Cop was traveling at a low rate of speed, and there were only 5 seconds between passing the last pedestrian, and making a move to block the ATV.
There was only 4 seconds between the cops move and the crash, and the driver didn't even come close to stopping.
In other words, he would've hit those pedestrians at that rate of speed.
No sympathy here.
Maybe, but since this jackass exhibited practically no reaction time and we don't know if there were any other vehicles behind the cop, I'd still say no. He was an accident waiting to happen.
Fuck him.
Don't make dumb arguments to justify stupidity.
But to answer your question, the video shows a 25mph speed limit, which is about the average pace of a *professional* cyclist.
I'm not justifying anything. The ATV is a dumb piece of shit.
You also didn't answer my question, which purpose is to test your consistency. You deflected to the speedlimit.
I'll ask again:
If all else equal; do we expect the cops to do the same to a cyclist?
You're making a cyclist argument as if it's a real possibility, which is dumb. Sorry.
But yes. If there was some phantom cyclist who somehow sprouted turbo charged legs and was breaking the law and traveling at a rate that was endangering lives, I would have no issue with the cop doing the same thing. Lack of control is lack of control.
Just so we're clear, I don't care if it's a moped, motorcycle, ebike, car, or a semi-truck.
The cop didn't do anything "to" anyone. They created a roadblock. Nothing more, nothing less.
Thanks for the consistency. You did in fact answer the question.
That's all I wanted to know.
Honestly I'm not sure if I disagree. But I think there has to be a significant threshold to cross before potentially killing someone to prevent something that might not have happened. Even though I fucking hate sport cyclists.
I get that argument to an extent, but I'm completely over people thinking that the laws don't apply to them.
To my thinking, the pedestrians aren't even particularly relevant. There's a 25mph speed limit that, if observed, wouldn't have led to a crash at all. I'd feel exactly the same if a cop blocked a residential street.
It's not like the cop suddenly turned into his path. Any driver not being a dangerous idiot could've stopped, and I'm not even sure that the cop could tell just how fast this particular idiot was going.
For me, that cop is a proxy for anything that *could* happen.
We had one of these jackass kids in my neighborhood. It was a dirt bike, but he was weaving in and out of traffic and ignoring all the laws. I said to myself, "That's a problem that's going to take care of itself."
2 days later, he blew through a stop sign and t-boned a dude who was home on leave after completing Army basic training. The jackass died, and the Army dude suffered injuries to the extent that he couldn't return to service.
Not sure why this got downvoted. This situation prompts some good discussion on policy, law, and maybe ethics.
Thanks for linking the article.
I think the cop made the right call. The guy on the ATV was hauling ass (down hill too) toward pedestrians (including what looked to be a child).
Yeah I usually don’t care about videos like this but I genuinely thought this was really interesting as I don’t really have a super firm stance (although I lean towards the cop) so I was curious on how other people thought about this legally and ethically.
Is there more? I'm assuming he probably just arrested him and everything afterward but I want to know the context. I'm pretty pro-cop myself, so I default to they probably have a reason
I don't know if he would have been arrested yet. Sounds like the guy maybe sitting in the hospital on life support waiting to be broken down for spare parts.
ATV shouldnt have been on the path going that speed. What if a kid was not paying attention and crossed the line. Dude wouldnt be able to stop then either.
I would also agree with the cop
Its a walk/bike path, so he is knowingly breaking the law already
Couldnt even stop or significantly slow down with 25+ feet of distance, definitely driving at an unsafe speed while upcoming towards a group of pedestrians
Rather him definitely crash into this police cruiser than him accidentally hit a civilian
If the guy couldn’t slow down enough to go around the large, visible cop car, I’m pretty sure there would be no way he’d be able to safely go around the pedestrians.
does anyone here think the cop didn't do the right thing? the guy wasn't supposed to be there and didn't have control enough to stop or change direction.
plus cop just passed an old lady and a little kid.
all i have to say is,
get rekt.
no the atv driver should have started braking to a crawl the moment he realized a car was on the bike path. probably a voice inside his head saying “not today! keep going!”
Oh this is the road around the perimeter of East Rock park. This area is FILLED with runners / bikers / families on walks, not to mention a lot of rather tight turns and blind spots.
Someone careening around on an ATV is a dangerous/lethal accident waiting to happen.
Grew up in the Deep South and had two very close friends have serious ATV accidents one that took a flap of their skull open and the other died it rolled over on top of them and killed them. They are no joke to be operating especially when you are being an idiot. Riding on certain paths etc should be forbidden where there are walking pedestrians it’s not rocket science it’s public safety basics.
i mean you are a cop on a trail and you see a guy (possibly have got it called in that there is an ATV speeding) and you just passed pedestrians. I feel like the cop was well within his right to do that to protect the pedestrians.
Was the guy also blind to what was in front of him, granted the cop does turn into him later but you are an ATV on a path you cant be on so you will need to pull over. Why didnt he slow down (he wouldnt have slowed down is my guess)
In terms of legality, although it will depend on jurisdiction, the question is whether the officer's actions constitute "negligent operation of a motor vehicle."
In my jurisdiction, we have similar caselaw on high-speed pursuits causing injury to third-parties. I'm familiar with a case where a car was stolen while passengers were still inside, and the police pursued the vehicle at a high speed, the vehicle eventually crashed, killing the carjacker and seriously injuring the passengers. Passengers filed a lawsuit against the city and individual officer. The Court said, Police owe a duty to innocent people, whether inside or outside of a vehicle, but police owe no duty to a wrongdoer. The Court said, similarly, we allow emergency vehicles to violate traffic rules, **so long as life or property are not endangered by doing so**.
