Chelsea pedestrian struck, killed by police cruiser
By adamg on Fri, 08/20/2010 - 10:29am
Updated at 3 p.m. with amended info from the DA's office about the nature of the chase.
The man, 56, was crossing Broadway around 11:15 p.m., when hit by a Chelsea cruiser heading south to assist in a foot chase by Everett Police, according to the Suffolk County District Attorney's office, which says the cruiser's lights and siren were on.
State and Chelsea Police are now investigating the incident, the DA's office says, adding the man's identity is being withheld pending notification of next of kin. The officer involved in the crash has been put on administrative leave until the investigation is completed.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Ad:
Comments
Police chases tend to end in
Police chases tend to end in disaster. It's about time they are banned.
There are other ways to catch the criminals....like following in a helicopter and making note of where they go.
They actually rarely end in disaster
and helicpoters are expensive and impractical in Boston.
Large cities like LA and NY have helicopters that fly 24/7. If there isn't a helicopter in the air already, they aren't going to help in any chase.
I might not agree that they should be banned 100%, but there are instances where the concept is needed.
"They actually rarely end in disaster"
Rarely may be good enough for you. I can think of two people who died as a result of high speed chase on city streets, where the officer could not control the vehicle and killed a bystander. That doesn;t include the cop who hit the baby carriage (the baby survived). In the first case, a woman in her own car died. This time it was a man on foot.
This man was not a suspect. He was an innocent bystander who was unable to get out of the way of a speeding police car. A police SUV that the officer could not sufficiently control in order to avoid the lethal collision.
High speed chases are not a concept. They are a reality. Two innocent bystanders have lost their lives as a result.
Who will argue the lives of innocent bystanders amounts to reasonable collateral damage? If one of them was a sibling or parent? If it was you?
What's the over/under on whether DA Conley puts the officer back behind the wheel with nothing more that a course in hot pursuit inside city limits? I'm sure the guy feels awful. It should never have happened.
I heard of several car
I heard of several car accidents. The reality is that car accidents happen, albeit rarely. "Rarely" might be good enough for you, but I say that a car accident means that we should never drive cars.
You still don't get it.
And you continue to read what you want.
I didn't say they weren't dangerous, and I didn't say if someone died it wasn't the cops fault, or the policies fault. The cop may have been at fault here, he may not have been.
How many times has someones life been saved because an officer drove at a speed greater than the speed limit going somewhere to help someone? There are no numbers you can put on that is there and that is the problem with your arguement. Policies are written for all public safety departments so that as a whole, the public is protected from crime, fires, medical emergencies etc. That is why emergency vehilces are allowed to drive fast in the first place. AND I'LL TYPE IN CAPS SO YOU WILL READ THIS PART SINCE YOU LIKE TO READ WHAT YOU WANT TO: THE OFFICERS, FIREFIGHTERS AND EMS DRIVERS STILL HAVE TO FOLLOW POLICY IN THESE CHASES. IF THEY DO NOT FOLLOW POLICY IT IS THE FAULT OF THAT POLICE OFFICER, FIREFIGHTER OR EMS DRIVERS.
There are some towns and cities in this country were more firefighters have died racing to fires in firetruck accidents than have died in actual fires. Do we not have fire engines go lights and sirens to fires just because numbers tell us more firefighters die going to fires than in fires? Because if you look at facts like that, you simply wouldn't have firefighters race to fires. Of course that doesn't happen, because we would never know how many firefighters (or people) would have died in those fires if the department didn't race to the fire. Same goes for police officers going to robbery or rape calls.
But why don't you look at the other side too. Since 2001, 863 police officers have died as a result of car crashes, 64 of them from motor vehicle pursuits. Is 64 too many where we decide that police officers shouldn't pursue anymore? Is it just part of the job?
Reality tells us that police officers will need to respond to emergency situations and they must be able to travel fast to get there sometimes. The pros of this reality is that officers can get places faster to help people and may save lives. The cons is that officers are going to die and pedestrains may die as well as a result. The middle ground is having policies and laws set up to minimize these deaths as much as possible.
Do you have data and
Do you have data and statistics for that?
On what?
Expensive Helicopters or "disasters" from Massachusetts Police chases?
There aren't really any statistics either way since a "chase" is hard to define. Even this case here wasn't a "chase". It was a cruiser heading to a location at what I assume was a high speed with or without lights and sirens.
These "chases" or fast police responses happen a few thousand times a year in Massachusetts. Very few of those "tend" to end up in disaster but some do.
I've been a part of dozens and have seen only a few people end up with minor injuries. Knowing that with the fact many other cities and towns have similar chases, combined with the fact that any "disaster" I am going to hear about on the news is rare, I am going to form my educated opinion that "disasters" are rare after police "chases".
That does not mean they are or are not dangerous.
Ohhhh Kaaaay
There are police chases every day in my neighborhood, or at least high-speed police responses, which is what this appears to be. There has never once been a disaster, unless by "disaster" you mean "arrest."
The last police-involved "disaster" in the conventional sense involved, well, a helicopter: http://tech.mit.edu/V115/N52/helicop.52n.html
A much more recent police-chase-caused disaster
happened in 2007, when State Police very unwisely chased someone off Route 16 in Everett into a grid of quite narrow residential streets behind Ball Square in Somerville. There's no way that could end any way but tragically, and that's exactly what occurred. A totally innocent taxicab driver died there as a result.
Here's a long discussion that started with 'what was that noise outside my window?' and continued for several days thereafter.
Wasn't a car chase
The officer was driving to help in a foot chase. I've updated my post based on a correction sent out by the DA's office.
