A Casualty of Revenue Collecting

150
5143
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

They say “speed kills.” Here is a case-in-point.

A cop driving at very high speed struck and killed a motorcycle rider who had the bad luck to be in the wrong place at the wrong time – that place and time being in the path of the cop’s speeding car. The cop was driving so fast he’d outrun his sight lines; as he crested a gentle rise the bike was suddenly in his path. He never knew what hit him.

Literally.

Ironically – tragically – the cop was speeding to catch up with a speeder; that is to say, a driver who was going faster than the sign by the road says one may. No one knows how fast he was going. We only know how fast the cop was going – and what the result of that was.

We also know what the cause of that was.

The cop was determined to catch the “speeder” – and to do that, was willing to drive at whatever speed was necessary to catch up to him. Including speeds defined as reckless speed under the law, when someone who is not a cop drives that fast. As an example, it is prima facie “reckless driving” in Virginia to drive any faster than 80 MPH anywhere – irrespective of the speed limit (even when the speed limit is 70 MPH, as on some Virginia highways). But how can a cop running radar by the side of the highway catch up to a “speeder” doing say 83 MPH except by speeding even more than that?

And how is that not “reckless”?

Keeping in mind the cop running radar is typically sitting by the side of the road. How else is he going to close the distance between himself and that car that just passed by him doing 83 except by speeding a lot faster than that? If he drives within the speed limit, he will never catch up and the “speeder” will “get away.”

And so the cop speeds – often at speeds much higher than the speed of the car he’s trying to catch up to . . . in order to “bust” the driver for “speeding.”

This is an oddity – an incongruity – vis-a-vis the mantra of the Safety Cult (and the courts) that “speed kills.”

As it did in this case. Legally – officially.

Rather than charges or even repercussions for the speeding cop – who was driving so fast that he had almost no time to react to the sudden appearance of that motorcycle in his path – sympathy and condolences.

He meant no harm, of course. But neither, probably, did the “speeder” he was attempting to catch up to.

And that “speeder” killed no one.

Despite the fact, the “speeder” will be blamed for the death of motorcyclist killed by the speeding cop by people who seem to think that “speed” does not “kill” when it is a cop doing the “speeding.”

But the law must be enforced! 

At any cost?

In every case?

“Speeding” – as such – is a statutory offense. It is not a crime, properly (morally) speaking, in that it does not follow that “speeding” causes harm to anyone. If it did, few of us would risk driving – given practically every car on the road is “speeding,” which is a consequence of the fact that speed limits are almost always set below the reasonable speed most people drive. In order to make “speeders” of everyone, so as to make it easier to collect fines for “speeding” from almost anyone.

If you take issue with that then you must insist that most drivers are unreasonable by dint of the fact that most of them drive faster than whatever the speed limit is – and that’s not a reasonable argument.

Just the same as Prohibition – also widely defied – was not a reasonable law. Yet for years, Prohibition was enforced by any means necessary by officers of the law.

It is a similar situation with regard to speed laws – and the officers who enforce them. Their mandate – like that given to Prohibition-era cops – is to catch “speeders,” by any means necessary. If that means driving twice or even three times faster than whatever the posted speed limit is, then so be it.

The “speeder” must be caught!

If someone gets killed in the process, that’s just the price that has to be paid. By someone else, who had nothing to do with any of it.

The problem compounds because the “speeder” also has an incentive – to get away. The driver who is driving 83 on a highway with a 70 MPH speed limit and so driving not much faster than the normal flow of traffic when he drives past the cop hiding by the side of the road knows he is about to get a “ticket” – possibly for “reckless driving.” It gives him an incentive to drive faster than 83 MPH, in the hope that he might put as much distance between himself and the cop – and hundreds of dollars (possibly, thousands, if it’s a “reckless” charge) in fines.

The cop must drive even faster to catch up to the “speeder.” And now they are both really “speeding,” with the admixture of adrenaline and fear that attends a chase.

Some will say the “speeder” ought to just pull over. But – in the first place – he might not even be aware that a speeding cop is trying to catch up to him. And – in the second – the speeding cop closing on him, lights and siren blaring – can trigger the same understandable response as the sight of a German Shepherd off-leash and snarling.

It’s a dangerous dynamic – far more so than this maniacal obsession (in some parts) with catching “speeders,” no matter what it takes .

And no matter who happens to get in the way.

. . .

If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos. 

We depend on you to keep the wheels turning! 

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:

EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)

If you like items like the Safety Cult T shirt pictured below, you can find that and more at the EPautos store!

 

150 COMMENTS

  1. Totally the cop’s fault. Would anyone blame the biker if he was hit by a commoner doing the same thing? No. The way he passed the other cars (probably doing 55-65) looked to me to be 80-100+ MPH. In way over his head and capabilities to catch a common speeder. Who probably accelerated to be rid of that cop a mile or two behind him to begin with.

    • I agree, Torino –

      I anyone else – a (cough) “civilian” – had done the same, they’d be facing felony charges, such as negligent homicide or vehicular manslaughter. Yet many will make excuses for the cop. We had a troll/chatbot/influencer here who did that, for some time. The cop was “doing his duty.” This apparently justifies reckless conduct. And to what end? To catch a “speeder.”

      The irony is lost on these people.

  2. The cop was going so fast he wasn’t driving…he was just pointing his vehicle….

    The cop was going so fast he couldn’t change direction to pass the motorcycle on the left…which he should have….

    The cop’s car was totally out of control, he couldn’t change direction to pass or brake if something happened….

    The cop’s car was out of control….then he panicked when he finally figured out the motorcycle was moving to the right…he braked really hard which put his car even more out of control…he couldn’t change direction then…and killed the motorcyclist….

    The cop was as bad driver…he panicked and braked hard instead of steering to the left….he should have steered left when coming up on the motorcycle…

    The cop’s car is a piece of shit…it is unsafe to drive that fast because it can’t change direction at really high speed without crashing….a piece of shit like that shouldn’t be allowed to be driven at high speed…it will kill somebody….

    There are cars that can change direction at very high speed without crashing…but the crap the cops drive can’t…especially the SUV’s…..they shouldn’t be driving that junk at very high speed…..

    Until the cops get cars that can be driven at very high speed, they shouldn’t be driving their crap dangerous unbalanced vehicles at high speed….

    • The cop should have steered hard left….this would have probably spun him out and maybe rolled over his vehicle…he rolled over anyways…he panicked…made the wrong the decision and killed somebody….

      The cop was driving far above his capabilities and far above the car’s limits….. probably should be banned from driving…..

      • The cop should have STAYED left in the first place. I see idiot cops in Florida weaving back and forth between lanes with lights and sirens all the time. Very dangerous, because you can’t know what the other drivers are going to do. Most people have an instinctive tendency to move to the right when a cop is behind them. If the cop starts moving to the right at the same time, you’re gonna get trouble. Then the cop goes back to the left lane, and now nobody knows where to go or what the hell to do. I remember years ago my brother (a cop) saying they were taught to never leave the left lane. If someone is blocking it, then force them out of the way, horn, siren blasts, tap the bumper, whatever. Do not weave back and forth between lanes.

  3. Police are not government

    An interaction with a private commercial enforcer agent…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaQ_DHYP0-A

    Another driver was pulled over by a cop who was parked illegally, who drove into oncoming traffic and sped down a residential street…. all over the driver “not making a complete stop at a stop sign.” What he did was much more dangerous than what he alleged the driver did…

    So it clearly wasn’t about safety but about collecting revenue…..but…… it is a private corporation trying to make money….to be expected….

    • People gave their sovereignty to the vatican/government corporation to run everything…they are the administrators….(the government is a corporation actually that calls itself the “government”)

      the government…..actually a corporation…. gives their sovereign power to the police the enforcers…to enforce their laws….(corporate law….maritime law….not common law)

      the slaves are under admiralty law…..so have zero rights….

  4. I’m not responding to a particular commenter, but I think it should be mentioned that a study was done to figure out how best to reduce automobile accidents. Turns out, anarchy was the best answer.

    When people have to figure out for themselves their path, negotiating intersections, etc, that is when motorists pay the most attention.

    Also for a SA comment, the motorcycle did have mirrors. It is possible the motorcyclist saw the approaching LEO and was focused on getting out of the LEO’s way. The motorcyclist did what everyone else does, he moved right to yield. The LEO is completely at fault and now some people don’t have a brother, a father, a spouse, or a friend.

    • Exactly, J –

      And this man – the motorcyclist – lost his life (had his life taken) over what? A cop trying to catch up to a “speeder”… by speeding even faster. Yeah, that makes all kinds of sense to me.

