Cops turn left in front of fleeing rider to stop him... Holy cow.

[Fugu]

Some not work safe ads and content on the site this is linked from proceed at your own risk- found this somewhere else on the net.

 

No idea what led up to this, and I can't listen to the audio where I am but holy mackerel that guy's lucky to be in once piece.

 

Also note his pretty lame looking swerve before impact- target fixation or greater speed than apparent? Not sure...

 

http://www.nothingtoxic.com/media/1209259058/How_an_Insane_Cop_Stops_a_Criminal_on_a_Motorcycle

[MattS]

Nice dismount and recovery. He had it coming.

[Stir]

Nice dismount and recovery. He had it coming.

 

I didn't know that a death sentence was normally given for fleeing or for having a little marijuana in your pocket. I think we should make this formal. From now on, anyone fleeing the police should be shot. Police should shoot to kill if at all possible.

 

Stupid judgement on the young riders part but not certain we should be applying capital punishment.

[Lawman]

From now on, anyone fleeing the police should be shot.

 

I couldn't agree more.

 

Win win situation..Fewer people will flee..Fewer cops get hurt..Fewer innocent citizens get hurt..Now if we can just get everyone else on board..

[Stir]

From now on, anyone fleeing the police should be shot.

 

I couldn't agree more.

 

Win win situation..Fewer people will flee..Fewer cops get hurt..Fewer innocent citizens get hurt..Now if we can just get everyone else on board..

 

LOL. Now you are just being lazy. Get out there and earn your <40K. The CEO demands it.

[Mike]

Of course, none of us apparently knows the story. A fleeing speeder, or a bank robber who just shot someone? There are a lot of variables, but I'd generally agree with the proposition that LEOs shouldn't use deadly force to enforce a traffic stop.

 

However, if I had to guess, I'd guess that it was more likely than not a miscalculation by the cop who took out the biker. It's not unusual to use a car to try to force a fleeing suspect to stop or slow down.

 

Well . . . I guess he did get him to stop.

[MattS]

I didn't know that a death sentence was normally given for fleeing or for having a little marijuana in your pocket.

I didn't get to the part about the Mary Jane, but the perp wasn't killed either.

 

Having my myself run (ridden) from the police once or twice, I surely wouldn't have offered up a meek, "Huh, what'd I do? What'd you do that for?" had I encountered a similar fate.

[Gregori]

How 'bout a youtube link - no NSFW issues that way.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7Tk5OvgwXk

[Stir]

Of course, none of us apparently knows the story. A fleeing speeder, or a bank robber who just shot someone? There are a lot of variables, but I'd generally agree with the proposition that LEOs shouldn't use deadly force to enforce a traffic stop.

 

However, if I had to guess, I'd guess that it was more likely than not a miscalculation by the cop who took out the biker. It's not unusual to use a car to try to force a fleeing suspect to stop or slow down.

 

Well . . . I guess he did get him to stop.

 

AGATT! Good thing for this guy too. I could not believe he stood up.

[Agent_Orange]

Least they coulda done was run him over to finish the job.

[Fugu]

AGATT!

 

Looks to me like he was in shorts and tennis shoes... Either that or impact knocked off his pants and boots.

 

 

I just hope I'm that lucky if I ever get in an accident.

[Albert]

Hmm, I've tried to find some kind of additional article to go with the video but I can't seem to (maybe I'm challenged). I hope some of the responses here truly are toungue in cheek though. I'd hate to think that anyone would consider a head on car/mc collision a valid technique for handling speeders or routine traffic violators.

[Rob_Mayes]

The LEO was lucky he did not kill the rider. I would not see any difference from just pointing a gun on him and shooting. I do not see a justifed use of force, but then again we do not know how dangerous the suspect was.

[russell_bynum]

From now on, anyone fleeing the police should be shot. Police should shoot to kill if at all possible.

