namelesstavern.net

So we should not use cop cars to follow chasers, but helocopters? That's a whole shit load of copters in the air at any one time if you dont want the police cars chasing.

The cops backed off. The woman still went 100 down I35.
Dont try and cover for this stupid woman. The police DID NOT step on her gas. She did. Anyone without something to hide would have pulled the fuck over and paid their god damn ticket. The fact that you are DEFENDING her is making me sick.

Get her license plate number, meet her at her house with a ticket for whatever law she broke plus tack on the ditching the police charge.

Well, everyone does around 100 mph on I-35, when it's out of urban areas.

I am not defending her or making excuses for her behavior. I'm posting a reasoned opinion on what I believe are the current issues with law enforcement rules of engagement, and the reasonings for why we allow police to behave in such a draconian way.

You interestingly ignored my points and changed a valid in depth discussion of means into a post that 'the ends' are all that counts. This woman had nothing to hide and had a mental problem, so you are wrong there. She was most likely not a danger to anyone. The cops most certainly did not back off.. They followed this woman like they do in these situations, as has been reported.

This thread reminded me of a video I saw when I was working with law enforcement:

There was a hostile situation nearby and a shabbily dressed man is walking towards you. You draw your gun and order him to lay down on the ground.

The man slowly reaches into his pocket and continutes to walk towards you... You are given a choice to fire or wait and see what happens...

The man slowly pulls out a card that reads "I am deaf, please write down anything you need to tell me."

Maybe in some people's killing this person is fine, but never in mine. To Serve and to protect....

Did I miss the part where they said she had mental probs?

Martrae wrote:Did I miss the part where they said she had mental probs?

That was my next question. I didnt hear any of that on the news.

http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/w ... 5c0cd.html

Little bit more details in this one. Appears baby was asleep on the front seat, and she was driving recklessly.

Not one ounce of sympathy for her.

No sympathy for her at all. I dont believe the police went to far on this either.

In some regards police do act too draconian in some aspects, i will agree with that. However, when given a reason to chase someone that "a speeding SUV was driving recklessly and passing on the shoulder on" they certainly have the go ahead in my view to try to get them either off the road, or pulled over. If they dont stop, in my mind, they need to use any means necessary to end their drive as soon as possible.

Police do back off in crowded areas, using other means to bring someone to a stop, i believe the correct steps were taken.

There is no telling how much countless damage or others lives lost she could have caused if they allowed it to continue.

As far as showing up at her house later, in theory that sounds great, but you have no idea who is driving that car. It could be stolen, she could have been abducted and that person is driving off, there are countless possibilities of what could have been going on in that car. Letting them go and just showing up later was not, and should not have been an option.

If you dont pull over for a cop, you should be forced to be pulled over. End of story.

Draconian or not, it needs to come to an end imho.

PS time for Darc to change her sig.....please. No more hoff.

Martrae wrote:Did I miss the part where they said she had mental probs?

You tell me.

Law officers in Somervell County had received reports that a speeding SUV was driving recklessly and passing on the shoulder on eastbound U.S. Highway 67 near Glen Rose, Trooper Gillum said.

The chase continued into Johnson County, and Cleburne police officers used spikes to try to stop the speeding vehicle. But the driver would not stop.

Johnson County deputies used spikes on the vehicle again in Keene, but the vehicle continued at speeds of more than 100 mph. Most of its tires were flat by then.

A short time later, the SUV struck a center culvert, lost control and rolled multiple times under Interstate 35, throwing the infant.

"The baby was asleep on the front seat," Trooper Gillum said.

Ms. Riza did not suffer any serious injuries in the crash.

"But she was combative after the crash when they tried to extract her out of the vehicle," Trooper Gillum said. "The officers had to wrestle her to get her under control."

She was then taken to a hospital in Cleburne, where a blood sample was taken.

"The blood sample will tell us whether there was alcohol, drugs or a prescription drugs involved," Trooper Gillum said. "It's still under investigation to determine why she would not stop for officers."

Ms. Riza did not appear to have a criminal history, nor did she have warrants for her arrest.

I second that motion

Darcler wrote:So we should not use cop cars to follow chasers, but helocopters? That's a whole shit load of copters in the air at any one time if you dont want the police cars chasing.

I was just pointing out this is a way to keep track of assholes like this while not having a high speed chase thru the city streets.

they should throw the book at this fucktard

They should just shoot all the people that takes off. That way there won't be any chase.

"Fuck the po-lice, *wicky* *wicky* fu.. fu... fu... fuck the po-lice!"

Cops probably didn't even know the baby was in there. Also, that's a freak accident, and while mom is to blame I'm sure neither the mom or the cops knew that was coming. I think the road spikes was a bad idea and that they should've just barricaded with cars but eh, I'm not a cop either.

lyion wrote:

Martrae wrote:Did I miss the part where they said she had mental probs?