    • In the jungle, the asphalt jungle, the LEO hunts today.
      Near the village, the peaceful village, the LEO hunts today.
      Sound track:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQlByoPdG6c

      My guess:
      1. The AGW walks – no criminal charges.
      2. Victim’s family files a civil lawsuit and wins big – multiple millions.
      3. AGW is retired on permanent disability, due to PTSD.

      My comments:
      1. LEOS “on the hunt’ are a “natural phenomenon,’ similar to tigers, salt water crocodiles, mountain lions, coyotes, and bears. It is up to the general public to keep a sharp eye out for predators. Public agencies which employ the predators are “keeping us safe.”

      2. Taxpayers lose big, the legal “profession’ gets its juicy cut, and the victim’s family gets taken care of. Which would you rather have? The perp in prison, $120 million (less legal fees), or whatever is behind door #3?

      3. Is PTSD real? It is very real, and very ugly. If the AGW is a normal human, he will relive this incident many times, and the experience will not be pleasant. Is PTSD forever? No, it is not. Time heals such wounds, but it does take time.

      • Adi – “if the AGW is a normal human…” the problem is most AGW’s today are not, they’re psychopaths on a power trip, which is why they becam AGW’s in the first place.

        • Hi, Mike,
          > “if the AGW is a normal human…”
          Remains to be seen, which is why I qualified my statement.
          If not, then no PTSD, and no disability pension.
          Quod erat demonstrandum, as they say.

          • Hi Adi,

            I think part of the problem as regards this problem is that cops – armed government workers – are “trained” to pursue their prey as the prime directive. Not (as in this case) to exercise common sense and break off the pursuit when it became obvious that the prey was so far ahead (and out of visual range) that catching up to him (even if possible) would entail great risk to everyone on the road as well as the AGW himself.

            As others have already noted, this was not a case of pursuing a heinous criminal. It was an attempt to catch a “speeder.” Why not just let him go? We al know the answer – and it has nothing to do with the “safety” of the public. It has everything to do with making the point about obeying “the law”- and those who enforce it – irrespective of who gets killed and no matter how petty “the law” at issue may be.

            • Hi, Eric,
              This was a difficult video to watch.
              As you know, I have been in the opposite position, where the AGW was the motorcyclist and I was the automobile (pickup truck) driver.

              Lately, I have become very fatalistic about this and many other things. It seems pointless, to me, to moralize or assign blame. Some things just are. Blame, like fairness, is a child’s concept.

              • I agree, Adi –

                The part that saddens me about it is the needlessness of it. A guy was “speeding.” So? But because a cop just had to catch the “speeder”- no matter what it took – a man who just happened to be in the way is dead and his family will never see him again.

                It’s just awful.

                • Eric,
                  >It’s just awful.
                  It might be “just awful,” on an individual level, that Barbara Jean was taken by a saltie, or that Fred was eaten by a bear, but I assert that in the greater scheme of things, the so-called “natural order,” that is just the way things are.

                  “The highway is for gamblers,
                  Better use your sense.
                  Take what you can gather
                  From coincidence.”

                • The vatican/government/corporation thing has said the slaves are useless eaters, just animals, worthless, so one dying means nothing to them…..

                  you are worth more dead then alive….upon your death they get to confiscate your trust account….

                  when you die the vatican becomes the beneficiary and gets your trust account money….the end of the contract is displayed….on your gravestone in all upper case….ie dog latin….with your corporate/slave name…the end of your life on slave/prison planet…

        • Hi Mike,

          “…the problem is most AGW’s today are not, they’re psychopaths on a power trip, which is why they becam AGW’s in the first place.”

          I agree with this. Most normal people are repulsed by the idea of bullying other people. And most normal people know perfectly well that it is bullying people to man a radar gun and hassle people over “speeding,” not wearing a seatbelt and other such trite, made-up “offenses.” The problem is the Potemkin facade of cops being in the business of keeping the peace; that they are our “protectors.” This is at best partially true in that a good part of what they do has nothing at all to do with protecting us or keeping the peace.

          • Your response is illogical Eric Peters. You consider the normal performance of their duty as “bullying”, when it is in fact the reason they are paid to do the job. You malign the people in this position yet you wish to empower them with the choice of when and how to enforce the laws as written.

            You also refer to them as keepers of the peace and protectors. However their position is to enforce the law as written. Not to interpret the laws in a matter favorable to you. You should instead applaud that they enforce these laws correctly and instead direct your attention to the authors of those laws if you are unhappy with them.

            • Bot writes –

              “You consider the normal performance of their duty as “bullying”, when it is in fact the reason they are paid to do the job.”

              I consider it immoral, first of all. Because it is immoral to bully people. And whether the bully is “paid to do the job” – or not – is beside the point as regards the bullying.

              I do support peace keeping. Which by definition entails not harming peaceful people.

              Bot writes:

              “You malign the people in this position yet you wish to empower them with the choice of when and how to enforce the laws as written.”

              I never once said I favor “empowering”them. Indeed, I have said precisely the opposite. And I have repeatedly said laws that make a “crime” out of actions (or non-actions) that cause no harm are themselves criminal, as is the enforcement thereof.

            • “you wish to empower them with the choice of when and how to enforce the laws as written.”
              No, I wish them to be sane and moral, and use their sane morality to make humane judgements on when, if, and how they go about such “enforcement”. No “empowering” required.

              • RE: “I wish them to be sane and moral, and use their sane morality to make humane judgements…”

                No doubt.

                Back in the day, used to be, cops would sometimes give out warnings in place of a ticket when there was no harm or property damage.
                Just. Like. That.

                Not to say they don’t still do that. I hope they do.

                Back in the dark of the 1990’s I got pulled over by a cop for not wearing my seatbelt while driving 25 m.p.h. on a residential street.
                I asked the cop, “Why can’t you just give me a warning?”
                Cop says, “I don’t give warnings.”

                Wish I would’ve known then to reply, “Oh, it’s about money, then.”

                …And, power & control, but, perhaps, I digress?

    • The thing is that mirrors, especially on a bike, don’t tell you much besides something being there. They often vibrate a lot, which blurs the image. They sometimes distort distance. Plus, depending on how they’re adjusted, there may be blind spots; you might not see what you should. That’s why, in MSF class, we had it drilled into us to do our head checks; we were admonished to turn our heads, so we could physically look at who or what might be behind or beside us.

      • There was a moment of hesitation in the biker’s move to the right, so I suspect he had the goon car in his mirror, and determined he was going to get plastered if he continued to the right, just a bit too late. The only way to be prepared for any insane irrational behavior by other drivers is to stay home. There is no limit to the absurdity of what they might do. Like this goon bearing to the right while overtaking a much slower vehicle.

  5. Back where I was living in the ‘90s-early ‘00s they would very rarely authorize high-speed pursuits, unless it was an especially serious crime or someone known to be especially dangerous. They happened, but not very often.

    This kind of thing is why.

    I don’t know what the policy is here & now. But policing has changed a lot since then, and mostly for the worse.

  6. Didn’t the speeding AGW’s car have any friggin’ brakes? There was plenty of time to apply antilock or, at least, cadence brake to stop or maybe swerve to avoid the unfortunate motorcyclist. I once used cadence braking to haul my Duster down from 90mph to a near complete stop, and then swerved to avoid slamming into the rear of my friend’s abruptly stopped Lincoln Town Car (yes, we were racing – almost even, if I remember). But this untrained novice cop should never have been traveling at that speed to catch the evil “speeder”. Made wrong moves and clearly didn’t understand vehicle dynamics.

  7. I wonder if maybe the biker would have had a better chance at detecting the oncoming speeder cop if he wasn’t wearing a full coverage sound and vision shield around his head? Maybe he would have lived if he had been “breaking the law” by foregoing the mandated device.

  8. The cop has sirens on.
    The motorcyclist is naturally moving right to pull on to the shoulder.
    What does the cop do? Move right.
    If the cop had even a lick of training he would be on the left and moved left and missed the motorcyclist entirely.

  9. The slaves are in a bad position….they have no rights…

    Under common law you are the sovereign….but….the current system is run under maritime law…corporate law…..actually the citizens are under admirality law…which means they have zero rights.

    Actually the citizens are under admirality law….unless you take yourself out of/leave the system…which is difficult but possible…..some people might not want to because they will not get anymore government handouts…pensions, welfare, etc..

    People gave their sovereignty to the vatican/government/corporation to run everything…they are the administrators….

    the government gives their sovereign power to the police (who are citizens?)…the enforcers…to enforce their laws….

    police have sovereign power ….so a slave is in a weak position in an interaction with an enforcer….

    You can’t be a sovereign and a citizen at the same time…so are the police gangs?

    https://odysee.com/@januszkowalskii1979:e/Insights-Into-Unidroit-and-Sovereign-Citizens-(Romley-Stewart-Justinian-Deception)-pt1:7

  10. The cop had 3-4 seconds from the time of the initial appearance and the impact. The High Performance school that I teach with allows for ~1 second reaction time to make emergency lane changes.

