TOTALLY GEEKED!

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Speeding Cop Kills 2 Teenage Girls

huskerbb · Guru

If they failed to yield, this was not his fault. That wasn't just a "factor"--it was THE factor. The jury absolutely got it right.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
If they failed to yield, this was not his fault. That wasn't just a "factor"--it was THE factor. The jury absolutely got it right.

I don't agree. If he'd been going the proper speed, they could have made the turn safely.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
If they failed to yield, this was not his fault. That wasn't just a "factor"--it was THE factor. The jury absolutely got it right.
I don't agree. If he'd been going the proper speed, they could have made the turn safely.

You don't know that, at all. They are required to yield regardless of how fast the oncoming traffic is. At 50 mph or 100, they should not have made the turn.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
If they failed to yield, this was not his fault. That wasn't just a "factor"--it was THE factor. The jury absolutely got it right.
I don't agree. If he'd been going the proper speed, they could have made the turn safely.
You don't know that, at all. They are required to yield regardless of how fast the oncoming traffic is. At 50 mph or 100, they should not have made the turn.

What? That's not true. If you see a car in the distance and have plenty of time to turn, it is perfectly legal. The fact that he was going nearly DOUBLE the speed limit means he got to that intersection almost twice as quickly as he should have.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
If they failed to yield, this was not his fault. That wasn't just a "factor"--it was THE factor. The jury absolutely got it right.
I don't agree. If he'd been going the proper speed, they could have made the turn safely.
You don't know that, at all. They are required to yield regardless of how fast the oncoming traffic is. At 50 mph or 100, they should not have made the turn.

What? That's not true. If you see a car in the distance and have plenty of time to turn, it is perfectly legal. The fact that he was going nearly DOUBLE the speed limit means he got to that intersection almost twice as quickly as he should have.

There was not time.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
If they failed to yield, this was not his fault. That wasn't just a "factor"--it was THE factor. The jury absolutely got it right.
I don't agree. If he'd been going the proper speed, they could have made the turn safely.
You don't know that, at all. They are required to yield regardless of how fast the oncoming traffic is. At 50 mph or 100, they should not have made the turn.

What? That's not true. If you see a car in the distance and have plenty of time to turn, it is perfectly legal. The fact that he was going nearly DOUBLE the speed limit means he got to that intersection almost twice as quickly as he should have.
There was not time.

Because he was speeding. Speeding at levels that should have gotten him a reckless driving charge.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
If they failed to yield, this was not his fault. That wasn't just a "factor"--it was THE factor. The jury absolutely got it right.
I don't agree. If he'd been going the proper speed, they could have made the turn safely.
You don't know that, at all. They are required to yield regardless of how fast the oncoming traffic is. At 50 mph or 100, they should not have made the turn.

What? That's not true. If you see a car in the distance and have plenty of time to turn, it is perfectly legal. The fact that he was going nearly DOUBLE the speed limit means he got to that intersection almost twice as quickly as he should have.
There was not time.
Because he was speeding. Speeding at levels that should have gotten him a reckless driving charge.

Irrelevant. Part of driving is judging the speed of another.

If there is a tractor going down the road and you smack into the back of it because it is going well below the speed limit, whose fault is it?

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
If they failed to yield, this was not his fault. That wasn't just a "factor"--it was THE factor. The jury absolutely got it right.
I don't agree. If he'd been going the proper speed, they could have made the turn safely.
You don't know that, at all. They are required to yield regardless of how fast the oncoming traffic is. At 50 mph or 100, they should not have made the turn.

What? That's not true. If you see a car in the distance and have plenty of time to turn, it is perfectly legal. The fact that he was going nearly DOUBLE the speed limit means he got to that intersection almost twice as quickly as he should have.
There was not time.
Because he was speeding. Speeding at levels that should have gotten him a reckless driving charge.
Irrelevant. Part of driving is judging the speed of another.
If there is a tractor going down the road and you smack into the back of it because it is going well below the speed limit, whose fault is it?

Going BELOW the speed limit is not against the law unless you are on the highway with a posted minimum speed. Going 36 miles OVER the speed limit certainly is.

Tinydancer · Guru

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
If they failed to yield, this was not his fault. That wasn't just a "factor"--it was THE factor. The jury absolutely got it right.
I don't agree. If he'd been going the proper speed, they could have made the turn safely.
You don't know that, at all. They are required to yield regardless of how fast the oncoming traffic is. At 50 mph or 100, they should not have made the turn.

What? That's not true. If you see a car in the distance and have plenty of time to turn, it is perfectly legal. The fact that he was going nearly DOUBLE the speed limit means he got to that intersection almost twice as quickly as he should have.
There was not time.
Because he was speeding. Speeding at levels that should have gotten him a reckless driving charge.
Irrelevant. Part of driving is judging the speed of another.
If there is a tractor going down the road and you smack into the back of it because it is going well below the speed limit, whose fault is it?

