Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First no cop on-duty or off has any business jumping on the hood of any car, under any circumstances. That is clearly not in any police training. If he had an issue with her, he should have called for an on-duty cop to come and conduct a normal traffic stop on her, with red and blue lights. I think she will have a good case arguing that she was in fear for her safety.
It is in police training to avoid being run over. It is against the law to try and run someone over, whether it is a policeman or a civilian. This lady already was involved in a hit and run. She has no case. Go directly to jail and do not pass go.
First no cop on-duty or off has any business jumping on the hood of any car, under any circumstances. That is clearly not in any police training...
incorrect, what you're probably confusing this technique with is the "Grab the Rear Bumper with Both Hands Move" which is no longer taught at the Police Academy.
it says in the article that she has some undisclosed medical issues she could be bi polar and if that is the case why is driving a car ? why does she work for the postal system still delivering mail if she is bi-polar ? I don't think anyone should be driving a car if you are bi polar .I think her family could have acted better yes . Cussing out a judge is never a good action . She was due at her preliminary hearing on the 21 st . I think when she goes to court for this charge she might find herself behind bars and her drivers license gone for a while .
First no cop on-duty or off has any business jumping on the hood of any car, under any circumstances. That is clearly not in any police training. If he had an issue with her, he should have called for an on-duty cop to come and conduct a normal traffic stop on her, with red and blue lights. I think she will have a good case arguing that she was in fear for her safety.
What exactly did you not understand about the cop having to jump onto the hood in order to avoid being hit and run over by her car?
What exactly did you not understand about the cop having to jump onto the hood in order to avoid being hit and run over by her car?
.
I don't think anyone is misunderstanding the facts. She had just caused an accident, right, and then fled the scene? The cop should have foreseen the dangers and stayed completely out of her way once he exited his vehicle.
I'm not saying I support what she did. I don't think anybody else is either.
You must be related to that woman. First of all, he had to jump on her hood or get mowed down. Secondly, what kind of subhuman does it take to drive off, and at 80 mph, with another person hanging on for dear life.
You need to get your sensibilities straight.
No they only have to do that in movies. In real life they can just keep out of the path of the car. The cop escalated the situation by getting in front of her car. If he had just stayed inside his car and called 911 and gave them a description of her car, they would have caught up with her just as fast, and arrested her for hit and run. If he wanted to he could even have followed the woman, in his car and gave 911 updates on her location. Instead the cop decided to escalate a simple situation into something more serious and more dangerous to both himself and the woman.
It is in police training to avoid being run over. It is against the law to try and run someone over, whether it is a policeman or a civilian. This lady already was involved in a hit and run. She has no case. Go directly to jail and do not pass go.
It's generally police training (at least good police training) to never cross the path of the suspect's car, in front or in back. That is kind of common sense. That's why during a traffic stop if a cop wants to approach the passenger side of the stopped car, he will walk around the back of his car to get there.
The main exception to the rule is when the cop wants to escalate the situation into something more serious. Which is what I believe this cop wanted to do.
So we're blaming the cop now. He tried to stop someone fleeing the scene of an accident. It wasn't a routine traffic stop.
There will always be those who will blame the traffic cop, any traffic cop, for stopping anyone from doing whatever they want to do on the roads. (Unless it's driving in the left lane at any speed less than what they themselves want to drive, in which case it's Katy bar the door.)
So we're blaming the cop now. He tried to stop someone fleeing the scene of an accident. It wasn't a routine traffic stop.
No one is blaming the cop.
We are merely acknowledging his wrongful approach. Wanna bet he's doing the same thing!?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