 

Sounds good to me! They need to worry about not accidentally shooting an innocent bystander, but otherwise, I said Lock and Load.

[Stir]

The LEO was lucky he did not kill the rider. I would not see any difference from just pointing a gun on him and shooting. I do not see a justifed use of force, but then again we do not know how dangerous the suspect was.

 

From the sound bite in the video, the runner said he did not stop because he had marijuana in his pocket. If I had to guess, I would say it was a traffic infraction and the guy decided to run.

[Stir]

From now on, anyone fleeing the police should be shot. Police should shoot to kill if at all possible.

 

Sounds good to me! They need to worry about not accidentally shooting an innocent bystander, but otherwise, I said Lock and Load.

 

Russell, have you EVER run from a CEO?

[russell_bynum]

Russell, have you EVER run from a CEO?

 

No.

 

Haven't run from any LEO's either.

[eddd]

From now on, anyone fleeing the police should be shot.

 

I couldn't agree more.

 

Win win situation..Fewer people will flee..Fewer cops get hurt..Fewer innocent citizens get hurt..Now if we can just get everyone else on board..

 

 

With the obvious exception of gas drive-offs, of course...

 

[Lawman]

The LEO was lucky he did not kill the rider. I would not see any difference from just pointing a gun on him and shooting. I do not see a justifed use of force, but then again we do not know how dangerous the suspect was.

 

From the sound bite in the video, the runner said he did not stop because he had marijuana in his pocket. If I had to guess, I would say it was a traffic infraction and the guy decided to run.

 

Looked to me like the officer was trying to force him to stop since he refused to do so willingly..It would be nice if it was never necessary to use physical force to effect an arrest but that is not always the case..The option you seem to prefer is to chase a fleeing felon until he just voluntarily gives up, runs out of gas or crashes..My experience tells me that the latter is is usually what happens. The question then becomes one of who gets hurt or killed in the crash. If I help pull your child's, wife's or neighborhood officer's lifeless body from the result of that crash I think your attitude will change..I've been there, done that and personally I don't really care about the person's reason for running. What I have devoted my life to and have a strong committment to is protecting the innocent.

[rkd]

Hmm, I've tried to find some kind of additional article to go with the video but I can't seem to

 

Here's a starting point, perhaps:

http://www.thestate.com/157/story/386956.html

[Lawman]

Hmm, I've tried to find some kind of additional article to go with the video but I can't seem to

 

Here's a starting point, perhaps:

http://www.thestate.com/157/story/386956.html

 

Perhaps I missed the reference to the video being discussed here but I didn't see it.. So is this just thrown in for a little cop bashing or did I miss something?

[ghaverkamp]

Looked to me like the officer was trying to force him to stop since he refused to do so willingly..It would be nice if it was never necessary to use physical force to effect an arrest but that is not always the case.

 

It would be nice if those charged with upholding the law respected the law.

 

It would be nice if those who trot out their rights at the drop of the hat remember that there are others who have rights, too.

[Lawman]

Looked to me like the officer was trying to force him to stop since he refused to do so willingly..It would be nice if it was never necessary to use physical force to effect an arrest but that is not always the case.

 

It would be nice if those charged with upholding the law respected the law.

 

It would be nice if those who trot out their rights at the drop of the hat remember that there are others who have rights, too.

 

Are you suggesting the officer broke the law? If so, please state which law.

 

Felons have the right to be arrested using the least amount of force neccessary to effect the arrest..How would you have effected that arrest?

[ghaverkamp]

Are you suggesting the officer broke the law? If so, please state which law.

 

Whether or not a law was broken would require more facts. Even fleeing suspects retain Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable seizures.

 

Felons have the right to be arrested using the least amount of force neccessary to effect the arrest..How would you have effected that arrest?

 

First, what makes you believe the rider was a felon at the time of the arrest?

 

Second, if you truly believe an arrest may be accomplished through any necessary force, then I am a bit frightened.

