|
Post by ljp on Feb 2, 2007 17:01:11 GMT -4
<whew>
|
|
|
Post by outlaw on Feb 2, 2007 18:47:03 GMT -4
Many thanks for easing Shadow's mind, Administrator Rich. It is my sincerest hope that we can have an honest dialogue here, disagree though we might, without fear of retribution.
|
|
|
Post by shadow1 on Feb 2, 2007 22:29:48 GMT -4
Outlaw - I've now been relieved, thank you. Really makes no difference to me who you are - no, I'm not a frustrated lawman - Rich could confirm that since he knows who I am, but, Rich don't waste your time. If you want to play on the forum and are willing to dish out criticism, you need to also be able to take it. The reference to other names is due to similarities to previous posts by those individuals. It's all good - we can agree to disagree with each others opinions. Don't know why you would feel your personal safety threatened or retribution as a result of the forum. Look forward to future discussions - Mr. Sheeple
|
|
|
Post by outlaw on Feb 2, 2007 23:41:59 GMT -4
Shadow, I'm happy to know that you are not frustrated and have relieved yourself. When I have trouble relieving myself, reading the "Bay Times" usually gets things moving. It's reassuring to know that you weren't trying to guess my name so that you could come beat me up. Although I'm only slightly over 5' tall, I do tower over a few of the deputies I've run into, but I try to be unintimidating.
Hopefully all parties who were injured as a result of this accident will continue on the path to a speedy recovery as the police continue their search for the truth.
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on Feb 2, 2007 23:56:01 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Feb 3, 2007 8:03:13 GMT -4
The investigators have already had plenty to say in the newspaper. Maybe, just maybe, anyone who cares about these kids can read the articles and witness statements and draw their own conclusions. Or not - baaaa! outlaw - please post a link to the article(s) you are referring to; I would like to read them. The four that I found offer these statements: - witness says deputy went into oncoming traffic to go around a vehicle
- witness says kids were limping around road holding their sides and legs
- police say accident happened in southbound lane so no evidence deputy hit vehicle while he was in oncoming lane
- police say accident occured when SUV turned left in front of deputy
- police say kids were taken to medical center, treated, and released
- investigators say they don't know what speed the deputy was travelling but it was not excessive
Those are the only statements I've seen in the articles I've been able to find. None of that looks like "railroading". If I am to believe the witness accounts over all others, the kids were limping but otherwise uninjured. However, this appears to be inaccurate based on what KIL posted yesterday. If you have seen other statements that look like railroading, please post a link. If your "railroading" accusation is based only on those statments above, please acknowledge that. Everyone sticks up for their own. Non-cops are going to point their fingers at the reckless actions of the deputy. The police are going to evidence of carelesness on the part of the SUV driver. Each side assigns blame to the other. Each side accuses the other of ignoring some facts and manufacturing others. Funny thing is, each side is probably right. I'm as willing as anyone else to believe there is blame to be shared but that the police will attempt to minimize the blame that gets attributed to the deputy. But unlike you, I'm willing to wait until this actually happens before criticizing it.
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on Feb 3, 2007 8:19:37 GMT -4
Isn't that contradictory?
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Feb 3, 2007 8:33:46 GMT -4
Isn't that contradictory? I wouldn't say "contradictory" but I would question how they could determine the speed was not excessive if hey didn't know what the speed was. If it was you or me instead of the deputy, my guess is our speed would have been characterized as "excessive for the conditions."
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on Feb 3, 2007 9:05:39 GMT -4
exactly.
|
|
|
Post by shoreman on Feb 3, 2007 9:33:48 GMT -4
When it's all said and done, the troopers investigating will be able to tell where the exact point of impact was, the speed and the vehicle who was at fault. Thats the specialty of the crash team. Now whether the sheriff takes action on what they find (if the deputy is at fault) is another story. Same goes if the County is sued because of the deputies actions if he is found at fault. If the deputy is at fault, the taxpayers will pay the winnings from that suite.
