Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

302 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Collateral damage (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43882129)

But then again, at least we've caught the speeding vehicle.

Re:Collateral damage (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43882147)

more useless video game idiots should be used to slow down cars, this is far more socially useful than letting them crank out more FPS

Re:Collateral damage (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43882265)

MOD PARENT UP!

FTA (5, Interesting)

rmdingler (1955220) | about a year ago | (#43882143)

Police were pursuing a vehicle for an unnamed offense which ran several red lights before striking Reisse's vehicle at an intersection. The cynic in me says the offense wasn't extremely grievous if it has thus far gone unnamed: these testosterone-fueled police chases kill far too many innocents.

Re:FTA (5, Insightful)

dunkelfalke (91624) | about a year ago | (#43882165)

Let us be fair. Cars kill too many innocents. Cities should be for the people, not for cars!

Re:FTA (5, Funny)

kurt555gs (309278) | about a year ago | (#43882199)

Cars don't kill people, people kill people.

Re:FTA (4, Funny)

Dins (2538550) | about a year ago | (#43882207)

When you outlaw cars, only outlaws will have cars.

Re:FTA (3, Interesting)

Reliable Windmill (2932227) | about a year ago | (#43882243)

Cars don't kill people, people kill people.

Sure, but no one is out on the streets to kill people with their car, yet people get hit and die, and if you take X * 4000lbs of travelling metal out of the equations of a city, there will be fewer deaths, among other benefits. Motor vehicles should really be reserved for when they're actually needed. Not that it would matter in this case, but you get me.

Re:FTA (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43882307)

And in cities, they typically are reserved for this. "when needed" includes "i need to get somewhere that's not well served by public transportation"

Which in the US unfortunately is pretty much every trip that has an endpoint outside the core of the city....

Re:FTA (3)

aitikin (909209) | about a year ago | (#43882395)

Which in the US unfortunately is pretty much every trip that has an endpoint outside the core of the city....

Are you kidding me? Public transit in the US is abysmal even when you're endpoint is within the core of the city.

Re:FTA (2)

Grand Facade (35180) | about a year ago | (#43882427)

Public transit kills their share, plus they are one of the biggest hazards on the road. moving violation

Re:FTA (2)

redback (15527) | about a year ago | (#43882867)

*your

Re:FTA (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43882689)

Public transportation is bad because there's no demand. If cars were banned, the demand for public transport would rise dramatically, which would greatly improve its reach. Yay, capitalism!

Re:FTA (3, Informative)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year ago | (#43882669)

Don't think you are from around these parts friend. You see America? Don't really have any public transportation to speak of except in a few select cities (and often in only select places in those cities) and what little public transport we have? You wouldn't want to ride on it, its not very nice in most places.

So unless you expect everyone to walk dozens of miles its not like there is much of a choice friend. Heck in my state there is a single bus line, which is very lousy, and which only follows a little circuit that covers MAYBE 20% of the capital. That's it, that is all there is. If you need to go anywhere besides that little circuit, or to any other city in the state? Tough shit.

Just a little FYI there, for while I hear other countries actually have public transport and in some places its actually quite nice that sure as hell doesn't describe a good 85%+ of the USA. Again using my state for example you drive or you get to "enjoy" living in the shittiest neighborhood in the state capital, since it only really goes to that one dirt poor area and to the malls.

Re:FTA (1)

Reliable Windmill (2932227) | about a year ago | (#43882865)

So unless you expect everyone to walk dozens of miles its not like there is much of a choice friend.

It's interesting that your reply and those above all mention how poor public transport is, but none mention lack of bicycle lanes. I don't think it's because there are none or because it's not viable, but because most of you don't want to; why should I have to use my legs to get somewhere when I can just drive?

I understand the infrastructure in some parts of the USA is not wrapped up in bicycle lanes like in the Netherlands, but in a city environment there's certainly a lot of opportunity to travel by bicycle instead of car, but again - many of you just don't want to.

Re: FTA (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43883075)

My commute to work in dfw which is about half through the metroplex is 50 miles that's 80 km. I ain't going to bicycle 160 km a day with above 40 degrees Celsius temperature. thats the same distance as between amsterdam and maastricht, i dont belive even the bicycle crazy dutch commute by bike between those cities. i think most europeans just dont understand the massive size of the us continent and cities that were built for cars. Just because lilleput countries like Netherlands has the bicycle infrastructure doesn't mean that's available or even possible in other countries.