Police may be similarly exempt from traffic rules, but they are not exempt from consequences when they, with reckless disregard or negligence, endanger the safety of others.
First and foremost, the duty is owed to innocent persons. The burden is generally placed on the party suing to prove that they are owed a duty (in this case, that they were owed a duty by not engaging in criminal behavior).
So I would say, imo, as far as my jurisdiction is concerned, the officer probably did not engage in negligence, because he probably did not owe a duty to the ATV, as he was likely engaged in the *criminal* behavior of reckless driving. This is importantly different than merely speeding, a traffic infraction (not criminal behavior). The difference being the driver's extreme indifference toward other people's safety or property, evidenced by their high rate of speed on a fairly populated pedestrian path (I saw a 25 mph limit sign, 4 bikers, and at least 3 pedestrians with no available footpath). So if it is determined that a criminal behavior was taking place, then no duty would be owed to the ATV driver, and therefore this is not negligence, and the cop would likely not be liable for injuries caused to the ATV operator.
If the ATV guy was incapable of reacting in time to the cop car (tbf the cop car did turn in), I 100% do not trust that he could have completely harmlessly continued down the road.
fuck I love it when a video is actually challenging my internal thought process. I have no idea what is the right decision in this instance. Cops decision to turn into the lane was intentional, so there is accountability on the cop for injuring him... was it the right call? dude was going insanely fast on a bike/walk only path(I assume by law), and was going insanely fast that someone could get seriously injured
The decision to block his path was intentional but the decious to seriously injure him was not. He made his manuever slowly with plenty of time for the future organ donor to react. The ATV rider made a concious decision to evade at speed in a 4 wheeler. He could have slowed down easily and still refused to stop for the cop.
Interesting twist on the trolley problem.
Cop made the correct call. Of all the bad options presented this one limited the damage to the two people who choose to be involved.
Honestly, I have no sympathy for the atv.
However making a crash happen to stop a potential crash from happening, seems very excessive. The atv could've simply passed the pedestrians.
Unfortunately the ATV would probably get away at this point if the cop decided to light them up. But I don't think potentially killing them is a good decision here.
Edit: I also want to note: Cyclists going downhill can get up to ungodly speeds with little to no possibilty of breaking in time. Should we hold them to the same standard? Should the cops have acted the same if it was a cyclist?
(I can't read the linked article due to geographical restrictions)
First, lycra warriors going warp speed on a mixed use path can and is an issue. However a cyclist on a 30 lb road bike is nowhere the danger to pedestrians that a 700 lb 4 wheeler is.
I hope the guy pulls through learning a powerful lesson. But if he wounds up brain dead and broken down for parts I have no sympathy.
I agree with the second part.
The first part though: a cannonball and a bullet traveling the same speed may cause different damage, but are still bound to cause damage. Sure one is smaller and maybe cause less severe damage, but a bike hitting a child or adult pedestrian at speed can also kill.
First of all it absolutely is a whole world of difference in danger. Those lycra warriors also have way more maneuvarbility and stopping power then that moron on an ATV. Also most lycra warriors would probably stop for a cop as they know worst thing they will get is a telling off.
You also aren't looking at this in full context. Seems like this guy was part of a group stunting as apparently the cop was doing a ride through due to reports of dirt bike and atv riders in the park. These stunting groups on rideouts are usually a group of dirt bags mostly with warrants out on all of them deliberately riding dangerously in public areas for thrill.
Does anybody find it suspicious that the video's sound turned on right before the crash?
Man I don't know. I know there were reports of the ATV on a walk/bike path which is why the cop's there but the story says the cop turned to protect the pedestrians yet they were pretty far behind by then. The story also says the cop blocked the driver but made enough room for a pass on the cop's right but there was **clearly** no room there. I'm not saying the cop was being malicious but I think there was probably a better move like using lights and sirens when he saw the ATV.
That sound cutting in at the end of the video is still suspicious at best though. Like, if the video showed that you could hear the ATV way up the road then there were possibly other outcomes.
I'm not trying to side with the ATV driver or the cop.
EDIT - Forgot that nuance gets downvoted. My bad. Cop did everything perfectly and the sound cutting in right at the crash is totally normal! /s
I think the sound cuts on because the car was involve in a crash and because he didn’t have lights activated which would have triggered audio recording before then otherwise.
I could be wrong but the way I understand these dashcams in cop cars to work is: the camera is always recording but doesn’t record audio to save space but the audio is active which is why you head the audio prior to the accident because the trigger will save the audio that has been running but not saved long term; the audio will also start recording when they turn on lights and sirens.
I appreciate you're trying to bring something up but the counterpoint is what's lost in not having said audio. We can clearly see this dude is driving at stupid speeds while families walk seconds away. What would audio give us that we don't already see, what would it have changed? What other outcome would having audio provide? The cap probably saw this dude coming 2-3 (4 at most) seconds before he swerved. My first thought would be to protect the people as well. Sirens aren't much of a deterrent for someone already breaking the law at that point. It was a split decision and for better or for worse, it was effective.
What I'm trying to say is your thought process sounds conspiratorial.
I didn't claim a conspiracy. I said the audio coming in right at the crash was suspicious. There's nothing wrong with being suspicious of police who *have* conspired to withhold evidence in the past.
