• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

CHP Causing a Motorcycle Accident

Eisernkreuz said:
You sure have a lot of opinions for someone who wasn't there and doesn't have police training. :rolleyes
Click to expand...

LEOs know full well how nervous and frozen the average citizen can get when being approached or tailed, and even moreso when they are up your ass with lights going. This is made even more dangerous with a rider involved since being nervous and stiff is usually very very bad.

By his actions it does not appear that the ossifer used this knowledge to much of a degree if any. Typical hyper-aggressive behavior that is commonly found in rook LEOs. At least he was able to learn this valuable lesson without any serious injuries.
 
copbait said:
LEOs know full well how nervous and frozen the average citizen can get when being approached or tailed, and even moreso when they are up your ass with lights going..
Click to expand...
Uh...come back when you have a better sense of reality.
Officers making a stop cannot afford the mindset that they're dealing with "average citizen".

Plus, the "average citizen" isn't generally being pulled over...
 
.

Besides the mind numbingly slow pace, did you see anything more than average?
 
Last edited:
masameet said:
Ooooo. Very nice.

Effect of Exemption

21056. Section 21055 does not relieve the driver of a vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons using the highway, nor protect him from the consequences of an arbitrary exercise of the privileges granted in that section.

(Hey, JPM! Looks like you owe somebody an Act of Contrition. :) :p)
Click to expand...


A Santa Barbara sheriff's deputy who hung out at the Rock Store pointed that one out to me. Since there are no penalties defined, it's considered meaningless.
 
First, copbait let me say this: Unless you are an active LEO, don't assume you know how to do the job.

Second, why do you think the officer is a rook? Do you know the officer?

Third, per policy the officer didn't do anything wrong. The officer observed a violation, whatever that was, and took enforcement action. The officer didn't cause the collision. The bike behind the officer was able to stop in time and didn't rear end police car. The bike that hit the binders and then crashed into his pal, is solely at fault.

Lastly, cool your jets. Your valid points might be lost by the tone of your posts.
 
More cops are killed every year by "average citizens" on "routine patrol" then by the known crazies....

Razel said:
Uh...come back when you have a better sense of reality.
Officers making a stop cannot afford the mindset that they're dealing with "average citizen".

Plus, the "average citizen" isn't generally being pulled over...
Click to expand...
 
copbait said:
Sorry but more cops are not killed by a group of motorcyclists in broad daylight, they just flat out are not.
Click to expand...

so every group of riders nation wide are 100% friendly and law abiding citizens? You know that for a fact?
 
copbait said:
Sorry but more cops are not killed by a group of motorcyclists in broad daylight, they just flat out are not.
Click to expand...

Go do the job for a year -- if you make it off FTO -- then come back and create a spreadsheet stating who is a threat, what they drive, and what type of threat they are.

:rolleyes
 
I thought the point in question was HOW the LEO decided to initiate the stop...that the need to cut into the group like that was questionable.

What does that to do with officer safety? is there a threat of being rammed or sideswiped by a motorcycle? Is it safer to make the stop from the middle...so you're surrounded? :wtf

To answer Rel's comment...aren't most officer's killed in the line of duty a result of traffic accidents? Doesn't cutting into the group like that raise the risk of a traffic accident? Granted, it's kind of hard to believe anyone but the biker's were at risk at the speed this occurred at.
 
masameet said:
Ooooo. Very nice.

Effect of Exemption

21056. Section 21055 does not relieve the driver of a vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons using the highway, nor protect him from the consequences of an arbitrary exercise of the privileges granted in that section.

(Hey, JPM! Looks like you owe somebody an Act of Contrition. :) :p)
Click to expand...

Hmm, what did I say to 'busa? Oh ya, please leave the VC to the professionals. :twofinger

Here is the bail schedule; I don't seem to see that section there, do you? http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/reference/documents/jcbail06.pdf

If its not there it can't be cited or charged! That section is just a catch-all and there so you can get civilly sued. Still can’t be charged with it or any vehicle code section that 21055 exempts.

Thanks for playing though. :p
 
JPM said:
Hmm, what did I say to 'busa? Oh ya, please leave the VC to the professionals. :twofinger

Here is the bail schedule; I don't seem to see that section there, do you? http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/reference/documents/jcbail06.pdf

If its not there it can't be cited or charged! That section is just a catch-all and there so you can get civilly sued. Still can’t be charged with it or any vehicle code section that 21055 exempts.

Thanks for playing though. :p
Click to expand...

So you're saying 55/56 it's a get-out-of-jail card for negligent homicide?
 
xlcr said:
So you're saying 55/56 it's a get-out-of-jail card for negligent homicide?
Click to expand...

Negligent homicide? What section is that?

Clearly I have stated that officer can be held accountable under different codes and civilly but you can not be criminally charged under section 21055 or 21056 VC. They are not chargeable sections therefore you can not be charged with them.
 
JPM said:
Please leave the VC to the professionals.:twofinger

Exemption of Authorized Emergency Vehicles
21055. The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle is exempt from Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 21350), Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 21650), Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 21800), Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 21950), Chapter 6 (commencing with 22100), Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 22348), Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 22450), Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 22500), and Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 22650) of this division, and Article 3 (commencing with Section 38305) and Article 4 (commencing with Section 38312) of Chapter 5 of Division 16.5, under all of the following conditions:

(a) If the vehicle is being driven in response to an emergency call or while engaged in rescue operations or is being used in the immediate pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law... yada yada yada..http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21055.htm


So guess which section speeding is under? Chapter 7. So they are in fact exempt when chasing a speeder.
Click to expand...

Here's the entire section, which reveals it MUST have a solid red light on to do so (bold is my emphasis). You owe me lunch next Saturday! Let's leave VC sections to those that can read? :twofinger

Exemption of Authorized Emergency Vehicles

21055. The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle is exempt from Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 21350), Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 21650), Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 21800), Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 21950), Chapter 6 (commencing with 22100), Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 22348), Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 22450), Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 22500), and Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 22650) of this division, and Article 3 (commencing with Section 38305) and Article 4 (commencing with Section 38312) of Chapter 5 of Division 16.5, under all of the following conditions:

(a) If the vehicle is being driven in response to an emergency call or while engaged in rescue operations or is being used in the immediate pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law or is responding to, but not returning from, a fire alarm, except that fire department vehicles are exempt whether directly responding to an emergency call or operated from one place to another as rendered desirable or necessary by reason of an emergency call and operated to the scene of the emergency or operated from one fire station to another or to some other location by reason of the emergency call.

(b) If the driver of the vehicle sounds a siren as may be reasonably necessary and the vehicle displays a lighted red lamp visible from the front as a warning to other drivers and pedestrians.

A siren shall not be sounded by an authorized emergency vehicle except when required under this section.
Amended Ch. 1017, Stats. 1977. Effective September 23, 1977 by terms of an urgency clause.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top