Dog Dies After Cop Stops Couple Speeding to Vet

[ThePhoneGoddess]

http://www.news8austin.com/content/your_news/default.asp?ArID=217331

I would like some thoughts on this.


Make sure to watch the video, the stuff the cop says is unfortunately, rather revealing.

The couple believes the cop made them wait for 20 minutes on the side of the road because he wanted to 'show them who's in charge'.

The cop was ordered into counseling and sensitivity training but not reprimanded or punished.

[anriana]

There's not a time listed, but it says early morning and the cam shows that it's dark, so I'm guessing they were pulled over between 12am and 5am. I drive during those times all the time, and I am almost certain that the only reason they were pulled over is for bored cops to meet quota. Whoever that guy in the video was who said there was a risk for human life there is dumb and clearly diurnal. There is almost no one out on the roads at night, and it's much easier to see cars as well. Going 95 down the left lane of any highway isn't going to cause an accident with another car.

I am curious why the drivers didn't just call 911 and explain the situation. The cop could have followed them to the vet, and if he was truly concerned about risks to human life he could have left his lights and siren on. I've done this when I was pulled over in a dark part of town and didn't feel comfortable stopping - they told me to just pull over at the next lighted area.

[ebonyknight]

I am curious why the drivers didn't just call 911 and explain the situation. The cop could have followed them to the vet, and if he was truly concerned about risks to human life he could have left his lights and siren on. I've done this when I was pulled over in a dark part of town and didn't feel comfortable stopping - they told me to just pull over at the next lighted area.

Because 911 operators have no authority over officers and considering the cop's attitude (you can buy another one), he would probably have delayed things further, just to be difficult. He was being an asshole, just because he could. Unfortuantely too many cops let their "authority" go to their head.

I have two words for that couple. Civil Lawsuit.

[daleduke17]

I have two words for that couple. Civil Lawsuit.

Just what needs to be done...a lawsuit. Do I agree that the cop could have handled it better? Yes. But, it does not have to be a lawsuit. The cop has been reprimanded, that should be the end of it.

And before anyone says "But if it was a human...." a human would have been in an ambulance most-than-likely.

[anriana]

Because 911 operators have no authority over officers and considering the cop's attitude (you can buy another one), he would probably have delayed things further, just to be difficult. He was being an asshole, just because he could. Unfortuantely too many cops let their "authority" go to their head.

I have two words for that couple. Civil Lawsuit.

No, I'm saying they should have called 911 and said "We can't pull over because we are taking our dying animal to the vet" and then gone from there. The cop wouldn't be able to delay things until they get to the vet's office.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Think that's bad?

http://www.goofball.com/news/20000304_bizarre

[Boozy]

Some jackass cop would not have stopped me from rushing my dying dog to the vet. I would have kept driving, and worried about the consequences later. Maybe that would be stupid, but I really, really, really love my dog.

[Sylvia727]

Y'know, the cop was a jackass to them, but the couple could have saved the dog's life by ignoring him and taking a higher penalty. And I definitely think the cop should be punished more severely, not for killing a dog, but for being such a control freak. There's no excuse whatsoever for his power trip here.

[Difdi]

If my dog (or cat, or goldfish) were dying and I was rushing him/her to the vet...and a cop said I could always get another. My response would be: "so write me another ticket."

And drive to the vet.

[ebonyknight]

Just what needs to be done...a lawsuit. Do I agree that the cop could have handled it better? Yes. But, it does not have to be a lawsuit. The cop has been reprimanded, that should be the end of it.

And before anyone says "But if it was a human...." a human would have been in an ambulance most-than-likely.

Under the law a dog is considered personal property. Through no fault of their own, the cop destroyed said property, and thus can be civilly sued. I think they should sue, then regardless of the outcome, that jackass would think twice about being such an asshole.




Some jackass cop would not have stopped me from rushing my dying dog to the vet. I would have kept driving, and worried about the consequences later. Maybe that would be stupid, but I really, really, really love my dog.

