N.J. trooper Higbee who hit and killed teens testifies

Source: Philadelphia Inquirer

The bold is where you fucked up, dude. If his emergency signals had been operating and he'd still hit the girls, I'd say this was a tragic accident. But, because his emergency signals weren't on, he's got to be held accountable 'cause in my mind, those girl's deaths are his fault. Full stop.

I completely agree.

Why do some police pursue without putting on their lights and/or sirens? Whenever I see this, it makes me angry - and there are either a lot of cops who speed around here, or a lot who pursue without putting their sirens on.

I wonder if he wrote himself a ticket after running the stop sign.

There are some times when it's advantageous. However, when they are off you've got to be on top of your game because your ass is hanging out way over the line.

But, I digress. When you're doing a Bat-turn to go back after someone, if it's safe to do so, it can be very advantageous not to hit your lights. If you pull it off correctly, it looks like a simple u-turn (not uncommon for a police car) and it doesn't give your quarry time to run. You're on them immediately.

Also, on a quiet night in a small town setting, you can hear a siren for miles. I'd rather not let the bad guys know that I'm about to be on top of them so I have been known to cut the siren off and leave the lights on.

However, it is illegal under Alabama law. If your vehicle is equipped with lights and a siren, you must use both or nothing at all and be bound by the same traffic restrictions as everyone else.

That seems... strange that you would have to use both. What is the reasoning behind that law? Do you you agree with it?

Deaf people can't hear the siren and blind people can't see the lights. When running code, I'm not just worried about the other cars. I'm worried about the people standing on the side of the road and people that may just be thinking about pulling out that don't notice me.

Yes.

Was the speeder going 65 through the stop sign too?

That better be some emergency that cop was on.

So basically he was doing something that is sometimes useful to do, made a mistake (not noticing a stop sign) and killed to people doing it.

If "intent" is part of a crime, there was no crime here since he certainly had no intent to kill or even seriously endanger anyone. And yet, by a serious error (which is his fault, even if he didn't have any intent to hurt anyone), his actions resulted in terrible consequences.

Solutions? I don't see any good ones. From what Elwood says, rules saying cops can't chase without running code wouldn't change anything, because they already exist, but cops know there are times when they have to take the risk of doing otherwise. Punishing the cop as severely as possible won't change anything, either, for the same reason. Going easy on him would only make the situation worse, though, because then cops wouldn't understand the risk they are taking when they deliberately break the rules because they think (rightly so, in very many cases) that the situation justifies it.

​

If there are protocols in place that deal with these kinds of situations, and those protocols were broken, then to me the officer is guilty of something.

But, if he acted within the realm of the law, then the death was indeed an accident....then the officer is to me not guilty.

How is this situation any different from a fatality occurring during a car chase?

Even with lights and srien, aren't you supposed to slow down at intersections and check for traffic? People in cars with windows closed won't always be able to hear the siren.

Friend of mine got T-boned by a cop car in exactly that situation once. Totalled his Toyota, plus the cop gave him a ticket, and the police insurance refused to pay for his car.

I believe it mentions in the article that the officer talks about slowing down at the intersection.

Well, the Wordforge way would be to fire all the cops and bring in new ones for "fresh ideas" while rewriting all the laws and regulations to allow the desired behaviour, unless someone you didn't like was doing it, in which case they've have to be hounded out of the town.

They did the wordforge way already though! The Admin (cop) ran through the stop sign without stopping!

He slowed down to 65?

This gets stupider and stupider.

The laws vary widely from state to state.

I believe we've talked about the incident with your friend before. I believe the conclusion we reached by researching the code was that if a police car has it's lights and siren on and is involved in an accident, the other party is automatically assumed to be at fault unless there are some exigent circumstances.

However, in Alabama, if an emergency vehicle is running code and is involved in a wreck, it's automatically assumed to be the emergency vehicle operator's fault unless there are some exigent circumstances.

For a moment there, I thought garamet had stolen Lanzman's avatar.

And what's with "behaviour"? Aren't you American?

Well, that is, unless you're on the same road as them, apparently.

So New Jersey police policy is that they can run red lights at 65mph without lights and sirens? It's about time to refresh the tree of liberty.

The tree of liberty was destroyed when it was hit by a cop running a red to protect his local donut from being robbed by a civilian. The tree had been on loan to Chicago where Mayor Assface has been talking liberty away for decades anyway. Spokesmen for the tree said being destroyed was.more merciful to the tree than it's decades long observation of the destruction of personal liberty. They reported the tree had considered suicide for several months since the tragedy of last Nov 4.

I just don't know what to think anymore. I support Law Enforcement Officers. Heck, I even support them beating people often times.

This is just wrong though. The thought that a Law Enforcement officer could kill me anytime they want with bad driving and get away with it though... that's horrible.

I think they mean the opposite--that lights and siren are recommended NJ police policy--but it's very poorly worded.

I think we missed an important point here.

How so?

But, back to the topic, I hate to send the guy to prison 'cause he didn't intend on any of this happening, but I do believe this sets a bad precedent, at least in the State of New Jersey.

Why are blind people driving?

See the bold. ^^^^^^

It's not like we don't have plenty of bad precedents here already!

If you were the judge, what do you think would have been an appropriate outcome and consequence?