Leo_Ames... Makes you wonder what was running through their mind initiating a stop right on train tracks, locking a cuffed suspect in a police cruiser parked on tracks, their lack of awareness of the fast approaching train, etc. Inexcusable.
Makes you wonder what was running through their mind initiating a stop right on train tracks, locking a cuffed suspect in a police cruiser parked on tracks, their lack of awareness of the fast approaching train, etc.
Inexcusable.
I experienced a situation about 1967 when I was living in Bethel Park (Pittsburgh) and working as a Operator on the P&W Sub of the B&O. Coming home after working 2nd trick at about Midnight I was driving down PA-88 a twisty turny narrow two lane road with no shoulders on either side of the road. Cop switched on his gum balls and I continued down the road for about a mile and a half to the parking lot of a hardware store. Cop came at me with all kinds attitude! How dare I???? I came back at him, that maybe he had a death wish to stop in the middle of a two lane road with minimal sight lines, but I didn't! Told him that while he may not value his life, I valued mine and pulled to a location that was SAFE for BOTH of us - that seemed to trigger his safety valves and his steam escaped. I got a warning.
Cop lights do not suspend the laws of physics for moving objects and the sight lines to prevent accidents. Target fixation is a killer.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
The officer that initiated the stop kept saying that she slowed and took a long time to pull over. Here's my take on that. It was in the evening after dark, and she's 20, a woman, and alone in what appears to be the middle of nowhere (no nearby lights, houses, etc.). I don't know about Colorado, but here in central Ohio, we've had a few people that have been arrested over the time I've lived here for impersonating police officers. It's possible she could have been trying to find a safe place to pull over if she was unsure if it was a real cop behind her. As for why she stopped at that location, I have no idea since I'm not familiar with the area. Whether she was guilty of any crimes or not, she hasn't been charged with anything that I've heard yet, and there would be some issues if they would try to charge her with anything.
Kevin
http://chatanuga.org/RailPage.html
http://chatanuga.org/WLMR.html
Every officer that was present there need to be made former police officers as soon as possible.
Much like a captain of a United States naval vessel that never gets a second chance at command after doing something like running his ship aground or some other egregious error, there's no leeway for what's seen in that video happening for police officers.
I've watched a few videos in recent weeks on a YouTube channel called Code Blue Cam that features dash camera and body camera footage of arrests and such in Wisconsin. At least there, the police clearly get agitated if the vehicle that they're pulling over exercises some judgement on where to park.
They make it clearly known to the individual that they just pulled over that they're expected to pull over when the officier initiates the stop and that the officer is the one that selects where they're stopping and makes the decision if it's safe, not the driver being pulled over.
chatanugaThe second Fort Lupton officer, on the crossing with the cruiser, even fails to acknowledge the approaching train, even though he should have been able to see it coming as well as hear the woman's screams that there was a train approaching. While there may not have been time to move the cruiser off the tracks, none of the officers make any effort to open one of the rear doors of the cruiser and pull the woman out and to safety.
What that officer at 5:40 in the video does, is absolutely inexcusable.
Murphy Siding What's going on at about the :30 mark when the officer seems to pick up a cell phone that was on the side of the pickup bed, push a button on it, and set it back down?
What's going on at about the :30 mark when the officer seems to pick up a cell phone that was on the side of the pickup bed, push a button on it, and set it back down?
I believe that that is "detainee's" phone, which she placed there on instruction of the police. I expect the button-pushed can explain what he pushed and why.