Re:FTA (4, Funny)

g0bshiTe (596213) | about a year ago | (#43882971)

True, but if you simply remove people from the cities you have the same result. Then the cars can still roam free in their natural habitat.

Re:FTA (2)

g0bshiTe (596213) | about a year ago | (#43883005)

Also not all guns are banned due to shooting incidents, so in this case only Dodge Chargers should be banned.

Re:FTA (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43882457)

Let's be more exact: Morons and assholes kill people.

And the US population in number one in both of them.

Re:FTA (1)

g0bshiTe (596213) | about a year ago | (#43882945)

You obviously haven't seen the movie Christine.

Re:FTA (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43882289)

Can't tell if making a sarcastic anti-gun joke or actually retarded hippy.

Re:FTA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43882339)

Well, we can tell that you're a troll though. Thanks for not jumping on the ambiguity train :)

Re:FTA (4, Insightful)

ClintJCL (264898) | about a year ago | (#43882413)

Anytime someone gets killed by someone, we should take it away from all the people who don't kill anyone with it.

Also, when one kid in class chews gum, everyone in the class should get detention.

When a right is abused, it should be taken away too. Because of Westboro Baptist Church, we should repeal the 1st Amendment.

Re:FTA (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | about a year ago | (#43882421)

*something, i mean, not someone

Re: FTA (1)

Redmancometh (2676319) | about a year ago | (#43883119)

The last example ruins your point! Choosing between those 2 isn't easy

Re:FTA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43882579)

Yes, if only cars were outlawed, these gang member fleeing police wouldn't have been driving!

Re:FTA (5, Informative)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#43882169)

Police were pursuing a vehicle for an unnamed offense which ran several red lights before striking Reisse's vehicle at an intersection. The cynic in me says the offense wasn't extremely grievous if it has thus far gone unnamed: these testosterone-fueled police chases kill far too many innocents.

the offence was fleeing after a firefight.. apparently the perps were on probation too(and had warrants on their heads).

Re:FTA (2)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a year ago | (#43882291)

. . . is one of the perps named "Justin Bieber", by any chance . . . ?

Re:FTA (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43882351)

"Authorities say the incident began when officers saw two vehicles full of people involved in some type of criminal activity in the 1000 block of Rosewood Court Thursday. When officers went to investigate, there was a physical altercation between police and 26-year-old Gerardo Diego Ayala that ended with a fatal officer-involved shooting. Police say a gun was located at the scene.

Investigators allege 21-year-old Victor Sanchez and two other suspects then took off in a Dodge Charger. With Sanchez at the wheel, the Charger slammed into two vehicles during the pursuit before hitting Reisse, police said."

Still not clear, but the situation was bad enough to warrant a shooting by police

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/orange_county&id=9122999

Re: FTA (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43882403)

You do realize that 'bad enough to warrant a shooting by police' could very well mean the officer didn't like the way one of the suspects was behaving?

Re: FTA (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43882467)

In cases where details are as vague as this, it often boils down to the cops shooting first (or sometimes even being the only ones shooting).

Sometimes the right solution is to let criminals go. If the alternative has a high likelihood of human injury, the police has an obligation to not escalate the situation. Remember that their oath is to protect and serve. In that order, not the other way around.

Posting anonymously because of the idiots who don't understand that the lack of "-1 disagree" is intentional.

Re:FTA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43882459)

This is why we need to provide criminals with professionally-trained drivers.

Re:FTA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43882723)

the offence was fleeing after a firefight

Being shot at by police does not equal a firefight.

Re:FTA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43883055)

the offence was fleeing after a firefight.. apparently the perps were on probation too(and had warrants on their heads).

Tough to drive with a warrant on your head, no doubt.

Re:FTA (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43882171)

Because if they had suspended the chase, the offending vehicle would have slowed down and obeyed all traffic laws thereafter?

Re:FTA (4, Insightful)

cffrost (885375) | about a year ago | (#43882305)

Because if they had suspended the chase, the offending vehicle would have slowed down and obeyed all traffic laws thereafter?

Probably — why risk wrecking the vehicle or attracting further attention once the pursuing police have fallen back?

