Speeding cop on computer kills kid on bike... Gets a "careless driving" ticket

[Archer77]

http://madworldnews.com/details-michael-brown-record

I'm in a wait and see mode on this information

[The Abdominal Snoman]

Not much room on this roadway to react to a bike when cars are going 45-50mph. It's not like the bike is staying in a straight line. Amazed more people don't die on roads like this...

[CT_Muscle]

In SW Florida, this is a huge hotbutton issue. 

Basically, cop is driving "at least" 50 mph in a 45 mph limit zone.  He runs over kid who is legally in the road, but may not have had lights on his bike (family said he had reflectors, but who knows).   He kills kid with his car.

http://www.nbc-2.com/story/26399611/report-released-on-deputy-involved-crash-that-killed-cape-teen

So the Q is - for cops or for anyone - if you are speeding, and it's proven (as it is here with the car chip metrics), are  you at fault?  Is this cop looking at jail time?  Fired from police dept, etc? 

People are HUGELY divided here... some say "Hey, everyone speeds".   Other say "kid was 15, driving to school, cop broke law, lock him up".   What is the legal precedent here?  (Note: "At Least" wording may mean cop was going faster - they do speed bigtime on that street).

thats nothing....this cop was racing another cop going over 70 mph in a 40 mph zone

http://www.ctpost.com/default/article/Video-of-fatal-crash-that-killed-two-teens-255258.php

[240 is Back]

Its just more seattle liberal attitude of "you should drive how i want you to drive and if you dont, ill make you do it"....

From what i've seen.... it's the elderly (repubs) that observe the speed limit. 

it's the young (kids and 20-somethings) that drive like idiots.  They're obama voters.

Republicans FOLLOW the law.  Like speed limits.

Worthless libs feel entitled and don't think the law applies to them 

[Royalty]

If the cop was speeding.... The kid should've been able to hear the engine. I go for walks at 6AM, I can hear approaching cars that are going @ 25mph. I can absolutely hear cars that are going 45-55mph

I bet the cop was speeding. And it was dark. And the kid was wearing headphones.

And I bet the cop wasn't paying full attention to the road.

[Royalty]

The driver is responsible for operating his vehicle.  Doesn't matter what his profession is.  Being that he's a cop, his cell phone record probably lists a  call to the 16 year old counter girl at the local deli prior to his killing the child on the bike. The hero was probably on his way there and not paying attention to the surroundings....the scumbag.

The child's family should expect the cop to be cleared of any wrongdoing.  They should then pursue an alternate form of justice.

Sounds like you are suggesting murder.... again.

[Shockwave]

From what i've seen.... it's the elderly (repubs) that observe the speed limit. 

it's the young (kids and 20-somethings) that drive like idiots.  They're obama voters.

Republicans FOLLOW the law.  Like speed limits.

Worthless libs feel entitled and don't think the law applies to them 

Not here its not. They have an "youll drive how i say" attitude to go along with their "obama/biden" stickers.

[el numero uno]

Did the kid rob a store and assault the police officer? No? Then it wasn't his fault.

Fat bastard was a thug and the shooting may be justified but from the very beginning some getbiggers claimed it was his fault, blah blah, even with no evidence at that point. Cops are usually pieces of shit too, it's not like they're heroes or something.

[Radical Plato]

Thats how children look at things, the reality is everything is shades of gray.... there is no black/white in the real world.

You do realise what you stated is a paradox, if what you said is true, then your statement contains shades of grey and may also be viewed as untrue.  Not only this, there are incontrovertible facts in life that could be construed as either black or white with no shades of grey, like the consistency of gravity for instance or the speed of light.  So the reality is, some things have shades of grey and some things don't.

[Shockwave]

You do realise what you stated is a paradox, if what you said is true, then your statement contains shades of grey and may also be viewed as untrue.  Not only this, there are incontrovertible facts in life that could be construed as either black or white with no shades of grey, like the consistency of gravity for instance or the speed of light.  So the reality is, some things have shades of grey and some things don't.

Well yes, obviously hard facts and things like physics are different... im talking about judging actions based on morality.

[Radical Plato]

Well yes, obviously hard facts and things like physics are different... im talking about judging actions based on morality.

You should read the Sam Harris book 'The Moral Landscape' where he challenges the concept of moral relativism. In it, he promotes a science of morality and argues that many thinkers have long confused the relationship between morality, facts, and science. He aims to carve a third path between secularists who say morality is subjective (e.g. moral relativists), and religionists who say that morality is given by God and scripture. Harris contends that the only moral framework worth talking about is one where "morally good" things pertain to increases in the "well-being of conscious creatures". He then argues that, problems with philosophy of science and reason in general notwithstanding, 'moral questions' will have objectively right and wrong answers which are grounded in empirical facts about what causes people to flourish.