    This guy wasn’t qualified to drive in such a manner if he couldn’t avoid something 3-4 seconds ahead. Swerving right to avoid an vehicle that, if responding correctly to the siren, will be moving right is simply asinine. He had an empty center lane as a safety bubble, he didn’t use it. Now a man is dead.

    The cop should at least never be in law enforcement and probably should do jail time…as would anyone else that caused such a crash.

    It’s also why we still have indentured servitude as punishment for a crime. He should have a minimum of 10% of his wages garnished and given to the man’s family for the rest of his life.

    `

    • Exactly right, Mark!

      All cops are given license to drive at speeds that would result in our being jailed if we were to drive them on public roads. Many – probably most – have never demonstrated that they have the skill needed to control a vehicle at high speed, especially in terms of evasive maneuvering. It is like giving a person who has at best a superficial/cursory understanding of electricity and wiring the job of wiring your house.

      • Hi Eric,

        I know and work with a number of NCHP and they, for the most part, are highly trained. I’ve been to the training facility and took a few laps with a retired driving instructor. Most of them take pride in their ability to control a vehicle but, some cowboys still slip through.

        Standards seem to be slipping because it seems if a guy was in the military they almost always get hired as cops…despite their gung-ho, PTSD “manliness”.

    • “It’s also why we still have indentured servitude as punishment for a crime. He should have a minimum of 10% of his wages garnished and given to the man’s family for the rest of his life.”

      That’s absurd. He was trying to prevent something dangerous happening by pursuing a fleeing felon. He had no intent to injure and the resultant accident happened in the process of doing his job for which he is rightfully immune from prosecution unless negligence or malice can be proved.

      You are the same guys that would want to arrest a soldier for killing an enemy combatant in battle. You refuse to understand that law enforcement, due to the nature of dealing with criminals has to have some latitude in these matters. Your complete lack of commonsense on these types of issues separates you from the vast majority of law abiding people who understand that the police have to be given some latitude to deal with criminals. You will find NO common ground with otherwise sympathetic people when you condemn the proper actions of law enforcement in cases where accidents result.

      • You know what, liar?

        Maybe you’re right. Maybe the Only Ones should be, well, the only ones. Kill ‘em all, and let God sort them out.

        How does that sound?

      • Ly,

        How do you know that he was “trying to prevent something dangerous happening by pursuing a fleeing felon?” Do you know he was pursuing a felon? Do you know what harms this “felon” caused? Do you know he was a felon? Obviously the cop had no intent to cause harm, he just recklessly endangered others in pursuit of a speeder. Because busting a speeder is clearly more important than a human life. It is far more likely, given the available evidence, that his goal was to issue a ticket, not “prevent something dangerous from happening”. Which happened because of the actions of the cop.

        “You are the same guys that would want to arrest a soldier for killing an enemy combatant in battle”.

        Again, you just make shit up about what others believe. I would love that the sociopaths who start wars on fraudulent premises and put soldiers in horrible situations be put in prison. They are criminals. But no, the soldier, most of the time, should not be held criminally for the actions imposed upon him by sociopaths.

        Cops are given latitude, they can use deadly force. That is why they should be held to a high standard in the exercise of that force.

        This was not a “proper action”, it was negligent homicide.

      • Lyspooner, you are either a rank shill for the powers of the state or you’re merely being obtuse.

        If you won’t engage is thoughtful interaction I shan’t engage with you further. Your words mean nothing.

      • lyspooner, your hysterical arguments against things that you either don’t know or have been conjured up in your own walnut-size brain are astonishing. Get a grip. Your argument skills are laughable. Go waste somebody else’s time.

      • “You are the same guys that would want to arrest a soldier for killing an enemy combatant in battle.”

        EXACTLY what was done at Nuremburg to Generals Jodl and Keitel and Admiral Donitz, who were carrying out their C-in-C’s orders, which resulted in Allied deaths/maiming. The “charge” for which they were convicted, and the two generals hanged (an ignominious death for a soldier, as it means he was a criminal, their request to be shot as soldiers was denied) and Donitz was sentenced to ten years in prison. FWIW, his counterparts in the USN and the Royal Navy actually testified on his behalf that the main reason for his conviction, ordering unrestricted submarine warfare, was exactly what the Allied and/or Soviet Navy did, and in particular, one single Soviet sub, S-13, sank TWO passenger liners in 1945, with a total loss of about 12,000 lives.

        While certainly LEOs are granted discretionary judgment, any well-run police department or sheriff’s office has a pursuit policy, generally related to the gravity of the situation. A high-speed chase of a bank robber who shot the teller and security guard would definitely justify the chase described, and indeed, the death of the motorcyclist could and probably WOULD be charged to the fleeing bank robber, since his fleeing made it reasonable for the police to pursue him at high speed! But a MOVING VIOLATION, which is a civil citation, almost always NOT even a misdemeanor? Ludicrous. Any civil and/or criminal actions against the cop would hinge not only on his obvious poor judgement and disregard for public safety, but also whether he’d received training, and if he’d been disciplined for prior violations of department policy on the subject. Since the officer was in the employ of the department, they’re on the hook as well, no matter how well they can show due diligence.

  11. Eric,

    I’ll have more to say about this later, but I replayed the video at 1/4 speed to better see the crash as it unfolded. While the cop isn’t blameless here, neither is the motorcyclist. Why? He didn’t turn his head to get a better look, nor did take any other action indicating that he was aware of his surroundings and the unfolding situation; he just leisurely continued crossing the road, apparently oblivious to his surroundings. Was he playing his stereo? Was he listening to something in his helmet mounted headset? I don’t know. What I do know is that the biker’s actions indicate that he wasn’t paying the attention he should have.

    That’s a big reason why I’d never have a radio, stereo, XM Radio, or anything else on my bike. It detracts from my situational awareness; fighter pilots call it SA for short. Years ago, a guy in a group ride WIPED OUT his sweet Yamaha XJ1300! Why? He was be-bopping to his XM Radio, wasn’t concentrating, got into a turn too hot, and he crashed. If you’re going to throw a leg over a motorcycle, one must be TOTALLY AWARE OF HIS SURROUNDINGS AT ALL TIMES! That’s the only way to exploit a bike’s advantages of being lightweight, agile, quick, and maneuverable. Judging my my view of the replay, the rider’s SA was, at best, questionable.

    • Hi Marky,

      Here’s a thought experiment. Imagine you come out of a convenience store and see a man in a car driving away with your kid in his car. You hop in your car (which has a broken side window because of the kidnapper) and you chase him. Now, any sane and moral person would consider this a far more dire situation than catching a speeder. You call 911 but continue to follow because you don’t want to lose sight of your kid. So, you get where I’m going with this. In pursuit of the kidnapper, you drive recklessly, which I define as being unable to react to normal traffic conditions. Then you plow into and kill a motorcyclist who may not have been totally aware of his surroundings.

      You will be charged with a crime and probably convicted. Evidence that the motorcyclist was not fully aware of his surroundings will not legally mitigate your negligence. A jury, because of the mitigating circumstances, will probably apply the most lenient sentence, but you will still go to jail.

      Drivers and motorcyclists not being totally aware of their surroundings is a normal traffic condition. I can understand the actions of the father in my thought experiment but, as I said in an earlier post, the stakes of not catching a speeder, or delegating the job to other cops, do not justify the actions of this cop.

      Cheers,
      Jeremy

    • The question is whether the motorcyclist was acting in a reasonable manner at the time. Could he have reasonably foreseen that a cop would be driving at such a high rate of speed behind him? Could he have reasonably foreseen that the cop would overtake him in the right lane or the shoulder? I would say no. Is it reasonable to do anything other than yield the right-of-way by pulling over as close to the right-hand edge of the road as possible. No. Was it reasonable for the cop to expect the motorcyclist to yield to the left when the law tells him to yield to the right? No.

      The question you pose, MarkyMark, seems to me to be more whether the motorcyclist could have more perfectly acted (using your hindsight knowledge obtained at 25% real time). Perhaps, and it’s an excellent question to ask in order to be an outstanding driver, but I see no legal fault on the motorcyclist’s part.

    • Mark,

      I estimate (and I’m someone with decades of experience in this area; more than most cops who testify about such things) the cop was doing at least 80-100 MPH on a road with poor sight lines at such speeds. At that speed, he closed on the bike so quickly the biker had very little time to react, let alone get out of the way in time. I agree with you that vigilantly maintaining awareness on a bike is key to survival. But the fault does not lie with the biker for not getting out of the way of a recklessly speeding cop.

