"wreckless" driving would be great.

 

You don't know that it shows a pattern of reckless driving without investigating each of those accidents. Just because he's at fault in a collision doesn't mean he was being reckless.

 

It is actually very hard for someone who is untrained to guess someone's speed. If you are walking down the street that police cruiser with lights and sirens is possibly going to look much faster than it actually is. Eye witness testimony is very unreliable as it is, but asking untrained eye witnesses to give a speed estimate isn't going to be reliable at all.

 

And yes, police are trained to estimate speeds from moving vehicles. Its part of their radar training.

Hmmmm, I was a cop, must of missed that class.

If an officer goes to a house where there are frequent incidents of domestic disturbances, is the officer not using the fact that there is a pattern of that type behavior at this address to determine his/her course of action when assessing the incident?

 

My point being, there may be extenuating circumstances each different time, but as a whole it looks like this address is predisposed toward spousal dust-ups, the same way the officer in question in this accident looks to have problems driving safely.

 

You have no clue if any of his previous "at fault" accidents involved him driving reckless. An at fault accident could include him backing his car into another car causing minor damage.

Hmmmm, I was a cop, must of missed that class.

 

Must have slept through your radar class.

 

Google it. Police are trained to make a visual estimate on a vehicles speed. Of course there is no science to it, but they are supposed to be able to do it pretty accurately before they are certified to use the radar.

Must have slept through your radar class.

 

Google it. Police are trained to make a visual estimate on a vehicles speed. Of course there is no science to it, but they are supposed to be able to do it pretty accurately before they are certified to use the radar.

Yes but they are not trained to the point they can tell you how fast a vehicle was traveling. If they were it would be admissable in court which it isn't. I'd love to be the judge in traffic court when a poliice officer states "Your honor, he looked like he was traveling 42 mph in a 20 mph zone"

 

AAt the same time, you do realize you don't have to be a police officer "Trained on radar" to be able to estimate how fast someone is going by sight don't you?

Yes but they are not trained to the point they can tell you how fast a vehicle was traveling. If they were it would be admissable in court which it isn't. I'd love to be the judge in traffic court when a poliice officer states "Your honor' date=' he looked like he was traveling 42 mph in a 20 mph zone" AAt the same time, you do realize you don't have to be a police officer "Trained on radar" to be able to estimate how fast someone is going by sight don't you?[/quote']

 

First of all, you are wrong again. They are required to make a certain number of estimates within a certain range in order to pass.

 

And I think it depends on what state you are in but I've read stories in the past where courts have ruled it is admissible and that a radar isn't even necessary. Regardless, it's still a part of the radar training. I'd think a former "cop" would know that.

 

With that said, no you don't have to be a police officer to be able to estimate speeds. But I think its absurd to think someone who has probably never been trained would know how fast, just by looking at a police cruiser with lights and sirens on driving by at night.

You have no clue if any of his previous "at fault" accidents involved him driving reckless. An at fault accident could include him backing his car into another car causing minor damage.

 

Doesn't change the fact that accidents seem to happen when he's around. An insurance company would call him "high-risk" when he shops for a policy, the same way dispatch would tell the responding officer that there had been multiple previous reports of domestic disturbances at the hypothetical house in my example.

Doesn't change the fact that accidents seem to happen when he's around. An insurance company would call him "high-risk" when he shops for a policy' date=' the same way dispatch would tell the responding officer that there had been multiple previous reports of domestic disturbances at the hypothetical house in my example.[/quote']

 

But those comparisons mean nothing in the grand scheme of things. That has nothing to do with whether or not he did something criminal, or even wrong.

 

I'm not saying he did or didn't do something wrong. I'm just saying that without investigating each of his previous accidents individually you have no clue what they say about him. Like I said before, he might have backed his car into a wall twice. On the flip side , he might have a history of driving like an idiot and crashing his cars for stupid reasons. In that case I think they could come into play regarding a decision to discipline or fire him, but I'm not sure they would influence a criminal decision. I'm no prosecutor though so I could be wrong.

But those comparisons mean nothing in the grand scheme of things. That has nothing to do with whether or not he did something criminal, or even wrong.

 

I'm not saying he did or didn't do something wrong. I'm just saying that without investigating each of his previous accidents individually you have no clue what they say about him. Like I said before, he might have backed his car into a wall twice. On the flip side , he might have a history of driving like an idiot and crashing his cars for stupid reasons. In that case I think they could come into play regarding a decision to discipline or fire him, but I'm not sure they would influence a criminal decision. I'm no prosecutor though so I could be wrong.

 

Each individual incident's details don't matter. The grand scheme of things is he's accident-prone. If he is costing his department too much money in collateral damage, he'll be cut loose. If not, he should be, because that's the way it is in most every other line of work.

Each individual incident's details don't matter. The grand scheme of things is he's accident-prone. If he is costing his department too much money in collateral damage' date=' he'll be cut loose. If not, he should be, because that's the way it is in most every other line of work.[/quote']

 

You don't even know if he's at fault in this accident. So if he's found to be not at fault and they didn't make the decision to fire him before, why would he be fired after?

You don't even know if he's at fault in this accident. So if he's found to be not at fault and they didn't make the decision to fire him before' date=' why would he be fired after?[/quote'] Also I'd say that the details of the other accidents do matter. If he has totaled 5 cars it would be different than if he had 5 fender benders IMO.

