• 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

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".

yes you tried and you failed it has no impact to this story, none
was protocol violated? yes
since that facts exists why he ran is meaningless. whether he stole gum or killed someone protocols were still violated.

so its meaningless to THIS STORY and that fact wont change
 
That's a distinction without a difference here, being that elements of your argument concerned if it was intentional or not.
CLEARLY different
not my argument, just saying its factually possible which it is.

im not arguing it was or wasnt just that theres evidence that makes it possible. very different. sorry your mistake.
 
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


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.

What reverence are you using that declares the investigation as an "additional" investigation by the department?
 
Generally speaking, police chiefs are responsible for oversight of their officers. If the chief says you violated procedure, you violated procedure.

No, it indicates the chief may believe there was a violation. His belief does not definitively prove that alleged violation is a fact.
 
What reverence are you using that declares the investigation as an "additional" investigation by the department?

huh?
oh never mind im guessing you mean reference? lord know i make my own share of typos
anyway based on the articles of the family asking for this and also based on common sense. since he was fired based on video alone wouldn't the internal investigation be "additional" what else would it be. He is already fired based on video alone, an internal further investigation is additional to the actions already taken not to mention the request for independent and federal..
 
So you are ok with a police officer being fired without being given due process?

As a police officer he should have been aware of the ramifications his actions may have on his employment. He has the the right to grieve and appeal. Which part of due process has been violated?
 
Obvious maybe to those who don't agree.

Criminals are a danger and/or resource drain upon society. Therefore, they must be stopped from acting criminally. Criminals can either be reformed, warehoused or removed from society permanently. I see no evidence the the criminal justice system currently in place in this country has adequate punishments or procedures to actually reform very many at all. Warehousing criminals is itself a resource drain on society. So that leaves removing those who will not reform or cannot be reformed from society as the most logical option. Anytime that a criminal is permanently removed from harming society while in the commission of a crime, it is the most efficient means of handling criminals, however since we are "civilized" we give them the option to surrender and submit to possible being reformed. Failure to submit/surrender simply removes that option and the criminal has chosen then to be permanently removed from society.

Were you potty trained at gunpoint? What happens if your dog pee's on the rug? You beat it to death with a baseball bat?

You seem to be confused about a police officer's job description. They are not a judge, a jury, or an executioner. Their job is to secure a situation out in the field in the safest, least detrimental fashion possible given the circumstances.

Killing a person for the crime of eluding in a vehicle and on foot is not only excessive punishment, it was carried out without due process.

It doesn't make it ok because you get hard watching this video; getting some kind of revenge for your own perceived slights in your life.
 
moral of the story: If you run from the cops, nothing good is going to happen to you. at best, even if you temporarily escape, you have compounded your crime. more often than not, you are just going to go to jail tired or with a kicked ass. and in rare cases, your action of running from the cops is going to get you, or someone else, killed.

but, of course, it's not your fault....it's the cop's fault for chasing you.
 
Were you potty trained at gunpoint? What happens if your dog pee's on the rug? You beat it to death with a baseball bat?

You seem to be confused about a police officer's job description. They are not a judge, a jury, or an executioner. Their job is to secure a situation out in the field in the safest, least detrimental fashion possible given the circumstances.

Killing a person for the crime of eluding in a vehicle and on foot is not only excessive punishment, it was carried out without due process.

It doesn't make it ok because you get hard watching this video; getting some kind of revenge for your own perceived slights in your life.

If my dogs are in the house, and when the were puppies and did such a thing and I caught them. They had their noses rubbed in it, got spanked and then tossed out of the house. The lasttime my male dog marked his territory in the house, he spent twenty plus hours in a pet carrier, something he dearly hates and he never, ever did it again. Too bad criminals don't learn as easily as dogs do. Hmm, could be that criminals are actually dumber animals than dogs in a lot of cases?

The problem with your theory, at least in this case, is that the killing was not intentional, nor would it have happened had the stupid criminal simply surrendered to police.

Perhaps you should practice your reading by rereading what I posted and see if this time you can actually comprehend what is written. Police apprehend, I very much understand that concept, however, sometimes, a resisting criminal gets killed resisting. They bring it upon themselves, so I have no sympathy for them.
 
