Authorities: Two killed in high-speed chase when Georgia trooper rams fleeing vehicle - Page 2

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Authorities: Two killed in high-speed chase when Georgia trooper rams fleeing vehicle (Page 2 of 5)

Posted: 8/18/2004 2:56:45 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
In Oregon, the using the PIT technique at speeds above (I believe) 40mph is considered potentially lethal force.

-Z

At highway speeds it's not the PIT. Shit like this gives the PIT a bad name if its falsely likened to it.

Posted: 8/18/2004 2:58:57 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
Quoted:

Actually, I've been in a (stopped) vehicle that was rear-ended by a pickup going 60 MPH. Pushed our car over 200 feet, put the rear bumper in the backseat, my leg through the heater core and my girlfriend into the windshield. (wrapped the steering wheel around my arm too, which I had put across her just before impact)
Was she a hazard? Absolutely, especially when she did not pull over. But as stated earlier, unless she was a known violent offender, what was the point of putting her car into the weeds (trees) when they could have tailed her till she ran out of gas. 76 miles in a Pathfinder has got to be 1/3 of a tank, maybe more at high speeds - plenty of time for a rolling roadblock ahead (we're talking an hour roughly from start to finish) or stop sticks - punting an SUV leads to certain injury or death (vs. backing off and getting more support - what about a couple of truckers to line up side by side?)

Well if you had been driving 60 and the car that hit you were doing 105, there's not much chance you would be here to talk about it.

Actually, it would have been a less severe impact (60MPH - 0MPH = 60MPH closing speed vs. 105MPH - 60MPH = 45 MPH closing speed) lower delta v = lower impact forces. This is backed up by racing accidents, where the most severe are when racecars impact a static object along the track (rather than another car going in the same general direction)

Posted: 8/18/2004 3:00:58 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
The point is that a jury decides what a penalty is...

Actually the Legislature decides what the acceptable range or punishment is. The Jury finds guilt or innocence. The judge is the referee.

Posted: 8/18/2004 3:02:06 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The point is that a jury decides what a penalty is...

Actually the Legislature decides what the acceptable range or punishment is. The Jury finds guilt or innocence. The judge is the referee.

I stand corrected.

Posted: 8/18/2004 3:03:43 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

People deserve to die for speeding?

Nope. But they deserve whatever their own actions bring them when they use a vehicle, on the public roads, to flee from arrest. Police chases dont occur in a controlled course, they happen on public roads, and sometimes sidewalk, endagering everyone in the area.

Posted: 8/18/2004 3:04:33 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

Actually, I've been in a (stopped) vehicle that was rear-ended by a pickup going 60 MPH. Pushed our car over 200 feet, put the rear bumper in the backseat, my leg through the heater core and my girlfriend into the windshield. (wrapped the steering wheel around my arm too, which I had put across her just before impact)
Was she a hazard? Absolutely, especially when she did not pull over. But as stated earlier, unless she was a known violent offender, what was the point of putting her car into the weeds (trees) when they could have tailed her till she ran out of gas. 76 miles in a Pathfinder has got to be 1/3 of a tank, maybe more at high speeds - plenty of time for a rolling roadblock ahead (we're talking an hour roughly from start to finish) or stop sticks - punting an SUV leads to certain injury or death (vs. backing off and getting more support - what about a couple of truckers to line up side by side?)

Well if you had been driving 60 and the car that hit you were doing 105, there's not much chance you would be here to talk about it.

Actually, it would have been a less severe impact (60MPH - 0MPH = 60MPH closing speed vs. 105MPH - 60MPH = 45 MPH closing speed) lower delta v = lower impact forces. This is backed up by racing accidents, where the most severe are when racecars impact a static object along the track (rather than another car going in the same general direction)

YOU JUST DO NOT GET IT!! Crawl out of the math book and realize that the struck vehicle will lose control due to the impact, skid or--most likely--roll, and in doing so will strike other cars and cause secondary accidents.

Give it up, Merrell. You are just plain wrong.

Posted: 8/18/2004 3:04:56 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
The only thing the driver is guilty of excess speed.

add evading and resisting arrest.

Posted: 8/18/2004 3:07:53 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

Actually, it would have been a less severe impact (60MPH - 0MPH = 60MPH closing speed vs. 105MPH - 60MPH = 45 MPH closing speed) lower delta v = lower impact forces. This is backed up by racing accidents, where the most severe are when racecars impact a static object along the track (rather than another car going in the same general direction)

YOU JUST DO NOT GET IT!! Crawl out of the math book and realize that the struck vehicle will lose control due to the impact, skid or--most likely--roll, and in doing so will strike other cars and cause secondary accidents.

