Trooper struck in South Boston by car that then fled
By adamg - 5/24/11 - 10:10 am
AlertNewEngland reports a state trooper was hit near the ramp to the Ted Williams Tunnel this morning. Police are looking for a black Volvo S40.
Comments
Or, in the Globe's priceless headline...
"Trooper struck, seriously injured in suspected hit and run in South Boston"
Do they suspect he was hit? Suspect that the driver isn't there anymore?
Or suspect that no one notices inane web headlines?
I see your point but
I think that since "hit and run" refers to a specific criminal charge, it has to be suspected/alleged, since there's that tiny possibility that they'll find the person and not charge him/her with hit and run.
When we used to have this debate when I was a headline writer/copy-editor, we'd usually go with wording the headline so as not to need the alleged/suspected right in the headline, for exactly the reason you mention. Or, yanno, just like our fearless leader Adam did!
Another classic misuse of disclaimers by the Globe.
The trooper was hit by a vehicle that then left the scene. Regardless of the circumstances, these are the established facts of the accident that do not have to be proven in court. Therefore the accident itself is indeed a "hit and run", not a "suspected hit and run", and should be described as such.
OTOH, until the driver is found guilty, his/her actions should be described as "suspected of hitting" or "allegedly hit" the trooper, because that is what the driver (when they are identified and found) will be charged with.
And eeka, kudos for your practice of not falling into the trap of automatically using "suspected/alleged" in your reporting. I wish more reporters and editors would do the same.
That's assuming the trooper isn't lying
Of course he isn't, but it's still his word. And I would imagine these "facts" do have to be established in court, through the testimony of the trooper or witnesses who saw the incident and the car fleeing. Seems silly, but I don't mind the paper covering its ass as long as the story is reported well.
"A state trooper on speed
"A state trooper on speed enforcement detail was struck by a car he was trying to flag down this morning in a highway tunnel in South Boston, and police are now seeking the hit-and-run driver, State Police said in a statement."
So in the first sentence of the Globe story, they report the State Police statement that they are seeking 'the hit and run driver,' but the Globe can't go with that? If you found a cop on the side of the road injured and unconscious, you might describe it as a suspected hit and run. In this case, the facts seem perfectly clear - unless you suggest some conspiracy.
Very simple. The police are seeking a hit and run driver. When they apprehend someone, he or she will be the suspected perp. If you don't understand this very simple difference, you shouldn't be in the business.
The distinction is that the
The distinction is that the first sentence of the article that you point out importantly attributes the sentence to a statement issued by the State Police. Therefore, the Globe is not stating that an officer was struck by a hit and run driver. They are merely reporting that State Police have stated that an office was struck by a hit and run driver.
It is true that the State Police made the statement, but the content of the statement is not necessarily true and the Globe chose to not blindly assert otherwise.
However
if they find the person who hit the person, then it turns out the person isn't charged because s/he has the beetis and passed out or something, then their ass is covered.
Plenty of these kinds of scenarios are played out in Fedler.
cameras
With all the CCTV's in the tunnel, check the videos, and look at all the Volvo S40's that were in the tunnel around that time.
Staties on foot in the tunnel
Not for nothing, but I travel the tunnel several times a week and have been horrified to see a trooper parked in the breakdown lane RUN ACROSS the adjacent lane to motion a driver in the speed lane to pull over. How anyone could think that running around in view-obscured curves of a highway is a good idea is beyond me. I have no idea if this behavior was in play in this particular accident and - no matter what - you need to pull over if there's a possibility someone was clipped. But really scary to see people roaming the highway on foot and I wish they would advise the officers that it's a patently dangerous way to flag speeders.
But that's their favorite game!
I have no idea if they set up speed traps anywhere else in the Commonwealth any more, but the one in the tunnel between the 93 split and the Teddy Ballgame where there's probably fewer than a dozen cars at any given time of day grates me.