As for leaving the cop or not stopping, what if they were Black or Hispanic? I'm sorry, but I believe that, that cop would have no compunction about shooting at them and or calling an APB, if they were a minority.

What maybe a no-brainer for some of you guys would be rolling the dice for others.

[Flyndaran]

...
As for leaving the cop or not stopping, what if they were Black or Hispanic? I'm sorry, but I believe that, that cop would have no compunction about shooting at them and or calling an APB, if they were a minority.

What maybe a no-brainer for some of you guys would be rolling the dice for others.

All racists are a-holes, but not all a-holes are racist.
The cop was evil enough without having to assume evils not in evidence.

[ebonyknight]

All racists are a-holes, but not all a-holes are racist.
The cop was evil enough without having to assume evils not in evidence.

That may indeed be true, but would you be willing to test that with you life or freedom????

[Pedersen]

As for leaving the cop or not stopping, what if they were Black or Hispanic? I'm sorry, but I believe that, that cop would have no compunction about shooting at them and or calling an APB, if they were a minority.

Wow, a thread about a jackass of a cop causing the death of an animal, resulting in emotional trauma for the people trying to save the animal, and people hoping that something more happens to the cop than just a reprimand, and now racism can be brought in.

Of course, race wasn't mentioned in the story. Or in the thread, until here. Why bring it up now? Because it's a hypothetical? Because, in one set of circumstances, something else could have happened?

Why does it seem like every thread has to be about race? Why can't it be about something else? Is it asking too much to even try to stay in the same solar system with the original topic? I mean, hell, we're now being lectured on what could have happened if the couple was a race which was hated by the officer in a thread about how said officer was a jackass and caused the death of a dog.

Nope, not in the same ballpark, state, or country. Not even on the same planet, and I'm not sure it's within the same solar system at all.

[BlaqueKatt]

so I'm guessing they were pulled over between 12am and 5am. I drive during those times all the time, and I am almost certain that the only reason they were pulled over is for bored cops to meet quota. Whoever that guy in the video was who said there was a risk for human life there is dumb and clearly diurnal. There is almost no one out on the roads at night, and it's much easier to see cars as well.

My husband is usually riding his bicycle home during those hours, they'd kill him without even having a chance to hit the brakes. Bike lights are harder to see at night.




Why is it ok to endanger others for any reason?

what if they were speeding to get to the bar/store before it closed?
See I just want to know when its ok for me to break the law

What if there were deer in the area ever, see a car hit a deer at 95 MPH?




Going 95 down the left lane of any highway isn't going to cause an accident with another car.

you may want to double check your math on that one-braking distance is 404 feet-total distance for braking is 580 feet at 80 MPH-if you can only see 160 feet ahead of you how can you possibly stop in time?


Your low beam headlights will allow you to spot an object on the road about 160 feet ahead of your vehicle. Most drivers need about 1.5 seconds to react.

from this website (http://www.ou.edu/oupd/nightdr.htm)
your headlights only reach 160 feet-reaction time/distance is 176 feet

At 80mph you only have time to think about braking. Your foot will probably still be on the accelerator pedal at impact.

[anriana]

My husband is usually riding his bicycle home during those hours, they'd kill him without even having a chance to hit the brakes. Bike lights are harder to see at night.

Why is it ok to endanger others for any reason?


as they headed south on Interstate 35

Does your husband cross freeways during those hours? Does he jaywalk (jayride?) across the middle of the street? It doesn't say they sped through a red light or a stoplight (places where this argument might be relevant), it says they were on an Interstate.


What if there were deer in the area ever, see a car hit a deer at 95 MPH?

Is it significantly different from hitting a deer at 55+?

what if they were speeding to get to the bar/store before it closed?
See I just want to know when its ok for me to break the law

I don't have any moral issues with people speeding on freeways in the wee hours of the morning regardless of the reasons. How often do you drive on them at that time of day? Do you never go a single MPH over the speed limit?

you may want to double check your math on that one-braking distance is 404 feet-total distance for braking is 580 feet at 80 MPH-if you can only see 160 feet ahead of you how can you possibly stop in time?