Give it up, Merrell. You are just plain wrong.

ooookay

Posted: 8/18/2004 3:09:27 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
I've personally reported police from everything to throwing a cigarette butt out the window of their patrol car ...

There are still cops who smoke? Nasty! We are forbiden by policy from smoking in uniform or in department vehicles.

Posted: 8/18/2004 3:12:14 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I've personally reported police from everything to throwing a cigarette butt out the window of their patrol car ...

There are still cops who smoke? Nasty! We are forbiden by policy from smoking in uniform or in department vehicles.

ya know, I've never reported a police officer for anything. Most are great. A few bad apples make it harder for the rest, I suppose the same would apply to the motoring public - most are not renegade scofflaws, just the few yahoos that screw it up for everyone.

Posted: 8/18/2004 3:15:37 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Had they simply let her flee without pursuing, they would have knowinly let someone violate the law. They wouldn't have been doing their job and they would have caught flak.

Worse, it would encourage more evading in the future. No pursuit policies encourage people to "just run" whenever contacted by the police.

Posted: 8/18/2004 3:17:43 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Had they simply let her flee without pursuing, they would have knowinly let someone violate the law. They wouldn't have been doing their job and they would have caught flak.

Worse, it would encourage more evading in the future. No pursuit policies encourage people to "just run" whenever contacted by the police.

I don't think anyone was saying "let her go", rather looking at other options besides taking her out.

Posted: 8/18/2004 3:35:34 PM EDT

[#13]

Good one less fuckin idiot in the world.

Posted: 8/18/2004 3:36:23 PM EDT

[#14]

Questions for the cops on board. Was the "Pit Manuver" the only option the cops had? What about spike strips, or other actions?

It somehow bothers me that some here consider the passenger guilty as well. What makes them responsible for the driver?

Just seems to me that a manuver that causes a wreck at high speed is a little extreme. Espically if you endanger a passenger who may just be a victim themselves. If I am wrong, please enlighten me as to why... fullclip

Posted: 8/18/2004 3:42:29 PM EDT

[#15]

For the people advocating the use of spike strips....would you feel that action was justified if after hitting the strips the criminal (and that's what she was) lost control of the vehicle and had a fatal crash?

Also, what was the actual speed of the vehicles when the trooper put her in the grass?

Posted: 8/18/2004 3:44:29 PM EDT

[#16]

Though I did not read all the posts, someone may have mentioned it. The trooper had no way of knowing why the dummy was speeding. Maybe running from a felony just committed? Why else would any sane person run like that? No, not convicting before having the facts, b ut the troopers may have acted to protect the rest of us in case this one was running and wouldn't care if he killed someone else while trying to escape.

Posted: 8/18/2004 3:49:36 PM EDT

[#17]

Yes, what about spike strips. 76 miles is a long way to go, and not have any spike strips IMHO.

Next the PIT is supposed to be used as a low speed manuever. It is still a PIT at high speeds, but it is deadly force at those higher speeds.

I would also be interested to know if the officers suspected something other than speeding after the pursuit started. Drunk driving, stolen vehicle, plates that were listed as stolen, or plates that weren't coming back as valid (no DOT record of those plates) or other crimes.

76 miles is a long way to go.

I beleive every pursuit there should be a constant question being asked, should I esclate or disengage? It would seem if this pursuit is going for 76 miles, without other crimes, for speed, disengaging should be an option.

Escalating to the use of deadly force, over speed and eluding, seems hard to legally justify.

Whay other options had the police tried to slow down/stop this pursuit?

Posted: 8/18/2004 4:09:21 PM EDT

[#18]

"Oh Mama, I'm in fear for my life from the long arm of the law
Law man has put an end to my running and I'm so far from my home

The jig is up, the news is out
They finally found me
The renegade who had it made
Retrieved for a bounty
Never more to go astray
This'll be the end today
Of the wanted man"

Posted: 8/18/2004 4:17:14 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
the ramming deal always struck me as being reckless (being a Nascar fan from the old days, before it went WWF, and seeing what can result from a "tap on the rear quarter")

tell ya what, let me come up and bump draft any trooper at 80+ and see how he likes it (and yes, years ago I got a ticket and the officer came up and was right on my butt even though I was signalling to pull over before he was within 200 yards of my car)

(edited to add - for low speed pursuits, like the weekly <35 MPH LA deals, I have no problem with spinning a fleeing car out)

You're kidding, right?? The fast ones are most likely the worst ones--fleeing for a REASON (raped, robbed, murdered, stolen vehicle, etc.)--and are the most dangerous as they flee. Stop the POS mofo's by ANY means available (with minimal risk to the Officers), in order to avoid further risk to the public--and if the POS dies in the process, tough shit. Cyanide, you are right on.

