Monday, March 9, 2009

While I'm on the subject

I can't fucking believe what I just saw.


WARNING GRAPHIC VIDEO




That's right a Dallas police officer breaking the law.

According to Dallas police policy, officers can only go 20 miles faster than the speed limit with flashing lights and sirens. In school zones and residential areas, officers must follow the posted speed limits. The only exceptions are when another officer's life is in danger or during a pursuit.


"We do not want our officers speeding, violating any traffic laws unless they are doing it with red lights and sirens on," Kunkle said.


HOLY FUCK NUGGETS.....I can't even describe how I feel after watching that and reading about it. Great job Senior Cpl. Michael Vaughn, I sure hope you're proud of yourself. I know when I go to Dallas, I'd feel a lot safer having you NOT on the streets, so called "protecting" me.


Sorry for bringing up the DFW stuff, but I used to live there and I have friends you ride there. Apparently it is not safe even from the cops to ride your bike.



Hopefully officer Vaughn is off the streets and in jail.

til next time


OLC

2 comments:

dougmc said...

Playing devil's advocate here (which I imagine won't make me very popular) --

Um, what was the kid doing? He was wobbling across the road, and I saw no evidence of reflectors or lights in the video. He was crossing the left lane at an angle, where he really didn't belong, and looked to be headed over the yellow lane.

(Scratch that -- I did see a flash from a reflector on his wheel, but not the back of his bike.)

Also, you said `breaking the law' -- though the law lets officers speed under certain conditions. He broke department policy, but the department enforces law, it doesn't make it, and so it's policy is not law. My guess is that it will be decided that the officer was not breaking the law, though he'll probably be disciplined for breaking policy.

The kid was looking for an accident. No lights, poor reflectors, riding erratically. And the officer wasn't paying attention either -- he had roughly two seconds after the kid showed up in the video to respond, and he didn't react at all. (Was he on his phone or radio?) If the officer was going 40 mph, and had 3.5 seconds to respond, would *that* have been enough?

The video is really what makes this case different. We know, without doubt, exactly how fast he was going, that his lights weren't on, the time, etc. If it wasn't for the video, this would simply be a tragic case of an officer, going the speed limit, hitting a kid who didn't look before crossing the road.

I'm glad to see the police getting filmed more, and that the recording equipment is `more reliable' than it used to be -- especially in cases where it might put the department in a `poor light'. Five years ago, in this sort of situation the car might still have the video equipment, but it wouldn't have been turned on during the incident, or the tape would have been ruined, or missing, or ...

Still, tragic ...

Anonymous said...

So I found this months later.... The geniuses in Dallas said the dumb fuck cop only had one second to react and humans need 1.5 seconds. This is wrong on both counts.

The dumbfuck cop (had he been paying attention) would have picked up the bike much further out that the camera did. The cop car camera blooms because of the headlights, human eyes and brains (even cop brains) are much better at dealing with high contrast.

The cop speeding through curves should have a reaction time of <.3 seconds. Maybe it takes a drunk on a cell phone 1.5 seconds, but a cop on adrenaline racing to a call? Total Bullshit.

This pig needs to be fired and incarcerated on deadly conduct and manslaughter violations.


Free Web Counter

Free Counter