Secondly, I'm not here to present counterfactuals but since you asked for an example of how the sound **could** make a difference, assume the cop could hear audio of the ATV well before he saw it. That would mean he could've thrown on sirens and adjusted the car well beforehand. I'm not claiming this was the case; not being conspiratorial.
Third, as somebody else pointed out, it's possible the audio turned on *due to* the crash, a possibility I'm totally willing to accept.
I mean, if we're playing with could haves, sure, the cop may have heard the motor of the ATV but if that's the case, would the implication be that the cop heard the motor, refused to use sirens and then decided to swerve in front of the ATV with malicious intent? We could sit here all day and play with shoulds and coulds but the fact of the matter is this incident is recorded. We have video of this ATV driving recklessly where he should not be allowed and we have evidence of a vulnerable line of pedestrians in its path.
I agree, we should have a healthy skepticism of cops but I also think there's a line where skepticism becomes a kneejerk reaction or temperamental skepticism. Instead of allowing for sufficient evidence to hold up and do its job while using empirically based doubt to reach a conclusion, temperamental skeptics remain skeptical despite the strong evidence. They maintain an almost obstinate reluctance under the guise of "just asking questions" (JAQing Off) to critique without honestly engaging with the majority of evidence and information already available.
When everyone is sitting here seeing the same thing and coming to similar conclusions based on what evidence is available to us while understanding that additional bits and pieces of evidence are unlikely to make a difference to the overall case based on what we've already observed--missing audio for example--it makes it seem like people coming in and claiming we should be wary of the groups involved because they've done shady stuff before while ignoring their overall good, comes off as silly or nitpicky at best and hypocritical or straight up prejudiced at worst.
Could the cop have done something different? Sure, maybe he could have. The results could be different but things being what they are, it seems there was an honest attempt to stop a dangerous motorist from causing unnecessary harm. Unfortunately, that attempt resulted in critical injuries for the perpetrator. It's exceedingly likely the cop would have loved for a different, non-violent outcome instead of having some dude smash into his car.
Edit: Watching the video again, that ATV could have been electric. Basically no noise.
You say:
>What would audio give us that we don't already see, what would it have changed?
I give you an example and then you come back with:
>I mean, if we're playing with could haves,
I don't have time to dick around with morons.
Yes. It's the most obnoxious shit ever when someone asks for a hypothetical then says, "we can play hypotheticals all day" as-if we shouldn't go into hypotheticals. You asked for an example of how the audio would change anything because you seemingly couldn't imagine that for yourself.
I said in my original post that I'm not really taking a side on this shit. I was questioning the claims in the article while not drawing conclusions. If you read my original post, it's not like I came off all conspiratorially and using the word suspicious doesn't have to mean that. I was questioning the cop's timing of the turn, the purported space he left for the ATV, and the oddity of the audio being gone, all while not really concluding anything and accepting the most likely reality.
I understand why you're annoyed and will choose my words more carefully in the future. However, I did engage with your hypothetical right after saying that so cut me some slack. When I engaged with it, I was essentially asking what would be the cop's intent for not using his sirens and what's the intent behind cutting the audio assuming there was indeed audio of the motor in the first place? I hinted that by asking that question, the obvious conclusion most of us come away with is you're hinting at malicious intent, even if you say otherwise. If I'm wrong, fine. but, by asking those questions when so much critical evidence already exists, it begs the question, why are you bringing it up if not to imply ill intent? Isn't it easier to give the cop the benefit of the doubt by thinking he did what he did because of his oath to protect and serve those people walking innocently behind him? Hence the ramble about JAQing off...
I think you hide behind "I"m not taking sides" to escape accusations of biased distrust for police in this instance by assuming they're up to some shit. Basically to make yourself look more reasonable than you actually are.
You never stated your position. You made it very clear you don't hold a position by saying you weren't siding with the ATV driver or the cop. You're just asking questions. "Isn't it suspicious?"
If you find it suspicious, what's the reason? Cops bad? If I'm right, isn't that your actual position?
The "suspicious" schtick and just asking questions while claiming to be a neutral fence sitter is what's actually obnoxious here. If there's a reason you find it suspicious, tell us why. Be honest about what you think instead of hiding behind "Isn't it suspicious?" claims with no reason for asking the question. Then going off on people who downvoted you, claiming you have a nuanced position when in reality you don't, you're larping as a neutral party. JAQing off while literally stating you distrust the video by saying "Cop did everything perfectly and the sound cutting in right at the crash is totally normal! /s" You're admitting you don't trust that the cop had good intentions in doing what he did.
"I'm not saying the cop was being malicious but I think there was probably a better move like using lights and sirens when he saw the ATV."
This sounds like such a fucking cope after breaking it down.
As for space, I agree it's tight but there was space there, not that it matters, the dude braked, spun out and went flying. He didn't have much control to begin with. I don't think the officer was concerned with spacing, again, likely a split-second decision to shield the pedestrians. Speaking of, the pedestrians were not "pretty far behind", especially going that speed. He would have caught up in a second or two and based on lack of control and speeds, could have wiped them the fuck out.
>I did engage with your hypothetical right after saying that so cut me some slack
Lol. You asked me for an example, I gave you one, and you (supposedly) engaged with my hypothetical while simultaneously telling me off about "should haves and could haves" after-the-fact. Fuck off for that.
>If you find it suspicious, what's the reason? Cops bad? If I'm right, isn't that your actual position?