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on Feb 3, 2007 10:32:45 GMT -4
When it's all said and done, the troopers investigating will be able to tell where the exact point of impact was, the speed and the vehicle who was at fault. Thats the specialty of the crash team. Now whether the sheriff takes action on what they find (if the deputy is at fault) is another story. Same goes if the County is sued because of the deputies actions if he is found at fault. If the deputy is at fault, the taxpayers will pay the winnings from that suite. As they should, as the Deputy is representing US. That's just another reason for them to follow the rules when off duty, as well as on duty. There are still rules for responding to calls, pursuit, lights, siren, etc, and no, they don't always follow them. The comment about speed above was just a little off to me.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Richter on Feb 3, 2007 10:54:53 GMT -4
Point of impact is needed in this accident to determine fault. When making a left turn you must grant right of way to on coming traffic. Due care and caution must be exerted when passing. The police car at the time of this accident was not flashing, making him an ordinary vehicle, and not granted any special treatment under the law. The key witness is the vehicle that was being passed by the police car at the time of the accident. Remember, when the authorities are right they announce the facts immediately. When wrong they tight lipped.
Check out the traffic pattern N/B on Rt#8 from the Shore Stop to the bridge. The people in charge designed this pattern, and all the police agencies drive this way everyday, and they don't see the problems. Do you?
|
|
|
Post by outlaw on Feb 3, 2007 12:50:35 GMT -4
Falgar, what concerns me is the fact that the police investigator immediately told the "Capital" that the boy turned in front of the cop car, contrary to what the witnesses said. If it is prudent for us all to wait for the investigation to finish, the police should do that as well. Unlike the police, everyday citizens don't have mouthpieces at their disposal for the purpose of getting whatever drivel they want printed. Also troublesome are the glaring omissions in the "Bay Times" article which failed to mention that witnesses said the cop drove into oncoming traffic but did give the official police statement faulting the boy. While we are all glad the officer is okay, the "Bay Times" named the boys, blamed them, and gave very little information about their condition, focusing mostly on the community's concern for the officer. To me, this attitude is chilling.
I am glad we can have this dialogue and hope that the truth will prevail.
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Feb 3, 2007 15:27:44 GMT -4
I'm thinking about canceling our subscription, but then what would we use to cover the table for crabs That's exactly the reason I keep my subscription! No argument that the reporting can be biased. As always: Consider the source. The Bay Times has a reputation; don't be surprised when they live up to it. The police will want to have confidence in the actions of their people and will defend their people; don't be surprised when their statements, particularly their initial statements, do that. One particularly good thing about the Internet is the number of different sources for information that can be found. Not only are there several articles out there, but there is also this forum to share even more information. You're right, the police should have stuck to the facts and the papers should have reported the facts - all the facts.
|
|
|
Post by shadow1 on Feb 3, 2007 15:34:11 GMT -4
Outlaw - We now agree that there is no reason to not respect each others opinions, whether we agree or disagree.
I actually agree with you that more than the general public, the police do have more access to the media with their statements.
I believe we all hope the investigation is fair and accurate and that the determinations are truthfully divulged to the public. I also believe that there was no intention by anyone involved to cause this "accident".
Peace!
|
|
|
Post by outlaw on Feb 3, 2007 16:04:22 GMT -4
wjz.com/local/local_story_026154608.htmlAbove is a link to accident footage for anyone who might have missed it or has technical expertise, not that it means much to me. Shadow, I am sure no one intended to cause the collision. Falgar, I am sure we agree that the boys are members of this community as much as the officer and deserve the same consideration. While I am not surprised that the "Bay Times" and police investigators blamed them, I find it disgusting nonetheless, and although we expect this type of bias we do not have to be tolerant of it. A forum like this has the potential to go a long way toward helping people feel secure to discuss issues like this that affect us all.
|
|
|
Post by BlueMule on Feb 3, 2007 17:27:36 GMT -4
Witnesses say the Deputy was passing a car. Has anyone asked what side did he pass. Right or left? The assumption, by us civilians, is that he passed on the left. Did he? Was there a vehicle heading south on 8 wanting to turn left and the Deputy passed on the right shoulder. The skid mark is there. Was that mark left from a right or left tire? Left or right tire presents two completely different scenarios.
