Is this anybody here?!?!?

[Betty White]

 

[bobbywalter]

yeah.

 

[JoshT]

I feel like I can safely say it wasn't anyone on the site. I actually know exactly where that happened, I grew up on the exit before the semi got off.

I would like to know what even initiated the pursuit. The area where he began the chase is a 70 speed limit. Don't know what traffic was doing, but it didn't appear to be excessive, possibly not even quite the limit from what I was seeing. Ranger was running with traffic until the cop turned on the lights, and didn't appear to be swerving or anything at that point. He moved to the side right after the lights came on, but it looked like he was considering pulling off before running. Then again at the ramp, he was going to get off before the truck took the exit.

IMO the speeds, trafic, and driving were not enough to warrant a pitt manuver. That area, that time of night, the trooper could have chased the truck until it ran out of gas and not endangered anyone. Actually the "high speed pursuit" would have caused less problems than the slow downs and rubber necking that happened after the rollover.

 

[bobbywalter]

yeah

 

[SenorNoob]

Mixed feelings.
Getting criminals off the streets is good.
This felt excessive as someone knows almost nothing about being an officer.
Description under video says Ranger was already doing 90 mph. Then accelerated to run. I wanna know what engine/mods that truck has. LOL

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Mixed feelings.
Getting criminals off the streets is good.
This felt excessive as someone knows almost nothing about being an officer.
Description under video says Ranger was already doing 90 mph. Then accelerated to run. I wanna know what engine/mods that truck has. LOL

Had to be a 2.9 swap

 

[97RangerXLT]

First of all, we do not know the circumstances leading up to the pit maneuver. that truck may have been in a BOLO for something else.

Also he did not pull over. the cop had his lights on for a while, it looked like he may have tried to trick the cop into thinking he was getting off the highway and suddenly jumped back on, at the very least he was driving erratically and causing a danger to traffic.

I do think the pit maneuver was done a bit too forcefully. but we will probably never know the full reason for the initiated stop.

hope the driver and any passengers are ok.
RIP Ford Ranger

AJ

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Description under video says Ranger was already doing 90 mph. Then accelerated to run. I wanna know what engine/mods that truck has. LOL

Yeah, a Ranger doing 90 isn't going to accelerate to run... its already runnin'.

 

[Brain75]

As a former law enforcement I can comment on this and I'll start off by saying that this video riled me quite a bit. I'll try to keep my insight calm and civilized though.
I watched the entire video start to finish twice before even thinking of making a comment.

I really and I mean REALLY REALLY would like to see the 2 minutes leading up to this because context is everything. If the vehicle had ran someone off the road or fired a weapon at someone that completely changes things but... since the lights and sirens were NOT on at 0:00 I have to assume no humongous flagrant issue is at hand. I assume that the facts of the tape are relevant without the preceding 2 minutes.

1) The office starts off traveling for an extended period of time straddling two lanes. Cops get way too much liberty in this. At 10 seconds we can see an unrelated vehicle in an adjacent lane proving this is not ultra light or sparse traffic. The office should have been more mindful of public safety and driven in adherence to the laws.

2) just before 1:04 the suspect vehicle properly uses it's turn signal and safely changes lanes (just before this there is a minor infraction for insufficient use of turn signal), after this point the suspect does make a number of traffic violations, I will give you that (all lane change turn signal issues, speed unknown).

3) I estimate the speed is greater than 80, possibly even 90 mph.

4) I counted 15 rollovers (using the 2nd panoramic stitched together view where the truck never leaves frame)

5) the office only asks for fire dept , not fire and ambulance + the suspect is heard to be moaning or experiencing moderate difficulty in speaking (could be intoxication, could be injuries... it sounds to me like he is injured)

6) 10-9 (spoken at time 4:15 & 4:22) is police code for "repeat last transmission" it basically means I can't hear or understand you.

7) his request for NCO (a supervisor, anyone of sargent level or higher) should have been requested much sooner.

8) "28" (police code 10-28) at time 7:03 is a request for the most common data before pulling over a suspect vehicle. 10-28 + 10-29 is often considered the dead minimum for officer safety before they leave the safety of their vehicle (check for expired/stolen vehicle and wanted on registered driver), many officers I know will pull someone over and sit behind them for the full duration of a 10-27 + 10-28 + 10-29 check before approaching the vehicle (this is why you sit there forever waiting for them to come give you a ticket, they are checking to make sure if you are a wanted felon or joe schmoe on the way home from the grocery store.)