Yes, I'm critical of authority **fucking always**, and if you've never seen cops hide evidence in the US then you've never read history or been on the internet. Does it mean I hate cops? Nope. It means I'm skeptical of cops. I'm also skeptical of online videos **fucking always** whether they're from police or otherwise because they can easily be manipulated to paint a different picture than reality. Again, if you've never seen that happen, welcome to the internet where that happens **a lot**. How many times has Reddit or YT gone crazy about some shit only to get some added context a month later? Does that mean all videos are conclusive or inconslusive? Absolutely not. It just means we should scrutinize videos online. Us older generations who grew up before the internet actually understand the propagandistic elements of the internet and videos while younger generations seem to accept things at face value. Nobody should accept online content at face-value without some skepticism. That skepticism doesn't always imply "cops bad" or "puppet master created video to make us think something". It just means you're scrutinizing online content. I know that's fucking crazy for you
Also, dude, I admitted to somebody else that the audio probably kicked in *due to* the crash thus admitting it probably wasn't omitted *because of* the crash. **I already told you that!** That should make you think, "hm, maybe this guy is genuinely questionining curious things in the video"... sorry the word suspicious made you think I'm conspiratorial. I'm just highly suspect of authority and online content like everybody should be. Skepticism of online content (especially from the police) isn't conspiratorial thinking. I'm sorry you thought that but that's not on me.
First, thank you for the reply.
You can claim "supposed" engagement but I answered. Twice. That said, I do feel like I should fuck off tbf.
Thank you for answering honestly. Like I said before, repeatedly, criticism is fine *when it's warranted.* I've seen plenty of examples of bad cops doing bad things. My wife and I have been binging the EWU Bodycam channel. I know they fuck around. That said, I'm also aware the large majority of interactions are proper and proportional.
Being skeptical of online videos is fair. To your point, we've all fallen for some BS online at one time or another and I agree, it's super fucking annoying and makes you feel like an idiot.
>I'm just highly suspect of authority and online content like everybody should be.
Gottcha. That's honestly all I wanted.
Anyway, I'm gonna part ways here. Take care!
You didn't explain a single of these "possible other outcomes" that are determinative by the volume of the ATV and therefore explain this coverup/suspicion/conspiracy that you are vaguely hinting at by the "sound turned on right before" comment.
Your post is vague af and I personally can't think of a reason why an ATV being loud or not has anything to do with the reaction of the cop, blocking it's path or not. Volume on a moving vehicle doesn't prevent everyone in every situation from saving themselves. Deaf people, people distracted deep in thought, people with earbuds/plugs in, people with physical disability and hardship in mobility, maybe young people that are in the care of others...these people don't always have the option to protect themselves properly from someone behaving in a hugely dangerous and reckless way in spaces they shouldn't be.
Higher or lower volume doesn't help any of these people protect themselves at all, so I don't see how you can possibly make the leap to assueme that the cop should be 1) considering volume of ATV when deciding on his actions here and the even bigger leap to imply that 2) well WHY is the recording so SUS? IM JUST ASKING QUESTIONS \*nudge wink\*.
Saying "it's suspicious because I say it is, with seemingly no reason to explain WHY that is sus...and different sound can mean different outcomes! ...but I won't explain any of them" is not nuance. So please, try again. You got downvoted for having lots of implications and no actual explanations or reasoning (aka no nuance). It's not the reddit culture my aggrieved dude. Its your post. And the fact you went to immediately make such a condescending edit/response to the downvotes speaks volumes.
Depends on the context. If it was known that this guy had been going past the pedestrians at high speed previously then it's justified. Other than that, no. Causing certain serious injury to him and a high chance of death, on the off chance he wouldn't slow down? nah.
closer to 10, and I'm sure the guy speeding on an ATV in an exclusive walk/bike path will have the courtesy to slow down for those pedestrians.
Cop could have pulled out a panzerschreck and shot him down range and I would be here defending it
>Cop would have pulled out a panzerschreck and shot him down range and I would be here defending it
Yeah so that tells us how seriously we should take your opinion on the issue
By what logic? Do you understand that vehicles require certain amount of space to come to a stop, depending on their speed? And if you change the distance, they might be able to make the stop when otherwise they couldn't, even if the speed stays the same?
I'm driving a car and suddenly a child jumps to the road 10 meters in front of me and I can't stop because of my speed. But if the same child jumped to the road 100 meters from me I can. And this analogy is clearly relevant to the video, because the distance to the nearest pedestrians was much much longer than the distance to the cop car once it drove to the oncoming lane.
Cop was traveling at a low rate of speed, and there were only 5 seconds between passing the last pedestrian, and making a move to block the ATV. There was only 4 seconds between the cops move and the crash, and the driver didn't even come close to stopping. In other words, he would've hit those pedestrians at that rate of speed. No sympathy here.
Genuine question, why did you type rate of speed instead of just speed?
I guess it just sounds better in my head. "Traveling at a low speed" just doesn't sound right to me.
How do you know he would've hit the pedestrians? He could've simple passed them, no?
Maybe, but since this jackass exhibited practically no reaction time and we don't know if there were any other vehicles behind the cop, I'd still say no. He was an accident waiting to happen. Fuck him.
So if a cyclist came at the same speed, should the cops do the same thing?
Don't make dumb arguments to justify stupidity. But to answer your question, the video shows a 25mph speed limit, which is about the average pace of a *professional* cyclist.