Your low beam headlights will allow you to spot an object on the road about 160 feet ahead of your vehicle. Most drivers need about 1.5 seconds to react.

from this website (http://www.ou.edu/oupd/nightdr.htm)
your headlights only reach 160 feet-reaction time/distance is 176 feet

At 80mph you only have time to think about braking. Your foot will probably still be on the accelerator pedal at impact.

It's the left lane of a highway - any object that should be there would be going at least 60 mph (although why you would be in the left lane of a freeway and only going 5 over I don't know).

[iradney]

Just what needs to be done...a lawsuit. Do I agree that the cop could have handled it better? Yes. But, it does not have to be a lawsuit. The cop has been reprimanded, that should be the end of it.

And before anyone says "But if it was a human...." a human would have been in an ambulance most-than-likely.

Unfortunately, there are no animal ambulances (that I know of).
Just because it's a dog/cat/python/goldfish, doesn't make it's life any less valuable. What about those people who regard their pets as their children? (As I do).

Where does it stop then? What if an elderly grandmother/father were being rushed to the hospital because of a life-threatening situation? Could the officer then say "Well, they've lived 70+ years, they've had a good run. Gimme your license and registration"?

I too would have said "Bugger this for a game of soldiers" and gone on to the vet. Considering the alternatives the owners offered to the officer (leave the driver with the officer and let the passenger drive on), he was completely unreasonable and unfeeling.

If I had been in that situation, I would have slapped a lawsuit on the officer faster than you can say "Fido".

[BlaqueKatt]

Does your husband cross freeways during those hours?

yes because around here the residential streets he rides home cross the highways, he has a stop sign(which he stops at), but the highway does not-anyone crossing at those areas is at high risk from speeders.



Is it significantly different from hitting a deer at 55+?
you tell me,

this is at 55 MPH (http://www.smoothharold.com/i-killed-deer-with-my-jeep-on-dec-1/)-grill and headlights missng-minor cosmetic damage

compared to

and this is video from a police car hitting a deer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcfEMGlzDN0) at 95mph-you can see the actual time you'd have to react-remember a police car is reinforced(the brush/bumper guards made for hitting cars without the patrol car taking damage are totally destroyed, and they are better trained at evasive maneuvers than your average driver



I don't have any moral issues with people speeding on freeways in the wee hours of the morning regardless of the reasons. How often do you drive on them at that time of day? Do you never go a single MPH over the speed limit?


nope I ride a bicycle-and I have known quite a few people that got killed by people speeding late at night-"because no one is on the roads"-one of the reasons I don't drive actually. There's a memorial in my high school yearbook to 4 of them.

and this website (http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/speedandspeedcameras/) from New South Wales illistrates the problem pretty well I'd say

"Crash risk

Speeding increases the risk of a crash and the severity of the crash outcome.

The risk of causing death or injury in an urban 60km/h speed zone increases rapidly even with relatively small increases in speed. The accident risk at 65km/h is about twice the risk at 60km/h. At 70km/h, the accident risk is more than four times the risk at 60km/h.
Speed – km/h Risk relative to 60 km/h
65 (37Mph) Double
70(44Mph) 4 times
75(47Mph) 11 times
80(50Mph) 32 times

The risk of a crash when driving at 68km/h in a 60km/h zone is the same as driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.08. The risk of a crash when driving at 72km/h in a 60km/h zone is the same as driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.12."

n 2005, over 13,000 lives were lost due to speed-related accidents. Speeding was a contributing factor in 30 percent of all fatal auto accidents

and just for the heck of it-driver hits utility pole at 95 mph (http://gothamist.com/2007/09/02/speed_a_factor.php)-3 passengers ejected, driver decapitated-speed the only known factor-but I'm sure someone worried about a sick/injured pet would be totally cautious while speeding......and be completely focused on their driving....

