View Full Version : 5 kids die and it's the cop's fault...
http://www.fresnobee.com/265/story/1592864.html
Stories like this just piss me off.
Police should not have chased the car, said Rivas' sister, Sonia Rivas.
"They're innocent little boys," she said. "I think the cops scared them. We'd like a thorough investigation."[/B]
When I hear things like that, it just pisses me off. WTF? Law Enforcement is here to catch the bad guys, now they're not suppose to chase them?
7 people in 1 pickup truck.
5 of whom are 8 years old or younger.
0 child safety seats or booster seats found.
And they want to blame the police for the dead children. Nice, real nice. Is accountability dead?
rubberneck
08-12-09, 16:43
7 people in 1 pickup truck.
5 of whom are 8 years old or younger.
0 child safety seats or booster seats found.
And they want to blame the police for the dead children. Nice, real nice. Is accountability dead?
That isn't the family quoted in the story. The family bitching was the family of the scumbags that were running from the police.
Ish, it isn't like DWB, a stolen car is a stolen car.
Police should not have chased the car, said Rivas' sister, Sonia Rivas.
"They're innocent little boys," she said. "I think the cops scared them. We'd like a thorough investigation. Daz just crazy. Sonia needs to put the pipe down.
Police should not have chased the car, said Rivas' sister, Sonia Rivas.
"They're innocent little boys," she said. "I think the cops scared them. We'd like a thorough investigation."
How to help
Rivas said her brother was released from Tulare County jail in late June. Court records showed he pleaded no contest to gun possession with the special allegation of benefiting a gang and was sentenced to a year in jail.
An older brother died in 2005 of stab wounds, and another died in 2003 from medical complications, Rivas said, leaving her mother with no surviving sons. Their father is in prison at Wasco, she said.
"Innocent"...right!
That isn't the family quoted in the story. The family bitching was the family of the scumbags that were running from the police.
They are hopefully among the dead...?
I don't know if I will get a time out for this, but i hope none of them reproduced before there demise.
7 people in 1 pickup truck.
5 of whom are 8 years old or younger.
0 child safety seats or booster seats found.
And they want to blame the police for the dead children. Nice, real nice. Is accountability dead?
I can't speak for everyone...but yeah, it seems so.
Police should not have chased the car, said Rivas' sister, Sonia Rivas. "They're innocent little boys," she said. "I think the cops scared them. We'd like a thorough investigation."
What a @#&!!%^.
"What a @#&!!%^."
In complete agreement with you there, brother.
plp are stupid!!!
nuff said
If you as a private citizen witnessed your vehicle being stolen from your drive and decided that you would not put up with such a violation of your private property and decided to pursue the crooks in your spare vehicle. During the pursuit to recover your property the suspects ran through an intersection and killed an innocent party. Would you not be held liable for your contribution to this?
There is a reason why we have insurance on our vehicles, to cover us for things like theft. That is also why insurance companies have special investigative units to recover property or find the involved parties. There is was no need for anyone to die over a stolen vehicle regardless of the stupidity or irresponsibility of the parents in not ensuring the safety of their children.
Do you really want to live in a world where cops are forbidden to chase bad guys, because somebody might get hurt?
You are aware that stolen cars feature prominently in otther crimes, such as drive bys, kidnappings, and other crimes of violence right?
Ya know Leonidas, if car theft was just car theft you'd be right, but more often than not . . . car theft is just the beginning of a spree. Stopping it before it turns into something uglier is a good thing & unfortunately sometimes that turns ugly itself.
If you as a private citizen witnessed your vehicle being stolen from your drive and decided that you would not put up with such a violation of your private property and decided to pursue the crooks in your spare vehicle. During the pursuit to recover your property the suspects ran through an intersection and killed an innocent party. Would you not be held liable for your contribution to this?
There is a reason why we have insurance on our vehicles, to cover us for things like theft. That is also why insurance companies have special investigative units to recover property or find the involved parties. There is was no need for anyone to die over a stolen vehicle regardless of the stupidity or irresponsibility of the parents in not ensuring the safety of their children.