      • Eric and others,

        I agree; the cop was doing at least 100, if not faster. Did you see how fast the lane markers were flashing by?

        That said, we’re looking at a four lane (five, with the suicide lane in the middle) road in a rural area. I’d bet that it has at least a 55 mph PSL, and that local traffic travels faster than that on a regular basis. Furthermore, it’s not unreasonable to expect that some hotshot local boys to go racing on that road. Hence, a vehicle traveling at crazy speeds, while maybe a rare occurrence, shouldn’t have been a total surprise.

        Secondly, the cop had his lights and siren activated long before the accident. They’re bright and loud enough to see and hear them long before they get to you; even if the biker couldn’t see the cop, he should’ve heard his siren. That’s why I was curious if the biker was playing a stereo, listening to something on his headphones, or if he had a loud engine. The biker should’ve heard the cop before he topped the rise in the road, so he should’ve been looking for where the siren is coming from; he should’ve been more alert than his actions showed him to be.

        Now, another question I have is this: was the biker REALLY pulling off out of the way, or was he heading to that store or business along the side of the road? There’s an elevated business sign that’s visible; while I cannot tell for sure what the business is, it appears to be a convenience store and gas station, and that the biker may have been heading for it. He started rolling along slowly in the suicide lane, and then he proceeded to gradually cross the road at an angle while traveling slowly. Was he headed for that convenience store/gas station, or was he trying to get out of the way? One could make a case that he was heading for the store, because the shoulder becomes narrower and ends soon after the point of impact.

        That said, the cop could’ve and should’ve avoided hitting the biker. He saw the biker at least four seconds before impact; even allowing a one second reaction time, he had three seconds to change lanes or apply the brakes so, even if he couldn’t stop, he could’ve slowed down enough to avoid hitting the biker.

        Those are my thoughts. From what I see, both parties are at fault here. The cop was driving too fast; he was driving beyond his ability, or, at the very least, so target fixated on the speeder that he didn’t take appropriate action early enough. The biker, from what I can see, was not paying sufficient attention to his surroundings; failure to pay attention on a bike never ends well.

        • Hi Marky,

          Your points/speculations are all valid. But, all of this is still a normal traffic condition. The cop, as you point out, drove in a way where he could not respond to a normal traffic condition. And for what, giving a ticket to a speeder?

          Cheers,
          Jeremy

        • Modern sirens on police and other government vehicles are very difficult to determine location and speed from. The motorcyclist took the default action of hearing one, moving to the right shoulder.

          The cop should have been on the left. The passing side. The side people aren’t told to move to when hearing a siren.

          Another note I recall directionality being removed from police lights and sirens is of the safety cult line of thinking that people perceive more danger that way and will act better. Instead the obvious result happens, people act randomly from POV of an observer or take to defaults (like moving right).

        • MarkyMark: This strikes me as Monday morning quarterbacking after being guided with unlimited slow-mo replays. I have never experienced a scenario of a cop closing in on me at 100 or so mph from behind and attempting to pass on the right of me. I don’t think it’s reasonable to foresee that ever occurring at all. That’s asking way too much of the general public to expect that. That cop needs to spend some time at the graybar hotel for reckless homicide.

          • But you cannot tell me with a straight face that no one travels that wide open, rural highway at high speed. I can easily see young guys racing one another at high speed there. I can also see guys using that road just to see what their car will do. I don’t know if the local cops travel at high speed on that highway very often, but I guarandamntee you that they’re not the only ones who do! Now if I, someone who’d never been to AR, thought of that, how many locals have?

            Secondly, the biker crossed the highway at a continuous, constant angle; it was as if he were heading for the entrance to the gas station and convenience store. Was he heading there? Was he pulling over for the cop? We’ll never know why he was heading to the right; the only uncontrovertible fact is that he was heading to the right.

            What is clear to me as an experienced motorcyclist (12 bikes and thousands of miles of experience) is that the biker wasn’t aware of his surroundings; he wasn’t paying attention. If he were (i.e. heard the siren), then why didn’t he stop his crossing to assess the situation? Why didn’t he straighten up in the center lane for a bit, so he could check ahead, check his mirrors, then look behind him to see what’s going on? Let’s say he hasn’t seen the cop yet; let’s say he’s only heard the siren. Is pulling across two lanes to get to the right a good idea?

            I’ve been doing some research on what to do if an emergency vehicle approaches. In most instances, you should move to the right. However, you don’t do this if the emergency vehicle is obviously in the right lane or on the shoulder. In any case, emergency vehicles won’t always move in a predictable manner, so one shouldn’t act like a robot and automatically pull over to the right 100% of the time. In the vast majority of instances, you will; however, one should’t automatically do it, i.e. pull off to the right.

            • RE: “one should’t automatically do it, i.e. pull off to the right.”

              What is it then, that one should do?

              ‘Cause, these moves don’t seem like they would have mattered If he even had the time, “stop his crossing to assess the situation? Why didn’t he straighten up in the center lane for a bit, so he could check ahead, check his mirrors, then look behind him to see what’s going on?”

              The only difference I see there is, he would have clearly seen the heavy thing swing. Maybe.

              Also, is it uniform in agreement that those who are deaf or hard of hearing should never ride a motorcycle?

              i.e. “he wasn’t paying attention. If he were (i.e. heard the siren),”

            • I just don’t think it reasonable to hold the public to a duty to remain constantly vigilant for any possibility that might be “thought of.” For crying out loud, the cop was attempting to pass him on the right at what you believe was 100mph. To look to the motorcyclist as being at fault in any way strikes me as entirely unreasonable.

              The motorcyclist’s trajectory was entirely predictable from the cop’s point of view. There is no justification to pass anybody on the right at 100 mph and no one should be held to expect that such an event might occur by a cop. The cop was simply driving much too fast, was probably amped up with adrenaline and likely hit him as a result of what is known as “target fixation.” One of the first lessons they teach you in road racing school is “look where you want to go.” Instead of looking where he wanted to go (the open lanes on the left), the cop likely fixated on the motorcyclist and that’s where he ended up.

              To quote Forrest Gump: That’s about all I have to say about that.

              • Hi ML,

                Yes, whatever deviation from perfect awareness the motorcyclist may have displayed is irrelevant to this situation. The cop was not pursuing a “fleeing felon” as Lyperson claimed, he was pursuing a car driving at a “high speed”, whatever that means. The cop drove in a way that was reckless and dangerous, eventually killing a man. And for what? Giving a ticket.

                Jeremy

              • If you’d read my original comment, you’d remember that I never said that the cop was faultless-far from it. My point is that the motorcyclist could have and should have been more vigilant and aware. Failure to be vigilant and aware on a bike will, at best, get you a trip to the hospital; at worst, it’s a trip to the morgue. My point was that both parties are at fault here.

                However, given the mass hatred of cops on this site, everyone wants to give the biker a pass, and they want to blame everything on the cop. Sorry, but that’s how I see it. Like it or not, this situation is more nuanced than that; it’s not a simple black and white, cut and dry case that it’s all the cop’s fault. Does he bear some responsibility for this fatal accident? Yes, he does. Is it all his fault? No, it’s not, and I’ve clearly pointed this out in previous comments.

                I’m not a fan of the cops, either; I’m not one of these conservatards who “back the blue”; I don’t worship cops. In fact, I don’t like or trust cops, nor do I want to deal with them unless I absolutely have to. That said, I cannot and will not pin all blame on the cop for this fatal wreck. To do so is to be as biased as our enemies are; we’re no different from the lefties who say anyone to the right of Chairman Mao is a white supremecist.

                • Hi Marky,

                  Your points about situational awareness for drivers, especially motorcyclists, are valid but they are irrelevant to this case. Yes, the cop was 100% responsible for this death because he drove in a way where he could not respond to normal traffic conditions (a lack of perfect situational awareness of other drivers).

                  You have stated that people race on these roads and that people need to be aware of that. Fine, good advice. But, if a joy riding driver killed someone not exercising perfect situational awareness would you claim that the fault was shared partly by the victim?

                • I believe I’ve given a unbiased, detailed and reasoned analysis, which I understand you disagree with (and that’s ok). I’ve also said I hold cops and non-cops to the same standard, yet you accuse me and others of serious bias (in a very over-the-top way):

                  “However, given the mass hatred of cops on this site, everyone wants to give the biker a pass, and they want to blame everything on the cop.”

                  “To do so is to be as biased as our enemies are; we’re no different from the lefties who say anyone to the right of Chairman Mao is a white supremacist.”

                  In other words, if I don’t agree with you it’s only because my mind is clouded by haltered and I’m no different from the lefties who say anyone to the right of Chairman Mao is a white supremacist. Good grief man!