Ed
chatanuga Here's the uncut bodycam video of the Platteville officer. Be forewarned that there is some strong language. Here are some of the things that bother me about this video and the one I posted above last night: 1. Platteville officer leaves his cruiser on the tracks, not using his loudspeaker to have the woman move the truck forward to give him room to pull forward. It could be explained as tunnelvision, focusing on the issue in front of him, but with what happens after this, his mistake just snowballed to escalate the situation. 2. The Fort Lupton officers arrive, and you can clearly see on the female officer's body camera that they are on a railroad crossing. At no point in the videos do any of the three officers in the videos tell their dispatchers to contact the railroad to warn them of the situation. They also fail to call the emergency number posted at the crossing to alert the railroad. 3. The 20-year old woman is detained, handcuffed, and put in the back of the cruiser still on the tracks by the female Fort Lupton officer. The pickup truck is cleared of any other possible occupants. At no time do any of the officers decide to de-escalate the incident and move the cruiser off the tracks, instead focusing on searching the vehicle for the "supposed" weapon (more on that below). 4. While the Platteville officer and the female Fort Lupton officer search the vehicle, you clearly start to hear the train's horn. Neither officer acknowledges the horn, focusing on searching the vehicle until just seconds before the train reaches the crossing. The second Fort Lupton officer, on the crossing with the cruiser, even fails to acknowledge the approaching train, even though he should have been able to see it coming as well as hear the woman's screams that there was a train approaching. While there may not have been time to move the cruiser off the tracks, none of the officers make any effort to open one of the rear doors of the cruiser and pull the woman out and to safety. The male Fort Lupton officer in the dashcam video was even quite calm as he walked away from the cruiser, leaving the woman inside. 5. In the uncut bodycam video of the Platteville officer, he asks the female Fort Lupton officer if the lady was in the cruiser that was hit. The Fort Lupton officer then realizes that the woman was in the cruiser, apparently forgetting that she'd put her in the cruiser herself, which has me wondering how they could "forget" where the woman they pulled over and detained was. The Fort Lupton officer then starts calling for EMS and tells her dispatcher that the woman was in the struck cruiser. The Platteville officer just calls his dispatcher and tells them to call EMS, not telling them that there was somebody in the cruiser that was struck. 6. After the clip of the rescue squad at the scene, you see the officers back at the victim's pickup searching it for this "supposed" weapon again. When the officers were searching the truck before the train came through, they had searched the front seats and then moved to the rear seats, apparently not finding anything in the front. So, after they nearly kill the woman by leaving her on the tracks to get hit (and after some edited video), suddenly the cops find ammo and a gun in the front seat. Kevin
Here's the uncut bodycam video of the Platteville officer. Be forewarned that there is some strong language.
Here are some of the things that bother me about this video and the one I posted above last night:
1. Platteville officer leaves his cruiser on the tracks, not using his loudspeaker to have the woman move the truck forward to give him room to pull forward. It could be explained as tunnelvision, focusing on the issue in front of him, but with what happens after this, his mistake just snowballed to escalate the situation.
2. The Fort Lupton officers arrive, and you can clearly see on the female officer's body camera that they are on a railroad crossing. At no point in the videos do any of the three officers in the videos tell their dispatchers to contact the railroad to warn them of the situation. They also fail to call the emergency number posted at the crossing to alert the railroad.
3. The 20-year old woman is detained, handcuffed, and put in the back of the cruiser still on the tracks by the female Fort Lupton officer. The pickup truck is cleared of any other possible occupants. At no time do any of the officers decide to de-escalate the incident and move the cruiser off the tracks, instead focusing on searching the vehicle for the "supposed" weapon (more on that below).
4. While the Platteville officer and the female Fort Lupton officer search the vehicle, you clearly start to hear the train's horn. Neither officer acknowledges the horn, focusing on searching the vehicle until just seconds before the train reaches the crossing. The second Fort Lupton officer, on the crossing with the cruiser, even fails to acknowledge the approaching train, even though he should have been able to see it coming as well as hear the woman's screams that there was a train approaching. While there may not have been time to move the cruiser off the tracks, none of the officers make any effort to open one of the rear doors of the cruiser and pull the woman out and to safety. The male Fort Lupton officer in the dashcam video was even quite calm as he walked away from the cruiser, leaving the woman inside.
5. In the uncut bodycam video of the Platteville officer, he asks the female Fort Lupton officer if the lady was in the cruiser that was hit. The Fort Lupton officer then realizes that the woman was in the cruiser, apparently forgetting that she'd put her in the cruiser herself, which has me wondering how they could "forget" where the woman they pulled over and detained was. The Fort Lupton officer then starts calling for EMS and tells her dispatcher that the woman was in the struck cruiser. The Platteville officer just calls his dispatcher and tells them to call EMS, not telling them that there was somebody in the cruiser that was struck.