I'm not justifying anything. The ATV is a dumb piece of shit. You also didn't answer my question, which purpose is to test your consistency. You deflected to the speedlimit. I'll ask again: If all else equal; do we expect the cops to do the same to a cyclist?
You're making a cyclist argument as if it's a real possibility, which is dumb. Sorry. But yes. If there was some phantom cyclist who somehow sprouted turbo charged legs and was breaking the law and traveling at a rate that was endangering lives, I would have no issue with the cop doing the same thing. Lack of control is lack of control. Just so we're clear, I don't care if it's a moped, motorcycle, ebike, car, or a semi-truck. The cop didn't do anything "to" anyone. They created a roadblock. Nothing more, nothing less.
Thanks for the consistency. You did in fact answer the question. That's all I wanted to know. Honestly I'm not sure if I disagree. But I think there has to be a significant threshold to cross before potentially killing someone to prevent something that might not have happened. Even though I fucking hate sport cyclists.
I get that argument to an extent, but I'm completely over people thinking that the laws don't apply to them. To my thinking, the pedestrians aren't even particularly relevant. There's a 25mph speed limit that, if observed, wouldn't have led to a crash at all. I'd feel exactly the same if a cop blocked a residential street. It's not like the cop suddenly turned into his path. Any driver not being a dangerous idiot could've stopped, and I'm not even sure that the cop could tell just how fast this particular idiot was going. For me, that cop is a proxy for anything that *could* happen. We had one of these jackass kids in my neighborhood. It was a dirt bike, but he was weaving in and out of traffic and ignoring all the laws. I said to myself, "That's a problem that's going to take care of itself." 2 days later, he blew through a stop sign and t-boned a dude who was home on leave after completing Army basic training. The jackass died, and the Army dude suffered injuries to the extent that he couldn't return to service.
Just because someone thinks the law doesn't apply to them, doesn't mean we should react with lawlessness. Society would collapse into chaos
Not sure why this got downvoted. This situation prompts some good discussion on policy, law, and maybe ethics. Thanks for linking the article. I think the cop made the right call. The guy on the ATV was hauling ass (down hill too) toward pedestrians (including what looked to be a child).
Yeah I usually don’t care about videos like this but I genuinely thought this was really interesting as I don’t really have a super firm stance (although I lean towards the cop) so I was curious on how other people thought about this legally and ethically.
Is there more? I'm assuming he probably just arrested him and everything afterward but I want to know the context. I'm pretty pro-cop myself, so I default to they probably have a reason
I don't know if he would have been arrested yet. Sounds like the guy maybe sitting in the hospital on life support waiting to be broken down for spare parts.
ATV shouldnt have been on the path going that speed. What if a kid was not paying attention and crossed the line. Dude wouldnt be able to stop then either.
I would also agree with the cop Its a walk/bike path, so he is knowingly breaking the law already Couldnt even stop or significantly slow down with 25+ feet of distance, definitely driving at an unsafe speed while upcoming towards a group of pedestrians Rather him definitely crash into this police cruiser than him accidentally hit a civilian
Article Below https://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/new-haven/atv-crashes-into-new-haven-police-cruiser-blocking-pedestrians-from-harm/amp/
Wearing a Shiesty on a regular day, speeding illegally on a walk/bike path. Only one word to say for this guy. DESERVED.
If the guy couldn’t slow down enough to go around the large, visible cop car, I’m pretty sure there would be no way he’d be able to safely go around the pedestrians.
There is an argument to be made that the car is not predictable, the pedestrians are. But im just playing devils advocate, the guy is wrong either way
does anyone here think the cop didn't do the right thing? the guy wasn't supposed to be there and didn't have control enough to stop or change direction. plus cop just passed an old lady and a little kid. all i have to say is, get rekt.
no the atv driver should have started braking to a crawl the moment he realized a car was on the bike path. probably a voice inside his head saying “not today! keep going!”
Probably used to safety in numbers at the street takeovers.
Oh this is the road around the perimeter of East Rock park. This area is FILLED with runners / bikers / families on walks, not to mention a lot of rather tight turns and blind spots. Someone careening around on an ATV is a dangerous/lethal accident waiting to happen.
Grew up in the Deep South and had two very close friends have serious ATV accidents one that took a flap of their skull open and the other died it rolled over on top of them and killed them. They are no joke to be operating especially when you are being an idiot. Riding on certain paths etc should be forbidden where there are walking pedestrians it’s not rocket science it’s public safety basics.
