Local Squid Runs From Cop

[gt_turbo]

http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/125711403.html

July 17, 2011 |(51) Comments

A 29-year-old man was killed and three people were injured in a motorcycle accident in Milwaukee's Bay View neighborhood Saturday night.

Milwaukee police says preliminary investigation indicates that the motorcycle rider rode at a high speed and struck an occupied car in the intersection of S. Kinnickinnic and E. Clement avenues at about 10:15 p.m.

Flight for Life was called to the accident, but the driver of the motorcycle was pronounced dead at the scene. Three people in the auto sustained non-life-threatening injuries and were taken to hospitals for treatment.

Milwaukee police are still investigating.

In the comments section, witnesses at the scene report the guy was wearing a white T, no gear, and no helmet. He was also speeding at an estimated 80 MPH on residential streets before being clocked by a cop. The cop then pursued the biker and then the biker decided to out run the cop. Witnesses say they heard the bike howl even louder as the squid tried to weave in and out of traffic. He ended up crashing into the side of a car that was doing a right turn a few blocks up.

update:

The operator of a motorcycle who was killed when the bike slammed into a car in Bay View was identified by the Milwaukee County medical examiner's office Wednesday as Reynold Allen Pamaska.

Pamaska was killed Saturday when the 2004 Suzuki GSXR he was riding slammed into a car at S. Kinnickinnic and E. Clement avenues, according to a medical examiner's report.

Police witnessed Pamaska, 29, heading south on Kinnickinnic Ave. at more than 100 mph shortly after 10 p.m., the report said.

Two other officers in a northbound squad who also saw the cycle heading south turned around and began following it. The squad then pulled behind the cycle after Pamaska stopped in the 2600 block of S. Kinnickinnic.

Pamaska then looked over his shoulder and saw the squad before taking off at a high rate of speed, the report said. The officers followed and activated the squad's emergency lights but shut them off when they saw the cycle veering into northbound traffic.

The officers lost sight of Pamaska but continued south until they came to Clement Ave., where the cycle had struck a 1995 Chevy Beretta crossing the southbound lane.

Milwaukee firefighters had to cut the roof off the car to extricate three occupants, who were taken to the hospital.

Pamaska, who was found on a sidewalk, was pronounced dead at the scene. The cycle was found on top of a parked vehicle down the street.

[the big mike]

well, he's dead now...... (Those dots stand for emoticons which I can't decide to choose)

[SSR]

Darwin's theory

[Buffalony]

Crack Kills

[haze5736]

I've always wondered why people call these types of incidents accidents.

[YORCHI]

maybe he'll make it to the next "World's Dumbest Criminals" show

[rockNroll]

Originally Posted by haze5736

I've always wondered why people call these types of incidents accidents.

Why do they call most vehicle crashes accidents? They are almost never accidental.

[Jinx250]

Originally Posted by rockNroll

Why do they call most vehicle crashes accidents? They are never accidental.

Fixed it for ya.

[Bosgarage57]

It sucks, I feel sorry for the family and the people in the car. Its bad people like that are what the media and non-riders see though and give the good 'uns a bad name. You gotta think though, if it was just a speeding ticket would you run, or was it something more..............?

[blink]

Maybe he was suicidal and wanted to have fun dying. Honestly as bad as it sounds he didn't give a **** how he did it =[ Even at the expense of others.
People need to have more feelings

[reaubideux]

Originally Posted by rockNroll

Why do they call most vehicle crashes accidents? They are almost never accidental.

Sorry to get off-topic, I actually debated this with my wife yesterday. If you've ever seen the movie Hot Fuzz, there's a scene in the movie where Simon Pegg's character explains how there are no accidents only collisions. Anytime someone says "accident" in reference to a wreck I always think of this scene.

Ultimately, point being that by calling a collision an "accident" it implies there's no one at fault whereas in any traffic collision there was always someone at fault and while they did not intend to cause the wreck they are still responsible for the events that resulted in the collision. You don't accidentally start texting your girlfriend and side-swipe the car next to you as you drifted over into their lane. You intentionally chose to pull out your phone and take your focus off operating your vehicle. You may have accidentally not stopped in time and rear-end a car, but you consciously chose to ride too close to them and didn't have enough time to stop before hitting their car after they slammed on their brakes.