Most often, the only reason you're in that part of the tunnel is to hurry to Logan. It's one of the only blind curves near an exit where they can park their cruiser out of traffic in the whole place for them to hide and tag you with the radar gun. The speed limit is artificially kept at 40 mph even though good road conditions and lack of traffic would easily allow for 55 mph.
I'm sure they net quite a few people and keep them just long enough to even make them nervous about missing their flight. Hit and run is wrong...but I knew exactly where it happened as soon as I heard that someone had hit a Statie on 90E.
Total speed trap
I used to go that way to a job in Lynn. I got pulled over near Logan and got a written warning for doing 51 in a 40.
The officer pulled me over in a place that was totally unsafe to do so (no shoulder, poor visibility around curves), didn't leave the flashing lights on while we were pulled over, then hauled off (no flashing lights) without bothering to pull out and block traffic to help me pull out into the blind curve. What's up with risking both of our safety in order to cite people for doing nothing particularly unsafe?
speed trap versus mass transit?
By any chance, do the cops running the speed trap hide in the authorized vehicle entrance ramp that the Silver Line was supposed to use? The stupid looping around the block in South Boston happens because the police wouldn't let buses use the on-ramp which was designed for them.
Sigh...
The type of behavior you describe (running across lanes of traffic to flag someone down) is a good reminder of why some of us have issues with more than a few cops. This is high school thrill-seeker behavior. While it is unfortunate that they can't get their kicks in other ways (skiing and mountain biking do it for me) it seemed inevitable that one of them was going to get hit by a jackass who was unable/refused to pull over.
We need a little more humility and a little less macho in our police force.
first off, it has nothing to do with being macho
Macho cops don't do radar/lidar. And it has zero to do with thrill-seeker behavior.
This has to do with money or "numbers" plain and simple. Basically each barracks/station/precinct/town has a rundown of how many citations they write a week/month/quarter/year. A spot like this is a place where you can pull over 100 vehicles an hour because everyone is going to go over the speed limit (I've been pulled over there but I thought it was 90W leaving the airport)
For every 100 cars you pull over, you might get 5 people without a licence, 1 person with a warrant, and maybe 1 good OUI, drug, gun arrest. And of course if you cite each driver with a $150 ticket (minimum is going to be $100), then thats 15K right there. Towns, cities, and especially the state loves to see those numbers, and the troopers might even get some court time out of it.
But the purpose of speed enforcement is to keep the speed down, and it should be done in areas where there are high amounts of crashes, complaints, or concerns. Now this could be an area with some high speed crashes, and if it is, then there is a good reason to set up a speed trap. But I have my doubts, and feel that if someone pushed it and asked the right questions to the right people, the speed limit might actually be legally too low here. I'm going to assume that MA highway did their homework on that one though.
Also, I bet the state police have a policy on how to do traffic enforcement, and the section in the boston manual is about 30 pages on just car stops.
Either way I hope the guys is ok.
Speed limit
Without actually checking the MGL or anything else, I'm willing to bet it says something like "tunnels with limited shoulder, blah blah blah, 40 mph." The thing is that this particular section is SO unoccupied usually and the sight lines are pretty good except for like the ONE turn that these guys usually sit behind, that it's almost like they CREATED it just for speed trapping.
Maybe they need a special sign
Speed limit 40 because of road hazard: cop might be doing the hokey-pokey in the middle of the travel lane.
Hope the trooper is OK too.
Hope the trooper is OK too. And I believe he was in his car but I've been pulled over and seen them before out of their cruisers in the road. I was coming into the tunnel from the on ramp came around the corner and there is a trooper, in blue, not yellow, in the fucking travel lane flagging me down.
I thought it was an emergency, why else would he be out in traffic?
Nope, speed trap and then he got pissed b/c I made sure to pull up far enough so that if his cruiser got rear-ended (seemed plausible parked on a turn with no lights) I wouldn't be in the chain reaction.
Came over all agitated and the second time came back w/ another trooper trying to goat me. I just yessed 'em until they let me leave.
Speeding and a bogus lane change violation.
Went to traffic court and when the magistrate saw my pristine driving record it was all dismissed.