Re:FTA (1)

Fieryphoenix (1161565) | about a year ago | (#43882575)

Um, because you're still panicked and desperate to escape?

Re:FTA (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43882365)

That is precisely what the police do. If a pursuit will lead to a prolonged, high speed chase, the police cruisers are supposed to be pulled back and a helicopter is used to follow the perpetrators until they can be apprehended more safely.

Re:FTA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43882173)

As he was driving along, a rift opened nearby...

Re:FTA (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43882175)

Seriously, anyone with even a modicum of standing out to be filing wrongful death suits.

Re:FTA (3, Informative)

Luckyo (1726890) | about a year ago | (#43882301)

Because you know, guys with guns fleeing after a firefight and a violent encounter with police are totally white, nice and fluffy, model citizens and police should just wait for them to show up again and not try to prevent them from doing it again. What a nice example of police brutality!

Sometimes, it actually helps to read the source:

Authorities say the incident began when officers saw two vehicles full of people involved in some type of criminal activity in the 1000 block of Rosewood Court Thursday. When officers went to investigate, there was a physical altercation between police and 26-year-old Gerardo Diego Ayala that ended with a fatal officer-involved shooting. Police say a gun was located at the scene.

Source: http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/orange_county&id=9122999 [go.com]

Re:FTA (4, Insightful)

candeoastrum (1262256) | about a year ago | (#43882471)

Because you know, guys with guns fleeing after a firefight and a violent encounter with police are totally white, nice and fluffy, model citizens

What does being white have to do with anything?

Re:FTA (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about a year ago | (#43882647)

"White nice and fluffy" refers to kittens.

Re:FTA (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about a year ago | (#43882679)

There's a Venn-diagram you should study sometime. Your main point is correct, however.

Re: FTA (2)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | about a year ago | (#43882481)

Unfortunately, with the large drug trade, these kinds of gang related shootouts are regular occurances in some parts of the U.S. And frankly, I would still prefer they not chase these kinds of perps.

For the most part, gang violence only affects gangs and our gun rights, while high-speed chases move that danger to places where people like this engineer can get caught up in it.

Re: FTA (3, Insightful)

jklovanc (1603149) | about a year ago | (#43883093)

For the most part, gang violence only affects gangs and our gun rights,

A similar thing could be said for police chases. "For the most part police chases only effect the people being chased."

I would still prefer they not chase these kinds of perps.

Tell that to the bystander killed in their next shootout.

There have been many instances where innocent people have been injured or killed by drug gang violence. I seem to remember a child being killed in a crib when a bullet came through the wall during a drive by shooting.

It would be OK if gang violence effected only the gangs but it does not. It terrorizes entire neighborhoods.

The problem with not pursuing fleeing felons is that more will flee if they know they can get away by driving fast enough. If driving fast is a get out of jail free card, more people will do it.

Re:FTA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43882609)

"Sometimes, it actually helps to read the source:

Authorities say..."

It also helps to trust authorities to tell the truth. Most journalists trust them so why shouldn't we.
Not saying they are lying/twisting the truth this time, just saying...

Re:FTA (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about a year ago | (#43882665)

You just flat out accused them of lying. Then you claimed that you didn't. What?

Re:FTA (2)

danceswithtrees (968154) | about a year ago | (#43882353)

Another article gives a bit more information than the one in the summary:
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/orange_county&id=9122999 [go.com]

It appears the chase was preceded by a "physical altercation" and a "fatal officer-involved shooting." You can also make an argument for testosterone-fueled fights and shootings but it seems that the police had reason to be chasing these guys and the alleged bad guys had a reason to run. Oh yeah, they were also all gang members on probation.

Re:FTA (0)

0111 1110 (518466) | about a year ago | (#43883159)

You can also make an argument for testosterone-fueled fights and shootings but it seems that the police had reason to be chasing these guys

There's always a reason. In this case I would guess that one of the suspects gave one of the cops the finger or called them pigs or mouthed off to them in some way. This led to the one of the crazy cops pulling out his Glock and killing the guy who was being disprespectful. Then the other guys ran for their lives just as anyone would.

speculation. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43882355)

I could also say, if they weren't chased at all, the criminals would've done something violent the next day which might've killed more people.

Stick to facts.

Re:FTA (1)

erroneus (253617) | about a year ago | (#43882445)

Not troll.