So you are saying, commit a crime runaway it’s OK.
mskdgunman
08-12-09, 23:43
Good rule of thumb is don't run from the cops but, thanks to lawyers and the like, pursuits are fast becoming a thing of the past. It pisses me off when folks bitch that we cops never do anything or never catch a BG but when we do chase someone and the BG we're chasing crashes and kills some innocent civilian, who gets the blame? Is it the guy that ran and started the incident? Nope, it's the cops for daring to do their job. We hear the whole thing from "You shouldn't have chased him for running the red light, or for the stolen car he's in, or he was just scared" Bullshit. Either let us do the job or just give the thugs the keys to the city. The problem is is that there is no fear of the law any longer and it's going to get worse.
If I'm not mistaken, Tampa PD instituted a no pursuit policy a few years back. It didn't last long once all the thugs realized it, that was a green light to say ***** you to the cops and just not stop. I believe that they recinded it and can now chase but I don't know their specific pursuit policy. Ask yourself this, if you knew that a cop was not allowed to chase you, and the repercussions would be minimal (if anything at all) would you stop once the lights came on?
Pursuits are dangerous no doubt about it but when criminals know that all they have to do is not stop when a cops turns on their lights, what good are we doing? We may as well wait at the PD until they dispatch us to a call, go to the call, take the report and go back to the station. To hell with being proactive, all it gets you is a law suit. I've made the argument for chasing a DUI. You're damned either way. If you chase him and he wrecks and kills someone, your screwed. If you know he's DUI and driving dangerously but terminate the pursuit and he goes on to kill someone anyway, you'll get hammered for that. It's depressing.
It's a shame that the folks in this case got killed but, had the driver not decided to run, they'd still be alive. Let's put the blame where it belongs but no one wants to tell the grieving family the truth which is their loved one was at fault for the deaths (not that it would matter).
Sorry for the rant.
If you as a private citizen witnessed your vehicle being stolen from your drive and decided that you would not put up with such a violation of your private property and decided to pursue the crooks in your spare vehicle. During the pursuit to recover your property the suspects ran through an intersection and killed an innocent party. Would you not be held liable for your contribution to this?
There is a reason why we have insurance on our vehicles, to cover us for things like theft. That is also why insurance companies have special investigative units to recover property or find the involved parties. There is was no need for anyone to die over a stolen vehicle regardless of the stupidity or irresponsibility of the parents in not ensuring the safety of their children.
Not everyone can afford insurance for theft. So if they stole my car I would be SOL. And even if you do have insurance, don't expect to get full replacement value, you will get Blue Book and enough money to buy a Yugo.
More importantly, we are talking about PRIVATE PROPERTY...mine. And it is never acceptable for somebody to take my private property. It is mine and means more to me than the life of a person who would take it.
And we pay cops to chase and catch, and if need be to kill criminals. We don't give tax payer dollars to cops to go "Dang he drove away...nothing we can do about it now."
I personally believe cops should go back to "Stop or I'll shoot" and mean it. And if they shoot enough lowlife scumbag criminals they won't have to chase as many.
No matter what things I have done in the past I have NEVER taken a cop on a high speed pursuit. They turn on the blue lights, I pull over and then argue about if I did what they think I did. Nobody crashes, nobody dies.
And if everyone followed this simple plan there would be no problems.
Cascades236
08-13-09, 02:04
To pursue or to not pursue is always going to be controversial. As an LEO myself, I'm always "what-if'ing" pursuits.
On one hand, a stolen car is simply a property theft/possession of stolen property.
On the other hand, stolen cars are widely used to commit other crimes such as robberies, burglaries, thefts etc. And as far as I know, it is still a felony in every state. It's a crime that costs insurance companies thousands upon thousands of dollars every day.
In the end, the choice to run is in the mind of the criminal. The view that the cops are forcing them to run and are therefore liable for whoever the criminal crashes into is upside down. But that's where we are going, placing the blame on the police and not holding those accountable...accountable.