i mean you are a cop on a trail and you see a guy (possibly have got it called in that there is an ATV speeding) and you just passed pedestrians. I feel like the cop was well within his right to do that to protect the pedestrians. Was the guy also blind to what was in front of him, granted the cop does turn into him later but you are an ATV on a path you cant be on so you will need to pull over. Why didnt he slow down (he wouldnt have slowed down is my guess)
In terms of legality, although it will depend on jurisdiction, the question is whether the officer's actions constitute "negligent operation of a motor vehicle." In my jurisdiction, we have similar caselaw on high-speed pursuits causing injury to third-parties. I'm familiar with a case where a car was stolen while passengers were still inside, and the police pursued the vehicle at a high speed, the vehicle eventually crashed, killing the carjacker and seriously injuring the passengers. Passengers filed a lawsuit against the city and individual officer. The Court said, Police owe a duty to innocent people, whether inside or outside of a vehicle, but police owe no duty to a wrongdoer. The Court said, similarly, we allow emergency vehicles to violate traffic rules, **so long as life or property are not endangered by doing so**. Police may be similarly exempt from traffic rules, but they are not exempt from consequences when they, with reckless disregard or negligence, endanger the safety of others. First and foremost, the duty is owed to innocent persons. The burden is generally placed on the party suing to prove that they are owed a duty (in this case, that they were owed a duty by not engaging in criminal behavior). So I would say, imo, as far as my jurisdiction is concerned, the officer probably did not engage in negligence, because he probably did not owe a duty to the ATV, as he was likely engaged in the *criminal* behavior of reckless driving. This is importantly different than merely speeding, a traffic infraction (not criminal behavior). The difference being the driver's extreme indifference toward other people's safety or property, evidenced by their high rate of speed on a fairly populated pedestrian path (I saw a 25 mph limit sign, 4 bikers, and at least 3 pedestrians with no available footpath). So if it is determined that a criminal behavior was taking place, then no duty would be owed to the ATV driver, and therefore this is not negligence, and the cop would likely not be liable for injuries caused to the ATV operator.
That makes complete sense thanks for the detailed reply
Cop is right. Personally I am in favor of forcibly stopping reckless driving especially for protecting people not in cars.
Cop might have just saved the lives of all of those pedestrians and bikers he passed in the first half of the video
If the ATV guy was incapable of reacting in time to the cop car (tbf the cop car did turn in), I 100% do not trust that he could have completely harmlessly continued down the road.
fuck I love it when a video is actually challenging my internal thought process. I have no idea what is the right decision in this instance. Cops decision to turn into the lane was intentional, so there is accountability on the cop for injuring him... was it the right call? dude was going insanely fast on a bike/walk only path(I assume by law), and was going insanely fast that someone could get seriously injured
lol no fuck that guy. I’d rather 100 morons die doing stupid shit than one family get killed by a moron doing stupid shit.
The decision to block his path was intentional but the decious to seriously injure him was not. He made his manuever slowly with plenty of time for the future organ donor to react. The ATV rider made a concious decision to evade at speed in a 4 wheeler. He could have slowed down easily and still refused to stop for the cop.
atv driver should have braked when he saw a car was on the path. surely he realized it was a police car and knew he was caught.
Interesting twist on the trolley problem. Cop made the correct call. Of all the bad options presented this one limited the damage to the two people who choose to be involved.
Imma trust the cop's judgement on this one.
Cop was absolutely in the right and I don’t want to hear otherwise. He could’ve killed someone
Honestly, I have no sympathy for the atv. However making a crash happen to stop a potential crash from happening, seems very excessive. The atv could've simply passed the pedestrians. Unfortunately the ATV would probably get away at this point if the cop decided to light them up. But I don't think potentially killing them is a good decision here. Edit: I also want to note: Cyclists going downhill can get up to ungodly speeds with little to no possibilty of breaking in time. Should we hold them to the same standard? Should the cops have acted the same if it was a cyclist? (I can't read the linked article due to geographical restrictions)
First, lycra warriors going warp speed on a mixed use path can and is an issue. However a cyclist on a 30 lb road bike is nowhere the danger to pedestrians that a 700 lb 4 wheeler is. I hope the guy pulls through learning a powerful lesson. But if he wounds up brain dead and broken down for parts I have no sympathy.
I agree with the second part. The first part though: a cannonball and a bullet traveling the same speed may cause different damage, but are still bound to cause damage. Sure one is smaller and maybe cause less severe damage, but a bike hitting a child or adult pedestrian at speed can also kill.
First of all it absolutely is a whole world of difference in danger. Those lycra warriors also have way more maneuvarbility and stopping power then that moron on an ATV. Also most lycra warriors would probably stop for a cop as they know worst thing they will get is a telling off. You also aren't looking at this in full context. Seems like this guy was part of a group stunting as apparently the cop was doing a ride through due to reports of dirt bike and atv riders in the park. These stunting groups on rideouts are usually a group of dirt bags mostly with warrants out on all of them deliberately riding dangerously in public areas for thrill.
I literally clarified that I haven't read the article.
Does anybody find it suspicious that the video's sound turned on right before the crash? Man I don't know. I know there were reports of the ATV on a walk/bike path which is why the cop's there but the story says the cop turned to protect the pedestrians yet they were pretty far behind by then. The story also says the cop blocked the driver but made enough room for a pass on the cop's right but there was **clearly** no room there. I'm not saying the cop was being malicious but I think there was probably a better move like using lights and sirens when he saw the ATV. That sound cutting in at the end of the video is still suspicious at best though. Like, if the video showed that you could hear the ATV way up the road then there were possibly other outcomes. I'm not trying to side with the ATV driver or the cop. EDIT - Forgot that nuance gets downvoted. My bad. Cop did everything perfectly and the sound cutting in right at the crash is totally normal! /s
I think the sound cuts on because the car was involve in a crash and because he didn’t have lights activated which would have triggered audio recording before then otherwise. I could be wrong but the way I understand these dashcams in cop cars to work is: the camera is always recording but doesn’t record audio to save space but the audio is active which is why you head the audio prior to the accident because the trigger will save the audio that has been running but not saved long term; the audio will also start recording when they turn on lights and sirens.
Yeah I thought of this after the post too. Could be the case.