Unfortunately, there are no animal ambulances (that I know of).

there are animal ambulances in some areas-my city has several

Just because it's a dog/cat/python/goldfish, doesn't make it's life any less valuable. What about those people who regard their pets as their children? .

what about the people on the road being endangered-are their lives less valuable?

yes my pets are important to me, however I am not going to endanger other humans for ANY reason.

[anriana]

yes because around here the residential streets he rides home cross the highways, he has a stop sign(which he stops at), but the highway does not-anyone crossing at those areas is at high risk from speeders.

Please tell me the name of the Interstate that has a residential road cutting across the flow of traffic. How fast is that highway? Do pedestrians/cyclists have the right of way? Is the traffic law for people wishing to cross to just hang around until there's no traffic?



you tell me,

this is at 55 MPH (http://www.smoothharold.com/i-killed-deer-with-my-jeep-on-dec-1/)-grill and headlights missng-minor cosmetic damage

compared to

and this is video from a police car hitting a deer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcfEMGlzDN0) at 95mph-you can see the actual time you'd have to react-remember a police car is reinforced(the brush/bumper guards made for hitting cars without the patrol car taking damage are totally destroyed, and they are better trained at evasive maneuvers than your average driver

Oh, you're talking about the damage to the car? I don't care about that. I'd certainly never think "Hmm my car might get damaged by a deer in the Interstate, so I won't rush my dying pet to the hospital" because I care more about my pets than my car's grill.


nope I ride a bicycle-and I have known quite a few people that got killed by people speeding late at night-"because no one is on the roads"-one of the reasons I don't drive actually. There's a memorial in my high school yearbook to 4 of them.

Were those people killed by someone driving completely sober and 30 MPH over the speed limit in the fast lane of an Interstate? And you don't even drive and you're arguing about driving conditions? Have you ever driven?

Again, I'm not talking about running red lights/stop signs or going crazy fast down country or residential roads or any area where there could be pedestrians/bicycle traffic/cars turning on or off of the road - I'm talking about going 30 over on a six lane highway when I can go five minutes without seeing another car.


and this website (http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/speedandspeedcameras/) from New South Wales illistrates the problem pretty well I'd say

"Crash risk

Speeding increases the risk of a crash and the severity of the crash outcome.

The risk of causing death or injury in an urban 60km/h speed zone increases rapidly even with relatively small increases in speed. The accident risk at 65km/h is about twice the risk at 60km/h. At 70km/h, the accident risk is more than four times the risk at 60km/h.
Speed – km/h Risk relative to 60 km/h
65 (37Mph) Double
70(44Mph) 4 times
75(47Mph) 11 times
80(50Mph) 32 times

The risk of a crash when driving at 68km/h in a 60km/h zone is the same as driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.08. The risk of a crash when driving at 72km/h in a 60km/h zone is the same as driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.12."

n 2005, over 13,000 lives were lost due to speed-related accidents. Speeding was a contributing factor in 30 percent of all fatal auto accidents

So you found a site showing that going 50 MPH gives you a much higher risk of crashing than driving at 35 MPH on urban roads. How is this relevant to speeding on an Interstate? Can you find data that says it is significantly more dangerous to go 90 MPH at 2 AM on an Interstate than to go 65? Can you explain why the Audbon is one of the safest freeways in the entire world?

and just for the heck of it-driver hits utility pole at 95 mph (http://gothamist.com/2007/09/02/speed_a_factor.php)-3 passengers ejected, driver decapitated-speed the only known factor-but I'm sure someone worried about a sick/injured pet would be totally cautious while speeding......and be completely focused on their driving....

Do Interstates have utility poles?

[daleduke17]

Do Interstates have utility poles?

Actually, yes (in a way). In more urbanized areas there are lamp posts along the interstates, along with road signs, exit markers and all sorts of other sign posts.