If my dogs are in the house, and when the were puppies and did such a thing and I caught them. They had their noses rubbed in it, got spanked and then tossed out of the house. The lasttime my male dog marked his territory in the house, he spent twenty plus hours in a pet carrier, something he dearly hates and he never, ever did it again. Too bad criminals don't learn as easily as dogs do. Hmm, could be that criminals are actually dumber animals than dogs in a lot of cases?

The problem with your theory, at least in this case, is that the killing was not intentional, nor would it have happened had the stupid criminal simply surrendered to police.

Perhaps you should practice your reading by rereading what I posted and see if this time you can actually comprehend what is written. Police apprehend, I very much understand that concept, however, sometimes, a resisting criminal gets killed resisting. They bring it upon themselves, so I have no sympathy for them.

If you backpedal any faster you're going to warp into another dimension. You made it quite clear death was not only appropriate but desired. Not intentional huh? Nobody but the cop knows for sure what his intentions were, however the video clearly shows him to be either reckless or malicious. At a bare minimum what he did was manslaughter. There is no excuse and no need to use such wild tactics for a simple eluding offense. If he were a murder suspect you could make a case but not for something that... isn't it a misdameanor?
 
Maybe the guy should have stopped and took his $25 seatbelt fine instead of running and putting everyone's life in danger including the cops.
Easy solution. Then again...the driver was a lifetime thug who had a history of being in and out of prison. Could be he was just a teensy bit more concerned about something other than the 25$ fine.
 
One would have to consider the thought process of an individual who would resist a $25 infraction by instigating a pursuit that may have severely endangered innocent bystanders and in this case, lead to his own death. The decision to run and endanger both himself and others is what actually lead to his death, not the $25 ticket. Why did this individual actually run? A $25 ticket hardly seems a logical reason to do so. In this case and probably many others, the illogical decision to run from a minor infraction simply indicates the possibility/probability that the individual running is also involved in other, more dangerous criminal activity.

Yes, the cop could of taken down his licenses plate number and cited him later. However, by running, the criminal gave police probable cause that a crime, other than a seatbelt infraction may be occurring and the fleeing itself became a crime which endangered others.

He's a dumbass no question, but we can't run over every idiot. Not long ago, when a motorcycle rider in a nearby city was chased by the cops and crashed, it led to riots. You have to weigh the benefit to be gained by pursuing a petty criminal like this against any number of possible tragic outcomes.
 
Maybe the guy should have stopped and took his $25 seatbelt fine instead of running and putting everyone's life in danger including the cops.

Yes - I have 0 passion, here.

The guy led them on a chase and bailed - all because of a seatbelt? What in the **** was he thinking :roll:
 
Yes - I have 0 passion, here.

The guy led them on a chase and bailed - all because of a seatbelt? What in the **** was he thinking :roll:

yep between him and the ex-cop they are both morons, no need for a death though (not saying you suggested that
 
If you backpedal any faster you're going to warp into another dimension. You made it quite clear death was not only appropriate but desired. Not intentional huh? Nobody but the cop knows for sure what his intentions were, however the video clearly shows him to be either reckless or malicious. At a bare minimum what he did was manslaughter. There is no excuse and no need to use such wild tactics for a simple eluding offense. If he were a murder suspect you could make a case but not for something that... isn't it a misdameanor?

No backpedaling. Apparently you did not read all my posts. And yes, personally, but not as a mater of policy, I do believe that death to dangerous criminals is not only appropriate but desired. You don't put rabid dogs in cages, you put them down, permanently. That way, just like these criminals, they never are again a threat to anyone.

While there is not much I care for in deeply Islamic societies, I do indeed like they way they handle some criminals. I have issues on what they define as criminal activity, but not much in how they handle criminals. Go to Riyadh, during prayer call, you will see all kinds of shops open and unattended, some with even millions of dollars of inventory laying out. Try that in a US city. Saudi Arabia has a murder rate of 1 per 100,000, the US has 4.7.