Challenging the age-old philosophical notion that we can never get an 'ought' from an 'is', Harris argues that moral questions are best pursued using, not just philosophy, but the methods of science. Thus, "science can determine human values" translates to "science can tell us which values lead to human flourishing". It is in this sense that Harris advocates that scientists begin conversations about a normative science of "morality"

[efirkey]

Was the sun an issue?  it seems like it could have been at this time of day.

[Nails]

[calfzilla]

Primemuscle at the wheel again.

[240 is Back]

Not here its not. They have an "youll drive how i say" attitude to go along with their "obama/biden" stickers.

I don't get how ENFORCING EXISTING LAW is somehow wrong, somehow controlling.  It's the fcking law.  Repubs support it, lawbreaking dems don't.   

i guess conservative principles like abiding by the law can be used when convenient.

I suppose when some liberal decides it's cool to sell crack to school children, some mean ol' Repub will say "you won't sell drugs, as I say". 

[Shockwave]

I don't get how ENFORCING EXISTING LAW is somehow wrong, somehow controlling.  It's the fcking law.  Repubs support it, lawbreaking dems don't.   

i guess conservative principles like abiding by the law can be used when convenient.

I suppose when some liberal decides it's cool to sell crack to school children, some mean ol' Repub will say "you won't sell drugs, as I say". 

Boy, youre sure running off into lala land with this one. I personally know far more liberals who scream about the law than conservatives i know...

And its because they whole heartrdly believe that the laws big brother enacts are for your protecton and you have to follow big brother and you dont get a choice in how you love your life.

I choose to speed up to a point i feel is safe and that wont get me in trouble... usually 5-7mph over the lomit on the freeway. I have 2 tickets in my life, both from going 15mph over in a hurry to get somewhere. I make this choice as a citizen, capable of choosing how i love my life. If a police officer chooses to call me on it, says im being dangerous, ill take the ticket and wont complain because i chose to break the rules.

I drive by cops regularly doing 5-7 over. They dont care. Why? Becaude im not endangering anyone, which is really what the laws are supposed to be about. Theyre designed for protection, not for blind adherence because 'its the law dammit', although many people believe that and good for them.

Im not one of those.

[240 is Back]

I choose to speed up to a point i feel is safe and that wont get me in trouble

I make this choice as a citizen, capable of choosing how i love my life. If a police officer chooses to call me on it, says im being dangerous, ill take the ticket and wont complain because i chose to break the rules.

Theyre designed for protection, not for blind adherence because 'its the law dammit', although many people believe that and good for them.

Reminds me of a lot of libs out there... who fix elections because "i'm not endangering anyone". 
They steal because "it doesn't hurt anyone".
They punch old people because "it's how I enjoy my life"
They grow thousands of pot plants because "its not hurting anyone"
They support illegals crossing border because it's an "act of love"

Can't just pick and choose when the law is convenient.  Like the libs, you're a lawbreaker.  You have different ways of justifying it.   You're okay with using a vehicle in an illegal manner.  So you can't complain if obama uses a drone to bomb american cities or uses US money to fund overseas groups.  After all, he's choosing to break the law "to a point".

More felons are democrats:
http://soundpolitics.com/archives/004473.html
Study: Most Convicts Vote Democrat - Breitbart

[_bruce_]

Primemuscle at the wheel again.

After losing yet another discussion on getbig 

[Shockwave]

Reminds me of a lot of libs out there... who fix elections because "i'm not endangering anyone". 
They steal because "it doesn't hurt anyone".
They punch old people because "it's how I enjoy my life"
They grow thousands of pot plants because "its not hurting anyone"
They support illegals crossing border because it's an "act of love"

Can't just pick and choose when the law is convenient.  Like the libs, you're a lawbreaker.  You have different ways of justifying it.   You're okay with using a vehicle in an illegal manner.  So you can't complain if obama uses a drone to bomb american cities or uses US money to fund overseas groups.  After all, he's choosing to break the law "to a point".

More felons are democrats:
http://soundpolitics.com/archives/004473.html
Study: Most Convicts Vote Democrat - Breitbart

Not in any way the same thing, but nice try.

Stealing hurts people
Punching ladies in the face hurts people
Fixing elections absolutely disenfranchise people.
Letting illegals in hurts people on many level.

