The officer had their sirens on and were responding to a shots fired situation. If the sirens are on the police are allowed to run red lights. What could be done to prevent something like this in the future? Could the civilian who was driving the struck car have seen/heard the police car?
I’m in no way trying to defend the police in this situation, I’m just genuinely curious how this can be avoided in the future.
Every jurisdiction I have ever heard of (in the United States, at least) allows emergency vehicles to disregard traffic rules when they can do so safely. This is why you will often see that speeding police/fire/EMS vehicles with lights and sirens activated will still slow down for intersections, and then speed off once they have safely cleared the intersection.
The officer in this case was probably permitted to drive as fast as they were driving, and to drive through a red light, however they had a superseding duty to operate their vehicle safely. It doesn’t matter what kind of an emergency they’re responding to, that doesn’t give them the right to cause harm along the way. If the officer could not know with reasonable certainty that they would not collide with another vehicle (or pedestrian) when going through that intersection, then they shouldn’t have proceeded through the intersection at that speed.
Similarly, police officers are permitted to carry their guns under circumstances where most people would not be allowed to carry a gun. However, if they accidentally shoot an innocent bystander, they are still liable for that shooting. They can’t go waving their gun around just because they’re allowed to have/use guns under specific circumstances. Sounds like an extreme example, but cars can be just as deadly as guns.
I would hazard to say they aren’t allowed (maybe not explicitly, but through gross reckless endangerment) to go through an intersection at 79mph when red, because there is absolutely no situation where the green traffic would have time to even see/hear the sirens without an atypically vast sight range of hundreds of yards.
I agree, I was just trying to be very conservative in my judgement. Realistically, a scenario in which you could be sure that it was safe to go through an intersection at those speeds is going to be very rare, even if you had a green light. There are just too many variables.
Cars are arguably more deadly than guns. The CDC numbers vary slightly year by year, but total vehicular deaths vs. gun related deaths are always on par. Take suicides out, of both kinds, and vehicular death is far more common. And one thing is far more random than the other.
① The man killed was deaf, as reported in the article.
② Whatever the emergency, even with lights and sirens, police plowing though red lights at high speed is irresponsible.
I’m sure the cop was super mega excited for the chance to shoot somebody but going 80 through an intersection (even if the light was green) is pretty shitty.
Since when are police allowed to run red lights? They have a device to turn them green.
The killed driver was deaf. If the light was green for them they had basically no way of knowing a car was about to run it. Even people that can hear would have a difficult time with modern cars and all their sound proofing.
Choosing not to fly through an intersection at 79mph.
The other driver being deaf isn’t as important as the fact that they were driving excessively fast through an intersection. Even an audible warning wouldn’t be enough to let people approaching the intersection have time to figure out where it is coming from, and people shouldn’t need to anticipate a cop flying through an intersection when they hear a siren.
Don’t blame the victims, blame the cops that are making things unsafe.
If the sirens are on the police are allowed to run red lights
You’re right, but the act of having your siren on should not absolve a policeman from the consequences of not paying attention in a risky situation like running a red light.
I live in Louisiana. Most police I’ve personally seen do that still slow down when they approach a red and observe the traffic around them, and that’s just to confirm that the other drivers are following the law that requires them to stop when they hear or see a siren. In this case, the other driver was deaf.
Not to mention that Louisiana law has speed limits 10-20 slower everywhere than the rest of the country, and the typical speed limit in the context of an intersection with a light is like 40mph.
There was no reason for that cop to be blasting through going 80 without at least trying to see the other vehicles, even in a shots fired situation.
The officer had their sirens on and were responding to a shots fired situation. If the sirens are on the police are allowed to run red lights. What could be done to prevent something like this in the future? Could the civilian who was driving the struck car have seen/heard the police car?
I’m in no way trying to defend the police in this situation, I’m just genuinely curious how this can be avoided in the future.
Every jurisdiction I have ever heard of (in the United States, at least) allows emergency vehicles to disregard traffic rules when they can do so safely. This is why you will often see that speeding police/fire/EMS vehicles with lights and sirens activated will still slow down for intersections, and then speed off once they have safely cleared the intersection.
The officer in this case was probably permitted to drive as fast as they were driving, and to drive through a red light, however they had a superseding duty to operate their vehicle safely. It doesn’t matter what kind of an emergency they’re responding to, that doesn’t give them the right to cause harm along the way. If the officer could not know with reasonable certainty that they would not collide with another vehicle (or pedestrian) when going through that intersection, then they shouldn’t have proceeded through the intersection at that speed.
Similarly, police officers are permitted to carry their guns under circumstances where most people would not be allowed to carry a gun. However, if they accidentally shoot an innocent bystander, they are still liable for that shooting. They can’t go waving their gun around just because they’re allowed to have/use guns under specific circumstances. Sounds like an extreme example, but cars can be just as deadly as guns.
I would hazard to say they aren’t allowed (maybe not explicitly, but through gross reckless endangerment) to go through an intersection at 79mph when red, because there is absolutely no situation where the green traffic would have time to even see/hear the sirens without an atypically vast sight range of hundreds of yards.
I agree, I was just trying to be very conservative in my judgement. Realistically, a scenario in which you could be sure that it was safe to go through an intersection at those speeds is going to be very rare, even if you had a green light. There are just too many variables.
Perfectly said! I would add:
Cars are arguably more deadly than guns. The CDC numbers vary slightly year by year, but total vehicular deaths vs. gun related deaths are always on par. Take suicides out, of both kinds, and vehicular death is far more common. And one thing is far more random than the other.
① The man killed was deaf, as reported in the article.
② Whatever the emergency, even with lights and sirens, police plowing though red lights at high speed is irresponsible.
Cue the semi-sentient thin blue line stickers claiming “he should have been more careful! If you have disabilities, you shouldn’t be outside!”
They should slow down until they clear the intersection.
They still need to make sure it’s safe to proceed. Impressive if he can do that at 79 mph.
I’m sure the cop was super mega excited for the chance to shoot somebody but going 80 through an intersection (even if the light was green) is pretty shitty.
Since when are police allowed to run red lights? They have a device to turn them green.
The killed driver was deaf. If the light was green for them they had basically no way of knowing a car was about to run it. Even people that can hear would have a difficult time with modern cars and all their sound proofing.
Since always. You can look it up for your area, but in most, if not all, states in the US police can absolutely run red lights
LOL what? You think even a small percentage of municipalities have that tech?
Choosing not to fly through an intersection at 79mph.
The other driver being deaf isn’t as important as the fact that they were driving excessively fast through an intersection. Even an audible warning wouldn’t be enough to let people approaching the intersection have time to figure out where it is coming from, and people shouldn’t need to anticipate a cop flying through an intersection when they hear a siren.
Don’t blame the victims, blame the cops that are making things unsafe.
Again, I’m not blaming anyone.
You should be blaming the cop.
You’re right, but the act of having your siren on should not absolve a policeman from the consequences of not paying attention in a risky situation like running a red light.
I live in Louisiana. Most police I’ve personally seen do that still slow down when they approach a red and observe the traffic around them, and that’s just to confirm that the other drivers are following the law that requires them to stop when they hear or see a siren. In this case, the other driver was deaf.
Not to mention that Louisiana law has speed limits 10-20 slower everywhere than the rest of the country, and the typical speed limit in the context of an intersection with a light is like 40mph.
There was no reason for that cop to be blasting through going 80 without at least trying to see the other vehicles, even in a shots fired situation.
Short of an open area with no obstacles there is no way either the officer or anyone near the intersection could react in time at that speed.