davidtaylorjr
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 30, 2013
- Messages
- 6,775
- Reaction score
- 1,123
- Location
- South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
running from the cops period is stupid
Excellent Point!
running from the cops period is stupid
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.
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.)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
What protocol does it "clearly" violate?
OK here it goes i got an answer from goshin and since the video is directly related to the story in question and im only posting the link with a clear warning it seems its ok.
:alertWARNING: this link contains graphic video of the impact, it is the NON-EDITED version.:alert
:stop: View discretion is advised!
DashCam Video Of Police Killing Marlon Brown With Vehicle Released | Global Grind
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.
1.) false if it violates protocol which this did.
besides the obvious engine rev and no evidence of using brakes
tend to agree but recklessness, violating protocol is all that is needed for a crime.
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
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
heres a link
City of DeLand, FL - William Ridgway
My bad. I digress. You may continue your psychopathic analysis of how people should be killed for no apparent reason.
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
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
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.
“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.
Generally speaking, police chiefs are responsible for oversight of their officers. If the chief says you violated procedure, you violated procedure.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.
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.
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.
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
running from the cops period is stupid but that alone has no impact to the story
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
Yes but again that alone has no impact to this story.
2.) then you need your hearing check
3.) meaningless really for a couple reason
4.) they can claim what ever they want, doesnt impact the law
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.
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 ...
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
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"
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.
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