More Fuel for the Fire ... [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : More Fuel for the Fire ...


CW Mock
11-01-2011, 09:34
As advertised ... a little more fuel for the fire. Here is the entire dashcam from the FHP car in the Cop vs Cop pissing contest, er pursuit ... Put it here because there are like 4-5 million threads already, so what is one more?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFY0GqN0AeQ

Changes a lot of things, and answers a few questions in my mind. Including ... what sounds like being ordered to stand down TWICE, and still continuing pursuit anyways. Where I work, you have crossed into serious discipline or termination territory for disobeying a direct order like that one.

The asshatter must have had a booming month in October.

OLY-M4gery
11-01-2011, 09:59
As advertised ... a little more fuel for the fire. Here is the entire dashcam from the FHP car in the Cop vs Cop pissing contest, er pursuit ... Put it here because there are like 4-5 million threads already, so what is one more?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFY0GqN0AeQ

Changes a lot of things, and answers a few questions in my mind. Including ... what sounds like being ordered to stand down TWICE, and still continuing pursuit anyways. Where I work, you have crossed into serious discipline or termination territory for disobeying a direct order like that one.

The asshatter must have had a booming month in October.

If you are going so fast lights + siren that your supervisors are requesting you terminate, it also says something about the no lights + siren driving that preciptated the event.

If she was stopping a marked car, that was going into a call "tactical", or for a small amount over the speed limit, she would in the wrong.

But, going 120 mph to get to an off duty job, weaving in an out of traffic, oblivious or ignoring the lit up police car on your tail, then you are clearly in the wrong.

She followed him for at least 7 miles, and Troopers always have hats.

His driving was witnessed by dozens of people, that day, and probably lots of other days. Those people may now have a different view of police due to the driving they witness.

It also makes it more likely that police adminidtrators will put video systems that automatically come one when a certain speed is exceeded. Or other (idiotic) rules regarding speeds when driving a department car.

PinkoCommie
11-01-2011, 10:11
The solution the Trooper came up with may have been far from perfect. This should not be about taking apart her performance, though. We always call BS when a thug does something that makes the police come up with a less-than-perfect, but effective solution and the press calls the police out on it instead of focusing on the fact that it was what the thug did that brought about the result. Let's not do the same here. Let's, instead, focus on the fact that it was the moron who was going 120mph to an off-duty gig that caused the problem.

Might there be a better way to handle things next time? Sure. Did the trooper bring the asshattery to a stop as quickly as she could? Yes, she did. If she was called off (I can't hear the sound in the video very well), she should face her own consequences. Two wrongs don't make a right. We are law enforcement officers. We play by the rules. We may ***** and moan about the stupid rules, because they often are stupid. When the time comes, though, the difference between us and them is that we play by the rules.

CW Mock
11-01-2011, 10:11
She followed him for at least 7 miles, and Troopers always have hats.



:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

CW Mock
11-01-2011, 10:16
I agree with the above by the way, I just wanted to make more trouble. I wanted to see the whole video to try and see WTF happened, or at least a better, non "doctored" version. At least it gives a little more perspective on what happened that morning.

OLY ... I agree with the part about police driving. I think all of us have run pretty quick places with no lights or sirens on, and thankfully a lot of people (at least in my area) have assumed we have had a good reason for doing it. Crap like this makes that really tough.

There is an agency near me that mandates that their people run the lights and wailer any time they are above the posted speed limit, a knee jerk IIRC in response to a crash one of their guys got into trying to get to a call or catch a traffic violator that resulted in a fatality.

Gallium
11-01-2011, 10:45
I am not a cop. Watching this video, or reading any of the 1/2doz threads that have spawned are as much fun back in the 70s watch my dad beat the crap outta my mom.

Seems to me those who would nit pick at what the trooper said ("Miami cars fly thru here all the time....I thought maybe this rig was stolen, like on tv yesterday...") are the things a normal, rational person would say to someone after the fact.

While I may not be a sworn law enforcement officer, I know enough about police procedure to figure out yes, she could have handled this 100 different ways, but this event was triggered by the guy doing 80+ mph and who repeatedly ignored the brights behind him.

