"ticket? i'll just run him over..."

[dfox]

Originally Posted by Aggrotech

this is why 'Murikas judicial system is a joke and completely flawed. if he had nothing to hide he shouldnt have been running away.

the outrage isn't that he pursued the dirt-bikers, it's the deadly force that the officer used to "apprehend" the suspects. Hitting someone on a motorcycle intentionally with a car is worthy of murder, and lots of other charges. If that were you or I that hit him, we'd be sitting in jail for sure.

But nobody knows what these guys were guilty of. did they shoot at the officer 10 mins earlier? did they hold up a store at gun point? did they run a traffic light? was it just for riding an unregistered vehicle on the road? we don't know at this point, but it's a joke to think that deadly force was required based on the video clips that we've seen.

[lgk]

Originally Posted by Aggrotech

28 years old... dumb enough to run from the cops...for who knows what reason. the first video posted the guy wont answer the reporters question..its simple.

were you running from the cops? Yes, yes you were. this is why 'Murikas judicial system is a joke and completely flawed. if he had nothing to hide he shouldnt have been running away.

He can't incriminate himself, but not saying anything makes him seem like he's hiding something... especially when there video of the entire event and them breaking multiple laws.

the judicial system gives the most leeway out of any in the world. i don't see this as being bad, just that sometimes law is too complex for normal people to understand.

[n4mwd]

Its hard to tell in the video, but it didn't look like they had any weapons of any sort. Barring that, deadly force by the cops is not warranted.

Around here, cops are not allowed to shoot fleeing suspects in the back with very few exceptions. A car is a deadly weapon and when used against a biker, just as deadly as a gun.

The cop should stand trial for murder. If there are any mitigating facts, they will come out at trial.

[rjones91]

No matter what...this is very sad. A cop should never attempt to ram a bike from behind. I don't run from the police as it will never end good, but I think the officer used poor judgement as it could have been worse if there were innocent bystanders waiting on the sidewalk. Its an unfortunate situation as a life was lost and a family is grieving....

[lgk]

Originally Posted by rjones91

i don't run from the police as it will never end good.

you might be able to outrun a car but its real hard to out run a radio.

But the weird thing is the its news said the biker was hit twice....
How is that even possible?

[dfox]

Originally Posted by lgk

you might be able to outrun a car but its real hard to out run a radio.

But the weird thing is the its news said the biker was hit twice....
How is that even possible?

watch the video... first contact made when the cop sideswiped the dirtbike. second contact made when he rammed them from behind.

[lgk]

OK, I see it now...

the guy that got hit first got up ran and jumped onto the other bike, then they both got hit.

[Aggrotech]

Originally Posted by lgk

He can't incriminate himself

He incriminated himself the very second he drove away from the police car. and if that isnt enough, theres the video of him picking up his brother and trying to get away again. this is the issue, instead of trying to mind**** everyone on the "other side" just be honest, man up and say you fcking did it. I bet this whole case is going to waste so much time/money trying to make the survivor look like the biggest law abiding citizen you've ever seen. so much money being wasted every year based on that mindset its absolutely ridiculous.

[alex.s]

Originally Posted by Aggrotech

He incriminated himself the very second he drove away from the police car. and if that isnt enough, theres the video of him picking up his brother and trying to get away again. this is the issue, instead of trying to mind**** everyone on the "other side" just be honest, man up and say you fcking did it. I bet this whole case is going to waste so much time/money trying to make the survivor look like the biggest law abiding citizen you've ever seen. so much money being wasted every year based on that mindset its absolutely ridiculous.

here is my problem with what you are saying... the logic of your statement is that if police think you are a criminal, it doesn't matter what kind of due process you are entitled to, you deserve full force retaliation using lethal force (ramming with a car) in order to insure that *potential* punishment is issued. not even guaranteed punishment, since the trial hasn't happened. the end result of what you are saying is that you want to abandon our courts --a right given to us by the bill of rights-- in favor of individual judgement by police. it is this type of mindset that breeds things like facism. UR A NAZI! :P

[lgk]

Originally Posted by Aggrotech

He incriminated himself the very second he drove away from the police car. and if that isnt enough, theres the video of him picking up his brother and trying to get away again. this is the issue, instead of trying to mind**** everyone on the "other side" just be honest, man up and say you fcking did it. I bet this whole case is going to waste so much time/money trying to make the survivor look like the biggest law abiding citizen you've ever seen. so much money being wasted every year based on that mindset its absolutely ridiculous.