6. After the clip of the rescue squad at the scene, you see the officers back at the victim's pickup searching it for this "supposed" weapon again. When the officers were searching the truck before the train came through, they had searched the front seats and then moved to the rear seats, apparently not finding anything in the front. So, after they nearly kill the woman by leaving her on the tracks to get hit (and after some edited video), suddenly the cops find ammo and a gun in the front seat.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
chatanuga 3. The 20-year old woman is detained, handcuffed, and put in the back of the cruiser still on the tracks by the female Fort Lupton officer.
3. The 20-year old woman is detained, handcuffed, and put in the back of the cruiser still on the tracks by the female Fort Lupton officer.
But not, as far as I could tell, arrested.
The "detainee" had said there were no weapons in her car.
If the gun that was found in her car is registered to her, she's got some intense 'splainin' to do. The cops clearly cannot plant a gun owned by the person they're investigating*. There was also apparently a holster on the seat.
Well, that's not entirely true. But it's hard to believe that one of them would have had the "detainee's" gun in their possession since they had no knowledge that they were going to have this happen.
I think it highly likely it's her gun. But that doesn't mean that she's the one involved in the earlier incident. Maybe. Maybe not.
chatanuga... 6. After the clip of the rescue squad at the scene, you see the officers back at the victim's pickup searching it for this "supposed" weapon again. When the officers were searching the truck before the train came through, they had searched the front seats and then moved to the rear seats, apparently not finding anything in the front. So, after they nearly kill the woman by leaving her on the tracks to get hit (and after some edited video), suddenly the cops find ammo and a gun in the front seat. Kevin
I'll make one comment about #6 - It will mean something to those that have followed news about Baltimore Police Dept. over the last several years
Gun Trace Task Force.
Convicted One... Compared to what isn't going on with this incident in Colorado, almost begs one to wonder why the secrecy?
Compared to what isn't going on with this incident in Colorado, almost begs one to wonder why the secrecy?
The more guilty the local government and its agents, the more secrecy!
blue streak 1I wouder how much training the Officers have? Anything about train tracks? So where has there been short comings in the officers employment? 1. What were the various officer"s traffic record? Any citations and what kind?
The apparent "hush" on particulars pertaining to the officer is starting to look like a possible story within the story, isn't it? Especially in consideration of the priority shown these past few years of publishing polarizing particulars of officers involved. Makes you wonder if more than just privacy concerns might be in play.
Locally a story getting a lot of media attention here involves two women who went into a bar leaving 3 minor children sit in the auto in the bar's parking lot. Thankfully there was no further mishap (beyond the neglect) to the children, but the neglect alone has been sufficient to get the women's names and pictures all over the media.
.
What details have been reported about this alleged road rage incident and a gun?
What is the latest information about the condtion of the victim?
tree68I can't condone parking on the tracks, but recall that this was a road rage incident possibly involving a gun. Kinda distracting. The officer's first thought was not to get shot themselves...
Target fixation vs. situational awareness kills many in all forms of human activity.
I can't condone parking on the tracks, but recall that this was a road rage incident possibly involving a gun. Kinda distracting. The officer's first thought was not to get shot themselves...
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
I wouder how much training the Officers have? Anything about train tracks? So where has there been short comings in the officers employment?
1. What were the various officer"s traffic record? Any citations and what kind?
2. What kind of training about RR crossings.
3. Did they have a training syllabas and was trainer certified to do training?
4. Recurrent training?
5. Length of service ?
After an incident our training boss started us having a short session of making sure our call outs were aware of the dangers coming to work. That included RR crossings, fog, ice, drivers not experienced with ice and snow, . drunk drivers late at night, etc.
Now MC's tag line is appropriate.
For those who haven't seen the video:
60 MPH district speed.
mudchickenPLATTEVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT: Video shows train hit officer's car with suspect inside | FOX31 Denver (kdvr.com)
Attempted Murder of a person in custdey!
Holy crow. That train was flying! I hope that woman is not permanently injured, but I imagine she is. If that cop isn't fired it will be a travesty. And the police force will probably get sued big time.
Negligence or stupidity, take your pick. Or choose both.
Still in training.
PLATTEVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT: Video shows train hit officer's car with suspect inside | FOX31 Denver (kdvr.com)
rdamonis 20 Seconds standard?
Horn sounding is 20 seconds or a quarter mile, essentially whichever is shorter. I suppose that beyond a quarter mile, motorists wouldn't hear the horn anyhow.
The challenge for the railroad is setting the distance for crossings that use an absolute fixed sensing of occupancy (circuit). If there is a wide disparity between the fastest and slowest trains, you end up with people in their cars sitting for an extended period of time - which tends to encourage driving around the gates.
Such crossings these days will usually have circuits which sense the oncoming train's speed and activate the crossing protection accordingly. And if a train stops on the circuit, the gates will lift until the train starts moving again.
I've heard of attempts to install raising bollards at the crossings. Anyone trying to cross after they're up is in for a rude awakening, and an abrupt stop. They would have to be maintenance headaches, though, especially in the northern climes.
adkrr64 @rdamon - what exactly is that image in your avatar?
@rdamon - what exactly is that image in your avatar?
adkrr64 rdamon is 20 Seconds standard? I believe so. Sometimes a crossing gets a bulletin order instruction that it is on "island circuit only", which means the train has to slowly creep up to the crossing until it activates the island circuit, at which point the lights and gates start to come down, and then we are not supposed to occupy the crossing until 20 seconds after that.
rdamon is 20 Seconds standard?
I believe so. Sometimes a crossing gets a bulletin order instruction that it is on "island circuit only", which means the train has to slowly creep up to the crossing until it activates the island circuit, at which point the lights and gates start to come down, and then we are not supposed to occupy the crossing until 20 seconds after that.
Overmod According to the Government, four-quadrant gates with 'appropriate' signaling are fine up to 110mph; they might even qualify for quiet zones. But you better armor those gates and make sure they're long enough, because plenty of people will surely be trying both...
According to the Government, four-quadrant gates with 'appropriate' signaling are fine up to 110mph; they might even qualify for quiet zones. But you better armor those gates and make sure they're long enough, because plenty of people will surely be trying both...
While following the Brightline expansion. I was looking for the time the gates were supposed to be lowered before the train passed. I saw a CFR that referenced less than 20 secs would be considered a failure.
20 secs equates to ~3227 ft /0.61 mi
This looks similar to what they had on the MoPac line near my house for 79MPH.
is 20 Seconds standard?
ATLANTIC CENTRALThe CSX trackage here has lots of grade crossings at various levels of protection depending on auto traffic volume and sight lines. Including a fair number of passive crossings at rural roads and private driveways.
Amtrak, through a combination of post-Chase handwringing and predatory electricity pricing, ran fast freight off the ex-PRR line so expensively and carefully grade-separated for the Metroliner project. Shoved it onto 'an alternative' Lehigh Line and let 'the railroads' handle the difficulties. Even with Chinese viaduct and TLM approaches, it would be expensive to eliminate all the grade crossings even if there were Federal-scale cost-effective funding means to accomplish it... and you'd then have two, not one, obtrusive elevated railroad structures through all those areas.
EuclidSo a desperate rescue attempt would have been unacceptably “outside the box.”
tree68Something else has changed - When Dad wore a badge, dealing with the local ne'er-do-well was rather like dealing with Otis (Andy Griffith show). They knew they were misbehaving, and it was "yes, sir," "no, sir." That is no longer the case.
Meanwhile the 'Barney Fife Academy' keeps cranking out cadets in an endless line
mudchicken(1)IIf the newsworker had been a little more on the ball, he/she would have noted that all of the accident reports (including the injuries and fatals) had the offending vehicles driving into the side of the trains.
I think at first the point you were making here flew over my head. But now see how your line of thinking keys into the discussion....and it's a good point.
Those (in the media) observing that the absence of advanced protection devices plays a role in the overall safety of any particular crossing, most likely are confusing the issue with those instances where trains were stopped at night across roadways having primitive protection (the evil black tank car incidents)....and they are just making a false parallel. They see a tragedy coupled with a dark crossing and fail to distinguish the differing circumstances.
Still, it wouldn't surprise me to see the victim's counsel try to push this angle, just trying to get another deep pocket into the arena. Regardless of merit.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.