Just a thought...
I'd love to see the witness' statements.
|
|
|
Post by QA Deputy on Feb 3, 2007 20:11:40 GMT -4
It is completely amazing how the more I read what people right on this site about Deputy Green's accident, the more clear it is that you the citizens have no clue on what you are talking about. I bet not one of you were at the accident scene and most just have heard rumors on the facts. The great citizens of this nation are so quick to throw out how the police are always at fault for these things. Maryland Transportation Law clearly states that a vehicle turning left MUST Yield to the oncoming traffic. Now pay attention now folks. The fact that Deputy Green may of passed another vehicle on route 8, which by the way is completely legal when there are broken lines has nothing to do with the accident. Police do not need to have there emergency equipment on for every call we go on and we can pass as long as it is safe to do so when the yellow lines permit to as can any driver on the road do. Here is the bottom line on the accident. Deputy Greens vehicle was traveling in a south direction on route 8. The second involved vehicle was traveling in a north direction on route 8. The second involved vehicle began to make a left hand turn onto a roadway off of route 8. At this same time Deputy Greeen was still traveling in a south direction on route 8. The second vehicle (Juveniles) failed to yield to the on coming traffic (As the law states you must do), which caused the police vehicle to strike into the passenger side of the second vehicle. The impact was in the southbound lane, because the juveniles made a left hand turn and crossed over in the southbound lane. The at fault driver is very simple. The second vehicle who failed to yield the right away. Period, end of story! There is no police cover up, there is no looking out for our own kind. The truth is the truth and the facts are the facts. I hope that the juveniles are recovering and wish them a speedy recovery. It's ashame that this happened but thats why they call them accidents. It's time for all the anti police haters on this site to get the facts straight.
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on Feb 3, 2007 20:24:24 GMT -4
Most of US don't have access to the facts. All we can do is read the papers, watch the news, etc. The fact from that side is that the Crapital & the Bay Tries had fairly different stories, as supposedly did the witneses accounts.
since you have the facts, how about some more?
Was the deputy responding to a call? Was he Speeding? Were his lights/siren on?
IF he was passing, while speeding, with no lights/siren, this could be a major contributing factor in the accident. If he did this while NOT responding to a call would be gross negligence.
I'm not pointing a finger at anyone, only noticing the different stories in the papers, and asking a couple questions.
BTW: I'm all for painting SOLID lines ALL THE WAY DOWN RTE 8.
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Feb 3, 2007 21:05:16 GMT -4
Since you happen to have the facts: Was the deputy passing another vehicle at the time the collision occurred as at least one witness claimed? If so, was he passing on the left or the right? - If on the left, then it would appear to be a very unsafe pass if there was another vehicle so close to the intersection. Perhaps the second involved driver saw a vehicle heading straight towards him in the Northbound lane and swerved into the Southbound lane to avoid it.
- If on the right, then the deputy was travelling on the shoulder through an intersection around a left-turning vehicle. If that's the case, then the SUV may not have seen the deputy or may have assumed the deputy would be waiting behind until the Southbound lane was clear before entering the intersection. Or perhaps the deputy didn't see the vehicle already in the intersection.
I wasn't there when the collision occurred so I don't know exactly what happened. From what you wrote, you weren't there either. I base what I write on the facts that I have available to me. As others have pointed out, more of the facts quoted in the paper are from the police than from witnesses. It was a police statement that implicitly acknowledged that the deputy was going around another vehicle. And, it was the police investigator who made the interesting statement that they did not know how fast the deputy was going but it wasn't excessive. If you have additional facts about this event, please share them. I'll take your bet about not being at the accident scene. I'll bet a number of people were at that scene in the four hours the road was blocked. Just a suggestion for the future: Your input will be received much better if you don't start your posts by insulting everyone on the board.