Posted: 8/18/2004 4:21:01 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Got what she deserved.

CRC

People deserve to die for speeding? I'm not an LEO, and I'm not going to monday morning quarterback this situation or the police involvement... but the attitudes here suck.

Noone deserves to DIE for speeding or even for leading police on a chase.

Grow up.

She didn't die for "speeding"--she died of stupidity.

Posted: 8/18/2004 4:26:20 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Quoted:
the ramming deal always struck me as being reckless (being a Nascar fan from the old days, before it went WWF, and seeing what can result from a "tap on the rear quarter")

tell ya what, let me come up and bump draft any trooper at 80+ and see how he likes it (and yes, years ago I got a ticket and the officer came up and was right on my butt even though I was signalling to pull over before he was within 200 yards of my car)

(edited to add - for low speed pursuits, like the weekly <35 MPH LA deals, I have no problem with spinning a fleeing car out)

You're kidding, right?? The fast ones are most likely the worst ones--fleeing for a REASON (raped, robbed, murdered, stolen vehicle, etc.)--and are the most dangerous as they flee. Stop the POS mofo's by ANY means available (with minimal risk to the Officers), in order to avoid further risk to the public--and if the POS dies in the process, tough shit. Cyanide, you are right on.

no, I am not kidding, this is I95 and everyone flies on that road. If someone comes barreling down my neighborhood street at 90 MPH (hell, at 50MPH) then that is unusual. Someone flying down I95 is de rigeur. So you have fast traffic to begin with, and a 21 year old driver who takes off and all of a sudden the driver is a probable rapist/murderer? Shoot, I used to BURY the speedo in my old 442, and if some cop had come after me, I might have made a run for it (remember we are talking 21 year olds here, not sensible people) - would have made me a dumbass but hardly Charles Manson. (note: this was back in the days when they sold leaded gasoline - damn, I feel old, lol)

Honestly, I think everyone in this thread that is vilifying this kid is either a wimp who drove a '76 AMC Pacer that couldn't go over 70 (pushed out of a C-5A) or has a very very bad memory.

Posted: 8/18/2004 4:31:26 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Yes, what about spike strips. 76 miles is a long way to go, and not have any spike strips IMHO.

Next the PIT is supposed to be used as a low speed manuever. It is still a PIT at high speeds, but it is deadly force at those higher speeds.

76 miles is a long way to go.

I beleive every pursuit there should be a constant question being asked, should I esclate or disengage? It would seem if this pursuit is going for 76 miles, without other crimes, for speed, disengaging should be an option.

Escalating to the use of deadly force, over speed and eluding, seems hard to legally justify.

Whay other options had the police tried to slow down/stop this pursuit?

You are certainly thinking clearly, if--IMHO a little too theoretically-- but....
Other options?

Stop strips?On busy, busy I-95 in this area, which I know well, not many. How do you establish a situation where you know--absolutely know--that only your target vehicle will hit them? You don't dare have an innocent citizen lose 4 tires at 75 MPH, crash and kill several people. The state can't stand the litigation, which they could not win. If you were on that jury, would you find the state blameless?

A rolling roadblock of trucks, like somebody suggested? Not a chance. You would have 200 cars jammed up behind them in a matter of minutes. Then who would hit the 200 cars...?? You guessed it. Leadfoot.

A rolling roadblock of cruisers? That works a lot better on TV than it does in the real world. Who in their right mind is going to get close enough to this maniac to get rammed at speeds over 100MPH?

Just follow them just go on down the highway until they run out of gas? Sure they're not going to kill half a dozen people while they're doing that? It's a miracle that didn't already happen in 76 miles.

Break it off and let them go? If more departments had a no-pursuit policy there would be lots more happy criminals on the streets, that's for sure. Run and no one will chase you? Think this one through.... But how did the GSP know why they were running, and that these two girls hadn't just butchered their whole family, or something equally horrible? Or that it wasn't a kidnapping? Or....
People who run almost always have a reason. Too bad there are no mind readers driving cruisers....

No flame intended. We're all on the same side here.

Posted: 8/18/2004 4:38:45 PM EDT

[#23]

Gee, if they would have handled this like the California Highway Patrol (a la O.J.), we could all read this thread, have dinner, then sit down to watch it end on TV. Boy, how I would have liked to see that white Bronco get rear-ended like this. Watch all of O.J.'s cash and his wig go flying out the window...