If speeding is illegal for us why not him? Unless he was on his way to a call with his lights and siren going then he was breaking the law. Do you believe cops shouldn't have to follow the law?

ed11563 · Guru

They probably would be alive if they'd had their seatbelts on.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
If they failed to yield, this was not his fault. That wasn't just a "factor"--it was THE factor. The jury absolutely got it right.
I don't agree. If he'd been going the proper speed, they could have made the turn safely.
You don't know that, at all. They are required to yield regardless of how fast the oncoming traffic is. At 50 mph or 100, they should not have made the turn.

What? That's not true. If you see a car in the distance and have plenty of time to turn, it is perfectly legal. The fact that he was going nearly DOUBLE the speed limit means he got to that intersection almost twice as quickly as he should have.
There was not time.
Because he was speeding. Speeding at levels that should have gotten him a reckless driving charge.
Irrelevant. Part of driving is judging the speed of another.
If there is a tractor going down the road and you smack into the back of it because it is going well below the speed limit, whose fault is it?
Going BELOW the speed limit is not against the law unless you are on the highway with a posted minimum speed. Going 36 miles OVER the speed limit certainly is.

So what? it is incumbent upon you to judge the speed of other vehicles--above or below the limit. anyway, the jury ruled and you are wrong.

Tinydancer · Guru

Where does it say they weren't wearing their seatbelts?

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
If they failed to yield, this was not his fault. That wasn't just a "factor"--it was THE factor. The jury absolutely got it right.
I don't agree. If he'd been going the proper speed, they could have made the turn safely.
You don't know that, at all. They are required to yield regardless of how fast the oncoming traffic is. At 50 mph or 100, they should not have made the turn.

What? That's not true. If you see a car in the distance and have plenty of time to turn, it is perfectly legal. The fact that he was going nearly DOUBLE the speed limit means he got to that intersection almost twice as quickly as he should have.
There was not time.
Because he was speeding. Speeding at levels that should have gotten him a reckless driving charge.
Irrelevant. Part of driving is judging the speed of another.
If there is a tractor going down the road and you smack into the back of it because it is going well below the speed limit, whose fault is it?
Going BELOW the speed limit is not against the law unless you are on the highway with a posted minimum speed. Going 36 miles OVER the speed limit certainly is.
So what? it is incumbent upon you to judge the speed of other vehicles--above or below the limit. anyway, the jury ruled and you are wrong.

LOL! That is EXACTLY what people are supposed to do - that is what the jury is for.

And this wasn't a trial jury, it was a grand jury - we will never know what facts were actually put in front of them.

Mellow Momma · Sniff...sniff, sniff. Yay! A Bum!

My best friend's step father was killed by a cop who was speeding, no lights/sirens, not in pursuit, not on the way to a call. Just speeding because he wanted to and thought he was entitled to. He is still a cop. The family got a $1M settlement but it never went to trial, he was never charged with anything. It's ridiculous.

The law in that state was that police must follow all traffic laws, unless they have lights and sirens on.

ed11563 · Guru

Tinydancer wrote:
Where does it say they weren't wearing their seatbelts?

The front seat occupants had minor injuries, the back seat occupants were killed.

i was in a similar collision and my seatbelt kept my from flying around inside the car.

The article didn't have to spell it out, it's obvious.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

ed11563 wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:
Where does it say they weren't wearing their seatbelts?
The front seat occupants had minor injuries, the back seat occupants were killed.
i was in a similar collision and my seatbelt kept my from flying around inside the car.
The article didn't have to spell it out, it's obvious.

Not really. The back seat doesn't have air bags and they were hit be a car going 61 miles per hour. Even with seatbelts, they'd easily still be dead.

Tinydancer · Guru

You have no idea if they were wearing their seatbelts or not ed. Plenty of dead people have been cut out of their seatbelts.

Lexxy · My dog name is Sasha, too!

ed11563 wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:
Where does it say they weren't wearing their seatbelts?
The front seat occupants had minor injuries, the back seat occupants were killed.
i was in a similar collision and my seatbelt kept my from flying around inside the car.
The article didn't have to spell it out, it's obvious.

It also depends on the point of impact. If he hit them behind the front seats the rear passenger took the brunt of the direct impact.

ed11563 · Guru

Lexxy wrote:
ed11563 wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:
Where does it say they weren't wearing their seatbelts?
The front seat occupants had minor injuries, the back seat occupants were killed.
i was in a similar collision and my seatbelt kept my from flying around inside the car.
The article didn't have to spell it out, it's obvious.
It also depends on the point of impact. If he hit them behind the front seats the rear passenger took the brunt of the direct impact.