Innocent person accidentally killed by cop
heading to a call- a similar event happened in South Boston about three years ago, a lady in a car was killed. I don't know how often this kind of "collateral damage" happens nationwide. I think you prett much have to fire the cop involved, though, just like you probably would do to an MBTA driver or a UPS guy who runs somebody over accidentally. It's just too unjust an outcome otherwise- even though it was an accident.
They don't fire them.
People get killed by trains occasionaly and the drivers don't get fired if they are not at fault. Neither do UPS drivers. They might get paid leave until the investigation is over but they don't get fired.
Accident? Or Result of Policy Decisions?
I think Pete has enough strawmen here to protect a good size cornfield against crows.
Many cities have modified their chase policies because high speed pursuits endanger lives and cause "accidents". These aren't always the result of officer negligence but the result of high speeds and urban street systems. The basic reasoning is that criminals are bad, but chases that kill people can put the community at much higher risk than letting the perp go and picking him up later.
So, while it wouldn't be very productive to fire officers involved unless there was gross negligence or misjudgment, that doesn't get police off the hook for the consequences of playing dirty harry. Policies should reflect risks and the COMMUNITY should have something to say about those risks and what level of risk is acceptable. The "We are TEH COPZ and you don't UNDERSTAND that we are protecting you you ungrateful fools" defense of high speed chases in urban areas is bullcrap in its entirety. These are decisions to be made by both police AND the communities they work for.
Many Departments
allow chases for violent or other high risk crimes, but not for the small stuff. You shoot someone and leave in a car? They'll chase you. You drive by a cop above speed limit, then floor it when he turns his lights on? Then the officer follows you just long enough to a) establish that you are intentionally not pulling over and b) get a car description of your car.
I don't know what the foot chase here in the situation was because of, but these policies tend to get enacted after things like this happen. They protect the community while still allowing the Police to chase the really dangerous criminals.
Well it sound like any other call
that would require lights and sirens (alarms, fights, fires, car crashes)
State law dictates that police officers can speed but must drive reasonably and take numerous factors into consideration when driving to these emergencies. Same law for firetrucks and ambulances.
I can't imagine having a job
where I could kill someone on the job and not get fired. I had a driving job once, and I can say with 100% certainty that if I accidentally killed someone with the company vehicle, even if he jumped right out in front of it and I was not charged with any violation, I would be done. Of course, it was also a job where I could be fired for no reason at all- you know, what they call "at will". It just seems strange to me.
I think that a lot more
I think that a lot more demands involving dangerous situations are put on police officers than on most jobs, including most jobs involving driving.
Police officers also tend to have more training than most other driving jobs, and tend to have more commitment from their employer. Pizza Hut might have a policy to let a driver go if they're involved in a vehicular homicide while on duty, just because it's a lawsuit-averse, cold, uncaring corporate behemoth that considers employees dispensible. Police departments are better than Pizza Hut.
You don't really kill anybody if it wasn't your fault.
You are saying if a drunk driver went through a red light and plowed into your car and he died you would be fired for killing him? I'm sure if they didn't like you they could fire you for whatever they wanted but that seems strange.
Should firefighters get fired if someone dies in a fire they were fighting? Of what if a woman calls the police and says her husband is attacking her with a knife and the cops go there at regular speed and the woman gets killed beacause the husband stabbed her right when the cops got there?
But seriously, train drivers have struck plenty of people in Boston and do not get fired if it wasn't clear that there was any negligence.
please stop trying to think
And please stop passing yourself off as an expert.
Don't think of me as an expert then.
If you didn't notice there are about 1000 experts here including yourself.
I never have: "Don't think of me as an expert then"
I just wish you'd stop passing yourself off as one.
I know a hell a lot more than you do about these things than you
That much is clear.
How do I pass myself off as an expert though? Does it have to do with the fact that I actually graduated from 2 police academies in 2 different states and have worked with various police departments in 3 different states? That is besides the fact that I have over 15 years of law enforcement experience in different divisions (traffic, patrol, detectives) as well as supervisory experience? I've actually read these police policies and have seen what happens when people get arrested and go to court and why police have to do one thing in terms of force and not another thing etc, etc.
Bottom line is that I share my experiences and opinions with anyone that wants to hear them. It is my opinion that you really don't get how the real world works. If you don't like my opinion, I really don't care. But I sure as hell am not going to stop posting on here because you think I'm coming off as an expert. That's your problem
Victim identified
remembered, etc.
From Boston.com
he saw Burgess hit the windshield
"When you hear a siren, you
"When you hear a siren, you should move out of the way." It's heartbreaking to hear the cop say this; I can almost hear his pain at having hit this guy. What a terrible situation.
But... man, what if the dude was deaf? Or blind, or both? Everybody has a right to use our streets. And the cars have got to look out for the pedestrians and bicycles. Even well-meaning cops trying to get to where they have to be to do their job. Because their job is to protect people, all the time. Usually when I see ambulances and fire trucks and cop cars drive by, I see them slow the heck down at intersections until they can be really, really sure nothing is going on that they can't see until the last minute. That's the kind of care I really hope all emergency responders exercise.
high speed chase of a suspect not in a vehicle
Presumably, high speed chase of a suspect not in a vehicle is subject to the same restrictions:
Past is prologue. Did Davis do as Conley recommended?
Woman dies in South Boston collision with Boston police cruiser
Boston Police: Officer violated department rules in fatal South Boston crash
DA: Cop won't be charged in fatal South Boston crash
Different jurisdiction here
Looks like the Chelsea police chief is a man named Brian Kyes.
Thanks Dan
.
remember the State Police pursuit that began in South End?
Alejandro Serra story WBZ
State police
BPD