Posted: 8/18/2004 4:40:49 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
the ramming deal always struck me as being reckless (being a Nascar fan from the old days, before it went WWF, and seeing what can result from a "tap on the rear quarter")

tell ya what, let me come up and bump draft any trooper at 80+ and see how he likes it (and yes, years ago I got a ticket and the officer came up and was right on my butt even though I was signalling to pull over before he was within 200 yards of my car)

(edited to add - for low speed pursuits, like the weekly <35 MPH LA deals, I have no problem with spinning a fleeing car out)

You're kidding, right?? The fast ones are most likely the worst ones--fleeing for a REASON (raped, robbed, murdered, stolen vehicle, etc.)--and are the most dangerous as they flee. Stop the POS mofo's by ANY means available (with minimal risk to the Officers), in order to avoid further risk to the public--and if the POS dies in the process, tough shit. Cyanide, you are right on.

no, I am not kidding, this is I95 and everyone flies on that road. If someone comes barreling down my neighborhood street at 90 MPH (hell, at 50MPH) then that is unusual. Someone flying down I95 is de rigeur. So you have fast traffic to begin with, and a 21 year old driver who takes off and all of a sudden the driver is a probable rapist/murderer? Shoot, I used to BURY the speedo in my old 442, and if some cop had come after me, I might have made a run for it (remember we are talking 21 year olds here, not sensible people) - would have made me a dumbass but hardly Charles Manson. (note: this was back in the days when they sold leaded gasoline - damn, I feel old, lol)

Honestly, I think everyone in this thread that is vilifying this kid is either a wimp who drove a '76 AMC Pacer that couldn't go over 70 (pushed out of a C-5A) or has a very very bad memory.

I'm 45 y/o and my first car was a Rustang Fasback 2+2--but it only had a 289 cid, so it was no racer--but I thought it was, due to the red-with-a-white-stripe-down-the-side paint. I'm obviously not saying she WAS a criminal--I'm saying the po-po didn't know WHAT she was, but she damn well was likely fleeing for a reason. They also likely didn't know she was "just a child using poor judgement" or whatever silly Monday morning quarterbacking we can do now. They chased her for 76 frigging miles--it was time to put an end to it. She chose, she kept choosing, she continued to choose for 76 miles, she finally lost. As to the passenger, if you do that with me in the car, you will *hope* the police get you stopped. I WILL NOT allow you to flee with me along. Darwin's theory works. Fawkim both.

Edit for spelling.

Posted: 8/18/2004 4:47:34 PM EDT

[#25]

Nice to see that so many of you don't give a flying fuck about the passenger of the car.

As long as the speeder was stopped before she broke a land speed record. 85mph in a 70?? BFD!!!
He had the fucking plate number, just catch her at home later. No different than getting a ticket in the mail for speeding & getting caught by the helo cops. Had she NOT been chased by the LEO that outcome would NOT have happened!!

High speed chases just should not happen, with todays technology it just is not necessary!!

For you guys with the "just why was she speeding anyway" comments, let's say the passenger in the car was YOUR daughter who had just been kidnapped. Would you still say that the LEO was right in ramming the car, knowing that at that speed death was pretty much inevitable??
If it were my daughter in that car that SOB would live to regret his actions, for a very short time.

As far as I am concerned the LEO played judge, jury & executioner. HE could have changed the situation & the outcome but HE didn't.

____________________________________
The only hope you have is to accept the fact that you are already dead. And the sooner you accept that, the sooner you will be able to function as a soldier is supposed to function, without mercy, without compassion, without remorse.

Posted: 8/18/2004 4:52:27 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
I'm 45 y/o and ~~my first car was a Rustang Fasback 2+2~~ I miss the dinosaurs

fixed it for ya, lol

--but it only had a 289 cid, so it was no racer--but I thought it was, due to the red-with-a-white-stripe-down-the-side paint. I'm obviously not saying she WAS a criminal--I'm saying the po-po don't know WHAT she was, but she damn well was likely fleeing for a reason. They also likely didn't know she was "just a child using poor judgement" or whatever silly Monday morning quarterbacking we can do now. They chased her for 76 frigging miles--it was time to put an end to it. She chose, she kept choosing, she continued to choose for 76 miles, she finally lost. As to the passenger, if you do that with me in the car, you will *hope* the police get you stopped. I WILL NOT allow you to flee with me along. Darwin's theory works. Fawkim both.

