Police: Bikers Taunted trooper trapped in wreck

[Titan]

SEATTLE --

Police are searching for a group of motorcyclists who authorities said caused a trooper to crash and then returned to the scene to taunt him as he lay trapped in his wrecked cruiser.


Story...
http://www.officer.com/online/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=53895

[..]

Sick little men deserve some jail time with the big boys.

[fiddle mike]

Quit a switch from the usual scenario where the cop bumps the bike and kills the rider, or chases him into a bad curve and, bang! another motorcycle related death.

[gregc]

A 22 year veteran, and he is still after crotch rockets on an interstate. I would have to call him a slow learner, with an attitude.

[Stude]

And what happend to Barney

[Robert]

What slime, as usual they missed the opportunity to do good, to help a person regardless of who he is and on top of that mock a person in a bad situation especially a officer. When your life is on the road to destruction you dont always see it. If they will do this to a officer/person that's hurt what do they do in their lives?

[MP]

Bad story all around.  Shameful behavior.

However, I am a little preplexed at this line in the story:  "The motorcyclists could face charges of willfully not rendering assistance."

My understanding is that you are not REQUIRED under law to render assistance to anyone.  Maybe some places?

Oss?

Does that mean if an officer is under fire by a hoodlum with a .357, that I would be REQUIRED to join in the gun fight with the cop if I was armed?

Never heard of that before.

MP

[Willow]

Bad story all around.  Shameful behavior.

However, I am a little preplexed at this line in the story: 

Agreed.  Bad behavior and/or poor choices for a couple or three people involved, one of which was the police officer.

I'm also a bit perplexed by this sentence:

Salyer, a 22-year veteran, was trying to identify the lead motorcyclist when two other motorcyclists cut in front of him, forcing him to swerve and hit the brakes, sending his patrol car rolling, troopers said.

If that's accurate, I'm in awe of the two skilled individuals that with 500 pound vehicles "forced" the driver of a ton of behemoth to swerve and brake.

One has to wonder how the officer was maneuvering and where he was located amongst this group of speeding motorcycles while he was attempting to identify the lead rider.

As with most news stories, I'm believing we really don't have enough information to truly understand what was happening.

[alph]

alright, the biker was going 100mph.  the cop was just doing his job.  now for the idiot to come back and heckle him, while he was trapped, that's just sick!!  i hope the cops catch the kid, and i hope the cop recovers. 

once again, this is a situation were one apple spoils the whole barrel!

[DIGGER]

If you think the world would be better without police officers......try living in a society without them.

[Skinhead]

Bad story all around.  Shameful behavior.

However, I am a little preplexed at this line in the story:  "The motorcyclists could face charges of willfully not rendering assistance."

My understanding is that you are not REQUIRED under law to render assistance to anyone.  Maybe some places?

Oss?

Does that mean if an officer is under fire by a hoodlum with a .357, that I would be REQUIRED to join in the gun fight with the cop if I was armed?

Never heard of that before.

MP

Wasn't there a Sienfeld episode about this??

[vanagon40]

. . . . However, I am a little preplexed at this line in the story:  "The motorcyclists could face charges of willfully not rendering assistance."

My understanding is that you are not REQUIRED under law to render assistance to anyone.  Maybe some places? . . . .

Most likely referring to RWC 46.52.020, the Washington "Hit and Run" statute.  That statute provides in part:

". . . [T]he driver of any vehicle involved in an accident resulting in injury to or death of any person . . . or resulting in damage to any vehicle which is driven or attended by any person . . . shall render to any person injured in such accident reasonable assistance, including the carrying or the making of arrangements for the carrying of such person to a physician or hospital for medical treatment if it is apparent that such treatment is necessary or if such carrying is requested by the injured person or on his or her behalf."

Subsection (3).  The criminal penalties depend on the severity of the injuries.

Does that mean if an officer is under fire by a hoodlum with a .357, that I would be REQUIRED to join in the gun fight with the cop if I was armed?

Not that I am aware of.

[Titan]

South Carolina has a similar statute.

SECTION 56-5-1230. Duty to give information and render aid.