                  It’s been my experience that the use of ad hominems indicates either a weak argument or a weak arguer who’s unable endure disagreement with his position. Can’t you just say I disagree and leave it at that?

                  • Agreement has nothing to do with it; common sense does. We could disagree on how fault should be apportioned here, but no one can say that the biker was totally innocent here. As an experienced motorcyclist, I can weigh in on this.

                    Secondly, where did I engage in an ad hominem? Did I attack anyone personally? Did I call anyone names? No, I did not; I attacked a weak and biased position, nothing more. The fact of the matter is that most situations (e.g. the recent Gaza mess, Ukraine, or this wreck) are rarely black and white; rarely is a situation like this totally the fault of one party or the other; when one does some digging, the situation is far from being that cut and dry.

                    Everyone wants to blame the cop 100%, while I cannot and will not agree with that. I can go along with giving the cop most of the blame (60%-70%, IMO), but not 100% of it. Because the biker was inattentive and unaware of his surroundings, he has to take some blame, even if it’s a minority of the blame.

                    • Hi Marky,

                      The reason why I and others believe that the cop was 100% responsible is because he chose to recklessly endanger others by driving in a way that he could not react to normal traffic conditions, which includes other drivers not exercising perfect situational awareness.

                      He should not have driven so recklessly in pursuit of a speeder. The gravity of the “offense” simply does not warrant endangering others with a reckless high speed pursuit.

                      Here’s an article that discusses the issue.

                      https://www.virtualacademy.com/blog/police-officer-training-high-speed-police-pursuits

                      Jeremy

                    • Amen, Jeremy –

                      And it’s easy – simple – to establish the fact. Had the cop not chosen to chase the “speeder” at reckless speed (defined by the fact that he lost control of his vehicle at that speed) the “accident” would not have happened. Inarguable. It was therefore not an “accident.” It was an avoidable loss-of-control caused by driving faster than the driver had the skill (and sight lines) to drive in a controlled manner.

                      A good example of an accident is when you’re driving along and a deer suddenly and out of nowhere leaps into the path of your car, leaving you no time to react, much less attempt evasive maneuvering. The deer could not have been foreseen. That is an “accident.”

                      To suggest, as Mark has, that the motorcyclist shares some of the blame for his own death is (to me) like saying a person who didn’t duck fast enough when a cop recklessly discharged his firearm is also partially to blame for having been shot to death.

                • Hi Mark,

                  To be precise, we (well, maybe I ought to speak for just me) hate that cops are empowered. Take that away and there’d be much less reason to hate cops. And – to be even more precise – it is that they are empowered to enforce tyrannical laws, such as “buckle up” laws (indefensible, unless you believe the government has a right to parent us – at gunpoint). If we were talking about peacekeepers – who pursued criminals, it would be a very different matter.

                  • Eric,

                    Cops are too empowered, no question about that. There’s no question that many of the laws they enforce shouldn’t exist. The cops these days are different too. When I was a kid, most of them seemed to be public servants who wanted to help their communities. Now, the selection criteria are different, so we have what amounts to Nazi wannabes who’d be totally at home in Hitler’s Brownshirts. Hence, I can understand the hatred-to a point. However, all those are separate debates.

                    OTOH, whether we like it or not, the situation won’t change any time soon. We didn’t arrive at a police state overnight, nor will we end it overnight. It is what it is, and we have to deal with it.

                    Getting back on track, the cop hatred is leading many here to cast 100% of the blame on the cop, and I disagree with that. I could see giving the cop most of the blame; I could go along with perhaps 60% to 70% of the blame going to the cop. Even if the high speed chase were warranted, the cop could have and should have hit the brakes; even if he couldn’t have completely stopped, he could’ve bled off enough speed to avoid the biker. Even dropping 20 or 30 mph would’ve made all the difference, and the cop certainly had enough notice to do that. Once the biker crossed the highway and was clear, then the cop could’ve safely resumed chase.

                    But blaming the cop 100%? I can’t go along with that. As experienced motorcycle riders, we have to be honest, and we have to acknowledge that the biker made mistakes too. The biker’s inattention was clear from one or two viewings of the video at full playback speed. Inattention can lead to trouble on a bike, and in this case, it did.

                    • The AGW was the only one on the scene breaking the law, excessive speeding. The biker was explicitly OBEYING the law. Pulling to the right, yielding to an “emergency” vehicle.

    • I agree, I’m still on a Road King where my buds have gone on to have dressers with fairings and the claptrap that goes with it, including a stereo that has to be at full tilt to hear it on the road. Me, windshield two wheels and the engine. This one has cruise which really is great on the road trips set it and concentrate fully on the road and your mirrors!

  12. Eric:

    I encourage you to block LiarS. He is an obvious troll. Had his time and I am sure he will reanimate as another Bot and continue to spout his nonsense. I ignore his posts. Others should do the same. It wants attention. Don’t give it any.

  13. In the old days four cops would team up and write tickets.
    Cop one would stand with a radar gun and signal for speeders to come to the side of the road
    Cops two and three write tickets furiously
    For those who decide to drive off, Cop 4 would be waiting to have their vehicle impounded, charge them with running from the law and the obligatory speeding ticket.
    This worked so well people would slow down for miles around. In fact, the cops used dummies (manikins, not other cops) in parked vehicles with a wooden radar gun on the vehicle.
    Traffic safety improved and no high-speed chases

  14. Those who insist, “Its the LAW, and it must be enforced at any and all cost,” are full of dog shit. We should easily understand this by taking a look at our political class of special people, where the LAW is rarely, if ever enforced. Unfortunately most of the population just doesn’t get it. Its to big a leap to leave the mainstream plantation.

    Its OK for the cops to commit the horrific crime of ‘reckless driving’, in order to catch a ‘reckless driver.’ Even if they have to engage in ludicrous speed. Just one more example, if anyone needed it, of who our just us system works for, and who it works against. I imagine many still won’t get this, even as they’re being herded onto buses at the point of a bayonet.

    • If they ever catch up with whoever the pig was chasing, that driver will probably get pegged with manslaughter on top of the ticket.

      If I were on the jury, and I were aware of the circumstances, I would not convict. I would also try to recommend charging the pig instead.

      However, when it comes to prosecuting the official armed goons (as opposed to unofficial ones) the DAs usually kind of phone it in and go through the motions.

      Justice is seldom served.

  15. A similar incident occurred here in SE MI about 15 years ago with similar “results”. A local PO radar-ed a speeding vehicle traveling in the opposite direction from him. He immediately and recklessly did a u-turn right into an oncoming motorcyclist. The officer was never charged and cleared of any wrong doing. They concluded it was the motorcyclist who was at fault! I believe the story the authorities put forth was that the motorcyclist was “speeding” : ( Geez you can’t make this s$!t up!

  16. Biden should supply F-16’s to the highway patrols, along with a bevy of laser guided munitions, speeding infractions will be held in check.

    Wouldn’t have to speed their patrol cars down the road to then run over people and kill them.

    There will be a lot of safe roads out there with the highway patrol up in the sky and off the roads.

  17. The town of Vinton,VA. just lowered the speed limit on a stretch of 4 lane road that is straight and WAS wide. The WAS is due to the fact that they put in bike lanes in both directions. 35 MPH to 25 MPH is very hard to maintain due to the fact that it is down hill leaving Vinton and down hill entering Vinton from Roanoke.

    “If we can change people’s behavior then obviously it’ll keep everybody else safe,” said Vinton Police Department Deputy Chief Tim Lawless. “So, hopefully changing the limit down to 25 (MPH) will accomplish that goal.”

    We’re not necessarily out there trying to write a bunch of tickets,” explained Lawless. “We want to make the public aware that the speed limit is changing and hopefully we can just change their behavior and just slow people down.”

    The new measure is a precaution to keep pedestrians and commuters safe.

    “We haven’t had incidents but we don’t want incidents,” said Peters. “And with all the new activity there with the crosswalk and the new businesses – we really just want folks to be aware, pay attention, and make it safe for everyone.”

    It’s all about control of you in the name of SAFETY !!!!!! so thats why you can see a blacked out Vinton PD at 10 o’clock at night running radar if look hard enough. Ha

    • Hi caadman,

      This is local for me (I live in Floyd) and didn’t know about it; hat tip for hipping me to it. These stupid green-painted bike lanes are cropping up all over. And they’re (from what I have seen) hardly used by bicyclists.

    • Not saying that’s what the speed limit “should” be, but: It’s easy to maintain that if you use your gears.

      Oh, wait.

      CVTs don’t have gears, most automatic drivers don’t know how, and almost no one drives stick any more.

  18. You should also write a column about fire engines and ambulances breaking the law! What right do they have to run red lights and force you to move over for them! I don’t care if someone’s house is on fire or someone is dying, that’s no claim on my time! They should have to follow the law like everyone else. No “special rights” for them.