If you think back to your younger and more foolish days, certainly you can come up with a situation where you (against better judgment) would have taken off had the cops appeared. Am I right? I'm not exonerating what this girl did, just trying to put it in perspective of what anyone might have done when they were young. Bad situation all the way 'round.

Posted: 8/18/2004 4:55:08 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
the ramming deal always struck me as being reckless (being a Nascar fan from the old days, before it went WWF, and seeing what can result from a "tap on the rear quarter")

tell ya what, let me come up and bump draft any trooper at 80+ and see how he likes it (and yes, years ago I got a ticket and the officer came up and was right on my butt even though I was signalling to pull over before he was within 200 yards of my car)

(edited to add - for low speed pursuits, like the weekly <35 MPH LA deals, I have no problem with spinning a fleeing car out)

Better them than the me when she rear ends my ass doing 105!

And I don't think a trooper would endanger innocent peoples lives by running from the police when being pulled over either. Your statement there is ludicrous.

As far as I'm concerned, if you lead the cops in a high speed chase, the cops should have the right to beat the crap out of you when they finally do get you stopped.

Hate to hear about the passenger, but I have no guilt remorse about the driver.

But the same doesn't apply when a drunk trooper goes out on the road at 100 MPH after drinking with his brother officers at a strip joint that evening (yet these officers, who write DUI's all the time couldn't tell he was drunk?) that any citizen should have the right to punt him (and beat the crap out of his buds when they "forget" for over a week that they were drinking with him that night? (noting that these are the guys who accept sex for traffic violations )

Let me tell you about how many times over the years I have been passed by a trooper going over 90 (no lights, no siren) and how many times I watch them get up and ride people's butts. That is every damn bit as hazardous as this person in her Pathfinder, but it doesn't give anyone the right to cause a wreck.

I have no idea why she did not pull over, and she certainly should have lost her license and paid a fine. The death penalty? And for her passenger? Give me a break.

What if the passenger was going into cardiac arrest? How many stories have you heard of guys driving their pregnant wives to the hospital & blowing redlights, then getting pulled over - maybe they should get the hell beat out of them too. The point is that a jury decides what a penalty is, not some hotshot cop playing Dukes of Hazzard or thinking he's Darryl Waltrip.

(edited to add, yes, it is obvious that she should have pulled over, then again, maybe the first contact was a bump from a police car in pursuit, in which case I would be running too (and on the phone)

I'll back Merrell up on this one based on my experience with the PA state police. I've seen them create very dangerous situations for the general public.

1. I was driving through PA on the turnpike one night years ago when my kids were small to visit family up there. All of a sudden I see headlights coming up behind me at a high rate of speed, so I slowed and pulled as far to the right as I could get in order to give this guy plenty of room to get by. Instead of passing me he damn near rear-ends my Toyota Previa van full of sleeping family and then tailgates me with less than a foot between us for the next mile or two. I was trying to figure out what cell phone number to use for the police up there when the guy finally pulls around and passes me - you guessed it, a marked state police cruiser.

2. On another trip a PA state trooper in uniform jumped out of a road grader that was parked along the road and RAN ACROSS the PA turnpike to try and flag some guy he'd radared coming in the other direction. Damn near caused a multi vehicle pileup on my side of the highway as everybody braked at the sight of somebody on foot in the middle of the freaking road. All in the interest of public safety no doubt.

These guys do tend to think they're the gods of the highway and it seems to me that The GA guys could have arranged for some partol cars ahead of the Pathfinder to set up a rolling roadblock instead of forcing a high speed collision.

Posted: 8/18/2004 5:17:19 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
If you think back to your younger and more foolish days, certainly you can come up with a situation where you (against better judgment) would have taken off had the cops appeared. Am I right? I'm not exonerating what this girl did, just trying to put it in perspective of what anyone might have done when they were young. Bad situation all the way 'round.

Nope--I had three speeding tickets by age 19--and paid dearly to keep from losing my license. Never thought of running. Sorry.

Posted: 8/18/2004 5:24:43 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

I'll back Merrell up on this one based on my experience with the PA state police. I've seen them create very dangerous situations for the general public.

1. I was driving through PA on the turnpike one night years ago when my kids were small to visit family up there. All of a sudden I see headlights coming up behind me at a high rate of speed, so I slowed and pulled as far to the right as I could get in order to give this guy plenty of room to get by. Instead of passing me he damn near rear-ends my Toyota Previa van full of sleeping family and then tailgates me with less than a foot between us for the next mile or two. I was trying to figure out what cell phone number to use for the police up there when the guy finally pulls around and passes me - you guessed it, a marked state police cruiser.