The driver of any vehicle involved in an accident resulting in injury to or death of any person or damage to any vehicle which is driven or attended by any person shall give his name, address and the registration number of the vehicle he is driving and shall upon request and if available exhibit his driver's license to the person struck or the driver or occupant of or person attending any vehicle collided with and shall render to any person injured in such accident reasonable assistance, including the carrying or making arrangements for the carrying of such person to a physician, surgeon or hospital for medical or surgical treatment if it is apparent that such treatment is necessary or if such carrying is requested by the injured person.
-------------------

However, not knowing the whole story in this incident, I think it would be extremely difficult to bring charges under such a statute since there was no contact between the car and the motorcycles. I think it could only be done if there was absolute proof that the riders who stopped and taunted the officer were in fact "involved in the accident". It would take eyewitness or video accounts showing how the little (by comparison to the car) motorcycles caused the car to wreck.

[Colin]

In Spain it is also a legal requirement to stop at any Traffic Accident and offer assistance. What a reasonable person would do, I would hope, anyway.

[fuzzy2bucks]

In Russia some police cars carry rockets for speeders they can't catch!

[MP]

The key words are " involved in the accident".

Any decent lawyer would make a pretty good case these two were NOT involved in the accident.

MP

[dosnewfs]

How much were they "taunting" him.  I'm sure they didn't go back just to harass the guy.  They obvoiously wouldn't have been able to get him out if he had to be extricated.  Was the officer getting loud with how they were in so much trouble....  That may be why they left, take the chance of a second charge of leaving the scene.  If it was on the interstate there was going to be additional help in short order.

Until the in car footage (if available) spells it out there are so many unknowns I find it difficult for anyone of us to pass judgement on a he said (not even a he said/she said).

[vanagon40]

The key words are " involved in the accident".

Any decent lawyer would make a pretty good case these two were NOT involved in the accident.

MP

Your point does not alter the fact that "[t]The motorcyclists could face charges of willfully not rendering assistance" or that circumstances may exist where a person is "REQUIRED under law to render assistance to" another person.

I also think a decent lawyer could make a pretty good case that even if the motorcyclists did not "cause" the accident, they became "involved in the accident" when they "returned to the scene to taunt [the officer] as he lay trapped in his wrecked cruiser."

I do not know any of the facts regarding this accident beyond was reported in the original poster's first link.

[98valk]

[/quote]


Wasn't there a Sienfeld episode about this??
[/quote]


final episode. the gang of 4 went to jail.

[bigguy]

OK. The squids need to be strung up and skinned, but I had trouble with this line also:
Dispatchers received multiple calls from passing motorists saying they saw the cruiser crash.
Seriously, none of those motorists pulled over. Even if they couldn't get him out, they cold have been there lending moral support. Letting the guy know he wasn't alone.

[MP]

OK. The squids need to be strung up and skinned, but I had trouble with this line also:
Dispatchers received multiple calls from passing motorists saying they saw the cruiser crash.
Seriously, non of those motorists pulled over. Even if they couldn't get him out, they cold have been there lending moral support. Letting the guy know he wasn't alone.

Shouldn't all these people be charged with failing to aid too?  And, because of their cell phone call, we KNOW who they are.

MP

[Titan]

No. Those passing motorists were not "involved" in the accident in any way and therefore would not be in violation of the statute.

[ptgb]

Are you people serious?!?!?! Good lord, do you hate cops so much that there is actually a debate going on about whether in fact you are legally required to render aid to one?!?!?!? Or is it ok with this paticular cop because you have deemed what he did contray to what should be done when dealing with speeding motorcycles?!?!? Or is this debate whether you have to render aid to anyone?!?!? That's even sadder yet.

Christ, if there was a motorcyclist lying in a median strip, injured after a crash, and a "cager" was blantanly indifferent, or worse yet, the cause of the crash (because we know, from reading this board that motorcycles are never the cause of any crash), this sanctimonious bunch would be screaming from the highest hill that they should be in jail for "failing to render aid".

Sad, sad, sad.

[doubletee]

In Spain it is also a legal requirement to stop at any Traffic Accident and offer assistance. What a reasonable person would do, I would hope, anyway.

I'd like to think I'm a reasonable person and would offer assistance. However, the highly litigious society in which we live does give one pause.   

[MP]

I am only questioning the legality of requiring one to lend assistance.  I think it is despicable to do what they did, if they did do it that way.

I am also pondering, why so bad to stop, then leave, vs never stopping?

ie, it seems to be OK to drive on by, without stopping to lend a hand, but if you once stop, it is wrong to leave.

I guess I fail to see very much difference in the two.

I would, and have, stopped. Pretty gruesome at times.

MP

[Momz]

It's easy to blame patch holders and say that law enforcement is right.
But chasing motorcyclists does not make sense when there are radios, radar guns and other police on duty.