There are laws in the books in California about the rules of hot pursuits. If, for example, they are suspected of having done something with a gun or are otherwise already a danger to society, they can chase. If they are illegal immigrants, don't chase. That they didn't name the suspect's crime suggests that they either didn't know what they were being chased for or that it was something which did not warrant such a chase. Either way, giving chase was very likely an inappropriate response by the police.

Re:FTA (1)

erroneus (253617) | about a year ago | (#43882453)

Ah, I just read... it was, in fact, chasing for reasons within the law. The cops were acting properly.

So this is just really, really unfortunate and I hope the criminals get what's coming to them.

Re:FTA (2)

Fallen Kell (165468) | about a year ago | (#43882881)

This is why many sane cities and police departments have strict guidelines for engaging in a chase. For instance, this would never have happened in Philadelphia, as a chase requires deadly violence to have already occurred by the suspects involved. The rational being that you put more people at risk of death by chasing a suspect than simply letting them go on their way, unless that suspect has already proven that he/she is putting the population at risk of immediate violence/death.

Re:FTA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43882949)

Am I the only on wondering if he was wearing one of the head mounted displays? Or wondering if there will be Google Glass fatalities due to distracted pedestrians. Much lilke what happens with headphones.

Re:FTA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43883073)

Same in the UK. We've had plenty of deaths due to Dukes of Hazzard minded police car chases. The Houses of parliament even discussed it, and whether it was better to no chase when it was clear heading into built up areas would invariable end up in a crash involving innocent people.

Sadness (1)

jimmetry (1801872) | about a year ago | (#43882159)

Too young :(

Re:Sadness (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43882261)

Yah, it would have been fine if he was older.

Last words. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43882191)

"It's so real, it's like it's coming right at me !"

Bus factor (3, Insightful)

Edulix (726376) | about a year ago | (#43882193)

It's a strong thing to say, but this is what happens when the bus factor strikes.

Please update the Oculus wiki (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43882201)

I don't know enough about the gentleman to do so but it stands to reason he deserves mention on their wiki page, albeit posthumously.

At a glance i see no mention of him and it appears he was rather integral.

He should not have been pursued (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43882205)

The Police in the UK would have either abandoned the pursuit unless it was for a major crime or used a helicopter to track him unknowingly.

Sadly the yanks are always to quick to go into yee-haw mode and it costs lives.

Re:He should not have been pursued (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43882277)

Indeed. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the police should never under any circumstances try to arrest criminals. I mean, what if one of them panics, pulls out a gun and shoots some innocent bystanders?!

Re:He should not have been pursued (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43882281)

It was a fire fight dumb ass. the fuckers where shooting at the cops!

Re:He should not have been pursued (2, Informative)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a year ago | (#43882415)

Oh really?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/two-dead-after-police-car-chase-8554266.html [independent.co.uk]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2012/sep/04/azelle-rodney-shooting-police-chase-video [guardian.co.uk]

As usual some British asshole uses the word "yank" and "Cowboy" to describe something that's happening in his own backyard. This isn't a US problem, it's a police problem. If anything, UK police have an even bigger sense of "We're your mommy and daddy, do what we say" than they do in the US.

Re:He should not have been pursued (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43883013)

Except the general police on the beat don't carry guns in the UK.

Re:He should not have been pursued (0)

dave420 (699308) | about a year ago | (#43883131)

Hardly - the police in the UK are overseen by the public. If they fuck up, they do get punished. They also do not routinely carry guns, which further distances them from their US counterparts (who do seem more cowboy-esque by comparison). You are confusing the law makers with the thin blue line itself. Don't.

Re:He should not have been pursued (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#43882539)

A major crime...like someone's death...before this incident?

Go ahead, use crosswalks, see you in heaven! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43882215)

let's see here....

Jwalk, risk a cop stop but probably live through them all

vs.

Crosswalk, where you face death all around you

Re: Go ahead, use crosswalks, see you in heaven! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43882699)

Agreed...crosswalks do create the illusion of safety. i tell my kids to proceed on crosswalks with just the same 'jaywalking' acumen as if traffic is expected at any moment. Still reaction times are just not possible at those speeds.

Stephen King's incident had an interesting bit I didn't realize until looking him up just now...

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=115390

I can only hope the same ending prevails for those guilty in Mr. Reisse's scenario - whether by justice or karma if you believe in either one.