[MattS]

It would be nice if those charged with upholding the law respected the law.

So vague, and so general, and not very helpful. You know it to be wrong as it applies to most of those charged with upholding the law.

 

It would be nice if those who trot out their rights at the drop of the hat remember that there are others who have rights, too.

You have rights until you don't. Once you dive into the deep water of resisting arrest and high-speed pursuit, you wear a big old "Kick Me" sign on your back and your rights aren't quite what they were before.

 

Besides which, it wasn't a head-on. The car appeared to softly and deftly cut across his path, perhaps the officer -- attuned to the dynamics of riderless bike -- is a rider himself, and knew just the right technique to bring the rider down without making him into a mess.

 

Sweet, if you think about it.

[MattS]

Second, if you truly believe an arrest may be accomplished through any necessary force, then I am a bit frightened.

Good, you should be.

 

The foundation of the system you're gaming is based on the taking of life as a penalty for non-compliance. Your life, my life, his life. Otherwise the threats that the law provides have no power.

[Lawman]

First, what makes you believe the rider was a felon at the time of the arrest?

 

Second, if you truly believe an arrest may be accomplished through any necessary force, then I am a bit frightened.

 

I don't know the laws of each and every state but in Texas and I would venture to say in most if not all states it is a felony to flee in a motor vehicle..He stopped being a traffic violator when he chose to flee..

And yes I do have the right to use necessary force and in some instances deadly force to effect an arrest..

Do you ever answer any questions or do you just ask them?

[ghaverkamp]

You have rights until you don't. Once you dive into the deep water of resisting arrest and high-speed pursuit, you wear a big old "Kick Me" sign on your back and your rights aren't quite what they were before.

 

Your rights are precisely what they were before.

[rkd]

Hmm, I've tried to find some kind of additional article to go with the video but I can't seem to

 

Here's a starting point, perhaps:

http://www.thestate.com/157/story/386956.html

 

Perhaps I missed the reference to the video being discussed here but I didn't see it.. So is this just thrown in for a little cop bashing or did I miss something?

 

I posted this link, to aid finding an article or other description on the circumstances of the incident.

[MattS]

Your rights are precisely what they were before.

Do you mean the rights set forth in the fourth amendment, or the right not to have a cop knock you off your bike?

 

I think you give up a lot of those rights when you're driving publicly-registered automobiles over publicly-maintained roads. You want the Bill of Rights? Walk.

[ghaverkamp]

I don't know the laws of each and every state but in Texas and I would venture to say in most if not all states it is a felony to flee in a motor vehicle..He stopped being a traffic violator when he chose to flee..

 

He's only a felon once he's been convicted of a felony.

 

And yes I do have the right to use necessary force and in some instances deadly force to effect an arrest..

 

Officers may use reasonable force, not necessary force, to effect arrests.

[smiller]

You want the Bill of Rights? Walk.

It's my understanding that the Bill of Rights covers you regardless of your mode of transportation.

[ghaverkamp]

Do you mean the rights set forth in the fourth amendment, or the right not to have a cop knock you off your bike?

 

I think you give up a lot of those rights when you're driving publicly-registered automobiles over publicly-maintained roads. You want the Bill of Rights? Walk.

 

Your Fourth Amendment rights. You don't give them up when you speed, when you carry pot, or when you flee.

[russell_bynum]

I don't know the laws of each and every state but in Texas and I would venture to say in most if not all states it is a felony to flee in a motor vehicle..He stopped being a traffic violator when he chose to flee..

 

He's only a felon once he's been convicted of a felony.

 

And yes I do have the right to use necessary force and in some instances deadly force to effect an arrest..

 

Officers may use reasonable force, not necessary force, to effect arrests.

 

So...what's the problem? It's perfectly reasonable to ram someone who's fleeing. Case closed.

[steveknapp]

I wonder if the DMV officer was fair to that rider when he got his license...

[MattS]

I wonder if the DMV officer was fair to that rider when he got his license...