Sadly its the way it works.
whether he's right or wrong, he takes advantage of society's fairness and resources...

owning up to your mistakes is a 20th century concept...

[fatestkid]

Originally Posted by xSean13

What do you mean? My name is Unregistered

Sup bro?

[n4mwd]

Well, I saw two guys on the dirt bike. ONE of them, the driver, was guilty of driving an unlicensed/unregistered vehicle on the road. Around here, that's about a $100 fine. The other guy, the passenger, was not guilty of anything because he was not in control of the bike. The cop elected to kill both of them to get at the guilty one.

Likewise, in a rear ender, the guy in the back will likely get the worst of it because he is thrown backwards into the car's windshield and the driver uses the back guy as a cushion. Of course that's assuming the cop didn't keep going and run them both over. From what I've seen, that's likely.

And just to stir the pot, instead of performing first aid that might have saved the guy's life, the cop chose to handcuff him and just sit there and gloat.

[Alex]

Alex - your outrage over police behavior, yet continued defense of someone breaking the law in front of the police, puts you in the position of having to link everything to slippery slope type arguments. I.E. - something bad happened here, therefore the police are in the wrong, and not the initial wrongdoer, as something worse happened to him than should have happened. The problem with taking that stance in all cases under any circumstance, and pardoning all wrongdoing based on economic status / racism / mommy didn't love me type reasons, is that you find yourself quickly arguing for anarchy, at the exact opposite end of the fascism that you imply we're already under. If the right answer is to always run from the police, and the right answer is for the police to ultimately have limited or no ability to keep wrongdoers from running from the police, these same individuals don't suddenly live in a world of bliss and freedom. They live in a world of criminals. Just as you are stating that the actions of the police cause people to behave a certain way, the inactions when dealing with crime can and would cause people to behave a certain way as well. Anarchy isn't better than a police state. A police state isn't better than anarchy. They both suck. Which is why there is an attempted balance of those competing forces along the way. If you're a criminal in a crappy part of town intentionally running from police, it behooves you to either successfully get away, or stop running. Nobody likes ending up dead.

[n4mwd]

Um, you might want to look at this before saying the cops are innocent.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fb6_1364259523

The driver of the bike, not his passenger, may have been guilty of riding a dirt bike on the street, but the penalty is not death and the cop was not entitled to make that decision.

If the kids were shooting at the cops or otherwise endangering someone's life, then it might have been justified, but it wasn't.

I hope that cop gets life.

[alex.s]

Originally Posted by Alex

Alex - your outrage over police behavior, yet continued defense of someone breaking the law in front of the police, puts you in the position of having to link everything to slippery slope type arguments. I.E. - something bad happened here, therefore the police are in the wrong, and not the initial wrongdoer, as something worse happened to him than should have happened. The problem with taking that stance in all cases under any circumstance, and pardoning all wrongdoing based on economic status / racism / mommy didn't love me type reasons, is that you find yourself quickly arguing for anarchy, at the exact opposite end of the fascism that you imply we're already under. If the right answer is to always run from the police, and the right answer is for the police to ultimately have limited or no ability to keep wrongdoers from running from the police, these same individuals don't suddenly live in a world of bliss and freedom. They live in a world of criminals. Just as you are stating that the actions of the police cause people to behave a certain way, the inactions when dealing with crime can and would cause people to behave a certain way as well. Anarchy isn't better than a police state. A police state isn't better than anarchy. They both suck. Which is why there is an attempted balance of those competing forces along the way. If you're a criminal in a crappy part of town intentionally running from police, it behooves you to either successfully get away, or stop running. Nobody likes ending up dead.

you are overlooking an important fact. we have detectives to investigate crimes. we have judges and juries to determine guilt. and we have various systems like rehab, prison, community service and lots of others to carryout punishment. police do not exist to punish people. they do not exist to exact revenge on people. they do not exist to put citizens at risk. they exist to try to maintain order and to keep the peace. not to disrupt it. look at the video and tell me who disrupted the peace and put lives at risk? lets see, guy riding a bike, cop rams him with car, guy runs and the cop chases at full speed in an area that is very tight, not allowing for much room for error, with tons of innocent citizens very close by. i would MUCH rather have more docile police and invest more heavily in investigative policework, and -- oh no! a few people don't get the tickets they should get. talk to a detective, they don't have enough time to properly look into half of the murders they are assigned, let alone find some guy that ran from the cops over a traffic ticket. why is that? why can't we do things in a peaceful way? someone runs from the cops over a traffic ticket? great. put a detective on it. don't make the entire environment dangerous for everyone involved or even nearby because "THAT GUY DESERVES HIS TICKET!"