I also know that for the most part, the general consensus is, if this was a cop-non cop interaction, the overwhelming majority of LE respondents to the various threads would have voiced an opinion along the lines of "I wasn't there, I'm not going to 2nd guess another officer". (of course Dragoon will always be blunt, Spade will always be circumspect, wise and measured in his responses, etc etc).

The easiest thing to do is to chalk it up to another day and move on with life. **** happens. She didn't start it. Yes, maybe her tactics can be brought under the bright lights. Yes, maybe it was a bit untoward for her to cuff the officer in full uniform in a marked unit. Yes, he was composed, apologetic and very cooperative.

Sometimes we (all of us) need to take a second and pause, to reflect on the purpose of our occupation(s), and the expectations of our community and our superiors. We are all answerable to someone else.

Often times we are so wrapped up in what we do we momentarily lose sight of that. She is going to have to "justify" her actions, and he will have to justify his.


What was very bad about my (step)dad beating my mom was, we lived in a single family tenement yard housing 5+ families. Nothing there was private.

This video, and the corresponding threads has induced the same type of flinch in me.


'Drew

GD2J
11-01-2011, 11:34
I read on a Florida-based LE forum that Trooper Watts was told to Cancel on the radio, and she disregarded her supervisor's order.

Dukeboy01
11-01-2011, 12:05
I read on a Florida-based LE forum that Trooper Watts was told to Cancel on the radio, and she disregarded her supervisor's order.

If this is true, then she should be brought up on charges and disciplined as well. IMO, she should be as severely punished for disobeying a direct order in this situation as the Miami officer should be for driving like an idiot and failing to pull over immediately when the trooper turned her lights on.

The fact of the matter is that both of those clowns have brought dishonor on the profession and I would find it super- sweet if they were both terminated.

merlynusn
11-01-2011, 12:12
We have one of those dumb policies that if we exceed the speed limit (even 1mph) we have to have our lights and sirens on. It's just a CYA thing for the agency.

Our cameras come on automatically when we hit 80mph... We have GPS in all our cars and they can determine speed from those as well.

Dukeboy01
11-01-2011, 12:33
Okay, I just watched the video up until the Miami clown finally stopped. Here are a few observations:

1. Screw both of them. They should both be terminated.
2. Yes, the Miami officer started it. Again, screw him. Fire him.
3. The FHP radio audio for the first three minutes is lousy. Based upon what I see and later radio transmissions that can be heard, it seems pretty clear to me that she was told to terminate about three minutes into the pursuit. She cuts the lights and sirens and...
4. continues to pursue without lights and sirens just as fast as she was pursuing before, cutting through traffic, passing vehicles on the right, and driving just as illegally (at that point) and just as stupidly as the Miami officer was.

Unacceptable. Yes, the Miami officer was a danger to everyone else on the roadway. When she disobeyed a direct order and continued her pursuit without the benefit of the use of emergency equipment, she was twice as dangerous to the general public as he was. Why? Because she was pissed off and driving angry because some jackwagon local yokel didn't respect her authority as a high and mighty state popo.

Screw her sideways with a chainsaw. "Terminate your pursuit" means... you f'ing terminate your pursuit. You stop. The one you were chasing gets away. It does not mean "keep chasing the suspect without the benefit of the emergency equipment you are required by law to use when you are chasing a suspect."

And her weaselly radio traffic when she finally does catch up to him at around five minutes into. "Uh, I'm behind that vehicle again. He slowed down for some reason..."

BULL****, honey. If she'd slowed down to 75 or 80 mph when she turned off the light show and really had happened to legitimately catch up to him when he was slowed by traffic, I'd give her a pass. But that's not what happened and the video proves it. She continued to drive at an extremely high and illegal rate of speed for approximately two minutes until she caught him when he was slowed by traffic. If I was her supervisor she would have been relieved of duty twenty seconds after I saw her continue driving at anything more than the posted speed limit after the three minute mark in that video.

Ugh. Like I said they both deserve to be punished, but I'd be lying if a huge part of me doesn't hope that the Miami officer ultimately gets to keep his job after a hefty unpaid suspension while the trooper loses hers.

Mayhem like Me
11-01-2011, 12:51
I read on a Florida-based LE forum that Trooper Watts was told to Cancel on the radio, and she disregarded her supervisor's order.

I wouldl like to see proof before I chastize her.
The Miami officer on the other hand I have seen all I need of that Jackwagon, he caused this roller coaster he pays for the ride..