The fact that the office never performed a 10-28 before means either A) he forgot he already did in the unseen part before 0:00, or B) he never did... which means he did not pull them over for expired/altered tags, stolen, or wanted on warrant.

Establishing that the cause was not expired/stolen/wanted, means this officer had less cause to perform a PIT - the response was excessive to the infraction.

If I was the DA in this county, I would call for the officers immediate dismissal and I would lay charges of the following: Reckless Endangerment, Vehicular Assault, Attempted Vehicular Manslaughter as well as the minor traffic infractions the office made before turning on his lights.

It clearly appears to me that the officer got into the mindset "I have to end this chase no matter what" and acted far too early performing the PIT at way too high a speed. He should have either ran him out of gas, performed the PIT at slower speed, or intervened only when things escalated.

Personal experience to back this... well I have laid a vehicle over on it's side at 60mph, I have witnessed 45 mph multiple rollovers. I have investigated 45+ mph rollovers. I got a backseat view when a guy in front of me hit black ice at 75mph under an underpass and end over ended 7 times. The shear number of times the vehicle rolled tells me this was very high speed. The performance of a PIT at high speed for minor infraction tells me this officer needs to be taken off the force for his lack of judgement.

Now let me caveat all of this. 99% of the time the officer is in the right, this is a rare case where I feel the officer was dead wrong. I feel he inflicted loss and injury on someone who did not represent a substantial threat to society. Even that caveat goes back to my initial though, I want to see the 2 minutes before this and a version without the music overlaying the beginning.

EDIT: added strike out of items revised in my post the next day

 

[Brain75]

As I drove to town yesterday this nagged at my brain and I had to come back to the video again, so I want to make a very minor amendment.
10-80 (at ~2:16) is the officer alerting dispatch the pursuit is active... which is inaccurate, he had performed the PIT, the pursuit was over - that too is an error on his part.. 10-80 literally means "Pursuit in progress" (which he should called in the instant the ranger started running - along with the license plates.)

At 2:28 he requests "go ahead and get me a 10-52 en route" - that is a call for ambulance. So my earlier ire at him inflicting injury AND delaying ambulance was an error. He did call for ambulance in a timely manner. (10-52 literally means "Ambulance needed").
I still think he used excessive force and caused unnecessary injury.

just in case any of the younger kids want to know it: 10-4 (heard several times) means "Affirmative / Understood / Message received".

I am also going to adjust my guess of speed and total duration.
at 0:43 we can see a mile marker post and again at 1:24. that gives my bad math figuring a speed of 68.333 mph.
The PIT happens at 1:36 so if anyone can suggest what the max acceleration of a sport Ranger is from a starting speed of 68 mph in the next 12 seconds that gives you a top speed possible. I'll bet the ranger was in the neighborhood of 75-85 mph at the time of PIT (more likely 75).
I'll double down on my assessment that the office acted rash, the whole entire pursuit lasted less than 2 minutes, that is not timely execution that is getting caught up in it and acting emotionally / excessively.

 

[2011Supercab]

If you read the comments, the Ranger passed the parked trooper doing 90mph.

He also performed the PIT before they got to a reduced lane construction zone with workers on the roadway.

 

[Brain75]

OK now that really riles me up in a totally different way.
I never read youtube comments because they are 99% of the time crap.

Couple things really stand out.

The office has a nice narrative and the "REALLY REALLY want to see the 2 minutes" before is speculatively satisfied... but. without posting those 2 minutes his comments are like any other youtube poster's comments - crap based on their opinion of events, not hard facts shown in evidence.

I now have to agree provided IF the officer is telling the truth and 90mph was clocked and IF Macon was in close proximity ahead and IF there really was construction ahead - none of that is evident in the video.
Lets review though 90 in a 70 is only 20 over, not nearly a "big infraction" like 30+... I get it that the running/chase is the causal but it still gnaws at a pit in the stomach.

