jthorpe

I agree that it might be a possibility, but I don't think it's relevant to the conversation at hand, which is about the wreck. I know nothing about the police down there other than a few things I've heard. I heard that they do collect fines on the spot but in order for me to judge what they do with it, I would have to look at the law down there to find out if they have procedures in place for collecting fines on the spot. If they do, then I would imagine that they are just doing their job. If they don't, then no, it's not good that they are doing that, taking money to line their own pocket.

It could be a low speed incident, but without looking at the scene and seeing the amount of damage on the vehicle, it would be hard to tell. In addition, I imagine since this guy is drunk as a skunk, there probably aren't any skid marks to use for a speed analysis. From what I understand, he was asleep. Just looking at the picture alone, I would guess between 30 and 50mph.

I would say that you're somewhat qualified to make an analysis but not completely. My mentioning the carloads of thugs had nothing to do with the crash but with your comment about police officers not putting their lives in danger, or very rarely doing so compared to the military. Of course the military deals with death and destruction every second of every day when in a war. There is no way to compare that and I believe that it's apples and oranges. I have much respect for them as I am also ex-military. A good 90% of the people I work with are the same. My point with that question was to create dialogue about your statement; the one about you doubting that there are many police officers putting their lives in jeopardy to save another like was done with the medal of honor recipient you spoke of.

I believe the only correct answer for this situation is the one that gets you home at night. Whatever that may be, if you get to go home, then you've done it right as long as you didn't injure or kill someone without just cause. If that's the case, then no, it might not be the correct answer. The key term there is just cause. If I had those same guys refusing to leave and approaching me getting closer and closer, then someone is going down and I will empty my magazine on them until the threat is stopped. In my opinion, and as long as I can articulate it, 9 to 12 guys approaching me in a threatening manner is just cause to take self defense measures including deadly force. If it's one guy without a weapon, of course I would not shoot him.

Each situation is different and I don't believe there is just one correct answer. I can tell you that the fastest I've ever driven to get somewhere is when another officer or trooper is asking for help because of a fight or if someone is resisting. All bets are off at that point. I will do what I have to in order to provide help. Just driving there at high speed is a huge risk in and of itself, but it's one I would gladly take to be there for my fellow officer. We also do that for the general public. If there is someone who calls in that's in trouble, bring robbed, or their life is in danger in some way, we bust a move to be there for them. It's just the way it is.

Now back to this situation. I noticed in the photo that there is flying debris which appears to be about 30-40 feet in the air. Given that, I would guess that my speed estimate on the vehicle is close to being correct. It's hard to say what I would do in that situation. If there was video to go alone with this, it would tell us much more.

My WHOLE point to this is that I don't believe you have enough information to say that the police officer should be prosecuted in this case. There is nothing there that shows me gross negligence on his part.

Diesel_Storm

I think this horse has been beat enough, IMO. I dont forsee this coming to a resolution.

Redleg

Back to the picture, and a possible scenario? Concentration of bikers are in the on-comeing lane (right lane), because they saw the on-comeing car in the other lane? Police escort is in the left lane instead of in front of bikers. He is slightly oriented to his left, yet front wheels appear to pointed forward or even slightly to his right? Drunk driver is in his left, on-coming lane and appears to be in a yaw while brakeing. Perhaps he was in his own lane when the officer pulled over in front of him? Since the officer may have just committed to his lane and was still trying to make the vehicle react in the other direction when the drunk, realizing there was a car comeing head on, jerked to the left around the police, then jerked right and braked when he realized the bikes were there? I don't know for sure, but wanted to wait and see what people posted.

P.J

Hmmm, very interesting observation!

ian515

I made the same point, about the guy basically 'drifting' into the bikers after trying to avoid the cop, but I think it was overlooked. I am with you on this one redleg.

CamperAndy

Wheel orientation as you observer is the same as it would be for a car that dodged from the right lane into the left lane to avoid the head on with the drunk and is now being corrected back to the right to not drive off the left side of the road.

Note the white markers under the car, left front has crossed over the markers and the left rear has not. Indicating the direction of travel is right to left and is now being corrected as you noted by the apparent angle of the front wheels.

I do not think the drunk is reacting to the cop cars location but the cop is reacting to the drunk drivers location.

As Admin said we will never know.

Redleg

But I DO know some vehicle dynamics and many police tactics and tha fact that say the cop was doing 20 MPH or so, the drunk say 35, (who knows what speed limit is, but drunks often drive under the limit), then closeing speed is both combined, say 55mph conservatively. Doesn't sound fast but it is really fast. Typically if an officer is going to route a driver to another direction, you don't go over there and wait for him. You wait til the last second so the driver is committed to your path. No, I never took on a lot of drunks to defend a pack of bikes, but have helped to route a few drivers in persuits. So, say the officer was attempting to excecute this tactic, he was probably quite slow to get back over, because I would certainly have been locking up the brakes, if I just manuevered into the path of a vehicle. Also, more than likely the drunk wasn't aware of the bikers til he avoided the police car and since it is not an ABS vehicle, the rear when brakeing traction continued to go in the direction the vehicle had initially been travelling, while the front was attempting to be steered to the clear area behind the patrol car. I feel there IS fault of the government, but I think it's up at the logistics level for not haveing appropriate security for the route ahead.

CamperAndy

Speed limit on the road was 60 kmh (37 mph).

Timmay2

You guys are looking into this all wrong.

There is a dirt cloud underneath the car, no signs of wheel movement or body roll.

The car came from the direction it is pointing in. Meaning from off the road.

There is no tire smoke so it didnt slide, no body roll so theres no harsh manuever, and the dirt cloud under the car says it was not on pavement just a second ago.

It came from the left of the picture and there is nothing the cop or bikers could have done to prevent this. Furthermore, the cop being in the left lane may mean he saw the car coming and tried to dodge out of the way to the left a bit, but none the less, cop car moved or not there still wouldve been the bikes in the exact same spot.

THE END.

Now who works for a department that needs criminal investigators, im available for hire.

Redleg

Of course, being in Mexico, another option is the cop didn't think they payed an appropriate bribe for that type of protection?