cops do 109 in 45 zone and blame the guy they hit.

Ashton Crushe

cops do 109 in 45 zone and blame the guy they hit.

by Ashton Crushe » Mon, 25 May 2009 00:55:25

The below is another example of how the cops will lie if they think
they can get away with it.  Fortunately in this case, the physical
evidence proved them liars.

Another point, note that they use the victims failure of a field
sobriety test as one reason they cited teh victim for DUI.  The victim
had just been hit by a cop driving 109 mph in a 45 zone and they give
him a field sobriety test!?!?!  Gee, do you think he might have been
shaken up by the accident????  Clearly they were trying to assign
blame away from the cops by any and all means.

At least the only one killed was the stupid cop, the victim is just
badly banged up.  But this criminal cop got a nice big community
funeral, aw, how nice.

====================================

DEADLY CRASH: Officer was driving 109

Flashing lights, siren were off, sheriff says

By LAWRENCE MOWER
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL

An investigator works the scene of a May 7 crash on West Flamingo Road
that led to the death of police officer James Manor. On Wednesday,
Sheriff Doug Gillespie announced that Manor had been driving at a high
rate of speed without flashing lights or siren while responding to a
call. He called the speed "excessive and unsafe."

In the moments before officer James Manor plowed into a pickup
attempting a left turn, he was driving his patrol car 109 mph without
flashing lights or siren, Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie said
Wednesday.
The speed was the equivalent of traveling the length of a football
field in about two seconds. It gave Manor little time to avoid hitting
Calvin Darling's truck May 7. At the time of impact, after braking and
trying to steer out of the way, Manor was still driving 90 mph.
Gillespie called Manor's speed in the 45-mph zone on Flamingo Road
"excessive and unsafe," even if his lights and siren had been on. The
facts of the accident probably will alter the charges Darling faces,
the sheriff said.
"The facts that we have I think certainly change the charges that are
there," a stern Gillespie said in an afternoon news conference. "We do
believe his speed was a significant factor in what took place in this
accident. So yes, we are looking at those original charges."
Darling, 45, was arrested for driving under the influence and failing
to yield to an emergency vehicle. Gillespie said he couldn't see
Darling facing the latter charge because Manor's lights and siren were
off.
The crash, which resulted in the first death of an on-duty
Metropolitan Police Department officer since Henry Prendes was killed
in 2006, shook up the department and the community. Thousands attended
Manor's funeral Friday. In the days after the 28-year-old officer's
death, a stream of mourners paid their respects at the crash site.
The information about the lack of lights and siren on Manor's patrol
car reversed what Gillespie first said after the accident. The sheriff
initially was adamant that Manor and an officer in a second patrol car
were on their way to a call with lights and sirens on.
The investigation now shows that the second officer also was not
running lights or a siren, Gillespie said. The second officer's speed
has not been determined.
Gillespie said that when he addressed the media many hours after the
accident, he had been given incorrect information by first responders
to the crash. They said Manor and the second officer had their lights
and sirens on.
"They were there right after it, and they thought that that's what
they were told," the sheriff said. "And we didn't interview the
secondary officer right away because it was a very traumatic event."
The department will review and change how it collects and releases
information after fatal accidents involving officers, Gillespie said.
He said the department wasn't considering disciplinary action against
those officers who relayed the information.
The sheriff also maintained that Darling's arrest for driving under
the influence was valid. It wasn't yet known whether Darling was
indeed under the influence.
"He told the officers he had been drinking, and he failed a DUI field
test," Gillespie said.
A little over an hour after the accident, a *** test showed Darling
had a ***-*** level of 0.035, well below the legal limit of
0.08. A second test an hour later showed his level had dropped to
0.021.
Clark County District Attorney David Roger declined to comment through
his secretary because his office had not yet received the case.
Darling's first court appearance is scheduled for June 8.
A statement from Darling's attorney, Sean Sullivan, read: "Thankfully
LVMPD came forth with the facts that substantiate my client's
statement of how the accident occurred."
One of Darling's close friends, neighbor Nick Perna, said Darling was
"physically beat up" from the accident and still recovering mentally.
"I'm happy to see that some honesty and truth are coming out, and
maybe my friend will stand a chance to get vindicated," Perna said.
"Unfortunately, two great guys met at a bad time, and that's just the
fact of life, unfortunately."
The crash investigation is continuing. So far, it has determined that
Manor was not wearing a seat belt, Gillespie said. He said he didn't
know whether the lack of a seat belt contributed to the young
officer's death. Manor was not ejected from the vehicle.
The facts of the accident have prompted Gillespie to form a committee
of executive staff members to evaluate the department's procedures and
training for officers when responding to calls.
He said the department had prepared a message to its officers about
the dangers of speeding.
"We will look at this case as an organization to see where we can
improve so our employees don't make the same tragic mistake," he said.
Investigators determined Manor's speed through electronics in the
vehicle and with separate calculations made by a fatal crash
investigator, Gillespie said. Detectives determined that his police
lights were off through an investigation of the bulbs.
Manor and the other officer were eastbound on Flamingo Road,
responding to a domestic *** call made by a 14-year-old girl.
At 12:48 a.m., Darling pulled in front of them in his lifted Chevrolet
Silverado pickup at Ravenwood Drive, near Tenaya Way. Manor couldn't
avoid the truck, and the two vehicles collided. Darling later told
police that he saw the patrol cars but thought he had enough time to
make the turn, according to the arrest report.
The mother of the 14-year-old told the Review-Journal that her
daughter had been struck by her father that night but that she had
fabricated other details of the incident. On the day of the accident,
police said the call was not a prank and the girl wouldn't face
charges.
Gillespie called Wednesday's news conference because he wanted to
provide answers to questions that had arisen in the days after the
crash. Several witnesses to the accident said they did not see any
lights or hear any sirens coming from the officers' vehicles.
"As your sheriff, it is extremely important to me that Metro continues
to have a reputation of integrity and transparency," Gillespie said.
"I promise you that as your sheriff, I will do everything I can to
maintain the public trust."
Review-Journal writer Brian Haynes contributed to this report. Contact