[tropicsgoddess]

"Chill out, it's just a dog, you can buy another one."

Says the insensitive douchebag cop. You cannot buy another best friend and thanks to your assholier than thou attitude, those people lost their dog! I hope they sue the pants off this jerk. Hearing something like this really pisses me off as a pet parent. :mad:

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Going thirty over is wrong. If you are the "only one on the road" it's still wrong, because you don't know if you are the only one on the road or not. There is a reason there is a speed limit. Just because you like to do it does not make it defensible. It's wrong.

Animals jump out on the road, especially when "there is nobody on the road." People are broken down on the road. People are walking on the road. Other cars are getting on at ramps. They are changing tires. The fact is, you don't KNOW what you are going to encounter, and at 95 miles per hour, you can't react to it. At 95, you are in tenuous control of your car, despite what you think. You are basing your argument on what "should" be going on in the fast lane. What "should be" and what "is" are seldom the same thing.

The cop was right to stop them. While I understand why they were speeding, they were still speeding. However, when he realized what the situation was, his job was to help them, not to hinder them. He's a bully, an ass, and imcompetent.

As for cars hitting deer, the guy driving the patrol car in that vid was very, very lucky. Deer frequently will go through a windshield. They can kill you. You don't even have to be speeding for this to occur.

Anyone who thinks they have nothing to fear from hitting a deer other than a little body damage to their car is extremely naive. Not only can a single deer cause a fatal accident, but if a deer runs out in front of you, you know what is very often right behind it? More deer. It could be a very bad situation.

This is a little hard to look at, its a dead deer through the window of a Durango: http://www.snopes.com/photos/accident/durango.asp

Here's a guy who got killed by a deer going though his windsheild:
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/19042404.html

[Shangri-laschild]

Is the traffic law for people wishing to cross to just hang around until there's no traffic?

There are streets like this. It sucks for the person who has a stop sign and just has to wait, but when you think about it, it happens all over the place even when it's not an interstate.


Oh, you're talking about the damage to the car? I don't care about that. I'd certainly never think "Hmm my car might get damaged by a deer in the Interstate, so I won't rush my dying pet to the hospital" because I care more about my pets than my car's grill.

The higher damage to the car, the more you risk injuring yourself.


Were those people killed by someone driving completely sober and 30 MPH over the speed limit in the fast lane of an Interstate?

I've had 2 friends die because they were each speeding. They weren't under the influence. I don't know the exact details of one of them other than if she hadn't been speeding, it wouldn't have happened. One was going too fast on the interstate and swerved to avoid something and her car flipped. Closed casket funeral. Yes, speeding can kill, and it only takes one deer or one unexpected thing especially when you're distracted. Try to tell me that if it's your dying pet that you're rushing to the vet that you're mind is going to be completely on the road.

[linguist]

i live in this area, and i can safely say that i-35 is pretty much always busy, any time of day or night, so the argument that it was in the wee hours of the morning holds no water. and yes, for anyone curious, i do drive the interstate in the wee hours. in fact, i was out that night.

was the cop an asshole for holding the motorists up after being made aware of the situation? yes. doesn't mean that his family deserves death threats, though, which they have been getting.

were the motorists assholes for endangering the lives of everyone else on the road? yes.

who was the bigger asshole here? if there had been an accident that resulted in the death of another motorist, most likely people would be lamenting the lack of highway enforcement.

[BlaqueKatt]

Please tell me the name of the Interstate that has a residential road cutting across the flow of traffic. How fast is that highway? Do pedestrians/cyclists have the right of way? Is the traffic law for people wishing to cross to just hang around until there's no traffic?

Interstate 90/94/39 between madison and deerfield WI -crossed by several residential streets-speed limit is 65-unsure who has right of way, or the specific traffic laws governing that area.



Oh, you're talking about the damage to the car? I don't care about that. I'd certainly never think "Hmm my car might get damaged by a deer in the Interstate, so I won't rush my dying pet to the hospital" because I care more about my pets than my car's grill.