Dukeboy01
11-01-2011, 13:08
I wouldl like to see proof before I chastize her.
The Miami officer on the other hand I have seen all I need of that Jackwagon, he caused this roller coaster he pays for the ride..

Go watch the video linked in this thread if you haven't already. Civilians might not see it, and the media is spinning the story to make the Miami officer the villian, but those of us who have driven lights and sirens in pursuits or just to emergency calls know the rules for running code. The trooper breaks all of them.

The radio audio for the first three minutes of the video is terrible. Based on your training and (more importantly) your experience, what does it usually mean when the lights and sirens go on for a minute or more, accompanied by sudden and continuous acceleration, and then the lights and sirens suddenly go off before the officer catches up to a vehicle or reaches a location?

In my world it means somebody was told to terminate a pursuit or to disregard a call. The use of lights and sirens was no longer legally justified.

Furthermore, when the audio gets better about five minutes into the video, it seems pretty clear to me that she was told to terminate. After she "reinitiates" the pursuit (which isn't really what happened, because she never really terminated the pursuit) the supervisor starts to tell her to get the car's property number and then terminate. It's at that point that the Miami officer pulls over.

She is ultimately just as wrong as the Miami officer, IMO. When she disobeyed a direct order to terminate the pursuit, she drove just as recklessly and illegally as the Miami officer because she couldn't let it go. She deserves a citation for her driving between 3 and 5 minutes of the video.

collim1
11-01-2011, 13:28
Go watch the video linked in this thread if you haven't already. Civilians might not see it, and the media is spinning the story to make the Miami officer the villian, but those of us who have driven lights and sirens in pursuits or just to emergency calls know the rules for running code. The trooper breaks all of them.

The radio audio for the first three minutes of the video is terrible. Based on your training and (more importantly) your experience, what does it usually mean when the lights and sirens go on for a minute or more, accompanied by sudden and continuous acceleration, and then the lights and sirens suddenly go off before the officer catches up to a vehicle or reaches a location?

In my world it means somebody was told to terminate a pursuit or to disregard a call. The use of lights and sirens was no longer legally justified.

Furthermore, when the audio gets better about five minutes into the video, it seems pretty clear to me that she was told to terminate. After she "reinitiates" the pursuit (which isn't really what happened, because she never really terminated the pursuit) the supervisor starts to tell her to get the car's property number and then terminate. It's at that point that the Miami officer pulls over.

She is ultimately just as wrong as the Miami officer, IMO. When she disobeyed a direct order to terminate the pursuit, she drove just as recklessly and illegally as the Miami officer because she couldn't let it go. She deserves a citation for her driving between 3 and 5 minutes of the video.

We have had more than one officer tote days for this exact thing. As bad as it sucks, if the Sgt tells me to terminate I have no choice. Just to CYA I stop, turn around and travel in the opposite direction for a few with the camera still on on emergency equipment off. After a few incidents the Sgt will always review your video to see if you really did terminate immediately.

If it aint a bank robbery or a murder suspect we usually aint chasing for very long.

Dukeboy01
11-01-2011, 13:48
I just watched it again. Again the audio is bad, but she's told to terminate at around 2:52 into the video. She cuts her lights first and then the siren.

Here's the fun thing: She then accelerates. Listen to the engine as it revs up. I would estimate, based upon my experience, that she was doing 90 mph or so with the lights on. She guns it up to 120 mph plus after being told to quit.

Don't agree? Look at the video starting at about 2:08 - 2:18 and compare the relative rate at which she passes a line of cars to her right, including a beverage truck. Then skip to 3:56- 4:06 and compare how fast she's moving without her emergency equipment as she passes cars to her left, including a white Escalade.

She should be fired. The Miami officer should be fired as well, but the trooper definitely needs to go.

Dragoon44
11-01-2011, 13:52
If the trooper was told to terminate the pursuit then she should face the appropriate discipline for refusing to comply with the order and insubordination. (Which would typically be termination.)

The Miami officer should be fired.

1. He just proved he uses poor judgment.

2. He also just demonstrated that he is more than willing to break the law if he perceives that doing so is a benefit to him personally.

Ok I just watched the video at least up to the point he finally pulled over. There were at least to instances when she was right on him lights and siren running and his response was to accelerate away.

