out in one of my first posts
3.) not assuming anything just pointing out its possible evidence as i posted in post 17 and 19 below.

yeah the link is posted now and of course i cant be certain either because it could be one of those instances where the gas was hit on accident in a panic or he threw his car in neutral and hit the brake.

But the engine definitely revs hard.

thats a good point too, hard to tell on not flat terrain but yeah you would expect a dip like at the end.

please keep up, your mistake.
 
1.) there is no question though, the answer has been determined and protocol was violated hence the statements by his department and his firing. so wanting to know what this individual ran has no impact to the story

Learn to follow a discussion

you wrote:
running from the cops period is stupid but that alone has no impact to the story



my reply was :
Well, there are clear instances where the police would have a justifiable interest in pursuing the guy. But they seem absent from this particular case

you replied:
Yes but again that alone has no impact to this story.

If you are still having difficulty, the central issue here was that the cop violated department procedure giving a high speed pursuit when it wasn't justified. This is why he was suspended.

Now, if we remove that, and he has a basis for pursuit, clearly it would impact the story


2.) then you need your hearing check

So you're talking about the engine revving that happened during a pursuit and the perp wasn't directly in from of the car at the time? Citing that as evidence of intentionally hitting him ignores the fact that if one is pursuing someone the aim is to catch them. One of the ways this would be facilitated would be by increasing speed. How you characterized it made it sound as if the engine was reved when the individual was directly in front of the car, wehich is simply not the case.

So maybe the issue here is your ability to form coherent and logical thoughts, which seems to be absent

3.) meaningless really for a couple reason

Of course it is relevent. Because it highlights the difference between the act being intentional (as the family is claiming) as opposed to negligence


4.) they can claim what ever they want, doesnt impact the law

no one said it did, sherlock. But it's clearly the family pursuing charges here and the article in the OP is about them doing such ...
 
It's obvious that the officer didn't attempt to brake, even if he did not accelerate. It would have been quite possible to stop without hitting the guy, even after going after him on the grass.

What are you basing that one? His window of opportunity seemed 2-3 seconds at most(being very generous here)
 
1.)Learn to follow a discussion

you wrote:



my reply was :

you replied:

If you are still having difficulty, the central issue here was that the cop violated department procedure giving a high speed pursuit when it wasn't justified. This is why he was suspended.

Now, if we remove that, and he has a basis for pursuit, clearly it would impact the story




So you're talking about the engine revving that happened during a pursuit and the perp wasn't directly in from of the car at the time? Citing that as evidence of intentionally hitting him ignores the fact that if one is pursuing someone the aim is to catch them. One of the ways this would be facilitated would be by increasing speed. How you characterized it made it sound as if the engine was reved when the individual was directly in front of the car, wehich is simply not the case.

So maybe the issue here is your ability to form coherent and logical thoughts, which seems to be absent



Of course it is relevent. Because it highlights the difference between the act being intentional (as the family is claiming) as opposed to negligence




no one said it did, sherlock. But it's clearly the family pursuing charges here and the article in the OP is about them doing such ...

excellent point. I wish you would follow along and im glad you quoted me cause it proves my point from my original statement you tried to shy away from. Thanks for proving me right.

so lets reflect does my original statement still stand 100%? "running from the cops period is stupid but that alone has no impact to the story"

yes it does, thanks for proving it, good job!

also i NEVER said the engine revving was evidenced of intentionally hitting. see my ealier posts only that its enough to have doubts and suspicions.

please tell me that cool line about following along, incoherent thoughts and absence of logic?
yes i agree, your post displayed all that!

this is common when you make stuff up and assume things never said. maybe your learn something this time. My guess is you will continue to assume and make up arguments in your head instead of sticking to what was actually said and facts though.

fail. thanks for the laughs. cant wait to read your next deflection and bit of fantasy. always entertaining.
 
1.) there is no question though, the answer has been determined and protocol was violated hence the statements by his department and his firing. so wanting to know what this individual ran has no impact to the story
2.) then you need your hearing check, your ISP is poor, your speakers arent quality and or you need to listen again. Many heard it here and a couple articles comment on it. Its very obvious that the engine REVS. we could debate WHY it does but it revs.
3.) meaningless really for a couple reason

if he follows protocol no need to worry about this
if he was really worried about stopping he should have already been breaking, the guy falling is meaningless to the fence right behind him. if the guy doesnt fall the cop still hits the fence no doubt without some type of lucky power slide.
even after impact there doesnt seem to be a great hurry to stop, now this one is just my opinion.

4.) they can claim what ever they want, doesnt impact the law

Also, if you're not claiming he was hit intentionally, and that it was a simple issue of negligence , then why do you keep arguing about the lack of breaking and the engine revving? These are points of evidence that point to it being beyond mere negligence and paint the action as intentional
 
so lets reflect does my original statement still stand 100%? "running from the cops period is stupid but that alone has no impact to the story"

I just explained how it has clear impact on the story. Given that if he was justified in pursuit, or not, goes along way in establishing "negligence".
 
also i NEVER said the engine revving was evidenced of intentionally hitting. see my ealier posts only that its enough to have doubts and suspicions.

That's a distinction without a difference here, being that elements of your argument concerned if it was intentional or not.
 
Also, if you're not claiming he was hit intentionally, and that it was a simple issue of negligence , then why do you keep arguing about the lack of breaking and the engine revving? These are points of evidence that point to it being beyond mere negligence and paint the action as intentional

because it it evidence of further possible crimes

since he factually revvs his engine as many people have talked about and we are discussing a video its only normal to point it out. especially when people make the absurd comment that theres "nothing" that shows intent.

that is factually not ture, revving the engine COULD show intent, we dont know that but it cant just be glossed over and ignored.

but please feel free to try and tell me what I am claiming, thats always fun with you
 
Back
Top Bottom