From an article...not sure if this is in the original post.

 

 

"Smith is a 19-year veteran of the police department, and was assigned to District 4 in January 1996, according to his personnel file.

 

Of the six previous crashes Smith has been involved in, he was found negligent in five, costing the city $17,831.70 in damages, according to his personnel file.

 

He was last involved in an accident 10 years ago, on New Year's Day 2003."

 

It's been 10 years since he was involved in a crash and he's had 5 at fault accidents in 19 years. I don't think that's as bad as some of you think.

 

http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/hamilton-county/cincinnati/over-the-rhine/pedestrian-struck-by-police-cruiser-on-vine-street-in-otr

First of all, you are wrong again. They are required to make a certain number of estimates within a certain range in order to pass.

 

And I think it depends on what state you are in but I've read stories in the past where courts have ruled it is admissible and that a radar isn't even necessary. Regardless, it's still a part of the radar training. I'd think a former "cop" would know that.

 

With that said, no you don't have to be a police officer to be able to estimate speeds. But I think its absurd to think someone who has probably never been trained would know how fast, just by looking at a police cruiser with lights and sirens on driving by at night.

 

...and when I was a wee little boy I was taught that Mr. Policeman was my friend and was there to protect me (nodding my head up and down as I speak in a childlike voice), and is the most honorable, honest, and upstanding person around along with Preacher Bob and Father Malesta and Sister Mary Feelmeup, and civic leaders like Toronto Mayor Rob Ford and that Weiner guy and that always honest Bush family and his buddies like Dicky Cheney and Donny Rumsfeld and then that Billy Clinton guy and Dicky Nixon and lots and lots more...

 

...So whenever they act or speak, I know for a fact that they're always honest and tellin' the tooth and have my protection first and foremost in their best interest for they are here to serve me and always be true and honor the law to protect my freedoms...

 

...And when I grow up I'm gonna be just like'em, 'cause for Christmas this year Mommy says Santa's bringing me a policeman's uniform and a badge and a gun so I can start gettin' ready for when I grow up to be big and strong, and she says if I wanna, I might be able to ride a horse through the town just like they do, and I thought it would be fun to ride a unicorn too, and she said I can do anything my little heart desires, so when anybody says sumptin' bad about any of them, I just tellin'em "that's not what my mommy told me" and that none of those people here to protect me would ever do anything wrong...

 

...sumptin' else Santa's bringin' me this year for Christmas is an eye patch so I can be a pirate on a big ship, and mommy says a little elf told her that I'm gettin' two of 'em.... one for each eye.

...and when I was a wee little boy I was taught that Mr. Policeman was my friend and was there to protect me (nodding my head up and down as I speak in a childlike voice)' date=' and is the most honorable, honest, and upstanding person around along with Preacher Bob and Father Malesta and Sister Mary Feelmeup, and civic leaders like Toronto Mayor Rob Ford and that Weiner guy and that always honest Bush family and his buddies like Dicky Cheney and Donny Rumsfeld and then that Billy Clinton guy and Dicky Nixon and lots and lots more... ...So whenever they act or speak, I know for a fact that they're always honest and tellin' the tooth and have my protection first and foremost in their best interest for they are here to serve me and always be true and honor the law to protect my freedoms... ...And when I grow up I'm gonna be just like'em, 'cause for Christmas this year Mommy says Santa's bringing me a policeman's uniform and a badge and a gun so I can start gettin' ready for when I grow up to be big and strong, and she says if I wanna, I might be able to ride a horse through the town just like they do, and I thought it would be fun to ride a unicorn too, and she said I can do anything my little heart desires, so when anybody says sumptin' bad about any of them, I just tellin'em "that's not what my mommy told me" and that none of those people here to protect me would ever do anything wrong... ...sumptin' else Santa's bringin' me this year for Christmas is an eye patch so I can be a pirate on a big ship, and mommy says a little elf told her that I'm gettin' two of 'em.... one for each eye.[/quote']

 

What in Gods name are you talking about?

The main thing that I think looks the worst for the officer in this case is the fact that he was involved in a shooting earlier this year where the same camera excuse was used.

 

Either he needs a better or camera or someone's messing with the camera. Hopefully they are able to determine which is true.

What in Gods name are you talking about?

 

"...now there... let mommy tuck you in and when you wake in the morning you'll be able to see that Santa's been here 'cause all the milk and cookies will be gone and you'll have all your presents under the tree to unwrap. It's gonna be a whole lotta fun playin' a pirate wearing two patches isn't it?. What can we call you honey?"

 

"Mommy can I be Captain "Blind-as-a-bat" Gullible?"

 

"Sure Honey... You can be anything your little heart desires....now there... you better get some sleep 'cause you don't want Santa passing the house by 'cause you're all awake, do ya?"

 

"No Mommy, I'll go nite nite now but can I ask you one more question?"

 

"Sure sweetie, what's that?"

 

"I've never seen a two eye patched pirate before, why do you think Santa wants me to be one"?

 

"That's so when there's bad in the world honey, you won't ever have to see it, and you'll stay young and naive forever and ever and never have to know anything about it"

 

"Mommy, there's bad in the world?"

 

"...now there... you just don't worry yourself 'bout all that and you go nite nite now..."

 

"Ok... nite nite Mommy"

 

"Nite nite my little sweetie-pie"