Reckless Cops (-1, Troll)

cffrost (885375) | about a year ago | (#43882221)

In addition to the fault that lies with the driver that struck him, Reisse is also a victim of these "hero" cops' negligence and incompetence in chasing that suspect in the first place. New York City seems to manage with its no-pursuit policy; what's the Santa Ana Police Department's excuse?

Re:Reckless Cops (1)

DiamondGeezer (872237) | about a year ago | (#43882267)

Amazing.

Re:Reckless Cops (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43882323)

[W]hat's the Santa Ana Police Department's excuse?

No radios?

Re:Reckless Cops (2)

thegarbz (1787294) | about a year ago | (#43882341)

In addition to the fault that lies with the driver that struck him, Reisse is also a victim of these "hero" cops' negligence and incompetence in chasing that suspect in the first place. New York City seems to manage with its no-pursuit policy; what's the Santa Ana Police Department's excuse?

Maybe you should actually do a bit of research before running your mouth (figuratively speaking).

From the ABC:

When officers went to investigate, there was a physical altercation between police and 26-year-old Gerardo Diego Ayala that ended with a fatal officer-involved shooting. Police say a gun was located at the scene.

Investigators allege 21-year-old Victor Sanchez and two other suspects then took off in a Dodge Charger. With Sanchez at the wheel, the Charger slammed into two vehicles during the pursuit before hitting Reisse, police said. ...

Police say all are gang members on probation, with outstanding warrants for their arrest.

Or do you condone that we just let anyone who flees from a fatal firefight by getting into a car just escape because catching them may be a bit risky?

Re:Reckless Cops (2)

ClintJCL (264898) | about a year ago | (#43882447)

It is actually progressive policy in many jurisdictions that you disengage a police chase when it becomes a danger to the public, as this chase was. The police actually acted as an accelerant to the harm here. The criminal activity that originally started this might have just been them smoking a joint. In this case, the major harm to society was caused by the police. This is also why it's against police policy to shoot at a fleeing vehicle. "OMG do you condone letting someone dangerous get away, just because the police might shoot an innocent bystander?!?!"

"Fatal officer-involved shooting" means a cop shot one of them.

It's pretty easy to track people via helicopter, or all the damn cameras everywhere. It's really hard to hide. Especially if they were to commit a real crime with a real victim at some point in the future.

Re:Reckless Cops (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about a year ago | (#43882693)

What does 'progressive policy' mean? It seems like a rather imprecise term.

Re:Reckless Cops (1)

cffrost (885375) | about a year ago | (#43882455)

In addition to the fault that lies with the driver that struck him, Reisse is also a victim of these "hero" cops' negligence and incompetence in chasing that suspect in the first place. New York City seems to manage with its no-pursuit policy; what's the Santa Ana Police Department's excuse?

Maybe you should actually do a bit of research before running your mouth (figuratively speaking).

From the ABC:

When officers went to investigate, there was a physical altercation between police and 26-year-old Gerardo Diego Ayala that ended with a fatal officer-involved shooting. Police say a gun was located at the scene.

Investigators allege 21-year-old Victor Sanchez and two other suspects then took off in a Dodge Charger. With Sanchez at the wheel, the Charger slammed into two vehicles during the pursuit before hitting Reisse, police said. ...

Police say all are gang members on probation, with outstanding warrants for their arrest.

Or do you condone that we just let anyone who flees from a fatal firefight by getting into a car just escape because catching them may be a bit risky?

False dichotomy; I condone coordinating roadblocks — not instigating further carnage, which is exactly the outcome that occurred here.

Re:Reckless Cops (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a year ago | (#43883087)

False dichotomy; I condone coordinating roadblocks — not instigating further carnage, which is exactly the outcome that occurred here.

I for one condone split-second deployment of roadblocks in unpredictable locations as well.
While we're at it, why didn't the policecars just start flying and use their tractorbeams to lift the car up from the road?

Everybody, especially the police, prefers safe methods over risky methods.
Sadly, there aren't always safe methods available when and where you want them.

