Video of what happens when you dont use a turn signal when going to the hospital... - by 37637598
SubJeff on 4/2/2008 at 20:38
I beg to differ; it was the cop's stubbornness that caused the problem. How can you possibly state that complying would have led to the fastest trip to the ER? It was only held up because he refused to let her go. Clearly the quickest way to the ER would be to let her go. He could easily follow her and deal with the traffic issue later.
heretic on 4/2/2008 at 20:46
Ok, the quickest viable way.
Just so you know: The higher courts have ruled on and fully support the reasonable objectiveness rule. Said rule is based on the given facts AT THE TIME of the incident, not in hindsight.
Anyone can monday morning quarterback when they were never in that situation. Fact is, there is a reason cops act as they do (when following policy).
SubJeff on 4/2/2008 at 20:57
I'm not familiar with this "reasonable objectiveness" rule. Elaborate please. Edit: Googled it an all get is a link to another thread about this vid!
I'd be interested to see what would happen in court if a cop stopped someone like this and the delay they caused resulted in death from a medical cause/
heretic on 4/2/2008 at 21:11
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
I'm not familiar with this "reasonable objectiveness" rule. Elaborate please.
I'd be interested to see what would happen in court if a cop stopped someone like this and the delay they caused resulted in death from a medical cause/
No reason to be coy, you can easily do the legwork yourself if it's not self-explanatory enough in context allready.
SubJeff on 4/2/2008 at 21:41
And which part of that applies here?
heretic on 4/2/2008 at 23:56
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
And which part of that applies here?
Sorry man, couldn't find the Cliffsnotes version. Read through it and find some relative examples, or don't.
SubJeff on 5/2/2008 at 00:00
Well I only find this thing you've linked to. The US is big on litigation based on medical issues. If this really is in the law it's only a matter of time before some rich white dude dies/is injured because of it and then there will be a stink. Because it would make little sense.
heretic on 5/2/2008 at 00:32
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Well I only find this thing you've linked to. The US is big on litigation based on medical issues. If this really is in the law it's only a matter of time before some rich white dude dies/is injured because of it and then there will be a stink.
Because it would make little sense.I'm no lawyer, and I will state right now that my knowlege of laws is quite limited except as they apply to LEO's or operators. Further, if you read the document you would see that some "rich white dude" quite likely did die/was injured which is how the laws came to be in the first place.
What it comes down to is this:
Unlike the officer in question you have had the privilege of seeing this event
after it occured, passing judgment after the fact. All of this without appearing to have any knowledge or understanding of LEO SOP. The officer, quite obviously, did not share this privilege.
Believe it or not, according to the law whether he was right or wrong is redundant. Whether or not he acted reasonably is what is important here. According to what I know about standard procedure, he most certainly
did just that.
SubJeff on 5/2/2008 at 00:42
So this law isn't concerned that someone might die because a cop chooses to waste someones time? Interesting.