It looked like he hit the right side of their car, at the middle or just behind the driver's door.

The people in the right side would have bee n hit by their side doors and launched toward the left side ... where the unbelted right side passenger would have run into the left side passenger at high speed, unless BOTH of them had seatbelts on. If the both (all) had seatbelts on each person would have been held in her seat while the seatbelt stretched. Everyone would have severe bruising from the seatbelts, but no broken bones and no head to head impact.

My collision was similar, but at half the speed, on the driver's side, and I was alone in the car. The impact launched me toward the opposite side of the car ... and my seatbelt held me in place.

My glasses left a little cut (and bruise) where they had been resting on my nose, (I found them in pieces under the passenger seat the next day), and I had big, deep bruises from my lap and shoulder belt.

No broken bones, no head injury.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Half the speed is a HUGE difference. The difference is speed is exponential on impact.

ed11563 · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
Half the speed is a HUGE difference. The difference is speed is exponential on impact.

and yet, the ones in the front seat, where the law requires that they be belted in, had only minor injuries.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

ed11563 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Half the speed is a HUGE difference. The difference is speed is exponential on impact.
and yet, the ones in the front seat, where the law requires that they be belted in, had only minor injuries.

Airbags, and probably hit near the rear and not the front.

NAOW · Vette's SS

I just googled and I can't find any article that mentions seat belts at all. Usually if people aren't wearing them it is reported.

Fort Worth Mom · Mod/Penguin lover/Princess!

This article mentions that one of the girls wasn't wearing her seatbelt, and was thrown from the car.

It doesn't mention the other girl, so my guess is, she was wearing hers, and died anyway.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ga-trooper-fired-speeding-crash-killed-2-teens-article-1.2384051

ed11563 · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
ed11563 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Half the speed is a HUGE difference. The difference is speed is exponential on impact.
and yet, the ones in the front seat, where the law requires that they be belted in, had only minor injuries.
Airbags, and probably hit near the rear and not the front.

Side impact and side curtain airbags certainly helped me, so the front of the Honda CRV and my side window didn't launch me across the car, the airbags launched me across the car.

The officer's car hit them between the front and back wheels, from the pictures. That would have shoved the car from 0mph sideways, to about 45mph sideways in less than 1/2 second (metal bending would have taken a fraction of a second.)

My collision was complicated because the Honda's frame rail punctured my door, and hooked the cars together.

So after the sudden launch sideways, both cars spun 1/2 turn, moved (sideways/backwards for me) about 50 feet and stopped.

Still, the impact would have been the same to both the front and back seat occupants. So, we're back to ...

Front seat Okay,

Back seat Dead.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

One accident means nothing in relation to another. Too many variables.

Tinydancer · Guru

ed11563 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
ed11563 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Half the speed is a HUGE difference. The difference is speed is exponential on impact.
and yet, the ones in the front seat, where the law requires that they be belted in, had only minor injuries.
Airbags, and probably hit near the rear and not the front.
Side impact and side curtain airbags certainly helped me, so the front of the Honda CRV and my side window didn't launch me across the car, the airbags launched me across the car.
The officer's car hit them between the front and back wheels, from the pictures. That would have shoved the car from 0mph sideways, to about 45mph sideways in less than 1/2 second (metal bending would have taken a fraction of a second.)
My collision was complicated because the Honda's frame rail punctured my door, and hooked the cars together.
So after the sudden launch sideways, both cars spun 1/2 turn, moved (sideways/backwards for me) about 50 feet and stopped.
Still, the impact would have been the same to both the front and back seat occupants. So, we're back to ...

Front seat Okay,
Back seat Dead.

Whether wearing seatbelts or not? No Lights, no siren! He killed two young girls and you want to blame them with no proof? husker would like to believe the officer shouldn't follow the law and you believe they were wrong because they weren't wearing seatbelts with absolutely no evidence. Sometimes I really have to wonder about men and their quaint ideas...lol

ed11563 · Guru

Tinydancer wrote:

Whether wearing seatbelts or not? No Lights, no siren! He killed two young girls and you want to blame them with no proof? husker would like to believe the officer shouldn't follow the law and you believe they were wrong because they weren't wearing seatbelts with absolutely no evidence. Sometimes I really have to wonder about men and their quaint ideas...lol

OF COURSE the cop is responsible, I wouldn't suggest otherwise.

I'm saying ...

I WANT YOU TO USE YOUR SEAT BELT, EVERY TIME YOU'RE IN A CAR, WHETHER THE LAW REQUIRES IT OR NOT !!!

only because I'm selfish and I want you here, ALIVE.

huskerbb · Guru

BS. The cop is not responsible--they failed to yield while making a left turn.

