Again with the certainty.
Did the officer know there was no reason? How do you know?
Again: what were his department’s guidelines, and what did he know? If his department’s guidelines permitted him to travel that fast, then how can you say he was acting imprpperly?
A great thing to say when you don’t have an answer.
No. I don’t believe you. Your tone, even in this one post, suggests that what you want to see is the officer punished. If all you wanted was an honest investigation, you would have refrained from announcing his guilt and simply called for a thorough investigation.
:rolleyes:
OK, I was wrong. A moment’s thought did NOT make clear (to you, anyway) the problems posed by what you posted, so I will be happy to lay them out for you explicitly.
Under this logic, emergency vehicles should never speed, since their eventual timely arrival is much more certain than if they were involved in accidents.
Not surprisingly, pretty much every first responder department in the country has rejected this type of plan. Speeding to reach an emergency is permitted and expected.
This is not to suggest that any call justifies any type of speed in response. Emergency responders are expected to use reasonable judgement about their speed, taking into account traffic and weather conditions, the nature of the emergency, and perhaps other factors as well. In no case do they apply the simplistic analysis you have suggested above.
In order to judge this officer’s actions, we would need the same sort of information: what did he know about the nature of the emergency? What were the traffic and weather conditions? To his knowledge, were other responders at or nearer the scene?
Those questions, definitively answered, will go a long ways towards establishing whether or not his speed and driving were presumptively unreasonable. Even if they were reasonable, it may be that his lying about another driver cutting him off deserves sanction – if, in fact, he did lie.
No one in this thread has conclusively shown anything with respect to these determinations as yet.
Oh Bricker what is your ax in this whole thing…??
Yes I DO believe that Officer Mitchell was at fault…Fuck yes I DO believe that he should be punished to the maximum extent of the law…Yes i DO believe that there has been somewhat of a cover up and that the ISP has muddled and distorted the facts in this investigation releasing OPINION rather than fact and withholding other FACTS. Whether you believe me or not, I could give a rats ass…
From the Illinois State Police Website
**Vision **
We will strive for excellence in all we do – seeking to be one of the premier policing agencies in the country.
**Mission **
The Illinois State Police will promote public safety to improve the quality of life in Illinois.
**Values **
Integrity - Trust and dependability to act responsibly
Service - Contribute to the welfare of others
Pride - Respect for self, others and the organization
IMHO…(Bricker do I need to tell you what that means?) Officer Mitchell DID NOT:
This forum is for rants, raves and opinions…flame away troll…
tsfr
Bricker, the fact that he may have been technically allowed to do so does not make it right, nor does it absolve him of responsibility for driving properly. I’m even granting your presmise that he may drive that fast. In this case, he responding to a nonviolent non-emergency. Likewise an officer may shoot a man, but if he acted improperly, he can be fined, lose his job, or go to jail for doing so. If we walked around swinging his gun around his fundger and it accidentally went off, he may not be guilty of murder but he’d better be punished for it or have a damned good explanation.
Consider driving at (and I’m being generous here) “only” 85 mph on the shoulder. People ahead of you cannot see what you are doing or that you are coming. people are perfectly within their right to use the shoulder (for specific reasons under specific circumstances) and people cross the “shoulder” area to exit. They may well not be able to see the officer coming, especially if the terrain is paper-flat I’ve never witnessed officers driving the shoulder using the shoulder barring a traffic jam where they must get out ahead - and then they never even come close to the speed limit.
Even if he was “allowed,” it doesn’t absolve him of any responsibility. It’s the responsibiluity officers take when they put on the uniform and drive around. They are allowed greater latitude than other citizens and are therefore required to show greater discretion and judgement in using those privelges.
Listen, moron, the posting of an opinion unsupported by fact will get your ass roasted in this forum, becuase you reveal yourself to be a slack-jawed, drooling idiot incapable of any kind of analytical thought, able only to point at a news story, furrow your brow, and grunt out, “Me think this bad!”