The seat belt infraction was a minor. However, had he lived, he probably would of been charged with felony fleeing, because when he did he disregard public safety and endangered others.

I didn't see any recklessness or maliciousness. The only reason that criminal was not a "murderer" was he got lucky and didn't kill anyone while he was fleeing.
 
While there is not much I care for in deeply Islamic societies, I do indeed like they way they handle some criminals. I have issues on what they define as criminal activity, but not much in how they handle criminals. Go to Riyadh, during prayer call, you will see all kinds of shops open and unattended, some with even millions of dollars of inventory laying out. Try that in a US city. Saudi Arabia has a murder rate of 1 per 100,000, the US has 4.7.

Funny how that works with authoritarianism ...

I didn't see any recklessness or maliciousness. The only reason that criminal was not a "murderer" was he got lucky and didn't kill anyone while he was fleeing.

I'm not sure how speeding towards someone on wet grass can be described as anything but reckless
 
Funny how that works with authoritarianism ...

I trend towards Libertarian views on what should be criminal law, but also lean towards authoritarianism when it comes to punishment and enforcement.

Oh well, I also think that "cruel and unusual punishment" and the 5th Amendment should removed from the constitution and accurate and safe means of chemical interrogation should be researched and developed. Although I would support something similar to a warrant system like used for search warrants be issued prior to use of such drugs to prevent blanket use.
 
No, it indicates the chief may believe there was a violation. His belief does not definitively prove that alleged violation is a fact.
Well a police chief admitting that much is still a ****ing miracle in and of itself.

Also, have you not watched the video? It clearly shows the former officer making no attempt to avoid striking the victim with his vehicle at a potentially lethal velocity, and that he drove straight into both the suspect and a chain link fence. As a result, both were trapped beneath the vehicle.

Any department where that alone isn't a violation is a goddamn disgrace. Not to mention that the bumper most likely hit the guy in the head or neck.

There is no reason to assume that the police chief has not seen the footage.
 
What are you basing that one? His window of opportunity seemed 2-3 seconds at most(being very generous here)

If you can't react to a threat within 2-3 seconds, you don't belong on the road, period. It can also be clearly seen that the vehicle does not slow down in relation to its surroundings or change course to avoid a collision when it was entirely possible, and other police vehicles are seen to do so in the video.
 
If you can't react to a threat within 2-3 seconds, you don't belong on the road, period.

1) as I said, I was being generous with his window of opportunity there.

2) not belonging on the road doesn't indicate it was intentional

3) you're overplaying it: I doubt most people would have reacted in time, including you

It can also be clearly seen that the vehicle does not slow down in relation to its surroundings or change course to avoid a collision when it was entirely possible, and other police vehicles are seen to do so in the video.

1) ugh, there are no other police cars visible at that point of the video

2) Under those circumstances I can't see many people reacting in time, which is why the circumstances created by the chase are so dangerous and obviously reckless
 
1) as I said, I was being generous with his window of opportunity there.

2) not belonging on the road doesn't indicate it was intentional

3) you're overplaying it: I doubt most people would have reacted in time, including you



1) ugh, there are no other police cars visible at that point of the video

2) Under those circumstances I can't see many people reacting in time, which is why the circumstances created by the chase are so dangerous and obviously reckless

There is footage of at least one other police car stopping and approaching on foot from a safe distance. The driver of the car with the camera is still a complete idiot, even if he had no malicious intent.
 
There is footage of at least one other police car stopping and approaching on foot from a safe distance.

Yes, but you clearly made it sound like the other cop car was breaking in similar condition, as it approached the suspect within similar time and space constraints (hence, the attempt to draw a comparison between the two). That is simply not true

The driver of the car with the camera is still a complete idiot, even if he had no malicious intent.

I'm not sure why you would get the idea that I thought his actions were reasonable, being that I keep calling them things like "stupid, dangerous, moronic, and reckless".
 
was that an attempt at wit? If so it might have gone over better if you didn't choose such a complete **** genre like modern country, that seems to take the bollywood approach to music making: pack a bunch of cheezy cliches in one package, while losing all context on what made them interesting to begin with

 
Back
Top Bottom