Nate Nage

cops do 109 in 45 zone and blame the guy they hit.

by Nate Nage » Mon, 25 May 2009 01:04:33


> The below is another example of how the cops will lie if they think
> they can get away with it.  Fortunately in this case, the physical
> evidence proved them liars.

> Another point, note that they use the victims failure of a field
> sobriety test as one reason they cited teh victim for DUI.  The victim
> had just been hit by a cop driving 109 mph in a 45 zone and they give
> him a field sobriety test!?!?!  Gee, do you think he might have been
> shaken up by the accident????  Clearly they were trying to assign
> blame away from the cops by any and all means.

No lights or siren?  and they gave the victim a sobriety test?  holy
***I am glad that I do not live there.  The cops drive *almost* as
fast around here, but I've only seen them *almost* bump into stuff.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://www.ringcar.com/

jtch..

cops do 109 in 45 zone and blame the guy they hit.

by jtch.. » Mon, 25 May 2009 01:38:08

On the face of it, this looks pretty scandalous, but upon closer
examination it may prove to be one of those accidents where there's
enough blame for everybody to have some,.  A left turn is  near the
bottom of the right-of-way food chain, and if you make one across
somebody's path (even if he *is* driving at >2x the speed limit) and
get T-boned, you've got some explaining to do.

Meanwhile, the chief' would be well advised to tighten things up at
the cop house, and they (and the insurance carrier and the taxpayers)
will be lucky if they don't end up on the losing end of a civil
suit.   They've already lost a cop in an accident that he probably
could have prevented either by using the pretty colored lights and the
siren, or by driving at a speed that's closer to what other drivers
would expect, and that's bad enough.  Lucky they didn't end up with
two dead (or even a third, by omission, if the call he was responding
to had been more substantive).

An avoidably bad day all around...