And ill guarantee you that if someone followed you for a day, youd break a dozen laws without even thinking about it, and youd feel the same way.

You do realize its YOUR attitude that throws you in with hardcore extremists on both sides, right?

[240 is Back]

Stealing hurts people
Punching ladies in the face hurts people
Fixing elections absolutely disenfranchise people.
Letting illegals in hurts people on many level.

Speeding doesn't endanger people? 

[Shockwave]

Speeding doesn't endanger people?  

Yes and no. 15-20 over the flow of traffic? Debatable. A few mph? Next to zero. Whos to say that the 50mph limit is the proper one? Who decided it? How was it decided? What scientific data produced that was the optimal speed to keep people safe? (It wasnt btw, they decided tbat during the cash crunch in the 80s because a study said goig 50 reduced mpg by a sig percentage)

Are you going to bitch about how dangerous drivers going under the speed limit are?  Theyre not breaking the law, so is that ok to you, for someone to go 30 in a 50? Even though cars have to dodge them, they can cause wrecks getting on the freeway, etc?

But because someone goes faster than the limit, well, dammit, hes endangering people, because, well, the limit!!

I know youre just trying to troll because, well, you were the guy patting himself on the back for helping get Obama elected in 08, but this is asinine and you know it.

[240 is Back]

Yes and no. 15-20 over the flow of traffic? Debatable. A few mph? Next to zero. Whos to say that the 50mph limit is the proper one? Who decided it? How was it decided?

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/fhwasa12004/
They actally put a great deal of thinking, research, science into setting speed limits.  you have to remember most people on the road aren't bright, 20/30 somethings such as us.  If you let 16 year old newbs and 90 year old grannies drive 80 mph, it's gonna be a bad day lol.

Statistically, the faster you go, the more accidents there will be.  Tough to really argue that.  You can't say that reaction/stopping time doesn't increase as the vehicle speed increases.  That's just science and physics at work. 

And if this case had anything to do with going UNDER the limit, then yes, we'd talk about that.  But that's not in play here. 

I think we're at the point where we're saying "going faster isn't more dangerous" - I think we should step back and really look at the debate.  I'm saying speeding is, by definition, breaking the law.  You're saying it's okay to break the law "a little".  I showed why it's dangerous. 

[Shockwave]

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/fhwasa12004/
They actally put a great deal of thinking, research, science into setting speed limits.  you have to remember most people on the road aren't bright, 20/30 somethings such as us.  If you let 16 year old newbs and 90 year old grannies drive 80 mph, it's gonna be a bad day lol.

Statistically, the faster you go, the more accidents there will be.  Tough to really argue that.  You can't say that reaction/stopping time doesn't increase as the vehicle speed increases.  That's just science and physics at work. 

And if this case had anything to do with going UNDER the limit, then yes, we'd talk about that.  But that's not in play here. 

I think we're at the point where we're saying "going faster isn't more dangerous" - I think we should step back and really look at the debate.  I'm saying speeding is, by definition, breaking the law.  You're saying it's okay to break the law "a little".  I showed why it's dangerous. 

My point is that there IS a safe zone where its not really endangering anyone, and its clearly doesnt bother the officers that enforce the laws, as they dont seem to care when you go by their radar trap at 10 over.

Also, that its literally impssible for you to live what you preach.

Your 'its the law, i dont break laws' soapbox mentality automatically makes you a joke, because its literally impossible for you to not go about your day breaking laws of some form.

And by your own words, 'if your ok breaking one law, you have to be ok breaking them all', means that youve set yourself up. You are that guy that you rail against, but either you dont realize it or you wont accept it. Unless of course you think that accidently stealing that pen from the bank is no big deal......

So either youre ignorant, or incredibly arrogant, and both ways a hypocrit of the highest order.....

take your pick.

[240 is Back]

My point is that there IS a safe zone where its not really endangering anyone, and its clearly doesnt bother the officers that enforce the laws, as they dont seem to care when you go by their radar trap at 10 over.

This is a myth.   They can give you tickets for 1 mile over the limit, and there are some famous examples of prick cops that do exactly that.  This might be your experience, but it's not the law.

http://www.dmv.org/articles/traffic-ticket-myths/

[Shockwave]

This is a myth.   They can give you tickets for 1 mile over the limit, and there are some famous examples of prick cops that do exactly that.  This might be your experience, but it's not the law.

http://www.dmv.org/articles/traffic-ticket-myths/

Well, yeah, i never said it was the law, duh.