My wife works in insurance with this stuff and just argued with some reasons about why it's called an "accident" and a threw some insurance jargon at me. I just rolled my eyes and dropped it, didn't feel like arguing that just b/c the industry labels it as such means it's right, just that the industry chose to name it as such.

Not saying I'm absolutely right on the matter, just that I will always vehemently disagree on calling them "accidents" when it's clear that it could've been avoided.

To the point of the OP, feel bad for those injured and family of the rider having to deal with his loss. For the rider himself, seriously moron... you can't outrun a radio, don't ever bother trying to run from the cops.

[CC Cowboy]

Jason, what if it is a one vehicle occurance?

On a different note; I hate we people say "on accident" instead of "by accident". There is no "on accident", there is only "on purpose".

[Clearlynotstefan]

"on accident" KILLS ME TOO

[rockNroll]

Originally Posted by CC Cowboy

what if it is a one vehicle occurance?

There's always another vehicle, bike, deer or other animal, that fled the scene after causing the crash.

[blink]

They are never accidental..NEVER

[gt_turbo]

Originally Posted by rockNroll

There's always another vehicle, bike, deer or other animal, that fled the scene after causing the crash.

not true. one of the most common causes of motorcycle crashes is the user not knowing how to control their bike.

[KawiKid860]

They are never accidental..NEVER

I find that incredibly ignorant to say. The point of calling it an accident is that no one meant it to happen, it doesn't mean no ones at fault and no one has responsibility, it just means that whoever caused it didn't mean to. People make mistakes and it seems like everyone in here has a 'holier-than-thou' attitude about it. If someone is texting and side swipes you, well they didn't mean to hit you but regardless its their fault, still an accident (and an easily avoidable one at that). Now swerving in and out of traffic doing 80 in a residential is just flat out stupid and the guy honestly had it coming, he was either suicidal or stupid...

[ducducgooseit]

[n4mwd]

One of the commenters had an interesting statistic, but he didn't say where he got it from. "20% of motorcycle accidents are the rider's fault and 80% of them are the driver's fault."

If the 80% is true, then I wonder how many of them are because of driver stupidity and how many were on purpose.

Just the other day, I got caught in the rain on a 2 lane road and a driver in front of me slowed way down. Then I went to pass him and the guy jerked over in the other lane just as I was passing. I got by OK, but there was no reason for him to do that other than to mess with me. There was nobody in front of him and no place for him to turn.

I'm recalling the video of the redneck in the pickup truck in Kentucky.

[rockNroll]

Originally Posted by gt_turbo

not true. one of the most common causes of motorcycle crashes is the user not knowing how to control their bike.

think about it for a moment

[gt_turbo]

Originally Posted by rockNroll

think about it for a moment

not understanding your logic at all. if only one vehicle is involved in a collision, how is it not classified as a single vehicle collision? you've never heard of a person losing control of their vehicle and hitting a tree. is that not a single vehicle collision? is the tree considered another vehicle? did the tree somehow flee the scene?

[CThunder-blue]

You guys are arguing semantics. What's the point? Although I tend to agree with Murphey.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accident

ac·ci·dent
noun \ˈak-sə-dənt, -ˌdent; ˈaks-dənt\
Definition of ACCIDENT
1
a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance b : lack of intention or necessity : chance <met by accident rather than by design>
2
a : an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance b : an unexpected and medically important bodily event especially when injurious <a cerebrovascular accident> c : an unexpected happening causing loss or injury which is not due to any fault or misconduct on the part of the person injured but for which legal relief may be sought d —used euphemistically to refer to an involuntary act or instance of urination or defecation
3
: a nonessential property or quality of an entity or circumstance <the accident of nationality>

When a collision happens and it was UNINTENTIONAL, then it is also an accident. The term accident is used to describe scenes of collisions by 3rd parties in case they don't know who's at fault.

If a child spills milk, it's still spilled milk. If the child didn't do it on purpose, would you call it an accident?

Frankly, you can call it a collision or an accident. People will still understand what you mean in either case. For those of you who believe that there are never accidents, would you also say that the people who drop their bikes because they forgot their kickstand wasn't down, dropped them on purpose? There are only 2 ways we do things. Either on purpose or by accident.

