Boone County and Family of Samantha Ramsey Settle

[Jumper_Dad]

Didn't she run over his foot which led to him jumping on the car to keep from being ran over? Wasn't their evidence on his boots that she drove over his foot? If she was steering to the left when she hit him, the only place he had to go was on the hood.

 

As far as the settlement goes, the insurance carrier for the county will determine the risk and cost of going to trial and will in almost every case they will make an offer to settle instead of going to court.

[#99]

I'm not assuming anything. I have a very good understanding of logistics, automobiles, driving them in various conditions, and what happens when someone drives off when I'm standing next to the car or in front of it. If I assume something, I will tell you that. This is a very educated conclusion as to what happened

You don't have to agree with it.

[#99]

Didn't she run over his foot which led to him jumping on the car to keep from being ran over? Wasn't there evidence on his boots that she drove over his foot? If she was steering to the left when she hit him, the only place he had to go was on the hood.

 

As far as the settlement goes, the insurance carrier for the county will determine the risk and cost of going to trial and will in almost every case they will make an offer to settle instead of going to court.

If your next to a car and someone tries to run over your foot, your natural reaction would be to jump out of the way of the car. If for some reason your foot does get run over, the fender of the car sticks out further than the tire, so most of the time your trying to get away from the car to avoid further injury. That being said, he had to jump on the hood on purpose, not in self preservation.

Edited December 22, 2016 by Jumper_Dad

[Jumper_Dad]

If your next to a car and someone tries to run over your foot, your natural reaction would be to jump out of the way of the car. If for some reason your foot does get run over, the fender of the car sticks out further than the tire, so most of the time your trying to get away from the car to avoid further injury. That being said, he had to jump on the hood on purpose, not in self preservation.

 

I could be wrong, but I think there was a car to the right of him that she was going to smash him against if he didn't move. The only place he had to go, I think it was determined at the time, was on the hood.

[00Rocket28]

I'm not assuming anything. I have a very good understanding of logistics, automobiles, driving them in various conditions, and what happens when someone drives off when I'm standing next to the car or in front of it. If I assume something, I will tell you that. This is a very uneducated conclusion as to what happened

You don't have to agree with it.

 

Fixed that for ya

[00Rocket28]

Didn't she run over his foot which led to him jumping on the car to keep from being ran over? Wasn't there evidence on his boots that she drove over his foot? If she was steering to the left when she hit him, the only place he had to go was on the hood.

 

As far as the settlement goes, the insurance carrier for the county will determine the risk and cost of going to trial and will in almost every case they will make an offer to settle instead of going to court.

 

Yea and the surgeries to fix his injuries sustained... but that's not important to old #99... about 5 seconds of the encounter is on camera yet 99 is an expert reconstructionist ofbthe incident. What a joke.

Edited December 22, 2016 by Jumper_Dad

[#99]

The injuries that he caused himself. And I am very educated when it comes to these type of things. Also you do realize they reconstruct accidents all the time with no video or witnesses, or did you think they just went on the word of the only survivor? Like I said if you want to call it my opinion that's fine and you don't have to agree with it.

[#99]

One last thing. Any way you look at it the officer went about this situation all wrong. When was the last time you heard of a police officer jumping in front of or on the hood of a car when trying to make a traffic stop? Which this was considering she was driving. How many times have you ever heard of an officer opening fire for a subject fleeing from a traffic stop? That is not an opinion you can look up the facts on those situations. Now we can agree to disagree, but to say my conclusion is uneducated and a joke is a joke in itself.

[sportsfan41]

I could be wrong, but I think there was a car to the right of him that she was going to smash him against if he didn't move. The only place he had to go, I think it was determined at the time, was on the hood.

 

Yes thats correct. His cruiser was there. Apparently #99 believes the Matrix is real and Brockman should have been able to defy the laws of gravity to remove himself from harms way.

[#99]

Yes thats correct. His cruiser was there. Apparently #99 believes the Matrix is real and Brockman should have been able to defy the laws of gravity to remove himself from harms way.

 

How do you know he was between his car and hers? You can't see that on the video

[#99]

Let me clarify this for you. His car is pulled halfway off the road when he gets out of the car. This you can tell by his dash cam. When she pulls out she is in the other lane. No possible physical way she turned sharp enough to pin him between his own car and hers. And the evidence at the scene sorts that she was in the other lane when she was shot. And yes I have been to the scene, shortly after this happened and a few times since. If he did get in front of her car in that short amount of time before the shots were fired, he put himself in danger. And she never floored the gas as to run over him or the car would have been traveling faster and farther down the road before it was bumped into reverse and came to a stop where it did. Note I don't expect everyone to understand this. But like I said I am very educated when it comes to accidents involving cars and what caused them to do what they did.

[NamecipS]

Let me clarify this for you. His car is pulled halfway off the road when he gets out of the car. This you can tell by his dash cam. When she pulls out she is in the other lane. No possible physical way she turned sharp enough to pin him between his own car and hers. And the evidence at the scene sorts that she was in the other lane when she was shot. And yes I have been to the scene, shortly after this happened and a few times since. If he did get in front of her car in that short amount of time before the shots were fired, he put himself in danger. And she never floored the gas as to run over him or the car would have been traveling faster and farther down the road before it was bumped into reverse and came to a stop where it did. Note I don't expect everyone to understand this. But like I said I am very educated when it comes to accidents involving cars and what caused them to do what they did.

 

Then she should have stopped when the officer was in front of her car, not accelerated. She should have stopped period.

 

She has fault in this, it's not all on the cop. This settlement is wrong. The cop should turn around and sue her estate(or wherever the money went). He should then donate the money to a proper/related cause that will help other victims/cops.

[00Rocket28]

How do you know he was between his car and hers? You can't see that on the video

 

Ah, so only YOU get to have opinions about what occurred off camera. Like I said before, what an uneducated joke.

[UK#1fanisback]

Let me clarify this for you. His car is pulled halfway off the road when he gets out of the car. This you can tell by his dash cam. When she pulls out she is in the other lane. No possible physical way she turned sharp enough to pin him between his own car and hers. And the evidence at the scene sorts that she was in the other lane when she was shot. And yes I have been to the scene, shortly after this happened and a few times since. If he did get in front of her car in that short amount of time before the shots were fired, he put himself in danger. And she never floored the gas as to run over him or the car would have been traveling faster and farther down the road before it was bumped into reverse and came to a stop where it did. Note I don't expect everyone to understand this. But like I said I am very educated when it comes to accidents involving cars and what caused them to do what they did.

 

Why would you go to the scene?

[#99]

Ah, so only YOU get to have opinions about what occurred off camera. Like I said before, what an uneducated joke.

 

I made a sarcastic remark about the video because that is what was said to me. And everyone is entitled to an opinion, but I go off the physical evidence which is not opinionated nor does it lie.