Mayhem like Me
11-01-2011, 14:08
She is not "just as wrong"
She violated internal policy/order she will be disciplined on that ..

HE violated nuemerous state laws including putting a FELLOW OFFICERS LIFE IN DANGER as she pursued him, quite frankly I am stunned that some of you are trying to defend him.
It was clear to me he accelerated away from her at least twice while she was on him...We would be pitting him at my agency I can tell you that, we would also know , as she did, that he was not running to anything that could be considered a legitimate emergency.

JohnnyReb
11-01-2011, 14:26
http://www.officer.com/news/10445444/miami-fop-defends-speeding-officer

I can deal with an officer that exceeds the speedlimit, is honest about it, and can take his lumps like a man. The Miami officer should be disciplined in my eyes, but not terminated.

The Trooper should be terminated for disobeying a direct order from a superior. This is a far greater problem in my eyes.

My opinion, take it for what its worth.

DaBigBR
11-01-2011, 14:48
She is not "just as wrong"
She violated internal policy/order she will be disciplined on that ..

HE violated nuemerous state laws including putting a FELLOW OFFICERS LIFE IN DANGER as she pursued him, quite frankly I am stunned that some of you are trying to defend him.
It was clear to me he accelerated away from her at least twice while she was on him...We would be pitting him at my agency I can tell you that, we would also know , as she did, that he was not running to anything that could be considered a legitimate emergency.

+1

:agree:

Vigilant
11-01-2011, 14:51
When I heard, in so many words, "he slowed down and I caught back up", it makes me wonder what her report contained. If her report reflects those same words, that may very well be the last nail in the lid.

bobdat
11-01-2011, 15:10
delete

JohnnyReb
11-01-2011, 15:15
Basically agree.

Hate to admit that she did everything right except continue the pursuit after being told to break off. I would have done what she did, however. Screw the supervisor sitting on his fat ass safe somewhere. The MPD car fit a stolen car profile; the cop was absolutely reckless; later, he refused to pull over when she bagged him with lights & siren. Then, after she releases the jerk, he pulls out into 60+MPH traffic without even a directional signal. Proof he should have been locked up.

I would have physically arrested this dirtbag and towed the cruiser.

Incredible but typical of cops everywhere doing unbelievably stupid and illegal acts. I guess it's the result of the new mentality LEO's develop when they're trained to believe in the "us vs. them" mentality. :dunno:

:crazy:

4949shooter
11-01-2011, 15:30
At 02:42:47, another marked patrol car drives by in the left lane and does not stop to assist her. I guess he/she didn't think the incident was serious enough to warrant backup? Later the female officer mentions an MVA down the road, however if the female trooper was in danger the officer would have stopped.

The trooper says the Miami cops speed out there "all the time." Then at 06:46:50, she says she thought the patrol car may have been stolen and she was scared. So which one is it?

At 06:47:49, the trooper's supervisor tells her on the phone to release the Miami officer.

The Miami cop asks her what would she do if a marked car was behind her with overheads on? She answers at 06:59:48, "I would get out of the way." The Miami cop responds, "I did."

I also find it interesting that her backup was yet another female trooper. Where were all the male troopers that morning? Were they out doing real police work? Or did they just not want to be associated with this debacle?

This entire incident is a black eye for law enforcement. It should have never happened...from both sides of the coin.

COLOSHOOTR
11-01-2011, 17:05
She is not "just as wrong"
She violated internal policy/order she will be disciplined on that ..

HE violated nuemerous state laws including putting a FELLOW OFFICERS LIFE IN DANGER as she pursued him, quite frankly I am stunned that some of you are trying to defend him.
It was clear to me he accelerated away from her at least twice while she was on him...We would be pitting him at my agency I can tell you that, we would also know , as she did, that he was not running to anything that could be considered a legitimate emergency.

So knowing what you know now you would PIT a MARKED POLICE CAR that you know full well is not stolen, due to prior speeding inciendents at the same location, for a traffic violation?

All I can say is WOW! :wow:

We all know she KNEW FOR A FACT that the Police Car was not stolen because she says so her self when she is yelling at him about the Police car thats always speeding though there that they are never able to catch. If you would PIT knowing all of that you're playing on the same level of the lead foot speeder and the hearing impared FHP trooper that can't seem to hear her orders to terminate. Both are idiots and deserve punishments. Now you openly say you'd PIT and would have raised the bar to a whole new level.....