I think he went to MSF school with the 9/11 hijackers ... he only learned to upshift and accelerate, not to downshift or brake.

[ghaverkamp]

I wonder if the DMV officer was fair to that rider when he got his license...

 

In California they don't have a police car avoidance part of the test. (At least they didn't in Marin; maybe in Oakland they do.)

[leikam]

It's perfectly reasonable to ram someone who's fleeing.

 

I'm sure it would also deter red-light runners, tailgaters, speeders and those who fail to yield the right of way. Moving violations could all end the same way: in the wall.

 

[MattS]

Moving violations could all end the same way: in the wall.

Super cool!

 

One thing's for certain: more motorcyclists will wear helmets.

[Mike]

Hmm, I've tried to find some kind of additional article to go with the video but I can't seem to

 

Here's a starting point, perhaps:

http://www.thestate.com/157/story/386956.html

 

Perhaps I missed the reference to the video being discussed here but I didn't see it.. So is this just thrown in for a little cop bashing or did I miss something?

 

You missed something. The video linked to by the OP is one of the videos accompanying the story about an investigation into a possible pattern of abuse by SC State Troopers. Some of the videos look like the officers were acting reasonably. In others, they appear to have gotten a bit rambunctious. YMMV.

 

My opinion . . . and this is NOT based on any legal analysis whatsoever . . . is that when you flee arrest you accept responsibility for pretty much all the bad stuff that can come out of that, including a hyped-up LEO making a snap decision that it's better to take you out than to let you keep running. Where I sometimes have a problem with some LEOs is when they allow their desire to make a collar overcome their concern about the safety of the innocents who happen to be on the road at that time.

 

However, that's not what I see in the video. I see a mope, running from the cops and creating a situation of potential danger for the officers and others. It doesn't bother me too much . . . in fact, not at all . . . that one of the officers sent him flying.

[Stir]

Second, if you truly believe an arrest may be accomplished through any necessary force, then I am a bit frightened.

Good, you should be.

 

The foundation of the system you're gaming is based on the taking of life as a penalty for non-compliance. Your life, my life, his life. Otherwise the threats that the law provides have no power.

 

So you are for a Police state. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. I am for a very short leash on the people we charge with protecting us. There is not room for Dirty Harry. Officers are paid to use good judgement. Causing a head on collision is NOT good judgement...ever. If he were to sue that officer and I were on the jury, I would side with the biker. That officer would be financially ruined.

[Stir]

Russell, have you EVER run from a CEO?

 

No.

 

Haven't run from any LEO's either.

 

Of course LEO. That answer surprises me.

 

I worked with a young guy who was/is pretty squidly. He and his buddies have/had a propensity for running. In San Diego, if they can get a helicopter on you, they'll tail you. San Diego has a no chase policy. Seems that the SDPD catches enough of the bad guys without it.

[bimmers]

Attempted murder charge looming for the LEO and a litigation lawyer like Edwards working on results based pay only. Endresult; Lifetime without parole for LEO and millions of dollars for rider plus a charge for eluding of Police with 10 day min. jailtime. Posession of marijuana a few bucks in fine.

We taxpayers pay for all of that instead of letting the guy run and pick him up at home in a little while.

 

MHO and I hope it will not materialize but that is what our litigious society has led to.

 

Get up and speak up and get the bad guys not the good guys.

[russell_bynum]

Russell, have you EVER run from a CEO?

 

No.

 

Haven't run from any LEO's either.

 

Of course LEO. That answer surprises me.

 

I worked with a young guy who was/is pretty squidly. He and his buddies have/had a propensity for running. In San Diego, if they can get a helicopter on you, they'll tail you. San Diego has a no chase policy. Seems that the SDPD catches enough of the bad guys without it.

 

I see red and blue flashing lights, and I stop. Period.

 

If I'm on the bike, most likely, I could run and get away with it. But that's not who I am.