[rockNroll]

Originally Posted by gt_turbo

not understanding your logic at all. if only one vehicle is involved in a collision, how is it not classified as a single vehicle collision? you've never heard of a person losing control of their vehicle and hitting a tree. is that not a single vehicle collision? is the tree considered another vehicle? did the tree somehow flee the scene?

I sorry gt_turbo, lemmie explain...

Seems that many people that fall down with their motorcycle because they screwed up have the excuse that a deer ran out in front of them, a dog... a car got too close, etc. Even though he/she was alone in the crash, they still like to throw out the "it wasn't my fault" lines. Get it?

Tri, it had nothing to do with semantics, though whipppin out them big words is kinda cool

[Liber]

My mom says that I was an accident, but I'm pretty sure that the collision between my mom and dad was intentional.

[gatito]

my mom say's the same thing to me...

[CThunder-blue]

Originally Posted by Liber

My mom says that I was an accident, but I'm pretty sure that the collision between my mom and dad was intentional.

What if they were drunk?

[Liber]

Originally Posted by CThunder-blue

What if they were drunk?

Good thing they didn't get caught, they might have gotten a FUI.

[alex.s]

so what would you call a single-vehicle collision into a tree caused by a blown tire? still not accidental? what about if a pedestrian is walking on the sidewalk and accidentally trips on their own foot and falls infront of a car and the car is unable to swerve or stop in time? still not accidental? what if you're driving and a meteor hits your car? still not accidental? surely libers parents had access to coat-hangers... still accidental?

ok that last one might be too far but i laughed for a good minute at his comment.

[reaubideux]

Originally Posted by CC Cowboy

Jason, what if it is a one vehicle occurance?

I just re-read my post and realized I didn't specifically state I was really only referring to collisions when multiple cars are involved. I thought I had when I was typing up my response, I actually did mention it in my debate with my wife that I was really only referring to car-on-car action.

I wouldn't really no what else to call it other than an "accident" if a deer jumped out in front of your car and you had zero time to react so you just hit it. If you have time to react then that could open up a can of worms; if you swerve and miss the deer but hit a parked car then would it be called an "accident" (by my definition ) still? You intentionally chose (albeit a split-second, knee-jerk type of reaction/decision) to swerve versus just slamming on your brakes. Since it was your decision to swerve and you ended up hitting a car you'd still be negligent and arguably not an "accident" at that point.

Originally Posted by CThunder-blue

You guys are arguing semantics.

ABSOLUTELY! I know I'm arguing semantics, ultimately, my whole argument is my opinion on how a traffic "accident" is defined. I'm not saying that we need to rewrite the dictionary, or traffic laws, etc. My whole argument surrounds how a traffic accident is defined, not how the word "accident" is defined. To me, if human-error was the cause of the collision than it wasn't an "accident" it was negligence. An accident is when the factors causing the collision are beyond any human control and the only end-result would be an unavoidable collision. You're texting your g/f while driving and hit someone, you intentionally distracted yourself and you're negligence caused the incident, you had control over the circumstances yet your decisions caused an undesirable outcome. A rock falls off a rock wall next to the highway, rolls onto the road and you hit it, that's an accident, you can't control that the rock fell into the road.

[Liber]

Originally Posted by alex.s

surely libers parents had access to coat-hangers... still accidental?

The real question is, at what point do you go from being an accident to a mistake?

[gt_turbo]

Originally Posted by rockNroll

I sorry gt_turbo, lemmie explain...

Seems that many people that fall down with their motorcycle because they screwed up have the excuse that a deer ran out in front of them, a dog... a car got too close, etc. Even though he/she was alone in the crash, they still like to throw out the "it wasn't my fault" lines. Get it?

Tri, it had nothing to do with semantics, though whipppin out them big words is kinda cool

rock - you are talking about causes for a crash. of course there is always a cause and effect for everything. my argument was that there is such a thing as a single vehicle crash. cowboy had said something about "what if its a single vehicle crash" and then you commented to him that "there is no such thing as a single vehicle crash..." well when only one vehicle crashes into a wall for example, its a single vehicle crash no matter what the cause was. yes there was a cause for the vehicle to crash into the wall, but its still classified as a single vehicle crash.

