Gulfport police officer involved in crash ( high speed )

[Wade Bay St Louis]

Gulfport police officer involved in crash
By GEOFF PENDER and MEAGHAN CHAPMAN and MICHAEL BELL
SUN HERALD
A Gulfport Police cruiser is smashed near the Sonic at U.S. 49 and 17th Street.
MICHAEL A. BELL/SUN HERALD
A Gulfport Police cruiser is smashed near the Sonic at U.S. 49 and 17th Street.

* Gulfport Police accident

MOST-READ STORIES

* Gulfport police officer involved in crash
* Two charged in roommate's stabbing
* Gulfport crash snarls traffic
* Speeder flees, is shot after trying to run over officer
* Bayview Casino gets site approval from Mississippi Gaming Commission
* Love, romance, sex got your attention?
* Doctor: Mother could have survived
* Sound Off
* LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
* Former Isle chief 'Jack' Gallaway dies

GULFPORT --
What witnesses described as a terrible car crash on U.S. 49 at 17th Street on Thursday night involved a Gulfport police patrol car.

Late Thursday night, a Gulfport police spokesman said officers were responding to the scene, but he had no details. Witnesses said emergency workers were treating a police officer and someone from the other vehicle at the scene at around 11 p.m.

Phillip Conn, who was eating at Sonic late Thursday night when the crash happened, said he saw the police car headed southbound at a high rate of speed.

"He had to be doing 100 mph," Conn said, "with no blue lights on."

Conn and other witnesses said a Lincoln Towncar pulled out from 17th Street and was struck by the police car. The crash knocked the police car onto the nearby Sonic restaurant property, witnesses said.

Witnesses said the wreck left the police cruiser and the Lincoln mangled, with wreckage strewn across a large area and smoke hazing the scene.

There were at least half a dozen police cars, an ambulance and two fire trucks on the scene.

The Sun Herald updates this story as more details are available

[Wade Bay St Louis]

100 + with no lights on .... I would say that is with out due regard for public safety. There is no reason for ANYONE to drive that fast on a surface street!

[gotsmartngotout]

Where's the proof he was doing 100+? If you read more on this story, GPD stated that they are conducting a full investigation. Don't you think the right thing to do is wait and see what the outcome of that investigation is prior to slinging mud? Like I said before, those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. You've done as bad, only you didn't have and accident and your chief saved your butt.

[Ellen BSL]

The GPD should not speculate that he was NOT going 100 mph. if THEY are waiting on the report.The officer driving the car admits he was unaware of his speed. I feel that GPD should atleast make some statement about thier policy regarding safety heading to a call. He said it depends on the call as to how fast an officer should drive. This to me sounds terribly irresponsible and you know he had to be flying looking at the scene.

[Anon]

Running a red light without "due caution" would seem to be the real issue.

10 mph or 100 mph it does not matter.

[gotsmartngotout]

According to the Sun Herald today, they said he ran the red light, but didn't give a speed. Irregardless of speed, blowing the red light was wrong. The main thing I was getting at was let the facts of the investigation come out before jumping to conclusions. If he was wrong, then he was wrong and from what I've read GPD looks like they're handling it the right way.

[Citycop]

First of all, we are always under close scrutinization for everything we do. Second, no offense to anyone posting, but witnesses always speculate the highest possible speed that seems possible. How many of us have responded to a citizen complaining about speeders and they give us the statement "they were doing all of 85 mph" on a street that is two blocks long and a cul de sac? The officer in question is no doubt new to GPD, as most of their force is very young. Also, you never know what he was responding to. He could have been rushing to assist another officer...he could have been rushing to help someone just like you. So, lets jump off the bandwagon and think about how we would feel under such excessive scrutiny. Now, that said, it is still his responsibility to maintain safe crossing at all intersections and maintain due regard for the safety of all citizens. I'm sure that GPD will act accordingly and take the appropriate disciplinary action. To the locals in MS, we all know that GPD is a fine department that maintains very high standards of professionalism and public trust.

[gotsmartngotout]

Amen

[The little misses]

I agree City Cop...people like to make assumptions..and we all know what happens when one assumes..

[Officer]

Ellen BSL stated that GPD should release a statement about heading safely to a call. They have. They stated that there are different code responses to a situation that require lights and siren. This is a seperate issue from entering an intersection and making sure its safe. The officer is apparently new and its been stated that he was trying to back up another officer when the collision happened. He is going to be anserable for his actions like anyone would. GPD has been very forward with their statements about what happened and have repeadeltly stated that the officer was at fault.
For a moment if you will, take away the fact that it is a police car involved. Officers respond to these type of accidents everyday, several times a day. its called an accident for a reason. This is a nature of police work that every officer must live with, not only while on the clock but also off duty. If there was no officer involved there would be no news, just another accident. If it happened to you you would not lose your job, no internal investigation into something that you didnt mean to happen, no public scrutiny and embarrasement, and you would not see your name and wrongdoings on the news and in the paper every hour.
Lets see how the GPD handles this and remember that there is a difference in ethical mistakes and dumb mistakes, judge this one for yourselves not what the news media drives to crucify another officer that in one second made one dumb mistake out of his short years of service to protect and serve the citizens of a city.