2. On another trip a PA state trooper in uniform jumped out of a road grader that was parked along the road and RAN ACROSS the PA turnpike to try and flag some guy he'd radared coming in the other direction. Damn near caused a multi vehicle pileup on my side of the highway as everybody braked at the sight of somebody on foot in the middle of the freaking road. All in the interest of public safety no doubt.

These guys do tend to think they're the gods of the highway and it seems to me that The GA guys could have arranged for some partol cars ahead of the Pathfinder to set up a rolling roadblock instead of forcing a high speed collision.

Sorry you had a bad experience with the PA SP. Shouldn't have happened, and had a supervisor seen this there would have been a serious discussion. Of course that kind of behavior is hard to catch. But it's likely something else was seen later which got somebody's attention.

We covered the rolling road block thing a few posts back. Rather than repeat let's just say it works in theory but I wouldn't want to attempt it at 100MPH. Somebody is likely to die. It shouldn't be the good guys or innocent people.

Posted: 8/18/2004 5:57:23 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

Sorry you had a bad experience with the PA SP. Shouldn't have happened, and had a supervisor seen this there would have been a serious discussion. Of course that kind of behavior is hard to catch. But it's likely something else was seen later which got somebody's attention.

We covered the rolling road block thing a few posts back. Rather than repeat let's just say it works in theory but I wouldn't want to attempt it at 100MPH. Somebody is likely to die. It shouldn't be the good guys or innocent people.

Thanks, it sounds like you know what you're talking about. I know I shouldn't paint all PA troopers with the same brush but I've never seen their kind of aggression on the highway in other states. Who can police the police when they can drive almost any way they please and nobody can say much about it? There must be some kind of tradition on this with the PA force.

Guess I should have read through the rest of the posts re the rolling roadblock. Point taken on putting the good guys at risk.

Posted: 8/18/2004 6:03:20 PM EDT

[#31]

He had the fucking plate number, just catch her at home later

- Yea....that doesn't work in the real world (except in an extremely few number of cases). How are you going to prove who was driving, will the vehicle even return to that address, etc etc.

Posted: 8/18/2004 6:14:46 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

You are certainly thinking clearly, if--IMHO a little too theoretically-- but....

I've been in dozens of pursuits, and have flattened more than a few tires.............

Other options?

Stop strips?On busy, busy I-95 in this area, which I know well, not many. How do you establish a situation where you know--absolutely know--that only your target vehicle will hit them? You don't dare have an innocent citizen lose 4 tires at 75 MPH, crash and kill several people. The state can't stand the litigation, which they could not win. If you were on that jury, would you find the state blameless?

That's an interesting theory, but road spike let the air out of the "spiked" tire in a slow controlled manner. We've NEVER had anyone "lose control" after being spiked, in the manner you suggest. And yes we have for demonstration purpose spiked our own cars at sppeds up to 110 mph.

As far as traffic conditions, how crowded was it when the PIT was done? If there is sparse enough traffic for a PIT, then spikes would also be a viable option.

A rolling roadblock of trucks, like somebody suggested? Not a chance. You would have 200 cars jammed up behind them in a matter of minutes. Then who would hit the 200 cars...?? You guessed it. Leadfoot.

A rolling roadblock of cruisers? That works a lot better on TV than it does in the real world. Who in their right mind is going to get close enough to this maniac to get rammed at speeds over 100MPH?

There's no doubt there would be danger involved, just like there is danger in PIT'ing a vehicle at 100+ mph. The officers were willing to take that risk.

The "rolling roadblock" obviously doesn't occur at 20 mph against 100 mph, it happens at about the speed of the suspect and is then slowed.

From what I have seen often times the suspect will realize escape isn't likely, when police are in front, and in back of them, and they often surrender relatively quickly.

Just follow them just go on down the highway until they run out of gas? Sure they're not going to kill half a dozen people while they're doing that? It's a miracle that didn't already happen in 76
miles.

I could go on about the stories where pursuits were terminated, and the suspect continued to drive in evade mode until they crashed. Just because the police stop chasing doesn't mean the suspect stops running

Break it off and let them go? If more departments had a no-pursuit policy there would be lots more happy criminals on the streets, that's for sure. Run and no one will chase you? Think this one through.... But how did the GSP know why they were running, and that these two girls hadn't just butchered their whole family, or something equally horrible? Or that it wasn't a kidnapping? Or....
People who run almost always have a reason. Too bad there are no mind readers driving cruisers....