Edited to Add:

It seems the actual speed is being called into question by the FOP. I'm sure the little black box and any GPS info will shed some light on the real numbers if they are availible. We've already seen several policy violations and a possible outright lie coming from here about the car being stolen so adding a little extra to the speed may not have been out of the question for her as mad as she seemed to be.

After watching the video again I'm not so sure he was doing 120MPH but it's hard to tell from the video and I wasn't there. If this is the case and he was not going 120 MPH would some of you still be this hot about it wanting to PIT him?

bobdat
11-01-2011, 17:41
delete

Bruce M
11-01-2011, 18:20
... (http://www.officer.com/news/10445444/miami-fop-defends-speeding-officer)The Trooper should be terminated for disobeying a direct order from a superior. This is a far greater problem in my eyes.

.

.

Hate to admit that she did everything right except continue the pursuit after being told to break off. I would have done what she did, however. Screw the supervisor sitting on his fat ass safe somewhere.
I would have physically arrested this dirtbag and towed the cruiser.

:dunno:

Thanks for re-posting the whole video. It just reaffirms what an idiot the Miami cop is and the fact that he SHOULD be terminated for his absolute disregard for human lives and property.

PS - Your opinion? It ain't worth the bandwidth you wasted presenting it. You obviously don't like female cops even when they do the right thing.


I am guessing in the real world you haven't made alot of arrests and especially alot of arrests after a superior told you not to. I am not condoning either of the officers, but the truth is that in most (non tv non movie) agencies violating a direct order has far more immediate negative consequences than a whole host of other violations. Oddly even a union that might fight for an officer who violates FS 316 might take a dimmer view of insubordination.

Anybody want to guess which set of violations might come closest to jeopardizing state standards?

Vigilant
11-01-2011, 18:22
PS - Your opinion? It ain't worth the bandwidth you wasted presenting it. You obviously don't like female cops even when they do the right thing.

Pure, unadultrated drivel. He never stated that he has a problem with female cops. Might want to look into getting your GED. It could work wonders for your reading comprehension.

I say, she screwed the pooch in some ways, but I sure got a kick out of seeing dicky get his butt handed to him, in grand fashion. I agree, they should have hauled him in, and towed his car. That would have gotten some attention.

Whether she was right or wrong overall, I will say that one of my biggest gripes inside the fence is that while we have just a split second or so to make a decision and respond under extreme stress in many cases, There is always that plethora of overweight weenies who spend the next couple of weeks picking our actions apart at their leisure, when we were the ones in the trenches. Such is life.

My vote: The FHP Trooper is investigated and gets a fair shake, but no more. The turd from Miami PD? I heard Burger King is hiring.

lawman800
11-02-2011, 00:48
My opinion is that the stupid behavior of the officer is less serious than the insubordination and falsifying information to her supervisor that the trooper committed.

In the few terminations that we've had, the most recent one was almost 100% parallel to what the trooper did. Stupid behaviors generally got the offender a few days on the beach.

Tvov
11-02-2011, 05:32
Seems like the vast majority of the public supports the FHP trooper. If she gets terminated or heavily fined/punished, it will be some bad publicity for the muckety mucks at FHP. I assume she will get off rather light due to potential media issues.

Dukeboy01
11-02-2011, 07:04
Whether she was right or wrong overall, I will say that one of my biggest gripes inside the fence is that while we have just a split second or so to make a decision and respond under extreme stress in many cases, There is always that plethora of overweight weenies who spend the next couple of weeks picking our actions apart at their leisure, when we were the ones in the trenches. Such is life.


Sorry, I'm not buying into the "stupid REMF admin weenies who weren't there just have it in for hard working frontline officers" argument in this scenario. In a situation such as this where a subordinate is given an obviously lawful order to terminate a pursuit there should have been no need for any soul searching about what the right thing to do was.

From the time she was told to terminate the pursuit and turned off her emergency equipment up until the point where she finally caught up to the Miami clown and he failed to pull over when she lit him up, she was committing exactly the same traffic offenses that he was: Speeding, Improper Lane Usage, and Reckless Driving, with the added administrative bonus of Insubordination.