To put it another way – yes, this forum is for rants, raves, and opinions. When you posta rant, rave, or opinion you invite commentary on it; that’s the nature of the forum. When the opinion portion of your posting is unsupported by anything solid, then you will receive some measure of richly-deserved scorn in response.
You may well be right – Trooper Mitchell may well be a reckless fucktard responsible for two deaths. Thus far, however, the only thing you have proved is that you are a reckless fucktard, fortunately for all concerned much less culpable than Mitchell is alleged to have been. You are only responsible for the diminuation of rational analysis and thinking here, less serious than death any way you look at it.
And did he know that he was responding to a non-violent non-emergency? YOU know that, now, after the fact. What did the dispatcher tell him?
If you say, “I don’t know,” then you can hardly continue saying that he was responding to a non-emergency, unless the state police webiste quoted above by ThisSpaceForRent also promised clairvoyance from their troopers. The question is not what the incident actually was – the question is what did trooper Mitchell reasonably believe the incident was?
Sure. Which is why I asked what the department’s policy is. If Trooper Mitchell was in violation of his department’s policies, then we have every right to assume he was being reckless. But if he was doing properly what he had been trained to do, then it’s not clear to me why you can confidently conclude he was reckless.
Boy, I can’t wait until nyctea scandiaca finds this thread.
Bricker…you are so fucking out of bounds…
Does calling me names make you feel better?..again I ask, what is YOUR axe to grind in this.
Who other than you is “roasting” me in this forum? I have provided cites to the information I have. I have stated what is my opinion and what is fact.
You know, I am not really worried about your axe cause if it is as sharp as you it couldn’t cut a twig…
Flame on troll…
tsfr
The sad fact of the matter is that many people, not just paranoid conspiracy nuts, do not trust the police to police their own.
The chief will not release the ‘black box’ data ‘because it’s too soon’. Why not release his exact speed and if the black box records it, proof of his siren being on or off?
Why do they only run their cameras when they pull someone over? Why not turn on the camera when you flip your lights on and start speeding down the freeway? Department policy seems to play in this officer’s favor. Will that policy change? I hope so, but doubt is resonable.
So basically, when an officer of the law, breaks the law, we have no faith in the justic system to do its job.
Zebra
Yes they (ISP) are currently withholding the black box data but have acknowledged that it does exist.
They have also stated that only 20% of their current fleet has cameras that are “auto-on” with the light, sadly Mitchell’s vehicle was not one of them.
I have no axe to grind with the principals of the story at all. I don’t know the victims, the officer, and I’ve never set foot in O’Fallon, Illinois in my life.
I do have an irritation with recreational outrage posts, where a poster leaps to judgement before he or she can possibly have enough information to form a reasonably-informed opinion.
And, yes, calling you names makes me feel great. I believe I will do it again.
Ass.
You don’t actually know what “troll” means, do you?
yeah Miller…I do know what it means. Thanks for asking.
tsfr
So Joe Average is entitled to the presumption of innocence when accused of a crime.
But his brother, John Average, is not, merely by virtue of being Officer John Average?
Lacking trust in the justice system is not the same thing as immediately assuming guilt. The person lacking trust in the system would say, “The sad thing is, even if this officer is guilty, he won’t get convicted or punished, because the cops protect their own.”
The OP simply says he’s guilty.
I think you may be mistaken on that score.
Really? You’ve called me a troll twice now, so I’m curious – what does it mean, exactly?
no really I don’t think you know what it means
seriously
Your the “Einstein” Bricker, figure it out yourself…
And please, point out where said Officer Mitchell was, beyond a shadow of a doubt, guilty…I did state that I thought, IMO that he committed several errors of judgment and abuses of power, both physical and legal. Reading is fun, learn to do it…
and FTR I feel your continued name calling of me supports my position that you are “Trollish”.
tsfr
tsfr