What has me riled up now - the office posted the guys full legal name and the legal name of the nurse nonetheless that is a HUGE violation of privacy, innocent until proven guilty. The guys name should be scrubbed from public record until he is proven guilty. Even if he is proven guilty that was details best left to the local newspaper police blotter not a 300k+ hit internet video. He has ruined this guys life forever, that is worth some serious civil damages.

(Yes I did note the video is from a month ago and the narrative is 2021, either way even if proven guilty - most likely was - still would you want your name on a million hit video?)

I'm going to throw out a little more detail in my thought too... By not radioing in the chase immediately he took all consequences on himself. For all we know there could have been another office 3 miles ahead who could have deployed spike strip and ended things with less risk to public and bodily harm. He effectively took away all alternatives and eliminated any better outcome. For that alone I think he should be taken off the force.

 

[Rick W]

Well, when I saw this, and I started reading all this, I started to write one of my novels. Fortunately, for everybody, I caught myself.

I grew up at a time, mostly from my family influence, that you respected authority. There was a concept called right and wrong. You knew what they were. Right was the right thing, not what you can get away with like today.

Regardless, if you were doing right or doing wrong, if you were confronted by authority, whether it be your parents, a teacher, the nuns or the priest, the neighbor, you stood at attention and you said yes sir or yes ma’am, and you took your lumps if that was the case.

We live in a world where the young people are actually trained to spit in the face of authority. I can’t stand it. 99% of the time you’re behind the cops?

Back in the day, there was also the concept of corporal punishment. You could get a good smack or a poke with a night stick if you were being a jerk. Unfortunately, that could cause some authority to get power hungry, and abuse the privilege. But 99% of the time it worked the way it was supposed to. And I and my friends are better people from having gone through it. We learned what boundaries were, we learned respect for other people.

In today’s day and age, I am 150% behind the boys in blue. I watch the videos of the wrecks and the police chases, and I am in disbelief at how disrespectful a lot of people are, and you could tell they have been trained and educated in school or by TikTok to screw the police. The police have a thankless job when it comes to this stuff. I would never do it in 1 million years, but I honor the guys who are willing to do it and who do it well. And in the age of video cameras everywhere, the abuses are very few and far between, although those few incidents may be the ones that get a lot of clicks.

Back the boys in blue. Period! If the guy wasn’t doing anything wrong and he pulled over, it would’ve been the end of it. Whatever the heck he did do, if he pulled over, he would’ve lived through it without injury if he cooperated.

Back the boys in Blue!

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Yeah, running from the cops used to be much less of "a thing" than it is now... and fairly common. Like in the 60's-80's. And you had a much better chance to get away with it too.

Heck, Nascar was basically founded by a bunch of guys that hopped up cars to outrun the cops while hauling illegal booze in the 30's.

 

[JoshT]

at 0:43 we can see a mile marker post and again at 1:24. that gives my bad math figuring a speed of 68.333 mph.
The PIT happens at 1:36 so if anyone can suggest what the max acceleration of a sport Ranger is from a starting speed of 68 mph in the next 12 seconds that gives you a top speed possible. I'll bet the ranger was in the neighborhood of 75-85 mph at the time of PIT (more likely 75).
I'll double down on my assessment that the office acted rash, the whole entire pursuit lasted less than 2 minutes, that is not timely execution that is getting caught up in it and acting emotionally / excessively.

The office has a nice narrative and the "REALLY REALLY want to see the 2 minutes" before is speculatively satisfied... but. without posting those 2 minutes his comments are like any other youtube poster's comments - crap based on their opinion of events, not hard facts shown in evidence.

I now have to agree provided IF the officer is telling the truth and 90mph was clocked and IF Macon was in close proximity ahead and IF there really was construction ahead - none of that is evident in the video.
Lets review though 90 in a 70 is only 20 over, not nearly a "big infraction" like 30+... I get it that the running/chase is the causal but it still gnaws at a pit in the stomach.


What has me riled up now - the office posted the guys full legal name and the legal name of the nurse nonetheless that is a HUGE violation of privacy, innocent until proven guilty. The guys name should be scrubbed from public record until he is proven guilty. Even if he is proven guilty that was details best left to the local newspaper police blotter not a 300k+ hit internet video. He has ruined this guys life forever, that is worth some serious civil damages.