On the one hand you've got a guy who committed numerous traffic offenses. On the other hand you've got a gal who committed numerous traffic offenses and failed to follow a direct order. I know which one I think is worse.

Dukeboy01
11-02-2011, 07:06
Seems like the vast majority of the public supports the FHP trooper. If she gets terminated or heavily fined/punished, it will be some bad publicity for the muckety mucks at FHP. I assume she will get off rather light due to potential media issues.

Unfortunately, you're probably right. That doesn't mean she should get a pass from those of us who know how pursuits and the policies and procedures that govern them are supposed to work.

Dragoon44
11-02-2011, 08:11
I am skeptical that FHP would consider the first part of that video BEFORE she actually caught up with him a "pursuit". More likely they consider it "overtaking". a Pursuit is when someone fails to stop.

I can't make heads or tails from the audio of that dash cam. Whether or not she violated any dept. policies or verbal orders depends on what she was told. SPECIFICALLY. and how FHP defines "pursuit" vs. over taking.

FHP pursuit policy does not permit pursuits for anything less that serious crimes, (not traffic violations) But as I already stated traditionally FHP draws a line between overtaking and pursuits. In this instance she may have very well been told don't pursue given the circumstances for which she was attempting to overtake the other vehicle. her continue attempt to overtake the vehicle and even stop it would not violate that order. She wold only be violating it if once she attempted to stop him he fled and would not stop. THEN she would be required to terminate what was then a pursuit.

JohnnyReb
11-02-2011, 10:29
Sorry, I'm not buying into the "stupid REMF admin weenies who weren't there just have it in for hard working frontline officers" argument in this scenario. In a situation such as this where a subordinate is given an obviously lawful order to terminate a pursuit there should have been no need for any soul searching about what the right thing to do was.

From the time she was told to terminate the pursuit and turned off her emergency equipment up until the point where she finally caught up to the Miami clown and he failed to pull over when she lit him up, she was committing exactly the same traffic offenses that he was: Speeding, Improper Lane Usage, and Reckless Driving, with the added administrative bonus of Insubordination.

On the one hand you've got a guy who committed numerous traffic offenses. On the other hand you've got a gal who committed numerous traffic offenses and failed to follow a direct order. I know which one I think is worse.

I completely agree.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Vigilant
11-02-2011, 10:41
Sorry, I'm not buying into the "stupid REMF admin weenies who weren't there just have it in for hard working frontline officers" argument in this scenario. In a situation such as this where a subordinate is given an obviously lawful order to terminate a pursuit there should have been no need for any soul searching about what the right thing to do was.

From the time she was told to terminate the pursuit and turned off her emergency equipment up until the point where she finally caught up to the Miami clown and he failed to pull over when she lit him up, she was committing exactly the same traffic offenses that he was: Speeding, Improper Lane Usage, and Reckless Driving, with the added administrative bonus of Insubordination.

On the one hand you've got a guy who committed numerous traffic offenses. On the other hand you've got a gal who committed numerous traffic offenses and failed to follow a direct order. I know which one I think is worse.

If you will notice, I stated that in this case, I think an investigation is in order.

rookie1
11-02-2011, 11:21
My thought is that he was not doing 120. Unless she is running stationary radar and got him that way. Even when he passed her I would hardly say hes doing anything above 90. I feel very confident that she was doing 120 to catch him, but I would find it hard to believe he was doing 120. So because she was doing 120, that means he was also and everyone is getting upset about that. Everyones opinion would be slightly different if we were dealing with the officer doing 90. I could be wrong and her radar said 120 then everything I just said goes out the window. Maybe every day he comes by at 90 or so and today she has had enough. I also never heard her ask him how fast he was going, might have missed it. I think the boss also asked her if he was cuffed, then she was talking like she needed to justify it with him.

We are looking at 20 days after the incident, anyone know what happened?

dano1427
11-02-2011, 16:20
If she pursued at his speed, without any emergency equipment, she was posing as much danger to the public as

OLY-M4gery
11-02-2011, 16:55
My thought is that he was not doing 120. Unless she is running stationary radar and got him that way. Even when he passed her I would hardly say hes doing anything above 90. I feel very confident that she was doing 120 to catch him, but I would find it hard to believe he was doing 120. So because she was doing 120, that means he was also and everyone is getting upset about that. Everyones opinion would be slightly different if we were dealing with the officer doing 90. I could be wrong and her radar said 120 then everything I just said goes out the window. Maybe every day he comes by at 90 or so and today she has had enough. I also never heard her ask him how fast he was going, might have missed it. I think the boss also asked her if he was cuffed, then she was talking like she needed to justify it with him.