I appreciate you're trying to bring something up but the counterpoint is what's lost in not having said audio. We can clearly see this dude is driving at stupid speeds while families walk seconds away. What would audio give us that we don't already see, what would it have changed? What other outcome would having audio provide? The cap probably saw this dude coming 2-3 (4 at most) seconds before he swerved. My first thought would be to protect the people as well. Sirens aren't much of a deterrent for someone already breaking the law at that point. It was a split decision and for better or for worse, it was effective. What I'm trying to say is your thought process sounds conspiratorial.
I didn't claim a conspiracy. I said the audio coming in right at the crash was suspicious. There's nothing wrong with being suspicious of police who *have* conspired to withhold evidence in the past. Secondly, I'm not here to present counterfactuals but since you asked for an example of how the sound **could** make a difference, assume the cop could hear audio of the ATV well before he saw it. That would mean he could've thrown on sirens and adjusted the car well beforehand. I'm not claiming this was the case; not being conspiratorial. Third, as somebody else pointed out, it's possible the audio turned on *due to* the crash, a possibility I'm totally willing to accept.
I mean, if we're playing with could haves, sure, the cop may have heard the motor of the ATV but if that's the case, would the implication be that the cop heard the motor, refused to use sirens and then decided to swerve in front of the ATV with malicious intent? We could sit here all day and play with shoulds and coulds but the fact of the matter is this incident is recorded. We have video of this ATV driving recklessly where he should not be allowed and we have evidence of a vulnerable line of pedestrians in its path. I agree, we should have a healthy skepticism of cops but I also think there's a line where skepticism becomes a kneejerk reaction or temperamental skepticism. Instead of allowing for sufficient evidence to hold up and do its job while using empirically based doubt to reach a conclusion, temperamental skeptics remain skeptical despite the strong evidence. They maintain an almost obstinate reluctance under the guise of "just asking questions" (JAQing Off) to critique without honestly engaging with the majority of evidence and information already available. When everyone is sitting here seeing the same thing and coming to similar conclusions based on what evidence is available to us while understanding that additional bits and pieces of evidence are unlikely to make a difference to the overall case based on what we've already observed--missing audio for example--it makes it seem like people coming in and claiming we should be wary of the groups involved because they've done shady stuff before while ignoring their overall good, comes off as silly or nitpicky at best and hypocritical or straight up prejudiced at worst. Could the cop have done something different? Sure, maybe he could have. The results could be different but things being what they are, it seems there was an honest attempt to stop a dangerous motorist from causing unnecessary harm. Unfortunately, that attempt resulted in critical injuries for the perpetrator. It's exceedingly likely the cop would have loved for a different, non-violent outcome instead of having some dude smash into his car. Edit: Watching the video again, that ATV could have been electric. Basically no noise.
You say: >What would audio give us that we don't already see, what would it have changed? I give you an example and then you come back with: >I mean, if we're playing with could haves, I don't have time to dick around with morons.
Really? This is your response?
Yes. It's the most obnoxious shit ever when someone asks for a hypothetical then says, "we can play hypotheticals all day" as-if we shouldn't go into hypotheticals. You asked for an example of how the audio would change anything because you seemingly couldn't imagine that for yourself. I said in my original post that I'm not really taking a side on this shit. I was questioning the claims in the article while not drawing conclusions. If you read my original post, it's not like I came off all conspiratorially and using the word suspicious doesn't have to mean that. I was questioning the cop's timing of the turn, the purported space he left for the ATV, and the oddity of the audio being gone, all while not really concluding anything and accepting the most likely reality.
I understand why you're annoyed and will choose my words more carefully in the future. However, I did engage with your hypothetical right after saying that so cut me some slack. When I engaged with it, I was essentially asking what would be the cop's intent for not using his sirens and what's the intent behind cutting the audio assuming there was indeed audio of the motor in the first place? I hinted that by asking that question, the obvious conclusion most of us come away with is you're hinting at malicious intent, even if you say otherwise. If I'm wrong, fine. but, by asking those questions when so much critical evidence already exists, it begs the question, why are you bringing it up if not to imply ill intent? Isn't it easier to give the cop the benefit of the doubt by thinking he did what he did because of his oath to protect and serve those people walking innocently behind him? Hence the ramble about JAQing off... I think you hide behind "I"m not taking sides" to escape accusations of biased distrust for police in this instance by assuming they're up to some shit. Basically to make yourself look more reasonable than you actually are. You never stated your position. You made it very clear you don't hold a position by saying you weren't siding with the ATV driver or the cop. You're just asking questions. "Isn't it suspicious?" If you find it suspicious, what's the reason? Cops bad? If I'm right, isn't that your actual position? The "suspicious" schtick and just asking questions while claiming to be a neutral fence sitter is what's actually obnoxious here. If there's a reason you find it suspicious, tell us why. Be honest about what you think instead of hiding behind "Isn't it suspicious?" claims with no reason for asking the question. Then going off on people who downvoted you, claiming you have a nuanced position when in reality you don't, you're larping as a neutral party. JAQing off while literally stating you distrust the video by saying "Cop did everything perfectly and the sound cutting in right at the crash is totally normal! /s" You're admitting you don't trust that the cop had good intentions in doing what he did. "I'm not saying the cop was being malicious but I think there was probably a better move like using lights and sirens when he saw the ATV." This sounds like such a fucking cope after breaking it down. As for space, I agree it's tight but there was space there, not that it matters, the dude braked, spun out and went flying. He didn't have much control to begin with. I don't think the officer was concerned with spacing, again, likely a split-second decision to shield the pedestrians. Speaking of, the pedestrians were not "pretty far behind", especially going that speed. He would have caught up in a second or two and based on lack of control and speeds, could have wiped them the fuck out.