I'm not going to agree with everything you've said, but do with a bunch of it. You speed assessment seems fairly accurate to me based on what I know of the area. Again, I have spent nearly all of my life in area that this took place. Technically they were not in close proximity to Macon, they were IN Macon, but a very rural portion of it. I'm pretty sure that portion of the interstate has fallen within the city limits for most of the last 40 years, definitely has since the city and county consolidated about 13 years ago.

I'm going to state distances off of overpass (Jennifer Drive) shown in video since that is a good recognizable landmark. The distance from the bridge shown in the video to the exit where the truck swerved around the semi is right at 0.5 miles. Bridge to where the truck stopped after rollover was right at right at 1 mile. Bridge to approximate location of construction start, 4.5 miles. At time of day/night when this occoured there is no active construction taking place, and no workers at the construction sites.

IIRC the speed limit is 70 all the way to the Pio Nono exit, where the semi got off, maybe even past Rocky Creek Road, where the pit occured. I know from the next overpass to the construction zone it's 60, then drops down to 55 for the zone.

I have no hard evidence of this, but I am not a youtube commenter. I'm a fellow forum member that lives in the area. Again in relation to bridge over interstate, I lived approximately 2 miles (straight line) from that bridge for 23 years. I'm a good bit further away now, but still travel through that area regularly. At the time of year this happened I was traveling through that same portion of the interstate (including the construction zone) at least twice a week making trips to and from my hunting property. I can say with some certainty that during the week of December 27th of 2021 that the road construction project was shut down, same for Christmas/New Years week of any other year during the near decade it's been in progress. for this time of day/night and year, the officer was definitely exaggerating the amount of traffic to be encountered further up the road.

I agree with you on the name posting. Never saw a posting of the nurse's name, but I hate the reporting of the driver's name. IMO that is an excellent way to bias opinions if the altercation ends up being some mistake or if it somehow goes to jury trial, that is not a good thing. Also IMO, if you're going to release the offender's name in print, you should also release the officer's name in print, only fair. If you look up driver's name you will find that he doesn't have a clean record, but we do not see where the officer was privy to this information prior to or during the pursuit. For this reason I do somewhat wonder if there was a bolo out for this truck and reason that the pursuit was initiated, but that should have come up at some point during the interaction.

In addition to biasing the public, it could be an issue for someone not involved. The name could easily be shared with someone else in the area and this altercation come up in a record or background search. I've personally run into that. There was another guy with my name in the mug shots a few years ago for a DUI, he really does have the same name, not a stolen ID. It hasn't affected me in anyway, but he does come up when my name is searched in the area. Someone that doesn't do the proper vetting is liable to try and attribute his record to me.

Just thought about it, but poor vetting of background information is probably why I failed an ID verification with the phone company the other day. Was trying to get my land line ported to wireless. They sent me to fraud department to verify identity. They wanted to call the land line to verify, but I wasn't home. About a half dozen other ways that they could have verified but they wouldn;t do them. Possibly because we'd already been through this process 4 times the same day and the CS rep kept screwing something up. They decided to ask me multiple choice questions about things associated with me. One was a boat, none of the above was only correct answer since I've never owned one. One was an atv/motorcycle, my 2003 Honda shadow was a choice. One was my mother's age group, I know better than to post that here. One was where my sister lives, not saying that here either. I gave the only correct answers for all questions, yet somehow failed the check. Seems like they are somehow mixing up my information with someone elses and I'd really like to know where they get they sourced their data from so I could get it corr4ected for future, but of course they wouldn't provide any information on that.

Back the boys in blue. Period!

Sorry Rick, but I respectuflly disagree. That is not a definite. Respect is earned and respect is lost. There have been too many examples of bad cops and abuse of power to make that a period. I reserve the right to make judgements on who I back and repect based on the interaction I have or events I witness. The badge does afford a measure of respect initially, but it is easily lost.

From what I saw in this video, this officer definitely lost it. I can still act respectful towards an officer, even if I have lost all respect for said officer. Cold but cordial. Better to do that and be cooperative, then let the court sort things out later if necessary.

While the "perp" may have been in the wrong for running, that does not automatically justify the agressiveness of the part of the officer. A radio call would have had another patrol car or two in the pursuit and likely would have resulted in a much better resolution. Instead of calling for backup from local law enforcement, the GSP officer decided to go lone wolf (or what ever you want to call it) and end things as fast as possible.