It seems like poor bad guy was always in the midst of changing his life around when the boys in blue and the longarm of the law come knocking. Atleast that's what their family wants you to think. :P
It's a shame that the folks in this case got killed but, had the driver not decided to run, they'd still be alive. Let's put the blame where it belongs but no one wants to tell the grieving family the truth which is their loved one was at fault for the deaths (not that it would matter).
This is a situation where little will add up, so I'm not sure it's worth trying that hard.
Yes, the car should have been pursued under the law. But no friggin way all those little kids should have died as a result. Forget about the other three fleeing, couldn't care less about them.
But then there's the lack of proper restraints for the kids, which is yet another issue.
It's hopeless. This is just a real bad apple and it should be viewed as such.
Lessons learned: Always watch out for the other guy and properly restrain your children at all times.
Good rule of thumb is don't run from the cops but, thanks to lawyers and the like, pursuits are fast becoming a thing of the past. It pisses me off when folks bitch that we cops never do anything or never catch a BG but when we do chase someone and the BG we're chasing crashes and kills some innocent civilian, who gets the blame? Is it the guy that ran and started the incident? Nope, it's the cops for daring to do their job. We hear the whole thing from "You shouldn't have chased him for running the red light, or for the stolen car he's in, or he was just scared" Bullshit. Either let us do the job or just give the thugs the keys to the city. The problem is is that there is no fear of the law any longer and it's going to get worse.
If I'm not mistaken, Tampa PD instituted a no pursuit policy a few years back. It didn't last long once all the thugs realized it, that was a green light to say ***** you to the cops and just not stop. I believe that they recinded it and can now chase but I don't know their specific pursuit policy. Ask yourself this, if you knew that a cop was not allowed to chase you, and the repercussions would be minimal (if anything at all) would you stop once the lights came on?
Pursuits are dangerous no doubt about it but when criminals know that all they have to do is not stop when a cops turns on their lights, what good are we doing? We may as well wait at the PD until they dispatch us to a call, go to the call, take the report and go back to the station. To hell with being proactive, all it gets you is a law suit. I've made the argument for chasing a DUI. You're damned either way. If you chase him and he wrecks and kills someone, your screwed. If you know he's DUI and driving dangerously but terminate the pursuit and he goes on to kill someone anyway, you'll get hammered for that. It's depressing.
It's a shame that the folks in this case got killed but, had the driver not decided to run, they'd still be alive. Let's put the blame where it belongs but no one wants to tell the grieving family the truth which is their loved one was at fault for the deaths (not that it would matter).
Sorry for the rant.
True true!!!
Houston Police (Tx) made it against policy to chase people. A guy ran from the Sheriffs Office and wrecked. The media was there and the bad guy just kept yelling that he thought Cops couldnt chase him.
The policy was rescinded after a couple of these incidents.
"No pursuit" policies aren't the answer.
Pursuing minor traffic violations who fail to stop isn't worth it.
Pursuing stolen cars...a property crime...is problematic. That's what insurance is for. If you don't have theft insurance or can't afford insurance, that's your problem. Wait for recovery and settle your claim.
A carjacked car...a property crime and a people crime...is more worthy of pursuit. Still problematic.
There seems to be some fail on the other side, too. Seven people in a truck? Child restraints?
No matter how you cut it, though, an 8, 7, 4, 3, and 1 year old child are dead. It's not the cops fault, but that cop, and the CoC above him, ought to be doing some serious contemplating. Maybe they arrive at the same decision. Maybe not.
If you as a private citizen witnessed your vehicle being stolen from your drive and decided that you would not put up with such a violation of your private property and decided to pursue the crooks in your spare vehicle. During the pursuit to recover your property the suspects ran through an intersection and killed an innocent party. Would you not be held liable for your contribution to this?
There is a reason why we have insurance on our vehicles, to cover us for things like theft. That is also why insurance companies have special investigative units to recover property or find the involved parties. There is was no need for anyone to die over a stolen vehicle regardless of the stupidity or irresponsibility of the parents in not ensuring the safety of their children.
Yeah, you're right. Let's just all turn the other cheek now. The bad guys won't do it again if nobody bothers them. Uh Huh. And then we wouldn't even need the cops anymore. Just report it to your insurance company and their investigative units can catch 'em???