Do you really beleive that any patcholder would publicly taunt a crashed police officer in plain sight of other motorists? Real patcholders don't want to bring attention to their activities.

Remember......there are always two sides to every story!

[dosnewfs]

Are you people serious?!?!?! Good lord, do you hate cops so much that there is actually a debate going on about whether in fact you are legally required to render aid to one?!?!?!? Or is it ok with this paticular cop because you have deemed what he did contray to what should be done when dealing with speeding motorcycles?!?!? Or is this debate whether you have to render aid to anyone?!?!? That's even sadder yet.

Christ, if there was a motorcyclist lying in a median strip, injured after a crash, and a "cager" was blantanly indifferent, or worse yet, the cause of the crash (because we know, from reading this board that motorcycles are never the cause of any crash), this sanctimonious bunch would be screaming from the highest hill that they should be in jail for "failing to render aid".

Sad, sad, sad.

I did not intend to suggest people (whether involved or around) should not have stopped and helped.  I want to believe that they did stop with the intention of helping the officer and then the interaction went further south.  Not that them leaving is right, or that they should be let go, but suggesting possible reasons beyond pure indifference.  I know when I'm the first or one of the first on the scene I can't wait for the professional responders to show up so I can get the hell out of that situation.  

[Hoser]

Bad story all around.  Shameful behavior.

However, I am a little preplexed at this line in the story:  "The motorcyclists could face charges of willfully not rendering assistance."

"My understanding is that you are not REQUIRED under law to render assistance to anyone.  Maybe some places?

Oss?

Does that mean if an officer is under fire by a hoodlum with a .357, that I would be REQUIRED to join in the gun fight with the cop if I was armed?

Never heard of that before."

MP
 
I'm ln, MP I don't even need to be required!   Which one should I help?     Don't worry I  like cops better than hoodlums, but I'm not a BIG  fan. hoser

[NCGhostrider]

Interesting! 

I do wonder, if the hecklers returned to the scene to render aid, and perhaps were threatened with jail or whatever for their involvement in the chase and subsequent crash of the officer.   In turn, they developed a "f*&^" you attitude and the end result being a failure to render aid. 

Similar things have happened near my hometown with similar results. 

The current trend here is a "terroristic threat" against a person or property.  I am not sure what that means, but I hear it around our little town from time to time.   Of course, many of these end up with probation etc.   Which in turn means revenue, the answer and source of most problems.

I personally believe in Motorola, pretty hard to outrun, and a lot safer for ALL involved, including those of us who are out for an innocent ride on our bikes. 

see ya,

Craig

[Jess from VA]

Some general principles for your information;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law



In the common law of the United States and other anglosphere countries, there is no general duty to come to the rescue of another.[1] Generally, a person cannot be held liable for doing nothing while another person is in peril.[2][3] However, such a duty may arise in two situations:

    1.  A duty to rescue arises where a person creates a hazardous situation. If another person then falls into peril because of this hazardous situation, the creator of the hazard – who may not necessarily have been a negligent tortfeasor – has a duty to rescue the individual in peril.

    2.  Such a duty also arises where a "special relationship" exists. For example:
          o Emergency workers (police, firefighters, emergency medical technicians, etc.) have a general duty to rescue the public within the scope of their employment, but not a duty to specific individuals.[5]
          o Parents have a duty to rescue their minor children. This duty also applies to those acting in loco parentis, such as schools or babysitters.[6]
          o Common carriers have a duty to rescue their patrons.[7]
          o Employers have an obligation to rescue employees, under an implied contract theory.[8][unreliable source?]
          o Property owners have a duty to rescue invitees but not trespassers from all dangers on the property.
          o Spouses have a duty to rescue each other in all U.S. jurisdictions.[9]
          o Contrary to common law, eight states have laws requiring people to help strangers in peril: Florida,[10] Massachusetts,[11] Minnesota,[11] Ohio,[statute verification needed] Rhode Island,[11] Vermont,[11] Washington,[11] and Wisconsin.[statute verification needed] These laws are also referred to as Good Samaritan laws, despite their difference from laws of the same name that protect individuals that try to help another person.[1] These laws are rarely applied, and are generally ignored by citizens and lawmakers.[1]

Where a duty to rescue arises, the rescuer must generally act with reasonable care, and can be held liable for injuries caused by a reckless rescue attempt. However, many states have limited or removed liability from rescuers in such circumstances, particularly where the rescuer is an emergency worker. Furthermore, the rescuer need not endanger himself in conducting the rescue.