There needs to be a matrix, chase v. no chase. If the police decide to continue the chase, they should have a plan, other than waiting until the suspect is out of gas or crashes, on how the chase will end. Spike strips, PIT, ramming roadblocks etc. Places that have no pursuit policies are as short sighted as those that chase no matter what. Reasonable people will choose something in between.

Police may have insight into why people will run, but sometimes the people that run do so because they are simply idiots. So running alone shouldn't be the basis for belief that something "bigger" is occurring.

No flame intended. We're all on the same side here.

Posted: 8/18/2004 8:55:27 PM EDT

[#33]

Ramming another vehicle at a speed over 70 miles an hour will almost surely result in a serious or fatal accident. The trooper should have expected fatalities when he did this. I think this is WAY out of line. As Oly-M4gery pointed out, spike stipes might have worked. As another poster stated, a rolling road block (maybe they did try that) might have helped stop them, but using a maneuver specifically designed to crash a vehicle is deadly force at that speed.

Whatever the outcome for the officer is, the State of Georgia is going to be paying her family something, I am sure.

Posted: 8/18/2004 8:59:56 PM EDT

[#34]

and the problem with the tactic is....?
If you run you are guilty.
I don't believe in the letting them get away and getting them at home crap cause 9 out of 10 times it's stolen. If not they may kill someone while you let them get away or they have a gun waiting for you when you get there to execute a warrant.

Posted: 8/18/2004 9:16:19 PM EDT

[#35]

twonami, would you personally use a maneuver on another vehicle, expecting the otehr driver to be killed, for running from police?

Posted: 8/18/2004 9:25:28 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
twonami, would you personally use a maneuver on another vehicle, expecting the otehr driver to be killed, for running from police?

Oopsie--"expecting the otehr (sic) driver to be killed" was not part of the equation. The Officers merely did what it took to remove the threat to the public--after 76 miles. The deaths were a tragic consequence of that, but could not be anticipated. Deaths occur in 30 mph accidents. The driver chose her course. And paid the ultimate price. At least no innocents died--and, dare I say--the Officer(s) involved went home safely--THANK GOD!!!

Posted: 8/18/2004 9:28:50 PM EDT

[#37]

Beekeeper, when you spin out an SUV at 70+ mph, you should expect fatalities.

Posted: 8/18/2004 9:29:41 PM EDT

[#38]

I agree with the aforementioned Chris Rock statement.
The chase covered 2 states and 76 miles. Dumb bitch had it coming to her.

Posted: 8/18/2004 9:36:18 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
Beekeeper, when you spin out an SUV at 70+ mph, you should expect fatalities.

That's a damned good reason to pull over when one sees the flashing lights, eh?

(My point is the whole thing rested on the shoulders of the driver who CHOSE--for seventy-six miles--to flee. She CHOSE. The LEO did what he had to do. He's a brave hero in my book, as he perhaps SAVED more lives than ended up being lost, while endangering his own life. Again, at least only the guilty died.)

Posted: 8/18/2004 9:38:28 PM EDT

[#40]

Well something has to be up if you run like that. I see nothing wrong with what they did to stop it.

Posted: 8/18/2004 9:45:19 PM EDT

[#41]

P.S. We had this exact same thing happen in Milwaukee, (cops take out a fleeing SUV)....

In our case, the driver stole said SUV from a dealership about 2mi from my house.

He then proceeded to run down the freeway towards the Illinois border... Speeds exceeding 80mph...

About 30-40mi from where he started, a Sherrif's deputy did exactly what the GA officer did, spinning out BOTH vehicles (his Explorer and the thef's larger vehicle)....

Diff is that the thief survived to get in a scuffle with the deputies & try to escape from a moving crusier by kicking out the rear passenger window... His family felt that their 'good boy' was abused by the MCSD as he was forcibly restrained after the crash, and went so far as to cry 'racisim' (untill they found out the deputy-in-question was the same race they were)...

Posted: 8/18/2004 9:47:03 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
Source

Authorities: Two killed in high-speed chase when Georgia trooper rams fleeing vehicle

By ASSOCIATED PRESS

SAVANNAH, Ga.USA - A high-speed chase that covered 76 miles turned deadly when Georgia state troopers used a ramming technique to spin the fleeing vehicle off the highway, killing the driver and her teenager passenger.

The crash ended the Interstate 95 chase Tuesday that started in South Carolina and crossed into coastal Georgia, with speeds reaching 105 mph.

The driver, identified as 21-year-old Katie Sharp of Holly Hill, Fla., started fleeing when Colleton County sheriff's deputies tried to stop her for speeding at 86 mph in a 70 mph zone, sheriff's Capt. Kent Tisdale said.