To pursue or to not pursue is always going to be controversial. As an LEO myself, I'm always "what-if'ing" pursuits.
On one hand, a stolen car is simply a property theft/possession of stolen property.
But that property also contains CRIMINALS and as a tax payer I want you to go catch criminals and recover property. It is sad that any laws exist which prevent you from doing that in a reasonable manner.
And if a criminal is willing to risk killing children over simple property theft and evading the police, then they are an extremely dangerous criminal that poses a significant threat to the community and you really need to catch them.
Not everyone can afford insurance for theft. So if they stole my car I would be SOL. And even if you do have insurance, don't expect to get full replacement value, you will get Blue Book and enough money to buy a Yugo.
More importantly, we are talking about PRIVATE PROPERTY...mine. And it is never acceptable for somebody to take my private property. It is mine and means more to me than the life of a person who would take it.
And we pay cops to chase and catch, and if need be to kill criminals. We don't give tax payer dollars to cops to go "Dang he drove away...nothing we can do about it now."
Ah, the key words, "we pay" and "taxpayer dollars", or in other words 'socialism'.
Theft of private property is not acceptable. But that is between you and whoever you contract with to protect or compensate you for the loss of your property. It is not acceptable for money to be taken from me by force to pay for a service to protect your property. Perhaps you would like me to pay for your healthcare also.
Ah, the key words, "we pay" and "taxpayer dollars", or in other words 'socialism'.
Theft of private property is not acceptable. But that is between you and whoever you contract with to protect or compensate you for the loss of your property. It is not acceptable for money to be taken from me by force to pay for a service to protect your property. Perhaps you would like me to pay for your healthcare also.
What a joke.
The police are not there to be my private security as you suggest. But they ARE there to enforce the law and that means chasing criminals who steal private property.
Do you think a cop who intervenes in a bank robbery is engaged in socialism and being an agent of the bank? Or is he simply enforcing the law?
And guess what? Stealing MY car is against that law.
Personally, I would PREFER to be allowed to go get my car back and deal with the criminals MYSELF...unfortunately the SOCIALIST LAWS we have prevent me from doing so.
Morons who think everyone can afford theft insurance and who believe it isn't worth the risk to society to chase criminals (which is almost socialism) only make things worse.
Finally, the money is already being taken from both YOU and ME, you aren't paying for a damn thing for me...I already paid for it, and since the government is already taking MY money, I prefer they actually do something...enforcing the law and chasing criminals are among my expectations. You are in fact taking from ME by suggesting law enforcement NOT chase the guy who stole my car even though my tax dollars are already being taken to do just that.
Now if you DECIDE you would prefer cops to NOT chase the guy who stole YOUR CAR then that is your right. But don't decide for ME because that would once again...be socialist.
John_Wayne777
08-14-09, 09:41
Ah, the key words, "we pay" and "taxpayer dollars", or in other words 'socialism'.
Theft of private property is not acceptable. But that is between you and whoever you contract with to protect or compensate you for the loss of your property. It is not acceptable for money to be taken from me by force to pay for a service to protect your property. Perhaps you would like me to pay for your healthcare also.
...:rolleyes:
We have these things called "rights" in the United States. Rights that government is supposed to protect.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
The right to own property is one of those rights that government is supposed to protect. Government does this through paid agents who enforce laws. It has been that way in the US since the founding of this nation.
To insist that it is somehow "socialist" to have paid agents of the state concerned with enforcing laws designed to protect private property is STUNNING.
Car theft is a property crime. But even if you don't want cops chasing people for property crimes:
Three young men -- one covering his face with a white T-shirt -- attacked David Sperl, an employee at the Denny's, while he was outside on a break, Selma police said.
They demanded his keys and money, struck him and threw him to the ground
This was a violent crime against an individual. Should we then leave it to the victim's health insurance to recover damages against the turds who injured him? If cops can't chase people for violent felonies committed against persons then what's the point? Where is the deterrence?
Cascades236
08-14-09, 21:54
But that property also contains CRIMINALS and as a tax payer I want you to go catch criminals and recover property. It is sad that any laws exist which prevent you from doing that in a reasonable manner.