Personally I'd be thinking, If I speed I could hit a deer/car/person and injure myself or render my vehicle undrivable or myself unable to care for my injured pet. Do you really think your car(or yourself) would be in any condition to drive after a 95 MPH impact with anything? Or possibly have a tire blowout at that speed-do you really think you could maintain control of the vehicle at that speed?




Were those people killed by someone driving completely sober and 30 MPH over the speed limit in the fast lane of an Interstate?

yes the driver lost control of his vehicle going around 85 MPH(estimated), spun out and slammed into them-two of my sister's classmates lost control going over 100 on back roads and slammed into a tree-they were cut in half by the engine.


And you don't even drive and you're arguing about driving conditions?

So just because I'm a passenger doesn't mean I have a right to be safe?





Can you find data that says it is significantly more dangerous to go 90 MPH at 2 AM on an Interstate than to go 65?

Sure can (http://www.smartmotorist.com/traffic-and-safety-guideline/excessive-speed-is-a-factor-in-one-third-of-all-fatal-crashes.html)
"Research by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) found that when speed limits were raised by many states in 1996, travel speeds increased and motor vehicle fatalities went up significantly on Interstate highways in those states."

"Speed was a factor in 30 percent (12,477) of all traffic fatalities in 1998, second only to alcohol (39 percent) as a cause of fatal crashes."

Can you explain why the Audbon Autobahn is one of the safest freeways in the entire world?

hmm let's look at that shall we?

I'm assuming you are under the erroneous assumption that the Autobahn has no speed limit-which is false-it actually has a speed limits around 65-85 MPH(100-120 KPH)

from this (http://maps.unomaha.edu/Peterson/funda/Sidebar/Autobahn.htm)

"For the most part, no speed limit is enforced on about 40% of the motorway. The government, though, recommends a limit of 130 kilometers per hour. At times, it is necessary to enforce some limits. In fact, speed limits ranging from 90 kilometers per hour to 120 kilometers per hour are actually quite common. Such restrictions can be found along urban areas, dangerously curved sections, or segments with very heavy traffic. Other sections have enforced speed restrictions only during wet weather or night hours. Also, the speed limit in construction zones can be as low as 60 kilometers per hour. Since road conditions, traffic, and weather vary, electronic signs that can alter the speed limit have been installed along some sections of the Autobahn."


they also have a lot more laws for driving than we do-some are detailed in the Wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobahn) on it

[crazylegs]

To those saying they wouldn't stop for the police if they were rushing to the vet, would you? Really? Have you seen what happens when the US police initiate a PIT manouver, how the hell are the Police supposed to know that you won't stop because you're taking your dog to the vet and you're not someone who is running for another reason or that the car is stolen but not yet reported (you'd be suprised at how many people learn from the Police that their car is now charcoal colour).

How are they also to know that you're telling the truth, I certainly wouldn't put it past some people to say their dog/cat/pet was on its last legs to get out of a speeding fine.

Consider what might have happened in the following scenario.

Police stops car while it travels at 95mph.
Officer finds out that dying dog is inside and waves the fine which implies he condones the actions and speed.
Car then causes/is involved in a FatAc.

Do you think the officer will get sued then? You can bet your bippy he will.

[EmiOfBrie]

Interstate 90/94/39 between madison and deerfield WI -crossed by several residential streets-speed limit is 65-unsure who has right of way, or the specific traffic laws governing that area.

Residential streets do not crosss at-grade with that stretch. I have driven along the complete I-90/94/39 multiplex more times than I care to count and not once have I seen a residential street meet it at-grade.

If I'm wrong, I'd like to see photo proof please, which would be impossible to come by. To be 100% sure, I just now looked at the Google Map of that stretch and any time a residential street met the highway it was either an interchange or bridge.

Don't mess with the roadgeek! ;)

Though, there are some rural Interstates that do what you describe....rural stretches of I-10 in Texas, for example.