Re:Reckless Cops (4, Interesting)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a year ago | (#43882483)

Ok, think of it this way. Lets say instead of jumping into a car, the suspects picked up a pipe bomb with a dead-mans switch. Would the police chase them? No. They'd follow slowly at a safe distance. Now, why wouldn't they chase them with the same vigor as the car chase? There's a big difference between a car chase and a pipe bomb, and it's not really obvious at first. Both chases end with a lethal release of energy... the bomb explodes, the car crashes. No suspect fleeing from a murder scene is going to stop until he crashes after all... The difference is the cars lethal force is uni-directional. The POLICE'S lives are not in danger. When the suspects come to a stop that lethal force is applied in the opposite direction of the police. So the police will not risk their own lives, but if it's the public who's in danger from their actions they're not as concerned.

Re:Reckless Cops (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43882747)

Ok, think of it this way. Lets say instead of jumping into a car, the suspects picked up a pipe bomb with a dead-mans switch. Would the police chase them? No. They'd follow slowly at a safe distance.

chase verb (used without object)
to follow in pursuit: to chase after someone.

Re:Reckless Cops (1)

berashith (222128) | about a year ago | (#43882661)

so what we have is "some guys were obviously up to something" , as the crime being investigated. I would like to know exactly what it was. When a group of police charge into a group of gang members who are on probation, there is a high likelihood that the gang members will react in a negative way. They may have been mugging old ladies, or they may have been just sitting around talking. Testosterone takes over on both sides, and a firefight breaks out. Again, did this need to happen? We will only know when the original reason that the police decided to engage the group is releases.

I am not saying that these guys are innocent, or didnt need to be arrested for whatever they were doing, but the end result is a completely unrelated innocent person has died do to the processes being followed by the police. Maybe they were saving someone else, maybe they just instigated a crime by looking hard enough.

perl $(&*%)&*(#&$*(@#&*(%*($ (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43882287)

Another tech fluffing, hoax generating, loan chaser gone! And the world is a better place!

A MEXICAN killed him - had enough yet? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43882383)

"Victor Sanchez". There's a nice, 'American' name...

Had enough of third worlders destroying your country yet? Or not enough white people killed by them for you...

Go on, say the magic word, "racist". It's lost its strength, MOST white people have had enough and are sick up to here with non-white INVADERS in our countries. Why don't these worthless parasites want to live around their own kind? I can't imagine...

Re:A MEXICAN killed him - had enough yet? (3, Insightful)

arth1 (260657) | about a year ago | (#43882599)

"Victor Sanchez". There's a nice, 'American' name...

Unless your own name is in the vein of "Runs Through", "Onawa" or "Aipaloovik", you can shut up now.

Re:A MEXICAN killed him - had enough yet? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43882631)

Hilarious. Who BUILT the United States? The 'native' Americans? Never heard of Kennewick Man?

Nice try though...

So, back to what I was saying. It was a NON-WHITE who killed him. A worthless, selfish, non-white piece of shit, who wasn't worth the dirt on your shoes, who shouldn't be IN your country in the first place.

But I forget - useful idiots like you don't believe in Freedom of Non-Association - you think a handful of people who call themselves 'The Government' should be able to FORCE 200 million (or however many it is) white Americans to SHARE their country with 100 million worthless third world parasites.

So you believe that the PEOPLE who call themselves 'The Government' OWN 200 million white people. Only a prisoner or a slave can be FORCED to associate with people they don't want to - free men can GET AWAY from people who they believe are ruining their lives.

So why do you support this? Because you're an ignorant cretin who can't even begin to THINK about the most basic things in the world.

Re:A MEXICAN killed him - had enough yet? (1)

Holi (250190) | about a year ago | (#43882897)

So not only are you a racist and a white supremacist, but your also an idiot.

Re:A MEXICAN killed him - had enough yet? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43883107)

"YOUR also an idiot"... how ironic. You American cretin.
It's YOU'RE, short for YOU ARE. So YOU'RE an idiot.

I see that you couldn't rebut anything I said, and that you used the magic word "racist", and another magic phrase "white supremacist"! Well done! Your Jewish masters will be proud of you, you 'useful idiot'.

I'm a white SEPARATIST, like MOST white people.

I see that you couldn't explain why you think that a handful of people should be able to FORCE 200 million white people to share THEIR country, which THEIR ancestors built for THEM, with 100 million ungrateful third worlders, who obviously ARE 'white supremacists', because they obviously believe that a WHITE country is BETTER than their own countries! Touche...

You ignorant cretin. Obviously you didn't study criticial thinking in school.