You tell me.

Law officers in Somervell County had received reports that a speeding SUV was driving recklessly and passing on the shoulder on eastbound U.S. Highway 67 near Glen Rose, Trooper Gillum said.

The chase continued into Johnson County, and Cleburne police officers used spikes to try to stop the speeding vehicle. But the driver would not stop.

Johnson County deputies used spikes on the vehicle again in Keene, but the vehicle continued at speeds of more than 100 mph. Most of its tires were flat by then.

A short time later, the SUV struck a center culvert, lost control and rolled multiple times under Interstate 35, throwing the infant.

"The baby was asleep on the front seat," Trooper Gillum said.

Ms. Riza did not suffer any serious injuries in the crash.

"But she was combative after the crash when they tried to extract her out of the vehicle," Trooper Gillum said. "The officers had to wrestle her to get her under control."

She was then taken to a hospital in Cleburne, where a blood sample was taken.

"The blood sample will tell us whether there was alcohol, drugs or a prescription drugs involved," Trooper Gillum said. "It's still under investigation to determine why she would not stop for officers."

Ms. Riza did not appear to have a criminal history, nor did she have warrants for her arrest.

Drugs would explain all that too. The fact the kid wasn't in a carseat (meaning the cops couldn't SEE there was a child in the car) coupled with her erratic driving and refusal to stop means the cops really did nothing wrong.

From what I understand, there's a lot of municipalities that don't allow police to do high speed pursuits in a populated area, unless the person they're chasing is a suspect in a violent crime. After all, letting a guy with expired registration tags get away at 120mph is quite a bit different than letting a rapist or murderer get away.

That's a fairly good balance, I think, ultimately. Minimizes the risks to innocent civilians, while making sure you don't let the REAL criminals get away. Honestly, from what (admittedly little) I've seen on the subject, sometimes people with no reason to run from the cops do so. People with nothing on their record, nothing illegal in the car, will go berserk trying to escape from a cop for something as trivial as a speeding ticket or a fix-it ticket for a busted break light. Sure it makes no sense, but oft times, the people that run can't give you a good reason why they did it either. Some weird psychological impact from misplaced use of the fight or flight reflex, maybe.

-Arlos

The possibility that they are running for a more serious reason is always present, and probable. Allowing them to run and get them at a later time isn't practical.

Yeah, but it's not just a risk for the fleeing person and the officer. What about the completely innocent bystanding family of 4, with 2 small children, driving across an intersection with the green light, only to get T-boned by someone going 110 running from the police? Collision like that, everyone's dead, pretty much. THAT'S the risk these municipalities care about. They want to make absolutely sure that if you're going to create those risks, that the object of that chase is worth it.

On empty rural roads, those rules don't apply anywhere near as much, and cops'll chase anyone who runs, cause the risks are much less. Get into town, however, and the risks change dramatically.

-Arlos

I understand what you mean but, I just don't believe letting people continue on is either safer or more practical in the long run.

What the person does after they're allowed to flee can be infinitely more dangerous. Obviously this particular case would have likely ended in a much more acceptable manner, but who knows?

So, if a cop pulls someone over for, say, going 15 over, and the person starts to run, the cop should just let them go? You dont think people would take full advantage of that? And then when they do run, they are probably going to accelerate to high speeds at first...just as dangerous as this woman.
The counties and states that have that rule make no sense to me.

Well, as long as the cop gets the license plate, they're GOING to get the person eventually, unless you skip town and flee to Brazil or something. So, given the severity of the charges tacked on for running, I can't see people taking advantage of it.

I'm all for it, really, as I don't think the risks of killing innocent bystanders are wroth it, unless the person they're chasing has committed a violent crime. Sure, chase a rapist, murderer, bank robber, etc. But I think I might be more than a bit upset if I had my entire family killed because the cops were chasing a guy who ran from a fix-it ticket for expired registration.

The ultimate reason is, of course, people in such cases file wrongful death suits, and unless the cops have a damn good reason for chasing someone in such a dangerous fashion, the municipalities have had to shell out $$$ in settlements.

-Arlos

Friend of mine got hit by the cops in a high speed pursuit, spent 6 months or so in a coma. Ended up suing for quite a bit.

-Adam

Getting the plates only helps if the car isn't stolen or the plates aren't stolen.

I know high speed chases look really cool on "COPS" but in reality they do more harm than good. I'd be interested in seeing some statistics about the resulting arrests in high speed chases. I'd be willing to bet most of the time, it's a stolen vehicle. A stolen car hardly seems worth the risk of endangering so many lives.

Im shocked harriwin doesnt know somebody that was killed in a high speed chase. Seriously I dont know how it is where some of you live but where Im at right now I think a high speed chase is probably more dangerous than the criminal they are trying to catch. Why is it ok for the cops and the retard they are chasing to put whole towns at risk ?