i really don't believe it's a slipperly slope. i believe police should not be wreckless and put random citizens at risk unnecessarily. is someone shooting a gun? citizens are in danger and the guy needs to be stopped. driving an unregistered dirtbike on a sidewalk? respond with appropriate measures. stop the car, talk to him. or call for backup or something. ramming some on a bike as literally the first interaction is not something police should be doing. the cop made bad decisions, and our police setup protected him from the consequences, sending a message to police that its not as important to be correct as it is to insure punishment. i am not ok with that message.

[CynicalC]

Originally Posted by alex.s

you are overlooking an important fact. we have detectives to investigate crimes. we have judges and juries to determine guilt. and we have various systems like rehab, prison, community service and lots of others to carryout punishment. police do not exist to punish people. they do not exist to exact revenge on people. they do not exist to put citizens at risk. they exist to try to maintain order and to keep the peace. not to disrupt it. look at the video and tell me who disrupted the peace and put lives at risk? lets see, guy riding a bike, cop rams him with car, guy runs and the cop chases at full speed in an area that is very tight, not allowing for much room for error, with tons of innocent citizens very close by. i would MUCH rather have more docile police and invest more heavily in investigative policework, and -- oh no! a few people don't get the tickets they should get. talk to a detective, they don't have enough time to properly look into half of the murders they are assigned, let alone find some guy that ran from the cops over a traffic ticket. why is that? why can't we do things in a peaceful way? someone runs from the cops over a traffic ticket? great. put a detective on it. don't make the entire environment dangerous for everyone involved or even nearby because "THAT GUY DESERVES HIS TICKET!"

i really don't believe it's a slipperly slope. i believe police should not be wreckless and put random citizens at risk unnecessarily. is someone shooting a gun? citizens are in danger and the guy needs to be stopped. driving an unregistered dirtbike on a sidewalk? respond with appropriate measures. stop the car, talk to him. or call for backup or something. ramming some on a bike as literally the first interaction is not something police should be doing. the cop made bad decisions, and our police setup protected him from the consequences, sending a message to police that its not as important to be correct as it is to insure punishment. i am not ok with that message.

So in not so many words, you're saying that if people run from the police, they should just let them go right?

[n4mwd]

The thing some people are missing is that the cop aimed for the bikers, he hit the bikers, he kept going after he hit the bikers, he rammed the bikers into a curb, then backed off the biker. It wasn't accidental. It was on purpose.

It was murder.

It was no different than if the cop pulled his gun and shot them in the back. The fact that they committed a victimless crime is irrelevant. The cop didn't try to pull them over (no flashing blue lights) so they weren't technically fleeing.

To say this is OK for the cops to do this is saying its OK for cops to kill any biker that they feel may have committed a crime or is taking too long to pull over.

[CynicalC]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

The cop didn't try to pull them over (no flashing blue lights) so they weren't technically fleeing.

[alex.s]

Originally Posted by CynicalC

So in not so many words, you're saying that if people run from the police, they should just let them go right?

no. i'm saying i think police should THINK. is putting peoples lives at risk, and killing a man worth catching someone to insure they get a ticket?

you'll notice in dangerous car chases, the police actually have procedure to STOP CHASING becuase its TOO ****ING DANGEROUS

[CynicalC]

Originally Posted by alex.s

no. i'm saying i think police should THINK. is putting peoples lives at risk, and killing a man worth catching someone to insure they get a ticket?

you'll notice in dangerous car chases, the police actually have procedure to STOP CHASING becuase its TOO ****ING DANGEROUS

They don't just give up the chase, derp. They stop chasing once there's a helicopter in pursuit.

The cop made a stupid move, obviously. But he didn't intentionally kill anyone. Think of how many thousands - tens of thousands of routine traffic stops take criminals, drugs or weapons off the street. This one didn't go according to plan because dumb and dumber thought it would be fun to run from the police. Obviously being dead isn't the intended consequence for not stopping for a cop, but if he had just stopped like everyone of us law abiding citizens, his buddy would still be alive.

Zero sympathy for anyone involved.