Go on, try to actually debate what I'm talking about. You can use your 'magic' word 'racist' as much as you want, but try to REBUT what I'm talking about.

Of course, you won't... you'll run off and call me a name and that'll be your lot. Idiot.

Re:A MEXICAN killed him - had enough yet? (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a year ago | (#43883147)

A worthless, selfish, non-white piece of shit, who wasn't worth the dirt on your shoes, who shouldn't be IN your country in the first place.

"Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"

Re:A MEXICAN killed him - had enough yet? (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#43882651)

Victor Sanchez is a nice American name. Mine is another exemplary example, if I do say so myself. Anonymous Coward, however, sounds British, or possibly French.

MUST. NOT. LET. BAD GUY. GET. AWAY. !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43882387)

At any cost !! Tomorrow, it might be your ticket that gets punched !! Orange County Law Enforcement answers your prayers with "Another One Bites the Dust" !! But look on the bright side !! These criminals are charged with these homicides !! Life on the Streets !! In Orange County !! LIVE and DIE in L.A. !!

Too bad these do not make it onto the "20 Worst...Drivers". Homicide don't play well in Peoria !! Unless it is Hollywood !! So close !!

RIP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43882491)

RIP

Timmy can't grammer, why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43882549)

Reisse was killed, says the report, when the car "slammed into two vehicles during the pursuit before hitting Reisse at Flower Street and MacArthur Boulevard."

If this were a program, it would probably sneak past the compiler but have an off-by-one error with strange symptoms at run time. It's like using i++ where you needed ++i ...

Reisse was killed, says the report, after the car "slammed into two vehicles during the pursuit before hitting Reisse at Flower Street and MacArthur Boulevard."

something has to be changed (2)

zr (19885) | about a year ago | (#43882783)

there should be a better way of catching perps, a way that doesnt involve putting the innocent at grave risk.

perhaps we dont chase them withe swarm of squad cars but deploy a swarm of small UAVs to keep an eye on them until a more local unit can pick them up sans the dangerous chase.

there has to be a better way..

Re: something has to be changed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43882823)

I agree here! was just going to post similar to this.

There has got to be an actual useful case for a remote camera deployable aloft in these situations.

could be high enough to let the bastards think they're not being pursued when they really are.

UAV? won't work. (1)

bussdriver (620565) | about a year ago | (#43883171)

They'll just run like mad to get away UAV or not. If they are in flight mode they'll instinctively run like a wild animal without reason. This is why somebody surrounded will jump out of the car and run hopelessly on foot - the survival instinct is strong in those perps...

Real Solutions:
GPS gun. Shoot the car with a tracking device.

Use the car's built-in blackbox GPS cell modem (high end but often those features become standard)

Cell phone tracking - detect any pings from the phone in the car then track it... even possibly ID the driver.

Have all cars give off radio IDs (could even be audio) which can be triangulated accurately; which is being done today with gunshot sounds (even to the point of knowing the kind of gun.)

Use computer tracking to smartly predict where to intercept.

Stun gun for cars or remote shutdown of cars. Don't know why a stun gun system hasn't already been mandated. Radio freq stops all cars within range for example. You have zero rights to prevent such things; but the lawyers and prisons love that you are constantly given choices that can be used against you for their benefit.

reason for armed drones (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43882841)

where was the armed drone when they needed it?

First Gunpei Yokoi, now this guy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43883035)

Anyone else find it freaky that the first real attempt at creating a consumer VR headset since the Virtual Boy in 1995 and the creator also dies in a road collision?

Only in the US. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43883077)

Protect and serve... our ego's.

No mention of the initial crime, give plenty of time to dress it up, so it appears justified. I guess if your associate was fatally shot, you'd run too.

The Danger of Police Chases (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43883129)

The police chase people when there's a need, people run when there's a need. The answer isn't to have the police stop the chases, letting the offenders go to commit more serious offenses -- that's potentially worse and may result in many more lost lives.

It's like we were taught in grade school -- when you hear the police siren, pull over. The siren may emanate from a police car a block or two away from the speeding car, the one you don't see because it's light's are off. That siren doesn't mean 'get out of the cop's way' it is a safety warning to you to get out of the way of what-ever is happening, even if you don't immediately see it.

My thoughts and sympathies to his family.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>