    • LyBot –

      As always, you miss the point. As always, you make excuses for and defend government… while styling yourself a devotee of Lysander Spooner. A smarter bot would change its name to “rigtheousconservative” or “bluebacker”…

    • STFU lyspoonerBot. Your comment is a complete non sequitur. That stupid cop was neither racing to put out a fire nor attempting to save anybody’s life. To the contrary, he put an end to a man’s life in pursuit of a “speeder.” It’s apparent you haven’t a clue about analogical reasoning. You fucking moron!

      Your defense of deadly armed government worker recklessness is disgusting. Now go fuck off and crawl back under that decaying log where you belong, you callous shitbag.

      • He was chasing a law breaker, you festering sac of puss, it’s his job to stop people from breaking the law, an accident happened and you choose to use it to make your dumb shit point that laws you don’t like shouldn’t be punished.

        What a completely retarded take on the issue, you don’t like speeding laws so don’t enforce them, and if you do, once in a million times, something goes wrong. You are a complete idiot and an example of why anarchy would never work because dick heads like you would make living with you impossible unless there was a 3rd party to enforce and punish you for the stupid things you do.

        • Bot –

          The cop was chasing a “law breaker.” Yes, that’s so. Your reverence for “the law” – and the enforcers thereof – is touching. The Gestapo and NKVD also “chased law breakers.” It was “their job,” too.

          This makes no impression on bot, I realize.

          But why not change your handle to something more in line with your algorithm?

          • How do you continue to compare laws that provide for order and basic safety with the freaking Gestapo? Do you have no sense of proportion? This isn’t a law meant to hurt anyone, it’s to provide an agreed upon way of traveling the public roads that ensures some level of safety. It’s something people in any society, a republic, a dictatorship, an anarchy, would have to work out so they would be able to drive places without risking their lives every time.

            How would this work in an anarchy? No speed limits? Drive on any side of the road you want? Ignore stopping at busy intersections? Of course not. There would be agreements on accepted behavior on the roads and violators would be punished in some way.

            I agree with you on many of your takes on government overreach but there is no society with out some sets of rules and a way of enforcing them. NO SOCIETY exists with out such a thing.

            Lysander Spooner did not envision a society with no rules and no one to enforce them. Stop insinuating that he was an anarchist. He was not at all.

            • Ly,

              It is you who lack a sense of proportion. You justify the obviously reckless and dangerous behavior of this cop in pursuit of a speeder because he broke the “law”, any law, doesn’t seem to matter to you. You equate the actions of this cop with firefighters and medics, again showing no sense of proportionality.

              And yes, in many cases these laws are set up to hurt people. In many places speed limits are set intentionally below the average flow of traffic for the purpose of mulcting people of their money. As Eric describes, this itself creates a dangerous environment.

              You are correct, all societies establish rules, numerous historical examples show that such rules can be established without a coercive monopoly institution. In fact, even in statist societies, most human interaction is anarchic in nature. People don’t trade with strangers because they believe a government gun protects them, they do so because people understand, whether they can articulate it or not, that voluntary exchange is mutually beneficial. Anarchy does not mean no rules or no enforcement mechanisms, it means no rulers.

              Lysander Spooner was an individualist anarchist, despite your ahistorical claim.

              • If a police car is in pursuit of a speeder, who because of their reckless driving needs to be stopped, they will HAVE to drive fast to catch them. There is no other option. And accidents do happen, that is why there are speed limits. This correlates EXACTLY to the actions of fire and ambulance service which also races to their destinations, and also occasionally has accidents as well. The comparison is perfectly apt. Just because you don’t agree does not make it so.

                As far as the matter of setting speed limits too low is concerned I don’t know. The people who set those limits do so based upon their research of the traffic patterns and data bases of results of speed limits in those situations. I agree they often seem low but this does not effect your point which is they are low to make money. What difference does a low speed make to you. You don’t want any speed limit so if you are going to have to obey a limit, one is as good as the other. You still won’t like it.

                • Ly,

                  You claim that driving recklessly in pursuit of a speeder is EXACTLY the same thing as speeding to save a life or put out a fire is moronic, and lacks proportionality. Of course I don’t agree with it, because it’s moronic.

                  If a cop cannot drive in a manner to avoid a crash in normal conditions that is, on it’s face, reckless. Also, I never claimed that cops cannot speed. I do not define speeding as inherently reckless. And there are other options. Pretty sure cops can communicate with each other and provide location data to other cops.

                  Please show me where I said I don’t want any speed limits? Pretty sure I’ve never made that claim.

                  If memory serves, speed limits are supposed to be set by monitoring traffic flow and setting the limit at the 80th percentile. Many places set the limit well beneath that. It is also common to change speed limits on the same section of road without any change in the road itself. These are often called “speed traps”. Small towns routinely set speed limits well below any conceivably safe speed specifically for revenue generation. I know to be very careful in such towns.

        • Get a brain, asshole. It wasn’t an “accident.” It was a predictable, deadly collision resulting from that stupid cop’s grossly reckless driving. What does any of this have to do with anarchy? This is about a stupid, reckless cop. In your world cops can do no wrong and they have a license to kill, even in pursuit of somebody engaging in a mere “civil infraction” of speeding. To that I say fuck you.

          It is most apparent that your callous sentiments are made solely to instigate a response. Nobody can otherwise be that stupid to write comments like yours.

          • You are one of the most ignorant people on the planet. You are unable to make the jump in logic that NO speed limits, and NO enforcement of speed limits are a form of anarchy. If the cop was reckless then he should be held accountable. That does not mean that no police should ever try to arrest fleeing criminals. Which was the point of the article. It’s a stupid take, one which almost everyone would disagree, and for good reason, unlike mentally challenged people like yourself, commonsense indicates that there should be limits to behavior on the public roads and violators should be punished. Just because something goes wrong once in a while, as it does in all human action, doesn’t mean it should never be done.

            This is an example of “if it saves one life” that you rightly criticize in other examples, but use it to support your viewpoint now.
            That’s because besides being a total moron you are also a hypocrite.

            • Krusty,

              “That does not mean that no police should ever try to arrest fleeing criminals. Which was the point of the article”.

              Can you show me the part of the article that makes this claim? I can’t find it.

              Jeremy

            • Another klown response. I thought you crept back under your rotting log weeks ago.

              Hey klown, help me find the portion of Eric’s article that says: “NO speed limits and NO enforcement of speed limits.” and “No police should ever try to arrest fleeing criminals.” I can’t seem to find it on my own. Eric’s ACTUAL point is that recklessly pursuing somebody who is speeding to the point of endangering everybody else around you and causing the death of an innocent man is at odds with the stated purpose of a speed limit, wrong and immoral.

              All you can seem to do is apply meathead, caveman logic. Violation bad! Enforcement good! You and lybot (probably the same) argue that not chasing speeders would make society unlivable. Well, guess what? Your idea of how society should operate literally made life unlivable for that poor motorcyclist. I know. I know. When you’re makin’ omelets you’ve inevitably got to break some eggs. That guy’s just a little collateral damage, that’s all. Enforcement at all cost! You’re cure is significantly worse than the alleged disease.

    • Ly,

      Nowhere in the article did Eric claim Firefighters, medics or even cops should never be allowed to “break the law”. The article was not about holding cops to the same speed limits as other drivers, it was about the reckless disregard for human life, often justified by statist zealots such as yourself, no matter how trivial the offense against the “law”. That you equate the obviously reckless and dangerous behavior of this cop with firefighters and medics is sickening. It indicates that you believe any infraction of any law justifies nearly any response. That attitude is genuinely dangerous to society.

      • No he didn’t make the claim, but it’s the same idea. He is insisting that police be held to the same standard as others even in the pursuit of their duty. You can say the exact same thing about firefighters and ambulances, occasionally they also crash into people and kill them on their way. So what’s the difference.

        Cut it out with that statist zealot bullshit, it’s not being a statist to expect law enforcement to do their job, that would be the case of a private law enforcement agency as well. If the police acted irresponsibly then he/she should be held responsible. But accidents are going to happen during pursuits and arrests. That doesn’t mean you don’t pursue or arrest.

        • Ly,

          No, it’s not the same idea, not at all. The point was that this cop engaged in obviously reckless and dangerous behavior in pursuit of a relatively trivial offense. It’s not even remotely related to speeding by firefighters or medics. It is baffling that you admit that Eric didn’t say what you claimed he said, but insist that is what he really meant.

          You are a statist, by your own admission. Which is fine, many here are. I called you a statist zealot because you justified the reckless slaughter of a human life because someone was “breaking a law”. Because you lack proportionality, breaking a law, any law it seems, justifies this type of reprehensible behavior.