--Joe

Bren

cops do 109 in 45 zone and blame the guy they hit.

by Bren » Mon, 25 May 2009 02:11:05



>> The below is another example of how the cops will lie if they think
>> they can get away with it.  Fortunately in this case, the physical
>> evidence proved them liars.

>> Another point, note that they use the victims failure of a field
>> sobriety test as one reason they cited teh victim for DUI.  The victim
>> had just been hit by a cop driving 109 mph in a 45 zone and they give
>> him a field sobriety test!?!?!  Gee, do you think he might have been
>> shaken up by the accident????  Clearly they were trying to assign
>> blame away from the cops by any and all means.

> No lights or siren?  and they gave the victim a sobriety test?  holy
> ***I am glad that I do not live there.  The cops drive *almost* as
> fast around here, but I've only seen them *almost* bump into stuff.

They charged the victim with DUI and failure to yield:
http://www.ringcar.com/

It reminds me of the time I was nearly rear-ended by a cop doing 90 in a
45mph zone.

Bren

cops do 109 in 45 zone and blame the guy they hit.

by Bren » Mon, 25 May 2009 02:25:24


Really? For the rest of us peons such a collision, even if right of way
was violated, would be placed on the shoulders of the 'speeder' by the
cops.  He even gives the standard reply that absolves the typical moron
driver of guilt when hit by a 'speeder':
http://www.lvrj.com/news/45619762.html

"At 12:48 a.m., Darling pulled in front of them in his lifted Chevrolet
Silverado pickup at Ravenwood Drive, near Tenaya Way. Manor couldn't
avoid the truck, and the two vehicles collided. Darling later told
police that he saw the patrol cars but thought he had enough time to
make the turn, according to the arrest report."

If you or I, were doing the speed of traffic, say 45 in a 35mph zone
we'd have a good chance of being blamed if some idiot crossed our path 3
feet in front of us and got hit. But when it's a cop, running silent,
so far away it can't even be determined to be a cop, is doing more than
double the posted limit, suddenly, right of way matters?  Remember, it's
forgiven when someone can't properly judge or expect a vehicle to get up
on them quickly when it is only 10 or 20 mph over the posted limit but
within the bounds of normal traffic and blame is shifted to the
'speeder'.

Now think of street racers. They hit these sort of speeds on public
surface streets. What happens when someone makes a left turn in front of
a street racer and gets t-boned? Blame goes to the street racer.

As much as many here including I think the importance should be on right
of way, the enforcers should have at least some consistancy. But this
society has different rules for different people.

109 in a 45, even a severely underposted 45, is shockingly fast. At
night without the rollers on.. the vehicle is going to look far away
and speed is going to be more difficult to judge. By the time a driver
knows he had misjudged the speed it's too late.  I had a cop come up
from behind me on a 45mph road. He was doing about 90mph and I was going
45mph in the same direction. It was night and that's only a closing
speed of 45mph. By the time I saw him crest a hill and closing fast and
then looked for a place to go and found none, he was right up on me
cutting another driver off to go around me. At a closing speed of more
than double that... this guy didn't have time to realize what was going
on until it was too late.

MLOM

cops do 109 in 45 zone and blame the guy they hit.

by MLOM » Thu, 28 May 2009 10:17:15


Of course the slower driver was drunk: a sober driver would have been
less likely to have survived that kind of impact.

Drunk 1, Speeder 0.  The speeder-vs. drunk incident would be enough to
make S&DDAM's head spin.

Then again, 109 in a 45 is worse than S&DDAM:

">  Have you ever driven a car faster than the legal speed limit?

Yes, but never deliberately.  In fact i got a speeding ticket about 5
years ago for doing 41 in a 25.  I just about kicked the cops teeth
in
cause i was sure he was lying.  No way the SL on this wide open
stretch could be 25, i thought."

Pride of America (c.k.a. Laura Bush ***ed her boyfriend/
laura bush - VEHICULAR ***/Speeders And Drunk Drivers
 Are ***ers (SADDAM)), 10/3/2002

http://www.ringcar.com/
Proof that POA is LBMHB/lbVH/SADDAM:
See the following: http://www.ringcar.com/