We are looking at 20 days after the incident, anyone know what happened?

She says 78 mph when the lights and siren are on, just before he pulls over.

Also when she gets him out of the car, she says 103 mph to the Miami officer.

I think that 103 mph is the initial speed as he passes, either moving VASCAR or same lane radar.

The 78 mph is pacing.

DaBigBR
11-02-2011, 17:36
If she pursued at his speed, without any emergency equipment, she was posing as much danger to the public as

That may or may not be, but the difference is justification. Society excepts higher risk behavior where there is more justification than "going to an off duty job." My state specifically allows officers to exceed the speed limit without emergency equipment when attempting to catch a speed violator.

dano1427
11-02-2011, 18:21
That may or may not be, but the difference is justification. Society excepts higher risk behavior where there is more justification than "going to an off duty job." My state specifically allows officers to exceed the speed limit without emergency equipment when attempting to catch a speed violator.

Each state is different, I guess. In California, in order to be an "Emergency vehicle" and have immunity form some CVC sections, the vehicle needs one steady red light facing forward, and a siren "as reasonably necessary."

Without that, all CVC sections have to be followed.

DaBigBR
11-02-2011, 18:53
Each state is different, I guess. In California, in order to be an "Emergency vehicle" and have immunity form some CVC sections, the vehicle needs one steady red light facing forward, and a siren "as reasonably necessary."

Without that, all CVC sections have to be followed.

I forgot to add that we definitely are always required to drive with due regard.

How does California handle pacing of speed violators?

Panzergrenadier1979
11-02-2011, 19:08
What. A. Total. Charlie. Foxtrot.

opelwasp
11-02-2011, 19:24
I forgot to add that we definitely are always required to drive with due regard.

How does California handle pacing of speed violators?

Pacing is ok at a reasonable speed, 80 sure 90 would be pushing it. It is usually just used to establish the violator is speeding. Evidence for the officer. When a violator blows past us at mach 5 pacing is not going to be needed. Flip the lights/siren/camara on and just stop them. Just articulate it in the report. There is no way in hell I am going to run hot with no lights and sirens. Just doing that would get me days on the beach and rolled back into the jail for a few years. Just not worth it.

If the trooper worked at my agency they would eat her alive. She would be risking termination at most, but surely rolled out of patrol and stuck in corrections for years.

ghstface38
11-02-2011, 23:51
I've read alot of the posts associated with this topic, but this is my first time seeing the video. I'm only a few minutes into it but I felt the need to post. She's in pursuit of a marked police car.... Jesus Christ, how many times have you seen a marked police car driving fast without it's emergency equipment going?

I don't believe the "it could have been stolen" crowd. It's happened once since I've been on and the department was able to get out a county wide broadcast in minutes.

It seems to be a further unraveling of the knot of brotherhood we all share.

ghstface38
11-03-2011, 00:20
I would like to add something. I wouldn't be quite so miffed had the Trooper handled things a bit differently. She didn't know why this Officer was speeding but she quickly treated him like a criminal, handcuffed and disarmed him.

The way I would have handled it, which some may not agree with (and that's ok), is once I realized who it was I would check on the well being of the Officer and his family and be about my way.

I don't know, I just see alot of odd things that make me a but queasy. Maybe it's just Officer on Officer actions, or maybe it's just gas.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

DaBigBR
11-03-2011, 08:43
Pacing is ok at a reasonable speed, 80 sure 90 would be pushing it. It is usually just used to establish the violator is speeding. Evidence for the officer. When a violator blows past us at mach 5 pacing is not going to be needed. Flip the lights/siren/camara on and just stop them. Just articulate it in the report. There is no way in hell I am going to run hot with no lights and sirens. Just doing that would get me days on the beach and rolled back into the jail for a few years. Just not worth it.

If the trooper worked at my agency they would eat her alive. She would be risking termination at most, but surely rolled out of patrol and stuck in corrections for years.

That sounds like agency policy, academy teaching, or personal opinion. What does the statute say?