And if a criminal is willing to risk killing children over simple property theft and evading the police, then they are an extremely dangerous criminal that poses a significant threat to the community and you really need to catch them.
and on the other side, you have the people that want this cop strung up, fired, arrested, imprisoned and sued to bankruptcy; claiming that he is responsible for all the deaths that occurred.
Question, does your vehicle have Lojack? My patrol vehicle has the "finder."
exiledtoIA
08-15-09, 00:04
If you as a private citizen witnessed your vehicle being stolen from your drive and decided that you would not put up with such a violation of your private property and decided to pursue the crooks in your spare vehicle. During the pursuit to recover your property the suspects ran through an intersection and killed an innocent party. Would you not be held liable for your contribution to this?
There is a reason why we have insurance on our vehicles, to cover us for things like theft. That is also why insurance companies have special investigative units to recover property or find the involved parties. There is was no need for anyone to die over a stolen vehicle regardless of the stupidity or irresponsibility of the parents in not ensuring the safety of their children.
Leonidas, if the family doesn't care enough to properly secure the kids, Why should I care what happend to them?
As for insurance, why should I have to pay higher rates because some scumbags
want to steal a car?
...:rolleyes:
We have these things called "rights" in the United States. Rights that government is supposed to protect.
Warren v District of Columbia "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen."
The right to own property is one of those rights that government is supposed to protect. Government does this through paid agents who enforce laws. It has been that way in the US since the founding of this nation.
So government protects property by confiscating property to pay for its protection of property? Sounds a little contradictory to me. And I'm not quite sure that this is the way things were done since the founding of this country. I believe tax supported policing began decades after the founding of this country. ( I could be wrong)
To insist that it is somehow "socialist" to have paid agents of the state concerned with enforcing laws designed to protect private property is STUNNING.
How are these agents funded? Through wealth redistribution? Sounds socialist to me. It is certainly not based on a free market model.
Now please do not take this as being anti police officer because I know and am friends with many who are good, honest family men who take pride in their jobs. I just feel those attributes could be better put to use under a strictly free market protection/dispute resolution service that would provide restitution to the victim and not the coffers of the state. And to bring it back to the topic of this post. This sort of incident would never be tolerated under a free market system.
This sort of incident would never be tolerated under a free market system.
Nonsense, if there were no police and everyone was responsible for hiring their own protection it would be like the bodyguards of old Rome. There would be far less accountability. Personally I'd sorta prefer having the guys who stole my car whacked for offending me but it would be a zoo.
And people without means would be without protection. The FF also knew this and that is why they had pretty much the same system. And they were far from socialists, as is probably ever person on this forum.
Anytime the government functions in any way shape or form, that is arguably a form of socialism. You could argue we have a socialist military since our taxes are taken to fund that. But the lack of these things is anarchy and we really don't want an anarchist state any more than we want a socialist state.
Thankfully we currently have neither. We are a bit too far left towards socialism for my tastes, but that isn't the same as having a socialist government. Places in Europe have them and we aren't quite there yet.
Pursuits are dangerous no doubt about it but when criminals know that all they have to do is not stop when a cops turns on their lights, what good are we doing? We may as well wait at the PD until they dispatch us to a call, go to the call, take the report and go back to the station. To hell with being proactive, all it gets you is a law suit. I've made the argument for chasing a DUI. You're damned either way. If you chase him and he wrecks and kills someone, your screwed. If you know he's DUI and driving dangerously but terminate the pursuit and he goes on to kill someone anyway, you'll get hammered for that. It's depressing.
It's a shame that the folks in this case got killed but, had the driver not decided to run, they'd still be alive. Let's put the blame where it belongs but no one wants to tell the grieving family the truth which is their loved one was at fault for the deaths (not that it would matter).
Also, even if cops terminate a pursuit for the reason of safety, that's no guarantee that the BG will slow down. I saw a televised pursuit where the cops backed off because the BG was starting to go into oncoming traffic. It didn't make any difference. The ass kept on speeding and eventually ran head on into another car. The upside was that the BG was the only one killed.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.