          • You don’t know that the police behavior was reckless, he was in pursuit and hit another vehicle. It’s an unfortunate tragic accident that would not have happened had the speeder been following the law.

            You got a weird definition of statist. Apparently to you it means anyone that thinks that people should follow the law.

            “Reckless slaughter of a human life”?! A bit overblown. It was a tragic accident.

            There was no “reprehensible” behavior by the policeman, he was pursuing a law breaker and an accident happened. That is not reprehensible, it is tragic. There is no reason to think the the cop was doing anything but what he was trained and expect to do.

            If a policemen is shot at and returns fire and an innocent bystander is killed, it is not “reckless slaughter” due to “reprehensible” behavior but a tragic accident caused by the shooter.

            • Ly,

              I do know that it was reckless because I watched the video. He was driving in a way where he could not react to a normal traffic situation. That is, on it’s face, reckless. As I described in my last post, the cop did have other options.

              If a cop shoots a a fleeing petty shoplifter and kills an innocent bystander, is that OK?

              BTW, statist simply means someone who believes in the practical necessity of the State. You have a habit of imagining things that other people believe and then insisting that your imaginings are correct, no matter what the other person actually said. I called you a statist because you argued for the practical necessity of government, which defines you as a statist. No, thinking people should follow the law doesn’t make one a statist. But, you’ll probably claim it’s the same thing.

              What makes you a statist zealot, in my opinion, is that you seem to believe that nearly any action in pursuit of a “law breaker”, no matter what law is broken, is justifiable. Perhaps your position is more nuanced that that, but it is not evident from what you have written.

              My description was not overblown, it was not a tragic accident. It was a predictable, but not inevitable, outcome of choosing to drive in a way where you cannot react to normal road conditions.

              “There is no reason to think the the cop was doing anything but what he was trained and expected to do”.

              In this you are, unfortunately, correct. The cop is trained to go after law breakers, no matter how trivial the offense, and place “catching” them above the safety of others.

            • We certainly do know the cop was reckless. We can see the video of what he did. He plowed right into the motorcyclist, despite the fact the two lanes were open to the left of him. Thus, it was not an “accident.”

              Was the speeder acting recklessly? If so, why not the cop?

              I also see you like to employ euphemisms and passive voice such as a “It was a tragic accident.” It’s crystal clear that you’re saying the cop caused this “tragedy.”

              lybot: Your arguments absolutely suck and are immoral.

              • Cops cause such tragedy because they know they will suffer no consequences. The victim is at fault for not getting out of the way fast enough, though if he had, he would probably be “speeding” as well.

            • Bot,

              We do know the cop was driving recklessly because anyone else who did the same would have been charged with exactly that (as well as vehicular manslaughter). Beyond that, it is prima facie reckless to drive faster than you can see what’s in your path. All for what? To catch a “speeder.” By speeding even faster – and killing someone along the way.

        • Bot writes:

          “Even in pursuit of their duty.”

          Again, an NKVD thug would have (and did) say the same. But people such as you cannot see. Morally speaking, it is the duty of every person to avoid recklessly endangering other people. The cop failed in that duty.

    • If you don’t move over and make way for an emergency vehicle like a firetruck, you’re going to get rammed and the firetruck will keep on truckin’. The insurance company will tell you to get lost and the police will be at the scene to haul your no good worthless hide to the hoosegow. See ya, wouldn’t wanna be ya!

      Nice roof collapse at the Luton Airport in London, something about an EV hybrid vehicle burning like crazy then raged out of control.

      Only idiots buy EV’s. Might be arson, but probably not.

      WUWT has the story from Paul Homewood’s Not A Lot of People Know That.

  19. I’ve seen our local cops, sheriff, and state police each go balls-to-the-wall on both side roads & major throughputs to catch “speeders”. Hell, it’s a normal everyday occurrence for the costumed enforcers to blow by at significantly higher speeds than what’s posted –no lights or sirens. It’s just that the rules don’t apply to them. And we the public don’t say a fucking thing about it. Instead, many here have the stupid back-the-blue flags / bumper stickers / etc.

    • I’ve seen those ‘back-the-blue’ flags and right next to them ‘Come and Take Them’ gun stickers. These people are completely braindead, when one attempts to bring clarity to their confused minds the response seems to commonly be “Go Away! I’m Baitin’!!”

      • The same “logic” that has them venting their outrage over some 40 Israeli babies supposedly being murdered by Hamas thugs and their bodies desecrated by decapitating them. Somehow I’m dubious. At least they didn’t say that the Hamas “fighters” donned Pickelhaube helmets, affix triple-edged bayonets to their Mauser Gewehr 98 rifles, and throw babies up into the air, and attempt to “catch” them by impaling them on the bayonets! And then their “solution” is to kill not only the Hamas “fighters”, but also the Palestinian civilians in Gaza, women and CHILDREN included, like Anakin Skywalker wiping out the Sand People on Tatooine in a fit of rage…and his beloved Padme, instead of running like hell from an obviously disturbed young Jedi, practically creams her jeans.

  20. The motorcyclist was obviously aware of an approaching vehicle with siren blaring. He was moving to the right, as is supposedly the right thing to do. Instead of going to the center passing lane the cop keeps going right. The cop obviously wasn’t looking ahead or he would have had time to move left of the motorcyclist.

    If this is a “trained” driver I’d hate to see one that wasn’t.

      • It appears there is some hesitation of the biker moving to the right. Possibly because he saw the AGW was moving to the right as well, and he was about to get run over. He was in a no win situation.

    • I agree, Mark. The motorcyclist followed the law. He was moving to the right. The cop is 100% at fault. He was driving excessively and irresponsibly to a scene that was not a life and death situation. He also did not stay to the left which is what passing vehicles are supposed to do. Someone’s father, brother, son, uncle lost their life because the driver was not paying attention to his surroundings and driving like a bat out of hell.

      The guy should be tried in court like all of his peers. I realize it was an accident, but he caused a death due to driving like a maniac. He should face the consequences.

        • You’re as blind as you are stupid. Like the rest of the sycophant’s on this site. This was a tragic accident nothing more. The trooper was in high speed chase, the accident resulted in an unfortunate coincidence of the slope of the road and the place where the motorcycle was.

          Clearly the motorcyclist didn’t hear the siren until the cop came over the hill, he then moved to the right to allow a pass on the left but the cop saw him in the left lane and moved to the right to avoid him, thus they misinterpreted each other’s intent and ended up in the same lane. A tragic accident. Due to the short response time due to coming over the hill. Could’ve happened at even lower speeds. I see no fault in the police reaction, he was in fact trying to avoid hitting him when the cyclist moved in front of him.

          • Ly,

            If the cop could not drive in a manner to catch the “criminal” without recklessly endangering others, then he should not have been in a “high speed chase”. He chose to drive in a way where he could not react to normal traffic conditions, that is evident in the video and is prima facie evidence of reckless driving.

            We don’t know how fast the speeder was driving. Maybe he was driving 80 (not a significant threat to others), in which case the cop did not need to drive so recklessly to catch him. Maybe he was driving 140 (a significant threat to others), in which case the cop should have called for back up further down the road instead of pursuing him.

            As you correctly pointed out earlier, the cop had to drive faster than the speeder to catch him. So, if the speeder was driving so fast as to pose a real threat to others, the cop would have to drive even faster than that to catch him, posing an even greater threat to others. In no circumstance are the actions of this cop justifiable. It was not a tragic accident, it was negligent homicide.

          • Ly,

            You appear to be the sycophant, justifying the exercise of State power with few exceptions. But, I suppose you mean that “we” just mindlessly repeat arguments made by Eric to curry favor of some sort. If that is what you mean, it is a ridiculous assertion. You should see the debates I have had with Eric about voting or, even more intensely, about blackmail. My thoughts on blackmail so disturbed Eric that he made a video rant about it. But, we respect each other and know that we debate in good faith. So no, sycophancy does not dominate this site. Many of us are roughly aligned philosophically, which produces a lot of agreement.

          • lyspooner you’re a cop-sucker.

            “Due to the short response time due to coming over the hill. Could’ve happened at even lower speeds.” What a bunch of horseshit. The cop’s “short response time” was caused solely by him driving a too high of speed for those conditions (i.e. coming over a blind hill). Had he been driving slower he would have had time to veer back into the left lane or even come to a complete stop. Your assertion that it “could’ve happened at even lower speeds” defies Newtonian physics.

            You’re defending the indefensible because you’re a cop-sucker, and you’re stupid arguments reveal themselves as the stupid arguments they are. Now be gone with your sophistry!

            • And you’re a cop hater, instinctively attacking the police for the very small percentage of accidents that happen in the performance of their jobs. A job, I might add that would be done in any society, libertarian included, as “policing” is necessary whenever there are people involved.