[rockNroll]

Originally Posted by gt_turbo

rock - you are talking about causes for a crash. of course there is always a cause and effect for everything. my argument was that there is such a thing as a single vehicle crash. cowboy had said something about "what if its a single vehicle crash" and then you commented to him that "there is no such thing as a single vehicle crash..." well when only one vehicle crashes into a wall for example, its a single vehicle crash no matter what the cause was. yes there was a cause for the vehicle to crash into the wall, but its still classified as a single vehicle crash.

Vrooom! Have an excellent day

[Reddoak]

Originally Posted by rockNroll

There's always another vehicle, bike, deer or other animal, that fled the scene after causing the crash.

Not always. Last Sunday, while driving on Interstate 10 just east of Tallahassee (in my 1 week old brand new Outback, no less) a full grown oak tree fell on the car. I was going 60 (in a 70, it was raining hard and I'm cautious) with no vehicles near me. I spotted it about 25 feet off the ground, falling towards us. I swerved hard to the left, missing the majority of it, but it still caught the corner of the windshield, breaking it; damaging the roof rack, and scratching the paint in various places down the side of the car. I managed to correct from the avoidance maneuver, straightening the car out and then braking. The tree did not flee the scene. It remained, blocking the entire right hand lane, and put a few branches in the left lane for good measure.

This was a one vehicle accident. The tree did not hit me on purpose. I hope. Since I was going an appropriate speed for the conditions, and actually trying to stay away from other vehicles, and paying attention to conditions and surroundings... I feel I did everything correct. The only way for me to actively avoid this, would be to never leave the house.


Accidents happen. Even with one vehicle. It's rare, I'll grant that, but sometimes random **** just happens.

[Reddoak]

Scared the crap out of me and the wife, though. We both each almost had an accident in the seats...

[ChaosFromAbove]

is it just me or did anyone else think "squid on a gsxr" when they read the first quote?

normally i'd be sympathetic to a motorcycle fatality victim....but hey, Darwin was right...

[n4mwd]

At the same time, anyone who thinks that only speeding squids with no helmet can get killed, are squids themselves.

Helmets and gear save lives, but they don't make you invincible.

Biker takes back seat

[ChaosFromAbove]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

At the same time, anyone who thinks that only speeding squids with no helmet can get killed, are squids themselves.

Helmets and gear save lives, but they don't make you invincible.

Biker takes back seat

No, but they do reduce your chance of a fatal accident...and i don't think anyone is saying that only squids with no gear who drive fast are gonna die...but hey ya know what, i like to ride fast, guess i'm a squid

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by ChaosFromAbove

No, but they do reduce your chance of a fatal accident...and i don't think anyone is saying that only squids with no gear who drive fast are gonna die...but hey ya know what, i like to ride fast, guess i'm a squid

The reason I posted that was because some of these threads go like this:

a) OP posts something like "Biker Gets Killed because he wasn't wearing a helmet".

b) Someone else posts something like "He was asking for it with no helmet" and "Evolution at its finest."

While its true that helmets and gear save lives, the tone of some of these threads seems like people have the attitude that "Bad things aren't going to happen to me because I am smart and I wear a helmet."

So ride safe, ride with a helmet + ATGYCA (All The Gear You Can Afford), but don't delude yourself into thinking that it makes you invincible.

[ChaosFromAbove]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

The reason I posted that was because some of these threads go like this:

a) OP posts something like "Biker Gets Killed because he wasn't wearing a helmet".

b) Someone else posts something like "He was asking for it with no helmet" and "Evolution at its finest."

While its true that helmets and gear save lives, the tone of some of these threads seems like people have the attitude that "Bad things aren't going to happen to me because I am smart and I wear a helmet."

So ride safe, ride with a helmet + ATGYCA (All The Gear You Can Afford), but don't delude yourself into thinking that it makes you invincible.

true...but to be honest, if i'm not wearing any gear other than my helmet, i'd rather not have my helmet on either, cause i don't wanna feel that wire brush or end up a veggie patch kid. lol