GD2J
11-03-2011, 12:16
That sounds like agency policy, academy teaching, or personal opinion. What does the statute say?

There may not be a statute. There isn't one in Virginia, as pacing is covered by case law.

lawman800
11-03-2011, 23:17
In litigious socal, if we were to drive like that without activating all required lights and siren, and get into any wrecks, we are done.

opelwasp
11-04-2011, 00:23
In litigious socal, if we were to drive like that without activating all required lights and siren, and get into any wrecks, we are done.

Bingo! Screw pacing, I'm gonna light em up and let the camera speak for itself.

SgtScott31
11-04-2011, 00:58
Pure, unadultrated drivel. He never stated that he has a problem with female cops. Might want to look into getting your GED. It could work wonders for your reading comprehension.

I say, she screwed the pooch in some ways, but I sure got a kick out of seeing dicky get his butt handed to him, in grand fashion. I agree, they should have hauled him in, and towed his car. That would have gotten some attention.

Whether she was right or wrong overall, I will say that one of my biggest gripes inside the fence is that while we have just a split second or so to make a decision and respond under extreme stress in many cases, There is always that plethora of overweight weenies who spend the next couple of weeks picking our actions apart at their leisure, when we were the ones in the trenches. Such is life.

My vote: The FHP Trooper is investigated and gets a fair shake, but no more. The turd from Miami PD? I heard Burger King is hiring.

Agreed

GD2J
11-04-2011, 06:55
...if we were to drive like that without activating all required lights and siren, and get into any wrecks, we are done.

That's how it is also here in Virginia. Both must be activated, and even then the officer is only exempted from specific sections of the vehicle code. Of course, due regard MUST be shown at all times.

Chuck54
11-04-2011, 08:33
I wonder how the civil suits would have read if one or both of the officers had crashed causing injury to civilians? I bet the lawyers would be standing in line to take that case.



Guess the trooper really wanted to get transferred out of Miami !! :rofl:

DaBigBR
11-04-2011, 09:39
I wonder how the civil suits would have read if one or both of the officers had crashed causing injury to civilians? I bet the lawyers would be standing in line to take that case.

Guess the trooper really wanted to get transferred out of Miami !! :rofl:

The trooper would have likely been idemnified since she was acting within the scope of her duties. Being called off should not change this. The PD officer would have been screwed.

Dukeboy01
11-04-2011, 12:15
The trooper would have likely been idemnified since she was acting within the scope of her duties. Being called off should not change this.

Continuing to violate traffic laws without the benefit of her emergency equipment would, at least around here. Our Commonwealth's attorney successfully prosecuted a deputy for Manslaughter after he hit and killed another driver at 90 mph. He was on the way to assist another deputy on a 10-13 call with his lights and sirens. The suspect was controlled and the dispatcher advised all other responding units to disregard. He continued with lights and sirens at speeds up to 90 mph on surface streets where the limit is 35 mph. As he approached an intersection another driver, who was most likely drunk, did a "California roll" without coming to a complete stop and pulled right in front of the deputy, who drilled him right in the driver's door.

This was in 1994, when society was a lot more tolerant of the police making mistakes than they are today.

Once she was ordered to terminate the pursuit she was no longer acting in the scope of her duties, just as the deputy was no longer acting in the scope of his duties once the dispatcher advised him and all of the rest of the responding deputies that the deputy with the combative subject no longer needed assistance.

DieselNut
11-04-2011, 12:47
I applaud the female officer's actions. She caught another officer breaking the law. If civilians must obey the speed limits, off duty cops should as well.

lawman800
11-04-2011, 12:51
My legal argument is that she is still acting within the scope of her duties as she is still performing duties for the employee's benefit, but she is insubordinate and did not follow proper rules in performing the duty.

The department exercised due diligence and regard for the public by saying the miami car is readily identifiable, get the tags, and back off. There is no need to pursue any further.

In litigation, the employer can wash their hands clear because they've called off the pursuit. The union still has to defend the trooper via their legal defense fund since she was on duty, performing enforcement action.

Of course, the accident victim will sue the department for deep pockets, but they can protect themselves with the stand down order then throw the trooper out there since she disobeyed orders, which the department would not have known. Get the judge to dismiss the department as co-defendant and let the suit continue with just the trooper.