[MP]

Bad story all around.  Shameful behavior.

However, I am a little preplexed at this line in the story:  "The motorcyclists could face charges of willfully not rendering assistance."

"My understanding is that you are not REQUIRED under law to render assistance to anyone.  Maybe some places?

Oss?

Does that mean if an officer is under fire by a hoodlum with a .357, that I would be REQUIRED to join in the gun fight with the cop if I was armed?

Never heard of that before."

MP
 
I'm ln, MP I don't even need to be required!   Which one should I help?     Don't worry I  like cops better than hoodlums, but I'm not a BIG  fan. hoser

Got a Colt 1911 in 38 Super on the way!  That would help out too!

MP

[vanagon40]

Some general principles for your information;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law

Dude,

I often joked that I learned all the law I know from Judge Wapner and law school did not teach me anything.  But I was just joking.

If you accept legal advice from wikipedia, I predict you will have legal problems in your future.

[Jess from VA]

Vanagon, I concur with you if we were in court, and Wiki is generic for sure, but usually adequate for general information. 

I believe it is pretty accurate on these subjects of duty to assist and good samaritan.

I'm not going to post up 20 pages on Prosser on Torts. 

[X Ring]

There's some information that came to light today that you should be aware of.  The Officer involved was performing a rolling roadblock attempting to stop a group of bikers approximately 75-100 strong by swerving back and forth across the lanes of traffic.  Several of the group got past the Officer and he initiated pursuit with speeds in excess of 100mph in late afternoon when rush hour traffic would be starting.  There is a point where an Officer is required to terminate pursuit when it becomes too dangerous for conditions.  Several and probably all states have laws necessitating an operator of an Emergency Response Vehicle to operate the vehicle in such a manner that there is no greater danger than that already incurred by the response itself.  In other words, they can't drive like idiots while responding to an emergency or in a pursuit.   There are witnesses to both sides as to whether or not the motorcyclists swerved in front of the Officer.  Either the Officer took evasive action, as some witnesses say, or he lost control of the vehicle with no motorcyclists near, as other witnesses state.  Either way, he lost control and the Ford Crown Victoria Police Sedan FLIPPED 5 TIMES.   How fast do you have to be going to flip a full sized marked law enforcement vehicle 5 times?     This accident happened on Interstate 5.  A divided controlled access highway.  For the motorcyclists being pursued to have returned to the scene of the accident would have required A. for them to have knowledge of the Officer's accident; if they were traveling triple digit speeds, it is unlikely unless one of them happened to look in a mirror as the L.E. sedan flipped off the road; and  B. the motorcyclists would have to have gone to the next off ramp and exited the freeway, re-entered the Interstate proceeding in the opposite direction then repeated their actions to approach the accident scene.  This is unlikely.  What probably happened is other motorcyclists that hadn't passed the Officer stopped.  Whether they laughed at the Officer's predicament and failed to offer assistance is again in dispute by witnesses.  Other motorists did stop to assist. 

As the Washington State Patrol does not have cameras in their patrol vehicles, there is no video recording to show what actually happened.    As of this moment, all we have is speculation and what witnesses have spoken to the press along with press releases from the WSP.  We are going to have to wait until the accident re-constructionists complete their investigation and their report is released.

Marty 

[MP]

Thanks for the update.  I have a feeling there is MUCH more to the story.

MP

[fudgie]

The thing about the Good Samitan law is that it kinda sucks. Joe Blow can stop and render aid, not having medical training, and do something that makes him paralized he cannot be held at fault. If I show up and help and he does become paraized I can be sued big time cause that law does not pertain to me. It protects the common man not the trained one.  Plus I can be arrested for not stopping, if they knew I was a medic.
Sometimes its better if people with no training do not stop. The more people around makes for a difficult scene esp if people are already there. Most folks instinks are to 'get them out of the car'. Its best to leave them in it untill EMS arrives. Unless its on fire or in water, that would be a good reason. A car will not blow up like in the movies. If medical trained, by all means do your thing.

[donaldcc]

Vanagon, I concur with you if we were in court, and Wiki is generic for sure, but usually adequate for general information. 

I believe it is pretty accurate on these subjects of duty to assist and good samaritan.

I'm not going to post up 20 pages on Prosser on Torts. 

Don't quite think this is Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. 

[Jess from VA]

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.

What a blast from the past.

Hey just how many shysters do we have on this forum anyway???

Ex turpi causa non oritur actio.