[MattS]

So you are for a Police state.

I don't think so, but I also don't approve of coddling people who do bad things and then don't want to face the consequences of their actions. I also don't choose to live in a fantasy world with respect to the police and the use-of-force. That same use (or abuse, as the case may sometimes be) keeps you and your family safe in your home. In lieu of a gun, next time you face a home invasion or, say, a rapist, why don't you try that short leash as a weapon? At least they won't be able to hang you with it.

[motorman587]

Second, if you truly believe an arrest may be accomplished through any necessary force, then I am a bit frightened.

Good, you should be.

 

The foundation of the system you're gaming is based on the taking of life as a penalty for non-compliance. Your life, my life, his life. Otherwise the threats that the law provides have no power.

 

So you are for a Police state. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. I am for a very short leash on the people we charge with protecting us. There is not room for Dirty Harry. Officers are paid to use good judgement. Causing a head on collision is NOT good judgement...ever. If he were to sue that officer and I were on the jury, I would side with the biker. That officer would be financially ruined.

 

How can you say the officer "caused" the head on crash?? The person refusing to stop caused the crash. The officer was blocking the inside lane, which if you were watching the video pause it a couple of times, had enough time to stop or swerve. The officer did not block the whole lane and there was an "out" if the rider choose so. So the cause of this crash is solely the rider, who BTW was operatiing his motor vehicle in reckless mannor.

[Albert]

I gotta get me a new You Tube player. Mine obviously doesn't display as much detail as it does for lots of other people here (on both sides of the argument).

[Mike]

The officer was blocking the inside lane, which if you were watching the video pause it a couple of times, had enough time to stop or swerve. The officer did not block the whole lane and there was an "out" if the rider choose so. So the cause of this crash is solely the rider, who BTW was operatiing his motor vehicle in reckless mannor

 

John--First note my opinion, above, that the perp bears full responsibility . . . IMHO, once you run, you bear full responsibility for any harm that befalls you. However, I don't think the guy on the bike had any real to avoid that collision, except a couple minutes prior, when he could have decided to pull over. Admittedly, the web version is pretty low-definition, but it looks to me like three seconds elapsed between the time the cop pulled over the center line and the point of impact (at which point the cop was still continuing his turn into the path of the bike) You'll see also, that there was another oncoming car, in back of the cop, making a left turn, so the perceived "out" may have been pretty much nonexistent.

 

At least as shown on the video, I don't think the guy on the bike had a realistic chance of avoiding the collision. EXCEPT . . . if you count what he should have done, well before the time shown on this video clip, which would have been to stop when the pursuing cop flipped on his lights. In my mind the last three seconds doesn't count nearly as much as all the time leading up to those last three seconds.

[ghaverkamp]

First note my opinion, above, that the perp bears full responsibility . . . IMHO, once you run, you bear full responsibility for any harm that befalls you.

 

If he had blasted through an intersection, weaved through traffic, or been riding on the wrong side of the road, I could buy that. Here, it's not clear that he was even speeding, though it's quite possible he was.

 

He didn't run into the cop on the other side of the street. The cop pulled in front of him. He certainly didn't do enough to warrant the use of deadly force the Supremes used in deciding Scott v. Harris, and to my eyes based on this limited information -- we don't know how long the chase was going on or what happened up to this point -- this seems barely beyond Garner.

[TedG]

The foundation of the system you're gaming is based on the taking of life as a penalty for non-compliance.

 

Nope. The foundation of the system you are accusing Greg of "gaming" is called the Constitution of the United States of America and its purpose is to LIMIT the power of government and its ability to intrude into the lives of the citizenry. I think you will find nothing in any of the Articles stating, "Our authority is based on our ability to grease your sorry butt whenever the spirit moves us." Quite the opposite in fact...rule of law and all, including that pesky 8th Amendment. Perhaps you were confused for a moment and were actually thinking of the United States of Kyrgyzstan.