[alex.s]

do you think anyone involved in negligence cases "intented to kill someone"? of course not that is why its called criminal negligence. he was negligent in his work and the result was someone's death. yet he has been shielded by the DA because the victim wasn't important enough.

if you don't properly punish -- and make aware that you will punish -- negligence on the part of people in positions of power, then you do nothing but breed negligence.

[alex.s]

i'll be clear if i used too many words.

just because a citizen committed a crime doesn't mean they don't still have rights.

[Alex]

You're arguing against a straw man. Nobody is saying the derp brothers on the dirtbike gave up their rights when they decided to run. But most folks are saying it was a dumb idea with some foreseeably bad consequences. Bad judgement results in bad outcomes, especially when humans are involved. Coming up with procedures that would result in zero risk to potential criminals, zero risk to the population at large, zero risk to the police charged with enforcing the law, and zero risk to everyone's individual interpretation of what rights should be defined as in each and every permutation, is a fools errand.

All of those competing priorities end up with some sense of balance. If there is some tension between where that balance should be, that's probably a good thing. It would be highly unlikely that everyone everywhere on the spectrum from criminal to mother theresa, from far right to far left, from rich to poor, would all agree on exactly where that balance lies.

[alex.s]

that straw is wrong though.

[Alex]

That's kind of the definition of a straw man argument. You hold up something that is obviously wrong, and try and equate it to what the people who are disagreeing with you are saying. Post 62 is a clear example of this, wouldn't you agree?

[alex.s]

i just want to ask you this question; is it wrong that someone in a position of power received no punishment for intentionally striking a suspect with his car? i'm talking about the first one, before the guy ran. cop rolls up, sees the bike, swerves directly at him and slams directly into him. was it correct or incorrect for him to ram a suspect with his car before trying to arrest him? if it is incorrect, is it wrong that he received no punishment for this incorrect procedure which after the second intentional ramming, resulted in a death?

to try to say "hey dont worry it'll all work out" like you are, i think is foolish. not actively striving for a better society just lets it slip away. i think there are some very obvious things that should be enforced... the right to life and liberty for example. is it considered lethal force to intentionally strike another vehicle with a police cruiser? what right does a cop have to decide to use lethal force when the suspect is not a threat to them or someone else?

[n4mwd]

Maybe one of you can explain to me exactly why you think it was an accident? I mean the second time. The cop:

1. Drove on the wrong side of the road.
2. Did not have his blue lights on.
3. Hit the bikers in the rear.
4. Did not stop the car until it would not go any further.
5. Dragged/pushed the bikers some 50 feet across an intersection.
6. Rammed them into a curb.
7. Then backed away dragging one of the bikers under the car.
8. The whole thing caught on video.

And you're saying it was an accident?

This reminds me of the time that one of Sadam Hussein's generals that got caught working for us. Sadam said he committed suicide after reflecting on the atrocities that he had committed. They found him with 5 bullet holes in his chest and no gun. Some suicide that was.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by alex.s

i just want to ask you this question; is it wrong that someone in a position of power received no punishment for intentionally striking a suspect with his car? i'm talking about the first one, before the guy ran. cop rolls up, sees the bike, swerves directly at him and slams directly into him. was it correct or incorrect for him to ram a suspect with his car before trying to arrest him? if it is incorrect, is it wrong that he received no punishment for this incorrect procedure which after the second intentional ramming, resulted in a death?

One, the public outcry will result in some type of punishment, as there's really no other choice at this point. Two, without audio, none of us have a complete picture of exactly how noncompliant the derp brothers were. If a cop car is rolling up at high speed telling them to get the hell off the bike, and they get on it and try to drive away, placing the cruiser so they can't do that is not excessive force in my mind. Prior warning is an important linchpin in that, though.

Originally Posted by alex.s

to try to say "hey dont worry it'll all work out" like you are, i think is foolish. not actively striving for a better society just lets it slip away. i think there are some very obvious things that should be enforced... the right to life and liberty for example. is it considered lethal force to intentionally strike another vehicle with a police cruiser? what right does a cop have to decide to use lethal force when the suspect is not a threat to them or someone else?

I'm all for reasonable procedures that protect the public as well as protect the police who are charged with doing a particularly challenging job. That's why there are standards around high speed chases, and actively using a car to spin another car, and levels of approval before the chase is authorized. But - those standards should never be so lax that a criminal has no fear of the police doing exactly what they are supposed to, i.e. identifying and arresting those who are breaking the law. The whole "F-- the police" attitude is very popular in teenage boys and those who think like them, but we all grow up at some point.