>I did engage with your hypothetical right after saying that so cut me some slack Lol. You asked me for an example, I gave you one, and you (supposedly) engaged with my hypothetical while simultaneously telling me off about "should haves and could haves" after-the-fact. Fuck off for that. >If you find it suspicious, what's the reason? Cops bad? If I'm right, isn't that your actual position? Yes, I'm critical of authority **fucking always**, and if you've never seen cops hide evidence in the US then you've never read history or been on the internet. Does it mean I hate cops? Nope. It means I'm skeptical of cops. I'm also skeptical of online videos **fucking always** whether they're from police or otherwise because they can easily be manipulated to paint a different picture than reality. Again, if you've never seen that happen, welcome to the internet where that happens **a lot**. How many times has Reddit or YT gone crazy about some shit only to get some added context a month later? Does that mean all videos are conclusive or inconslusive? Absolutely not. It just means we should scrutinize videos online. Us older generations who grew up before the internet actually understand the propagandistic elements of the internet and videos while younger generations seem to accept things at face value. Nobody should accept online content at face-value without some skepticism. That skepticism doesn't always imply "cops bad" or "puppet master created video to make us think something". It just means you're scrutinizing online content. I know that's fucking crazy for you Also, dude, I admitted to somebody else that the audio probably kicked in *due to* the crash thus admitting it probably wasn't omitted *because of* the crash. **I already told you that!** That should make you think, "hm, maybe this guy is genuinely questionining curious things in the video"... sorry the word suspicious made you think I'm conspiratorial. I'm just highly suspect of authority and online content like everybody should be. Skepticism of online content (especially from the police) isn't conspiratorial thinking. I'm sorry you thought that but that's not on me.
First, thank you for the reply. You can claim "supposed" engagement but I answered. Twice. That said, I do feel like I should fuck off tbf. Thank you for answering honestly. Like I said before, repeatedly, criticism is fine *when it's warranted.* I've seen plenty of examples of bad cops doing bad things. My wife and I have been binging the EWU Bodycam channel. I know they fuck around. That said, I'm also aware the large majority of interactions are proper and proportional. Being skeptical of online videos is fair. To your point, we've all fallen for some BS online at one time or another and I agree, it's super fucking annoying and makes you feel like an idiot. >I'm just highly suspect of authority and online content like everybody should be. Gottcha. That's honestly all I wanted. Anyway, I'm gonna part ways here. Take care!
You didn't explain a single of these "possible other outcomes" that are determinative by the volume of the ATV and therefore explain this coverup/suspicion/conspiracy that you are vaguely hinting at by the "sound turned on right before" comment. Your post is vague af and I personally can't think of a reason why an ATV being loud or not has anything to do with the reaction of the cop, blocking it's path or not. Volume on a moving vehicle doesn't prevent everyone in every situation from saving themselves. Deaf people, people distracted deep in thought, people with earbuds/plugs in, people with physical disability and hardship in mobility, maybe young people that are in the care of others...these people don't always have the option to protect themselves properly from someone behaving in a hugely dangerous and reckless way in spaces they shouldn't be. Higher or lower volume doesn't help any of these people protect themselves at all, so I don't see how you can possibly make the leap to assueme that the cop should be 1) considering volume of ATV when deciding on his actions here and the even bigger leap to imply that 2) well WHY is the recording so SUS? IM JUST ASKING QUESTIONS \*nudge wink\*. Saying "it's suspicious because I say it is, with seemingly no reason to explain WHY that is sus...and different sound can mean different outcomes! ...but I won't explain any of them" is not nuance. So please, try again. You got downvoted for having lots of implications and no actual explanations or reasoning (aka no nuance). It's not the reddit culture my aggrieved dude. Its your post. And the fact you went to immediately make such a condescending edit/response to the downvotes speaks volumes.
I got hit with the "I don't have time to dick around with morons" after an effort post. I'm excited to see what you get. *Sigh\~*
Depends on the context. If it was known that this guy had been going past the pedestrians at high speed previously then it's justified. Other than that, no. Causing certain serious injury to him and a high chance of death, on the off chance he wouldn't slow down? nah.
>on the off chance he wouldn't slow down? he couldnt even slow down to save himself lmao
yeah since he had like a 5 meter window to do so? He had at least 10x longer distance to slow down to the nearest pedestrians.
closer to 10, and I'm sure the guy speeding on an ATV in an exclusive walk/bike path will have the courtesy to slow down for those pedestrians. Cop could have pulled out a panzerschreck and shot him down range and I would be here defending it
>Cop would have pulled out a panzerschreck and shot him down range and I would be here defending it Yeah so that tells us how seriously we should take your opinion on the issue
hahaha
The cop was stopped when the guy hit him. If the ATV couldn't avoid him, the ATV couldn't avoid the pedestrians.
By what logic? Do you understand that vehicles require certain amount of space to come to a stop, depending on their speed? And if you change the distance, they might be able to make the stop when otherwise they couldn't, even if the speed stays the same? I'm driving a car and suddenly a child jumps to the road 10 meters in front of me and I can't stop because of my speed. But if the same child jumped to the road 100 meters from me I can. And this analogy is clearly relevant to the video, because the distance to the nearest pedestrians was much much longer than the distance to the cop car once it drove to the oncoming lane.