The jury found that result, also.

huskerbb · Guru

Let's say he had been going 60 mph, or 56 mph. He would still have been speeding, but would you still think it was his fault? Many speedometers could easily be off several miles per hour.

No, that's BS.

They made an illegal turn. End of story.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

What makes you think they even saw his car in order to judge the speed? A car going 100mph can come up on you like a bat out of hell. He broke the law. Sorry, but the more and more i see the Public Trust violated, the less I trust the Police.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

2 dead girls thanks to YOU. Thanks for being a great cop! Not.

huskerbb · Guru

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
What makes you think they even saw his car in order to judge the speed? A car going 100mph can come up on you like a bat out of hell. He broke the law. Sorry, but the more and more i see the Public Trust violated, the less I trust the Police.

They made a left turn into oncoming traffic. If they didn't see a car coming--then THAT is the problem.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

No its not if he was going 100mph. They wouldnt see him. Wow .
.

Tinydancer · Guru

So husker. Cops are allowed to speed and break the law? If you or I had been speeding at twice the speed limit and killed these girls who would have had plenty of time to make that turn if we (or he) not been speeding would that be ok? I think you speak before you think sometimes and then you have to defend a stupid position because of course you are always right...lol

huskerbb · Guru

Tinydancer wrote:
So husker. Cops are allowed to speed and break the law? If you or I had been speeding at twice the speed limit and killed these girls who would have had plenty of time to make that turn if we (or he) not been speeding would that be ok? I think you speak before you think sometimes and then you have to defend a stupid position because of course you are always right...lol

I am right in this case--and the jury proved it so.

Failure to yield and speeding are both breaking the law--whether or not the guy is/was a cop is irrelevant.

However, in this case, the failure to yield is the primary factor here, not the speeding. That is what the law says.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Why are you assuming they SAW him? If I went to pull out of my driveway and looked, if i didn't see at the speed limit or a bit above and one came up then i would be fine. But, a car was going 100mph slightly around the bend or below the slight crest of the hill, i wouldn't see it.
If police want the public to support and respect them, then the laws apply to them. And, even if there was an Emergency (which there wasn't), they shouldn't be able to KILL people just to get to an emergency. That's absurd.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

You can't yield to that which you cannot see.

huskerbb · Guru

If they didn't--that is on them. It's NOT some defense to say you didn't see them whether it's a pedestrian in a crosswalk, or oncoming traffic. That is the law.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

It cant be on them if there was No Car in view when they pulled out.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

The cop was driving recklessly.

ed11563 · Guru

I was in a similar situation once,

night time on a street with a center divider, and cross streets every block.

I was planning a left turn.

I looked for oncoming traffic, saw headlights in the distance, far away, and thought "plenty of time ... "

Before I stepped on the gas, I thought "something's not right" ...

The oncoming headlights were kind of blinking, like maybe there was something between me and them.

There was. About two seconds after I decided to wait ...

a dark car, no lights, went by me in the oncoming lane, probably going way over 90 mph.

Several years ago, a young woman and her two little kids were killed one night while leaving a restaurant on Cross Bay Blvd west of JFK Airport.

They were crossing to get to their parked car.

The driver who hit them was driving at least 70 mph with no lights.

He's never had a driver's license, and his license (never had one, remember) had been suspended over 100 times in the past for DWI, reckless driving and driving without a license.

He didn't get sent to prison until he'd killed these people.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

If he wasnt a cop he would have been arrested.

ed11563 · Guru

Re-watched the video. It look like his windshield was wet ... was it raining?

His headlights were on.

Did this happen just after he went over the crest of a hill?

If so, driving at that speed was clearly reckless. His lights would not have been visible to the other driver until he'd gone over the crest of the hill. If he's been obeying the speed limit, she would have had twice as much time to see him and react.

To me, this puts the blame squarely back on him.

huskerbb · Guru

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
It cant be on them if there was No Car in view when they pulled out.

It was there.

huskerbb · Guru

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
If he wasnt a cop he would have been arrested.

You are wrong. He had the right of way. That is the law.

Tinydancer · Guru

Speeding is illegal. That is also the law. If it were you or I we would have been held partly responsible.

huskerbb · Guru

Tinydancer wrote:
Speeding is illegal. That is also the law. If it were you or I we would have been held partly responsible.

Very doubtful--although possibly in a civil case, or between the insurance companies there could be a split. Criminally--no way.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Monday 22nd of February 2016 10:38:32 AM

huskerbb · Guru

This is no different than a stoplight or stop sign. If you blow through the light or the sign, it's not a defense to say the car you hit was speeding.

TOTALLY GEEKED!

Horrific dashcam footage shows moment speeding Georgia cop slammed into car of two teenage girls and killed them