[Ellen BSL]

My comment was in response to the article that created the thread. In the article the officer refuses to comment on anything until an offical report is released. Perhaps in other articles or media more response was given.

[Officer]

i live in gulfport and i dont know where that article came from but it is not accurate from what ive read in our local newspaper and on our local tv station. The officer never refused anything nor did the police officials on the scene. it appeared to be given as soon as it was found to be accurate information. i think some are trying to seek fire where there is none. the GPD stated that they believe the officer is at fault and they are taking action and have done so from the start. i havent seen the above article locally?
Check www.sunherald.com and www.wlox.com . they are our local affiliates.

[Anon]

Enough already of "who shot John".

Can we at least agree that running the red light without "Due Caution" is the crux of this issue.

Speed may or may not be relavent.
Inexperience of the officer MAY be a contributing factor - But same situation with a seasoned officer would come down to the same question of "due caution".

[notfromhancockco unty]

What are the consequenses if any is the officer looking at?

[Officer]

what is the difference in running a red light and running a red light without "due caution"? why is there always something thrown in to make it sound so much more severe? Have you never run through a red light becasue you were not paying attention? it happens. the accident sucks. i wish he hadnt done it. i dont think there has been a lack of reports that its the officers fault. But saying something like due cuation? i dont know the exact circumstances but im sure he just had his head up his ass and didnt notice the red light. but if "DUE CAUTION" makes it just seem like the right amount of salt for the wound, then use it.

[Wade Bay St Louis]

§ 63-3-517. Applicability of speed restrictions to emergency vehicles; duties of drivers of emergency vehicles.






The speed limitations set forth in this article shall not apply to authorized emergency vehicles when responding to emergency calls and the drivers thereof sound audible signal by bell, siren, or exhaust whistle. This section shall not relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons using the street, nor shall it protect the driver of any such vehicle from the consequence of a reckless disregard of the safety of others.

§ 63-3-315. Obedience of official traffic-control devices by emergency vehicles.






The driver of any authorized emergency vehicle when responding to an emergency call upon approaching a red or stop signal or any stop sign shall slow down as necessary for safety but may proceed cautiously past such red or stop sign or signal. At other times drivers of authorized emergency vehicles shall stop in obedience to a stop sign or signal.

[Anon]

Thanks Wade.
Having been part of a first responders company, I know how that was drilled into us.
"Due caution" means exactly what it says.
Many communities have traffic light sensors for fire and emergency vehicles to trigger to alleviate this problem.
If an ambulance has an accident while blowing through a red light without "due caution" and the transporting patient dies as a result of the accident guess who faces manslaughter charges?

[gotsmartngotout]

Wade Bay St Louis wrote:

§ 63-3-517. Applicability of speed restrictions to emergency vehicles; duties of drivers of emergency vehicles.
The speed limitations set forth in this article shall not apply to authorized emergency vehicles when responding to emergency calls and the drivers thereof sound audible signal by bell, siren, or exhaust whistle. This section shall not relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons using the street, nor shall it protect the driver of any such vehicle from the consequence of a reckless disregard of the safety of others.
§ 63-3-315. Obedience of official traffic-control devices by emergency vehicles.
The driver of any authorized emergency vehicle when responding to an emergency call upon approaching a red or stop signal or any stop sign shall slow down as necessary for safety but may proceed cautiously past such red or stop sign or signal. At other times drivers of authorized emergency vehicles shall stop in obedience to a stop sign or signal.

Once again Wade, thos in glass houses shouldn't cast stones. Remember I have personal knowlegde of you doing similai things in your PERSONAL car plastered with Fire / Rescue !!!!!!

[Anon]

gotsmartngotout,
Personal assaults aside.
The law is the law. How many times it is broken does not make it less a law. And yes, a law enforcement officer should be held to the standard of the law. It is his job to know it, abide by it, and to enforce it.

[Wade Bay St Louis]

gotsmartngotout wrote:

<quoted text>
Once again Wade, thos in glass houses shouldn't cast stones. Remember I have personal knowlegde of you doing similai things in your PERSONAL car plastered with Fire / Rescue !!!!!!

You ever gonna get off the past? I never had an accident or caused any injury. You need to get a life and move on to a real issue like what you gonna do when gas is $5.00 a gallon and you have to have a chip implanted to buy food!