The Georgia State Patrol took up the chase when the speeding Nissan Pathfinder crossed the state line near Savannah.

A pursuing trooper tried to stop the vehicle using a tactical ramming maneuver, steering the patrol car's front bumper into the fleeing vehicle behind its rear wheels, said Sgt. Chad Riner of the Georgia State Patrol.

The Pathfinder spun off the interstate and struck a tree. Sharp and her passenger, Garrett Gabe, 17, of Pennsylvania, died instantly, Riner said.

Authorities said they did not immediately know why Sharp refused to pull over. The State Patrol is investigating the crash.

Gene pool. Chlorine. Good riddance.

EDIT:
For the record, the dumb bitch probably ran for over 100 miles. The Neutral Observer has a passing familiarity with the area, and Colleton County is relatively near Charleston, SC, as far as big cities in the state go. It's a ways to the south and west of the city. Regardless, from Colleton County to the Georgia state line is quite a way.

Posted: 8/18/2004 9:52:47 PM EDT

[#43]

Life is hard, but it's harder if you're stupid

Posted: 8/18/2004 10:09:29 PM EDT

[#44]

Just so we're all on the same page...

Speeding is a capital offense, m'kay?

Posted: 8/18/2004 11:43:43 PM EDT

[#45]

Spike Strips are not an option on a busy Interstate and are extremely dangerous to deploy on the wide open lanes where a officer on foot has no cover from the reckless driver who obviously doesn't care who dies from thier decisions. They are great for a narrow road with out too much traffic where the driver cannot avoid them and the officer can get out of the way of the offending vehicle without immobilizing a bunch of other cars.

I hope LE in my area would put a driver like this off the road by whatever means they needed to before that person could put my family in danger.

Posted: 8/19/2004 4:24:46 AM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I've personally reported police from everything to throwing a cigarette butt out the window of their patrol car ...

There are still cops who smoke? Nasty! We are forbiden by policy from smoking in uniform or in department vehicles.

Yep! I witnessed that one last month at 5:33 in the morning. Didn't follow that one up though. Figure at the very least he got a verbal reprimand for smoking in his patrol car and breaking the law himself for littering. If anything, he probably won't be throwing his butts out the window any more.

Posted: 8/19/2004 4:27:12 AM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Had they simply let her flee without pursuing, they would have knowinly let someone violate the law. They wouldn't have been doing their job and they would have caught flak.

Worse, it would encourage more evading in the future. No pursuit policies encourage people to "just run" whenever contacted by the police.

Bingo!!!

I'd compare it to giving in to terrorist. Let's just pull all our interest out of the Middle East and convert to Islam so UBL won't attack us any more.

Posted: 8/19/2004 4:30:02 AM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
Questions for the cops on board. Was the "Pit Manuver" the only option the cops had? What about spike strips, or other actions?

It somehow bothers me that some here consider the passenger guilty as well. What makes them responsible for the driver?

Just seems to me that a manuver that causes a wreck at high speed is a little extreme. Espically if you endanger a passenger who may just be a victim themselves. If I am wrong, please enlighten me as to why... fullclip

I don't think the trooper intended to cause physical harm here. In fact, I bet the trooper that performed the maneuver is losing a lot of sleep.

Posted: 8/19/2004 4:34:54 AM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:
For the people advocating the use of spike strips....would you feel that action was justified if after hitting the strips the criminal (and that's what she was) lost control of the vehicle and had a fatal crash?

Also, what was the actual speed of the vehicles when the trooper put her in the grass?

I have no idea what the actual speed was but I would imagine they bumped her when they thought it was the best time and place to do it. Compare that to not knowing what her speed would be when she hit a spike strip, plus add to the logistics of trying to set one up---getting all the other vehicles off the road and actually getting in place, this was probably their only option in stopping her before she killed someone else.

Someone mentioned that 76 miles at those speeds in an SUV was probably 1/3rd of a tank. Assuming the tank was full, that would have been another 150 miles or so for her to endanger a lot more people.

Posted: 8/19/2004 4:41:23 AM EDT

[#50]

Clearly a poor decision to run from the lawmen...compounded by the decision by the lawmen to do the NASCAR bump on a [relativley] notoriously unstable vehicle at high speed. No doubt the danger was exacerbated by a poor driver in the SUV. The blowout strips might have been a better idea...but then that would have required shutting down the entire interstate...

All in all a shitty situation...

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Authorities: Two killed in high-speed chase when Georgia trooper rams fleeing vehicle (Page 2 of 5)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us