              You should join with BLM and protest to defund and close down the police department. You are in the same league as them. I’m sure you and BLM would co-exist very happily in a anarchist paradise.

              Maybe you could get yourself some nice gym shoes, or liquor at the next flash mob raid. Get yourself a sack and fill it up, it’s legal as long as it’s below a certain amount. You might as well enjoy the benefits of anarchy since you support it so much.

              • I don’t hate anybody. I condemn reckless acts that result in the killing of innocent human beings. If a non-cop killed that man I would hold him to the same standard.

                I’d never engage in a mob raid as that would be stealing, which is immoral. It wouldn’t matter to me whether it is technically illegal or not. You really need to understand the difference between malum in se and malum prohibitum. It’s an important concept which you don’t seem to understand very well.

                • Hi ML,

                  To zealots like Ly, holding cops to the same moral standards as everyone else and not automatically deferring to their “authority”, no matter what they do, is EXACTLY the same as hating them.

                  Cheers,
                  Jeremy

                  • Good point, Jeremy. lyspooner’s assertions are really those of a crybully.

                    By the way, I don’t see lyspoon as a zealot. We’ve already uncovered he/she/it to be an internet “influencer.” I think lyspoon’s positions are bought and paid for. I hope not much is being paid for the shit “influencing” that’s being provided. It’s backfiring.

              • Bot –

                What we hate isn’t people.It is double standards. It is rules for thee but not for me. That was one of the points made in the article. Another one is this business of using any means necessary to enforce laws – even when the “law breaker” has only committed a statutory offense and harmed no one – and even if it runs a much greater risk of actually harming someone.

                You then go on to accuse we who object to reckless conduct as being opposed to civilized conduct. Remarkable!

    • Has anyone else heard that these law enforcers/road pirates are pre-screened to ensure a low degree of mental aptitude before being hired on? It would seem to make sense the dark occult would want their dogs to follow their orders obediently.

      • Hi Gary,

        I’ve heard and read that’s the case but don’t know for sure. What I do know is that they are encouraged to be mindless enforcers of the law. Whatever “the law” is. It must be enforced. Because it is “the law.” An intelligent person has difficulty with such mindlessness and for that reason would find such work arbitrary and stupid.

        Another thing: How many of these cops – who have a license to “speed” – have had any meaningful training in high-speed driving or had to demonstrate the skill? Meanwhile, they will “ticket” people who do have the skill – and have had the training – and the courts will amen it, irrespective of the total absence of any evidence they were driving unsafely. All that is necessary is to establish they were “speeding.”

        • RE: “they are encouraged to be mindless enforcers of the law. Whatever “the law” is. It must be enforced. Because it is “the law.””

          Reminds me of the film, ‘Les Miserables’.

        • RE: “they are encouraged to be mindless enforcers of the law. Whatever “the law” is. It must be enforced. Because it is “the law.””

          Reminds me of the film, ‘Les Misérables’.

          ‘The Bot’ reminds me of the law enforcer in that film, too.

        • That attitude of LEO inflexibility and brutal enforcement is satirized in Sly’s 1995 film, “Judge Dredd”, where somehow, “Karma” requires that a petty criminal, Fergie (Rob Schneider), who was simply fleeing a rampaging gang by hiding in a food delivery robot, and sent to prison wrongfully for it, is seated next to (former) Judge Joseph Dredd, framed for murder.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGyPTzV3lAM

      • Police are tested for aptitude and hired by highest finisher. Unless you are a minority then you move to the front line.

        You must be thinking of the posters on this site that are selected by lowest aptitudes.
        I also believe there is an agreement with psychiatric facilities to encourage them to post here.

        • “Police are tested for aptitude and hired by highest finisher”
          Aptitude for what, being antisocial or sociopathic? And so says you. Can you not discuss without falling back on insults? Never mind, it’s obvious you can’t, or won’t.

          • The police have to have a specialized education and are tested before hiring. In large police departments they are selected by order of finish (excepting special exemptions for minorities). They are much more highly educated then most other professions. Plumbers for example. You can be a drooling idiot and still get a job as a plumber.

            • “The police have to have a specialized education and are tested before hiring.” That specialized education is that their authority is to be respected at all cost.

              Also last I checked a plumber doesn’t get to shoot a gun as part of his job. He also can’t arrest people or fine them, etc. I haven’t heard of any deaths from high-speed plumber pursuits.

            • “Plumbers for example. You can be a drooling idiot and still get a job as a plumber.”

              Oh, dude, you shouldn’t have gone there. I have a problem with disparaging the tradesmen. I thought we stopped belittling blue collars jobs about twenty years ago, especially because most of the men (and women) that have them are easily making six figures. No, it isn’t a job for idiots. It is for smart people who don’t feel the need to go into debt for $100K to come out of college and become a barista.

              • Hi RG,

                The Bot reveals much when it characterizes a skilled trade such as plumbing as within the skills of a “drooling idiot” while fellating cops.

                • I have installed plenty of linoleum and ceramic tile in bathrooms to not want to see another shithole ever again.

                  You eventually stop because your days of working are over. Somebody else can do the work.

                  Winter work and such. Measuring and working with the proper materials is important. You can’t make a silk purse from sow’s ear.

                  You have to make good choices in everything you do.

                  Time for you, lying lyshithead, to do the same. Take it all someplace else and thanks in advance.

                  Get a life.

                  Don’t bother to reply.

                • Ahh, then to you I once again say fuck off you troll. You’ve earned no good-will capital on this site to be able to “zing” anybody.

                  • What is the exchange rate of “good will” to “zinging”? I like to zing so I would like to know the minimum amount of nice I have to be to people. BTW “liespooner”, not bad for a nit wit like you.

                • Kable unzinged. I know what it takes to be a plumber. I have four masters licenses to prove it. Like any other craft, it takes time, effort, and dedication to become adept. Unlike law enforcement, which is mostly a grift.

              • > I have a problem with disparaging the tradesmen.
                Speaking as a journeyman carpenter, and the son of a journeyman carpenter, I second that emotion.

                In my years working in the construction industry, I met quite a few qualified journeymen (carpenters, plumbers, electricians, HVAC mechanics) who also had earned degrees in various STEM fields, but chose to earn their living working in a skilled, hands on capacity. I knew others who certainly *could* have earned university degrees, had they chosen to do so.

                One of the most famous engineering schools in the world has as its motto “Mens Et Manus,” meaning “mind and hands.” Its seal shows one guy holding a book, and another guy holding a rather large hammer.

                https://tinyurl.com/3n5766h4

            • Bot,

              It takes real skill and knowledge to plumb (or wire) a house. It takes wearing a uniform to be a cop. They are “trained” in the manner of public school teachers only less so and to a lower standard. Most do not even know what the law is, not being lawyers. They are security guards. And not even that as security guards are actually trying to protect property from criminals rather than criminalize people – and take their property.

              • I understand plumbers have some skills. I have leaks all over my house from my attempts at plumbing that bares it out. However police have some skills too. Subduing suspects, knowing the codes, learning to handle weapons. I know you don’t WANT them to do any of it, and SOME of them are not very good, but a lot are and that should not be minimized.

                • Ly,

                  Another example of you claiming to know what others believe. It is true that many of us here believe that the maintenance of the peace would be better done by private security agencies, but no one here believes that people can cause harm without consequence (except maybe you wrt cops).

                  Many cops are not only fantastically ignorant of the law, they are contemptuous of people who point it out. Cops are not particularly well trained and a majority of States allow cops to work before attending basic training.

                  https://www.trainingreform.org/state-police-training-requirements

          • That was an unusual situation. The applicant scored too high for the norm and they thought he would be bored with the work. So they didn’t hire him. In most large police departments they give a test and pick the highest scorers (except for minorities). This guy in particular went on to be a jail guard. So whatever dysfunction he was wanting to deal with he got in spades.

            • Ly,

              It was an unusual situation because it resulted in a lawsuit. But, it is not an uncommon practice. The “bored at work” justification was certainly proffered but many people believe the practice has more to do with weeding out critical thinkers who may be less likely to mindlessly follow orders.

              • “weeding out critical thinkers who may be less likely to mindlessly follow orders.” That is actually a good take on it.

                But how does that compute with all the high IQ leftists that follow the party line on climate BS and EV fanaticism?

                • Ly,
                  A good point, which I acknowledge. The answer I think is that high IQ leftists profit greatly, in money and reputation, by towing the party line on climate BS and EV fanaticism. Also, many high IQ leftists believe they are too smart to be duped and will cling to a narrative rather than admit they were duped. We saw this happen during Covid.

      • One of my best friends in high school tried to join the highway patrol, but they rejected him because he tested too smart on their tests. True story.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here