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Feb 3, 2007 21:11:28 GMT -4
BTW: I'm all for painting SOLID lines ALL THE WAY DOWN RTE 8. NO!! Five miles of road with at least 3 miles of straight stretches deserves passing areas. On the other hand, I've always been surprised that the particular section of road where KI Estates begins is still a passing zone. That area is basically one big intersection and probably should be no passing.
|
|
|
Post by QA Deputy on Feb 3, 2007 21:11:53 GMT -4
Falger!
|
|
|
Post by outlaw on Feb 3, 2007 21:18:05 GMT -4
"QA Deputy" fails to mention that witnesses stated the deputy drove into oncoming traffic while passing a vehicle. Well, maybe he gets all his information from the "Bay Times."
The witness in front of the deputy, who he tried to pass, said that the boys were stopped and waiting to turn when the deputy came flying around her and hit them.
The omnipotent police expect us not to dare to ask questions and just accept as fact whatever they say. They continue to ignore the statements of witnesses as "QA Deputy" did and the "Bay Times" did. Were the witnesses lying or mistaken, or was the "Capital" reporter lying or mistaken? None of this has been addressed and probably never will be.
I have not read any account of a witness saying the boy turned in front of the deputy, just that the "evidence" indicates this is what happened. If a witness had said this, it seems likely it would have been all over the papers.
What exactly is an "anti police hater?" Is it someone who hates people who hate the police? What really happened in this accident? What happened to Jon Benet? Where is Ben Cassell's diploma? These may all have to remain mysteries for now. As I think bchevy pointed out, the police represent us. Vox populi, vox dei - the voice of the people is the voice of God (not the voice of the police). I've learned a few things from the graffiti I've read, more than I've learned from reading the "Bay Times" anyway.
|
|
|
Post by QA Deputy on Feb 3, 2007 21:28:43 GMT -4
Falger! At Know time did I attack anyone. many writers on this topic have are ready found the deputy guilty of the accident and they have no clue on what they are talking about. Deputy Green did not pass anyone on the right hand side. If deputy Green would of passed another vehicle then he would of been traveling in the northbound lane. If that was the case then the point of impact would of been in the northbound lane but thats not where the impact occurred. The impact occurred in the southbound lane. When the accident first occurred the only witness to Deputy Greens speed was Deputy Green himself and since he was severely injured and unconscious for most the accident I'm sure he did not recall the exact speed he was going. His thoughts were probably something like "Am I going to Live!" Through further investigation done by the State Police crash team they can give an approximate speed of the police vehicle when the point of impact occurred. There was no skid marks made by the police vehicle so that is going going to help. Speed was not the factor of the police nor the other vehicle. Passing a vehicle is not the reason on why the accident occurred. The accident occurred for one very simple reason and one reason only. The driver (juvenile) of the second vehicle made a human error and miscalculated the distance from the oncoming vehicle (police car), made a left hand turn and failed to yield the right away. End of the story. I am most confident that Deputy Green will be cleared of any wrong doing and then we can move forward. If this accident was involving two regular vehicles and not a police vehicle then w would not be writing all this stuff about one accident. I don't' expect the general public to have all the facts an that is why we must not jump to conclusions and wait for the investigation to be complete before people condemn the police officer.
|
|
|
Post by Pro Police on Feb 3, 2007 21:44:58 GMT -4
Mr Quest,
Is this an English class or a forum. The deputy has a point. Lets not condemn the involved deputy and wait until the investigation is complete. I assure you Queen Anne's County Sheriff's Dept. has excellent law enforcement officers and are very good at there job.
|
|